How is creationism DISPROVED? (page 12)

sabastious

Once again Sab this has nothing to do with creationism.

You simply will NOT allow me to use an altered personal definition to create my own personal theory. It's not even that altered, just recrafted into a more basic form. Yours is an issue of credentials which goes against what you claim, that there are no credentialed scientists. I am using the scientific method, but I am just in the middle of using it and you are being critical of me. I am a scientist and one day you will see this. Hopefully it won't be the day I have a piece of paper suddenly framed and on my office wall. Go ahead, call me a crappy scientist, it's not my identity so it doesn't hurt.

I don't completely agree with this guy, but he's evidence of overt ridicule by the secular community:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zl9Eq4UYijs

My advice is that if you don't want to called Satanic by the Christian's or a devil in other religions you should stop saying you know best because of education, because that just creates conflict. People generally want to find stuff out for themselves, not be told how to come to conclusions.

-Sab

Christ Alone

Woahhhhh..... Are you not all finding this super boring and a total waste of adenosine triphosphate?

My cellular level of energy transfer is beat. 4 days of these topics for me. I'm getting tired. I want a few days off to recharge.

Knowsnothing

I said that God is wrongly percieved to be evil to the point where people actually WRONGLY wage war against Him. Human antiquity shows that He, if he exists, has always allowed this possibly because in that process repentance can still take place. The fact that you want to talk about your misconceived ad hominem is telling. Calling you religious is a far cry from you saying I should never win an argument. WHICH IS AN AD HOMINEM. lol.

But, I said you won. You win, Sabastious. There is no arguing your conclusions, whatever they may be.

Then stop asking questions about it and starting it up again.

This is no longer about the OP. You won, remember? This is just a group of friendly people talking. I also wanted to clear up the 'religious fervor' comment. It just made no sense to me at all. All clear.

As a side comment, now that God possibly, maybe, certainly exists, what now? What do we do with this possible/certain knowledge? You've managed to convince me to your side, but I don't see what to do with this possible knowledge? Do you have any tips? Since the 3rd world country people now certainly will/may believe in God, do we ignore their plight of suffering, and certainly/maybe let God do what is best?

I hope/am certain you will provide guidance.

sabastious

As a side comment, now that God possibly, maybe, certainly exists, what now? What do we do with this possible/certain knowledge? You've managed to convince me to your side, but I don't see what to do with this possible knowledge? Do you have any tips? Since the 3rd world country people now certainly will/may believe in God, do we ignore their plight of suffering, and certainly/maybe let God do what is best?

Scripture is real. Study it with faith.

-Sab

MrFreeze

The question I raise, and this will be my last one. Gin, hurricanes, heated religious debates are a bad mix for my temperament.

What makes you so certain that your creation ideas are the right one? What about the many thousands of religions that all have their own opinion on creationism? What makes yours so much more believable?

designs

We have 4% Neanderthal genes.

Satanus

'We have 4% Neanderthal genes.'

God did that. No wait, that's the nephelim in us. Demon blood in our veins.

S

EntirelyPossible

I am using the scientific method, but I am just in the middle of using it and you are being critical of me. I am a scientist and one day you will see this.

I am very interested in this. How are you using it?

sabastious

I am very interested in this. How are you using it?

The Oxford English Dictionary says that the scientific method is: "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."

Systematic Observation

All the data that I take in with my senses is used as evidence of God (defined by: an intelligent being at the Beginning persiting through the expansion of the universe ending with the data I am taking in the moment). Only a tiny fraction of these observations have been written down by me, most of them are just in memory for recollection when needed.

Measurement

I am constantly measuring phenomenon by relating it to other phenomenon. The process of which something is considered related to another must be logical and consistant. If these measurements change so do the hypothesis that are connected to them.

Experiment, Formulation, Testing and Hypothesis

I am constantly using measurements of known phenomenon to support spiritual hypothesis and create testing environments. This is where my approach differs from the classic scientist. The classic scientist will look to disprove, which works great for concepts such as photosynthesis or the water cycle, but it leaves much to be desired when measuring things like electromagitism and the quantum field. Such sciences may be comeplety missing truth within their discipline simply because the people running it stopped creating experiments when they recieved too many "disproofs" of a certain hypothesis which pigeonholed their understanding of it. This could be a result from undetectable bias that escapes the peer review process. There should be criteria of when a certain phenomenon warrents further examination even though it's "disproofs" outweight it's "proofs." Which allows room for believers of all types (think Bigfoot). If a phenomenon is percievable in the known universe by our senses it most certainly exists. However, it may not operate the way we generally understand. How many times has a scientist not believed what they saw because it ran counter to long established laws of physics? How many truths have been lost because a certain person ignored what they percieved to be "impossible." Scientists today classify all phenomenon as explained or unexplained. This includes the concept of a Monotheistic entity present at the Big Bang. Such a theory validates many unverifiable religious theories. The reason why they are unverifiable could be because they are old. Just because something is old doesn't mean it is below our understanding, it could easily be above it and that's what I think is happening. Religion has been interfacing with sciences long before Science came into being. I believe the quantum field was discovered by religionists long before rationalists concieved of the atom.

-Sab

EntirelyPossible

All the data that I take in with my senses is used as evidence of God....

And you get it wrong with the first sentence.

How is creationism DISPROVED?

Share this