God and Science (page 4)

SeymourButts

Why is it that I am required to provide you with such proof? If you remove the blinders that inhibit your vision, you will find that there are many, many sources available to explain and demonstrate the evidence which establishes the age of the earth. Scientists, which no doubt are more qualified than I, have provided the necessary evidence to substantiate their claims. You are aware of this evidence, so why do ask me to provide it yet again? Rather than just make the blanket accusation that I/we are wrong, show me. Tell me why RC dating is incorrect. If we can confirm RC dating with other methods, show me how it is wrong. If scientists have 160,000 years of ice-cores from a glacier, show me how they are wrong. If we are so far off base in our claims, and you are so adamant that we are wrong, it should be an easy affair to demonstrate our errors. You claim the scientists are wrong...it's up to YOU to prove it. Let's not attempt to dance around the subject with vague generalities. Facts only. Put up or shut up.

Abaddon

Shining One, as you are making the extraordinary claim that radioactive decay could have changed over the course of time, could you please provide proof involving the relevent isotopes?

I do hope if will be better than the 'proofs' of light speed having decayed from infinate velocity to its current speed used by Creationists determined to shoehorn the Universe into a goatherd's creation myth.

Funny thing is Teillhard almost gets to the point of making god disappear from his various personified forms (as seen by various cultures) and become simply a kind of metaphor. He whole-heartedly believed in evoluton and his general idea is rather similar to some Eastern religons, except rather than 'enlightenment' coming to individuals, he saw human conciousness evolving to the point of godhood, continuing the physcial process of evolution on a internalised spiritual level that all of mankind partakes of. I think that's why he was as popular with the Vatican as a pork suacege is at a Barmitzpha.

Cygnus

Rex, I'm not going to waste my time explaining dating methods and the utter stupitidy of Henry Morris. If you want to believe that nonsense, go ahead. I'm a hypocrite because while I lean to the conservative side, a lot of my views are liberal, yet I don't vote. I just wish to see real scientists to their jobs without having to deal with creationists and their attempts to get ID in the classrooms.

Shining One

Seymour,
You have asserted that the rates of decay have been constant for all of earth's existence. You bear the burden of proof. How can you say the rates have been constant when no one was around to measure this? You guys keep denying the interpretation of geology is just that: interpretation. It is theory that must fit within the evolutionary, naturalistic assumptions made by those who have a vested interest in those assumptions! They are just making a big, circular argument. They are no more than equal to the arguments advanced by the I.D. scientists. Creation science does not dispute measurable and observable data. They just have a different set of assumptions than naturalists.
Rex

Shining One

Hey Tetly,
Do you smell anything nasty when your nose becomes brown? I iamgine you were a true follower when you ran microphones at the 'Hall. LOL
Rex

Shining One

>It is correct to say that science works within certain paradigms. The reason for this is that without a working paradigm, it is not possible to make predictions.

OK

>But to say that science works on the basis "inobservable and undemonstrated" theories is simply wrong. Science does not and cannot work except by observation and demonstration - in fact, repeated demonstration under a wide variety of circumstances. This is the very basis of science.

If that is true, why are the generally believed theories of naturalism held up as sacrosanct? If I.D. teachings are so 'unscientific', what do they have to fear from the teachings of creationists? Just like the Watchtower Society, they fear the exposure of the holes in their philosophy.
Rex

SeymourButts

Seymour,

You have asserted that the rates of decay have been constant for all of earth's existence. You bear the burden of proof. How can you say the rates have been constant when no one was around to measure this?

Just as was predicted, you will not qualify your statements that scientists are incorrect in the assertation that the earth is 4.5 billion yrs old. The evidence for decay rates have been widely published and are easily obtainable. You obviously have a computer, spend 5 minutes and research: it's not difficult.

You guys keep denying the interpretation of geology is just that: interpretation. It is theory that must fit within the evolutionary, naturalistic assumptions made by those who have a vested interest in those assumptions!

Interpretation based on physical evidence. What about you? Your interpretation of a book, interpreted to fit the wishful thinking of those who endure a less than fulfilling life? Is this not the pot calling the kettle black?

are just making a big, circular argument.

How does reproducible evidence equal a circular argument? Is it scholarly to make this claim only because you cannot refute the evidence?

They are no more than equal to the arguments advanced by the I.D. scientists. Creation science does not dispute measurable and observable data.

I.D and creationism are not science.

We are still awaiting your refutation of the scientific evidence. You imply that you have examined this proof and are able to see it's failure....enlighten us to those faults.

Scientists have provided their evidence, can you refute it or not?

Don't make claims that you cannot back up.

Shining One

Cygnus,
If scientists have nothing to fear and their theories are correct then why do they do just what your former masters at the Watchtower did: try and CENSOR what is taught? LOL
Rex

Shining One

Seymour,
Please look at the posts and see who asserted what. I simply asked you to provide proof. You cannot have that proof since no one was around to measure the decay rates. You keep side stepping the crucial presuupositions that evolution needs to sound halfway believable!
BTW, Darwin called for the death of his theory if irreducible complexity was ever proved: it has been! LOL
Rex

SeymourButts

I see that you are still hiding...unable to prove the scientists wrong. You know the evidence is there, and you know I can provide it. If you claim that it is in error, it is up to you to qualify your statement, are you afraid? Afraid that you will have to admit the inevitable? Why the fear of what scientists say? The evidence for decay rates is well established, but yet you still claim error. Prove it.

My claim has been established, we are waiting for you to present the foundation that these claims are in error...or can't you?

God and Science

Share this