Jump to content

Dinosaurs And The Bible.


Recommended Posts

Well it was a hypothesis, theories have been proved or at least have a large amount of evidence supporting them.I'm sorry to disappoint, but we (non-creationists/ scientists) are the ones coming up with answers, creationists are the ones who are reinterpretting evidence so that it fits their views, and propose non-scientific, illogical viewpoints.
Im sorry but i have a question? Dont scientist interprete the data as well and draw conclusions from the data?
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 63
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Im sorry but i have a question? Dont scientist interprete the data as well and draw conclusions from the data?
Yeah, but their data determines the conclusion whereas the creationist makes his conclusion beforehand then rationalizes the data to fit it.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, but their data determines the conclusion whereas the creationist makes his conclusion beforehand then rationalizes the data to fit it.
In an idealistic world yes this woudl be true...but when millions of dollars ride on interpretations, I think you might come in with some preconceived notions
Link to post
Share on other sites
In an idealistic world yes this woudl be true...but when millions of dollars ride on interpretations, I think you might come in with some preconceived notions
When all else fails, criticize the scientific method.Unlike the creationists, scientists don't care what conclusions they come to. Scientists don't distort data, if it doesnt fit their hypothesis. They rework their hypothesis, do more testing, and see if the numbers hold.You make it seem like all these scientists are immoral and anti-God.
Link to post
Share on other sites
When all else fails, criticize the scientific method.Unlike the creationists, scientists don't care what conclusions they come to. Scientists don't distort data, if it doesnt fit their hypothesis. They rework their hypothesis, do more testing, and see if the numbers hold.You make it seem like all these scientists are immoral and anti-God.
Actually I just wanted to make the point that scientists do come in with biases towards the results...Do you really think Gould looked at data with an unbiased mind or that he was possibly lookin for things that supported his ideas? Science itself maybe pure but i promise you the scientists dont come in completely unbiased...I am not saying christians dont do the same...but dont try to exclude scientists please
Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually I just wanted to make the point that scientists do come in with biases towards the results...Do you really think Gould looked at data with an unbiased mind or that he was possibly lookin for things that supported his ideas? Science itself maybe pure but i promise you the scientists dont come in completely unbiased...I am not saying christians dont do the same...but dont try to exclude scientists please
I think the majority of scientists don't care what their results prove. Some may be biased, but it's hard for me to believe that they'd distort results.Scientific method (again):1. Observe phenomena.2. Form a hypothesis.3. Use hypothesis to predict other phenomena.4. Test the hypothesis and have other independent agencies test the hypothesis.If all reach the conclusion given in the hypothesis are reached, then we have a theory.If not, return to step 2.One agency cannot perform all experiments in making a hypothesis a theory. Since tests are done independently, I dont know how there could be bias in the final result.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Well it was a hypothesis, theories have been proved or at least have a large amount of evidence supporting them.I'm sorry to disappoint, but we (non-creationists/ scientists) are the ones coming up with answers, creationists are the ones who are reinterpretting evidence so that it fits their views, and propose non-scientific, illogical viewpoints.
Dissapoint? I threw out an idea- that's it. Name one thing regarding how the world got here that you non creationist have a solid answer for. Just one. Oddly enough, you will come up with none. None that any even in your own ranks can agree 100% on, which just proves my point again- your job is to ask questions that you will never find an answer to, mostly because you are looking in the wrong direction. I like how you immediately discount the idea that I had though because it would match up with a creationist p.o.v.- no real reason except for that, which just goes to show the heart of the matter. Coming up with answers- thats about as far from the truth as you could possibly be.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Dissapoint? I threw out an idea- that's it. Name one thing regarding how the world got here that you non creationist have a solid answer for. Just one. Oddly enough, you will come up with none. None that any even in your own ranks can agree 100% on, which just proves my point again- your job is to ask questions that you will never find an answer to, mostly because you are looking in the wrong direction. I like how you immediately discount the idea that I had though because it would match up with a creationist p.o.v.- no real reason except for that, which just goes to show the heart of the matter. Coming up with answers- thats about as far from the truth as you could possibly be.
I didnt say we had all the answers, but were coming up with them. So far scientists have been able to understand the history of the universe all the way back to about 10^-25 sec. after the Big Bang.If you're asking about first cause, then no, scientists don't have an answer that everyone can agree on. At least we're trying though. Your answer involves no scientific study. Whenever a creationist doesn't have an explanation for something, they say "well, God obviously did it". I think that is just too short-sighted, and it doesnt even show an interest in finding out what other answers could be. As to your hypothesis about God taking a break , it's been said that in the forum that the actual translation from Hebrew the 7 days were considered actual days, not just a random amount of time. That is why there are those who believe the world is just a few thousand years old. If that translation is correct, then the Bible is wrong, and you cant have it both ways.
Link to post
Share on other sites
If the earth was indeed completely flooded at one point there would be alot of things buried where it should not be
the flood did a great job of neatly sorting the same species into the same layers :club:
not to mention we are still dealing with methods of dating materials that are, while not inaccurate hardly accurate- margin for error is huge.
the margin for error is almost zero when multiple unrelated dating methods corroborate
Link to post
Share on other sites
I didnt say we had all the answers, but were coming up with them. So far scientists have been able to understand the history of the universe all the way back to about 10^-25 sec. after the Big Bang.If you're asking about first cause, then no, scientists don't have an answer that everyone can agree on. At least we're trying though. Your answer involves no scientific study. Whenever a creationist doesn't have an explanation for something, they say "well, God obviously did it". I think that is just too short-sighted, and it doesnt even show an interest in finding out what other answers could be. As to your hypothesis about God taking a break , it's been said that in the forum that the actual translation from Hebrew the 7 days were considered actual days, not just a random amount of time. That is why there are those who believe the world is just a few thousand years old. If that translation is correct, then the Bible is wrong, and you cant have it both ways.
I did not say God took a break- did you even read what I said, or look at the scriptures that I gave? Until you do that, we can't even discuss the idea rationaly. Read Genesis one, and give me a reason why the start of creation absolutely had to be after God created the heavens and the Earth, and the earth was without form and void. There is absolutely nothing that states that he immediately started on his project, and nothing that says he did not as well- my point is that it leaves open the possibility that he most definitely took his time, and then when he got down to buisness it was on.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I did not say God took a break- did you even read what I said, or look at the scriptures that I gave? Until you do that, we can't even discuss the idea rationaly.
it's not a rational idea, since it is easily refuted by the same scientific arguments that refute literalism. it doesn't solve anything for you.
Link to post
Share on other sites
it's not a rational idea, since it is easily refuted by the same scientific arguments that refute literalism. it doesn't solve anything for you.
Read the begining of Genesis, word for word, right now, and then we can talk about it. Why? Because you would see that it is indeed possible, and at that point it would be unscientific of you to completely discount it, because really that's all science is about. Possibilities. As far as solving anything for me, that is not neccesary. Proving anything to you, I can't do that for you, it is impossible. I don't have the willingness to bang ones head against a wall like Matt does. There is a certain amount of society that won't be convinced of his existence until they die. I don't have a problem with that, that is on them.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Read the begining of Genesis, word for word, right now, and then we can talk about it. Why? Because you would see that it is indeed possible, and at that point it would be unscientific of you to completely discount it, because really that's all science is about. Possibilities.
science is about possibilities, but not impossibilites. science has proven that advanced land life has been on earth for 500 million years, in the sea much longer, and microbes have been found that have been dated to billions of years. saying god made the rocks the earth is composed of billions of years ago, but made life a few thousand years ago is no different than saying he made everything a few thousand years ago. the same scientific evidence proves both statements false, so in terms of this debate your theory is pointless.
There is a certain amount of society that won't be convinced of his existence until they die. I don't have a problem with that, that is on them.
no need to preach.
Link to post
Share on other sites
science is about possibilities, but not impossibilites. science has proven that advanced land life has been on earth for 500 million years, in the sea much longer, and microbes have been found that have been dated to billions of years. saying god made the rocks the earth is composed of billions of years ago, but made life a few thousand years ago is no different than saying he made everything a few thousand years ago. the same scientific evidence proves both statements false, so in terms of this debate your theory is pointless.no need to preach.
What exactly did he create in the seven days? Do you know?
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...