10 Best Evidence for Creation and a Young Earth
-
Notice, you ignored this part "when used according to prescription." ;)
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
If "selective quotation" is good enough for the Sky Pixies Fanciers Club, it's good enough for me! :laugh:
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
-
I have "faith" that my car will probably start based on years of evidence. I also know that sometimes it won't start, and I'll have to call someone who knows what they're doing to come and fix it. I have "faith" that my employer will pay me based on years of evidence. I also know that it's possible that there will come a time when he can't, and I'll have to look for another job. I have yet to see an explanation of how to "exercise your faith" where the first step isn't "believe that [insert chosen deity here] exists". Your belief that your deity exists is not proof that he exists; my belief that he doesn't exist is not proof that he doesn't. :)
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
Richard Deeming wrote:
I have "faith" that my car will probably start based on years of evidence. I also know that sometimes it won't start, and I'll have to call someone who knows what they're doing to come and fix it. I have "faith" that my employer will pay me based on years of evidence. I also know that it's possible that there will come a time when he can't, and I'll have to look for another job.
All correct. And if God behaved the same way you could not have complete faith, in other words, if the process ever failed you then you would lose faith. Just like after having a dead car battery you are probably a little hesitant the next times you start your car even after getting a new battery. God could not be god if he varied or was inconsistent.
Richard Deeming wrote:
I have yet to see an explanation of how to "exercise your faith" where the first step isn't "believe that [insert chosen deity here] exists".
Almost. You need to have a desire to know if he exists or not. A sincere desire.
Richard Deeming wrote:
Your belief that your deity exists is not proof that he exists;
I know that and have never claimed it was. It is my proof that he exists. And as I already explained, knowing that God exists comes from your choices and is a personal knowledge, just like you can't prove you love your mom, but yet you know that you do.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
All well and good but totally off the point. Faith in God is not incompatible with the acceptance of scientific theories nor is the belief that the Bible is
Quote:
useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God[a] may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
a requirement to give it priority over actual observed fact when it comes to history or science. Faith requires a fool's wisdom, not an idiot's intelligence. It should enrich knowledge not deny it. Faith is not in anyway the antithesis of science unless you elect to make it so and the very second that you do so you relegate faith to just another gnosis and embrace a heresy. No religion which rejects science as a legitimate enterprise and normal expression of God's intentions for man's intelligence can survive long other than as a parody and ultimately a travesty of the faith it espouses increasingly extremist as it it folds ever more destructively in on itself. That is as evident in Westboro as it is in IS.
I am not a number. I am a ... no, wait!
9082365 wrote:
but totally off the point.
Not at all. The point I was discussing with Richard was how to know that God exists. I know it is not the OP topic, but nevertheless, it was the topic we were discussing.
9082365 wrote:
It should enrich knowledge not deny it.
Faith based on something that is not true will fail.
9082365 wrote:
No religion which rejects science as a legitimate enterprise and normal expression of God's intentions for man's intelligence can survive long
I agree. Einstein was close when he said, "Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
If "selective quotation" is good enough for the Sky Pixies Fanciers Club, it's good enough for me! :laugh:
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
-
Richard Deeming wrote:
I have "faith" that my car will probably start based on years of evidence. I also know that sometimes it won't start, and I'll have to call someone who knows what they're doing to come and fix it. I have "faith" that my employer will pay me based on years of evidence. I also know that it's possible that there will come a time when he can't, and I'll have to look for another job.
All correct. And if God behaved the same way you could not have complete faith, in other words, if the process ever failed you then you would lose faith. Just like after having a dead car battery you are probably a little hesitant the next times you start your car even after getting a new battery. God could not be god if he varied or was inconsistent.
Richard Deeming wrote:
I have yet to see an explanation of how to "exercise your faith" where the first step isn't "believe that [insert chosen deity here] exists".
Almost. You need to have a desire to know if he exists or not. A sincere desire.
Richard Deeming wrote:
Your belief that your deity exists is not proof that he exists;
I know that and have never claimed it was. It is my proof that he exists. And as I already explained, knowing that God exists comes from your choices and is a personal knowledge, just like you can't prove you love your mom, but yet you know that you do.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
RyanDev wrote:
It is my proof that he exists.
I see. I think we're using the word "proof" in different ways. And that's fine. Just like the word "theory", it can have different meanings in different contexts. :)
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
-
RyanDev wrote:
It is my proof that he exists.
I see. I think we're using the word "proof" in different ways. And that's fine. Just like the word "theory", it can have different meanings in different contexts. :)
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
Richard Deeming wrote:
I think we're using the word "proof" in different ways.
Not really. Again, prove to me that you love your mom. You can't, and you never will be able to. Does that mean you don't love her?
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
OriginalGriff wrote:
Sky Pixies Fanciers Club
I see. You have no sincere intent other than to mock. Good day.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
You came to the Soapbox for rational debate? :omg:
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
-
You came to the Soapbox for rational debate? :omg:
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
-
Richard Deeming wrote:
I think we're using the word "proof" in different ways.
Not really. Again, prove to me that you love your mom. You can't, and you never will be able to. Does that mean you don't love her?
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
If you want to argue logic, prove to me that you exist, and aren't just a figment of my imagination. :-D What I meant was, I took your earlier statement to mean "proven" in the scientific sense. Which was not the meaning you intended.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
-
If you want to argue logic, prove to me that you exist, and aren't just a figment of my imagination. :-D What I meant was, I took your earlier statement to mean "proven" in the scientific sense. Which was not the meaning you intended.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
Richard Deeming wrote:
aren't just a figment of my imagination.
Since you love to hate me I'd say you have serious daddy issues then if you are imagining me. ;P ;)
Richard Deeming wrote:
"proven" in the scientific sense. Which was not the meaning you intended.
Au contraire. List to me the steps of the scientific theory (in your own words, not a link) and I'll show you it can be proven scientifically.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
Richard Deeming wrote:
aren't just a figment of my imagination.
Since you love to hate me I'd say you have serious daddy issues then if you are imagining me. ;P ;)
Richard Deeming wrote:
"proven" in the scientific sense. Which was not the meaning you intended.
Au contraire. List to me the steps of the scientific theory (in your own words, not a link) and I'll show you it can be proven scientifically.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
RyanDev wrote:
List to me the steps of the scientific theory
In general terms, a theory should:
- Make accurate and falsifiable predictions;
- Be supported by multiple independent sources of evidence;
- Be consistent with existing experimental results;
- Be at least as accurate as any existing theory;
- Make the fewest assumptions amongst competing hypotheses;
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
-
RyanDev wrote:
List to me the steps of the scientific theory
In general terms, a theory should:
- Make accurate and falsifiable predictions;
- Be supported by multiple independent sources of evidence;
- Be consistent with existing experimental results;
- Be at least as accurate as any existing theory;
- Make the fewest assumptions amongst competing hypotheses;
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
I think you made a lot of this up.
Richard Deeming wrote:
- Be consistent with existing experimental results;
Now you've proven this is a bad method. It can't accept something drastically different that what is known. Here you go: Scientific method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[^] Testing is a main part of it. And as I said, each and every person can test whether or not God exists. In other words, it follows the scientific method just fine. The only difference is you have to do some legwork, you can't just accept other scientists telling you to believe it. Which I find hilarious because you claim religious people are told what to believe and yet we are the only ones saying "find out for yourself." :laugh: :doh:
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
I think you made a lot of this up.
Richard Deeming wrote:
- Be consistent with existing experimental results;
Now you've proven this is a bad method. It can't accept something drastically different that what is known. Here you go: Scientific method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[^] Testing is a main part of it. And as I said, each and every person can test whether or not God exists. In other words, it follows the scientific method just fine. The only difference is you have to do some legwork, you can't just accept other scientists telling you to believe it. Which I find hilarious because you claim religious people are told what to believe and yet we are the only ones saying "find out for yourself." :laugh: :doh:
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
RyanDev wrote:
It can't accept something drastically different that what is known.
Only in the sense that it can't accept a hypothesis that claims the moon is entirely made of cheese, when existing experiments have shown that at least part of the surface is made of rock. Or, as your Wikipedia link says:
Scientific method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[^]
The purpose of an experiment is to determine whether observations of the real world agree with or conflict with the predictions derived from a hypothesis.
RyanDev wrote:
each and every person can test whether or not God exists.
But not in any observable scientific way. Show me something that cannot be explained by any known natural cause. Then rule out every unknown natural cause. That still doesn't provide scientific proof that there was an intelligence behind the event, let alone that the intelligence conforms to the characteristics of one specific deity from one specific religion.
RyanDev wrote:
we are the only ones saying "find out for yourself."
I take it you've never visited a science museum? Or had a decent science teacher?
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
-
RyanDev wrote:
It can't accept something drastically different that what is known.
Only in the sense that it can't accept a hypothesis that claims the moon is entirely made of cheese, when existing experiments have shown that at least part of the surface is made of rock. Or, as your Wikipedia link says:
Scientific method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[^]
The purpose of an experiment is to determine whether observations of the real world agree with or conflict with the predictions derived from a hypothesis.
RyanDev wrote:
each and every person can test whether or not God exists.
But not in any observable scientific way. Show me something that cannot be explained by any known natural cause. Then rule out every unknown natural cause. That still doesn't provide scientific proof that there was an intelligence behind the event, let alone that the intelligence conforms to the characteristics of one specific deity from one specific religion.
RyanDev wrote:
we are the only ones saying "find out for yourself."
I take it you've never visited a science museum? Or had a decent science teacher?
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
Richard Deeming wrote:
Only in the sense that it can't accept a hypothesis that claims the moon is entirely made of cheese, when existing experiments have shown that at least part of the surface is made of rock.
That's fair, almost. However, to play devil's advocate only, perhaps the first experiments were not done properly. You are essentially saying that we should not challenge things that we think have been proven true. That's a very dangerous slope to be on.
Richard Deeming wrote:
But not in any observable scientific way.
Why not? Maybe it would be easier if you could explain why you think the scientific method CANNOT be used to prove a God exists.
Richard Deeming wrote:
I take it you've never visited a science museum? Or had a decent science teacher?
I was referring to you and the others in this forum, in particular.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
Richard Deeming wrote:
Only in the sense that it can't accept a hypothesis that claims the moon is entirely made of cheese, when existing experiments have shown that at least part of the surface is made of rock.
That's fair, almost. However, to play devil's advocate only, perhaps the first experiments were not done properly. You are essentially saying that we should not challenge things that we think have been proven true. That's a very dangerous slope to be on.
Richard Deeming wrote:
But not in any observable scientific way.
Why not? Maybe it would be easier if you could explain why you think the scientific method CANNOT be used to prove a God exists.
Richard Deeming wrote:
I take it you've never visited a science museum? Or had a decent science teacher?
I was referring to you and the others in this forum, in particular.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
RyanDev wrote:
You are essentially saying that we should not challenge things that we think have been proven true.
Not quite. Just that, if your hypothesis contradicts existing observations, then you'll need a lot more evidence to back it up.
RyanDev wrote:
Maybe it would be easier if you could explain why you think the scientific method CANNOT be used to prove a God exists.
I never said it couldn't. It wouldn't be easy - as I said, you'd need to rule out every other possible natural explanation, both known and unknown, before you could even reach the "supernatural" conclusion for an event. This would include ruling out things which may be beyond our ability to comprehend. And even if you did manage to get scientific proof of the existence of a deity, that doesn't necessarily mean it's your deity. It could be Odin, or Kali, or Cthulhu, or some nameless entity that only cares about cheese mites. I do think it's a mistake to try to find, or claim to have, scientific proof of your religious beliefs. You have your non-scientific proof, equivalent to the proof that you love your family, and that's good enough for you. If your aim is to convert people, you'll stand more chance of doing so by demonstrating that love than by arguing about science. :)
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
-
RyanDev wrote:
You are essentially saying that we should not challenge things that we think have been proven true.
Not quite. Just that, if your hypothesis contradicts existing observations, then you'll need a lot more evidence to back it up.
RyanDev wrote:
Maybe it would be easier if you could explain why you think the scientific method CANNOT be used to prove a God exists.
I never said it couldn't. It wouldn't be easy - as I said, you'd need to rule out every other possible natural explanation, both known and unknown, before you could even reach the "supernatural" conclusion for an event. This would include ruling out things which may be beyond our ability to comprehend. And even if you did manage to get scientific proof of the existence of a deity, that doesn't necessarily mean it's your deity. It could be Odin, or Kali, or Cthulhu, or some nameless entity that only cares about cheese mites. I do think it's a mistake to try to find, or claim to have, scientific proof of your religious beliefs. You have your non-scientific proof, equivalent to the proof that you love your family, and that's good enough for you. If your aim is to convert people, you'll stand more chance of doing so by demonstrating that love than by arguing about science. :)
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
Richard Deeming wrote:
If your aim is to convert people,
Logic does not convert, otherwise I could convert you. The Spirit converts, which is why this is an individual experience. I can only invite. It is your choice.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
Some people seem to be incapable of understanding the meaning of the word theory in a scientific context. They assume that it must mean guess, because the concept of words having different meanings in different contexts is too difficult to grasp. See the reply immediately above mine, for example. :doh:
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
I think it has more to do with people not understanding the scientific method. A hypothesis (educated guess) is derived based on what is observed in nature. It poses a question to be researched. The process of the scientific method is to prove fault in the hypothesis by repeatable experimentation, but if the evidence supports the hypothesis, it becomes theory. The problem with theory versus belief is that theory often changes due to new observable conditions that challenge the theory resulting in further experimentation. New evidence can often change the nature of that theory. This causes confusion and instability in many people, because they don't understand the process. People need a stable foundation for their understanding of life. That is where belief comes in. The theory of evolution is based on evidence collected over hundreds of years, but is still changing as new evidence is discovered; therefore, it does not provide the stability necessary for many people. Belief, for an individual, provides that stability, but can and does conflict with science in many cases. I "believe" that at some point, when enough evidence is collected, many theories and beliefs will be found to provide the same result and theory becomes fact, providing that stability. Here is an example of that. There are two men with indigestion, one goes to a witch doctor and the other goes to a physician. The witch doctor gives crushed egg shells to the first man, while the physician gives sodium bicarbonate to the second. Both are cured of the ailment, so the question becomes, which is belief and which is theory? We know from chemistry that sodium bicarbonate is the main ingredient in egg shells and it reduces the acid in the stomach; this is fact, but at one time, it was theory, because we didn't understand the chemical process. Belief is also our attempt to understand what we observe in nature without evidence to support it. The scientific method provides a way to test those beliefs. A theory is the conclusion, based on repeatable experimentation, to explain our observations.
-
I'd settle for proof that "evidence" is a countable noun. Anyone who doesn't even know how to use the word "evidence" is obviously not experienced in seeking it out, confirming it, or working with it), so any "evidences" they provide are probably unfounded, brain-farty waffle. It's like if someone claiming to be a doctor says "influenzas", you know he's a quack.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
Mark_Wallace wrote:
I'd settle for proof that "evidence" is a countable noun.
Ha! Well put!
Mark_Wallace wrote:
It's like if someone claiming to be a doctor says "influenzas", you know he's a quack.
I'm picturing a new Yelp metric for doctor reviews: The more influenzas diagnosed, the better the doctor! "My PCP is a 30 influenza doctor, what's yours?"
-
A theory is a theory is a theory. It's a guess. Educated yes, but still a guess.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
No, A theory in scientific context is NOT a 'guess'. A theory is a hypothesis backed up by evidence, or in layman context, a fact.
-
No, A theory in scientific context is NOT a 'guess'. A theory is a hypothesis backed up by evidence, or in layman context, a fact.
DanielBrownAU wrote:
A theory in scientific context is NOT a 'guess'.
You guys are taking this way to serious. Why does the word "educated guess" offend you so much?
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
