[_ Old Earth _] Creation and Evolution Presentation

[Rick W]

The Creation Hypothesis
http://www.discovery.org/a/3542

Hypothesis?
You mean Creation has a hypothesis also?
Oh my word.

(no pun intended)

I even found a no-holds-barred secular discussion about the theory of evolution and the hypothesis of creation.
Attempting to redefine an effort, give it another name or label isn't evidence against an opposing view.

If I want to degrade the value of a piece of property in Florida I call it a swamp. If I want raise the value I call it wetland.

 

[Rick W]

You are quite correct, sir. Science works by assuming there are no explanations outside of what may be concluded from direct observation and testable methods.

"assuming"

Sparrow,
No assumption allowed.

as·sump·tion
[uh-suhmp-shuh

n] noun
1.
something taken for granted; a supposition: a correct assumption. Synonyms: presupposition; hypothesis, conjecture, guess, postulate, theory.

 

[Sparkey]

I should have stated, "Science sometimes fails when it assumes there are no possible explanations outside of what may be concluded by direct observation."

The case of miracles deserves attention. Was Jesus raised from the dead? What if I couldn't prove the fact by direct observation? What if I relied on the word of many eyewitness reporters? If we separate facts from from faith and trust in God (Whom science does not recognize) such that the inexplicable man (Jesus) is not even acknowledged --then does this necessarily mean that it never happened? If a group of respected individuals steadfastly refuse to even acknowledge the truth, what shall we say?

Would a paper on the Resurrection pass peer-review? What about a paper on The Miracles of Christ? What value may we attach to this particular group of 'peers' (so-called) knowing that all Groups at the most basic level are defined by those whom they exclude?

 

[kevinmaynard]

I should have stated, "Science sometimes fails when it assumes there are no possible explanations outside of what may be concluded by direct observation."

The case of miracles deserves attention. Was Jesus raised from the dead? What if I couldn't prove the fact by direct observation? What if I relied on the word of many eyewitness reporters? If we separate facts from from faith and trust in God (who Science also does not acknowledge) such that the inexplicable man not be acknowledged then does this necessarily mean that it never happened?

Would a paper on the resurrection pass peer-review? What value may we attach to this particular group of 'peers' (so-called) knowing that groups themselves are defined by those whom they exclude?

It wouldn't be scientific. Science requires observation.

In court eye witness testimony while often compelling is least reliable.

 

[Sparkey]

There is a heavenly court where all such things shall be concluded.

 

[kevinmaynard]

There is a heavenly court where all such things shall be concluded.

Kinda cryptic.

 

[Sparkey]

View attachment 3798

No Strings (attached) Theory for GRANTS? Sure, I'll get right on it.​

 

[kevinmaynard]

No Strings (attached) Theory for GRANTS? Sure, I'll get right on it.

I don't understand what you mean. I am sure there are some instances of scientists falsifying results, but the experiments are repeated by others the facts come out.

GPS research was done with grants. I don't think they faked it.

 

[Sparkey]

In court eye witness testimony while often compelling is least reliable.

The Bible is the inspired word of God. There is no court that may strike down the eye-witness testimony of those who were sent by God to speak the truth about His Son. Worldly courts lack sufficient authority to even attempt such a thing.

I hope this clears it up for you, sorry about being "cryptic" before.

 

[Rick W]

Just the way it is.

Research needs money and the request for funds must include a purpose and the expected results to be achieved. It's called justification.

There's nothing wrong with that. The one with the money decides if the expense is worth it or not.

 

[kevinmaynard]

The Bible is the inspired word of God. There is no court that may strike down the eye-witness testimony of those who were sent by God to speak the truth about His Son. Worldly courts lack sufficient authority to even attempt such a thing.

I hope this clears it up for you, sorry about being "cryptic" before.

Ok talking about court is sort of derailing the thread, but we also, have to deal with what is meant by inspired.

Take movies or other books, and how the word inspired is used.

There is an account. This is what happened. Such as these are true events.

Then there is based on true events.

Then there is inspired by true events.

In the progression of those each has less to do with the actual events, and is more about the moral of the story or events.

 

[Rick W]

​

I don't understand what you mean. I am sure there are some instances of scientists falsifying results, but the experiments are repeated by others the facts come out.

GPS research was done with grants. I don't think they faked it.

In this case, GPS, yes, the results can be duplicated, are repeatable. Mixing baking soda and vinegar results in an observable fizz and the generation of CO2. Such things are repeatable. But there are other instances where such is not the case for one reason or another. I can though observe something making a conclusion while another observes the same but comes to another conclusion. Then efforts are made on both sides to find evidence to support each conclusion.

 

[kevinmaynard]

In this case, GPS, yes, the results can be duplicated, are repeatable. Mixing baking soda and vinegar results in an observable fizz and the generation of CO2. Such things are repeatable. But there are other instances where such is not the case for one reason or another. I can though observe something making a conclusion while another observes the same but comes to another conclusion. Then efforts are made on both sides to find evidence to support each conclusion.

Sure in social sciences different conclusions may be drawn from the data, but the data is just the data.

 

[Sparkey]

Ok talking about court is sort of derailing the thread, but we also, have to deal with what is meant by inspired.

Take movies or other books, and how the word inspired is used.

There is an account. This is what happened. Such as these are true events.

Then there is based on true events.

Then there is inspired by true events.

In the progression of those each has less to do with the actual events, and is more about the moral of the story or events.

To the implications of your statement, if you meant to suggest that the inspiration of the Word of God and the Bible is rightly classified along with Hollywood movies or books authored by man, I would simply disagree. God is greater. His Word is truth.

 

[kevinmaynard]

To the implications of your statement, if you meant to suggest that the inspiration of the Word of God and the Bible is rightly classified along with Hollywood movies or books authored by man, I would simply disagree. God is greater. His Word is truth.

I was speaking to what an inspired work means. It means that an author was given inspiration to create the work. To convey an underlying message. That means the narrative was created by the author. The message or moral was the inspired external force.

Truth and fact don't mean the same thing. A work can contain the truth while being factually incorrect or exaggerated.

 

[Rick W]

Sure in social sciences different conclusions may be drawn from the data, but the data is just the data.

Why only social sciences? If things were always absolute there would be little reason for the science of probability.
One meteorologist can observe past data and conclude a result while another looks at the same data and makes another conclusion. Nor are computer models absolute with the same data. Differences occur.
We even have a term "Fuzzy logic".
And if things were always absolute there would be no need for consensus in data generated by the pursuit of a theory or idea.
Data is presented. It's up to one analyzing the data to come to a conclusion. Percival Lowell through observation concluded there were canals on Mars and also concluded an ancient civilization built them. At that time the technology didn't exist to debunk Lowell though many were skeptic. Same data, different conclusions.

 

[Barbarian]

You are quite correct, sir. Science works by assuming there are no explanations outside of what may be concluded from direct observation and testable methods.

In the sense that plumbing works by assuming that there are no explanations outside of what may be concluded from direct observation and testable methods. Science is only methodologically naturalistic, but does not deny supernatural causes.

 

[kevinmaynard]

Why only social sciences? If things were always absolute there would be little reason for the science of probability.
One meteorologist can observe past data and conclude a result while another looks at the same data and makes another conclusion. Nor are computer models absolute with the same data. Differences occur.
We even have a term "Fuzzy logic".
And if things were always absolute there would be no need for consensus in data generated by the pursuit of a theory or idea.
Data is presented. It's up to one analyzing the data to come to a conclusion. Percival Lowell through observation concluded there were canals on Mars and also concluded an ancient civilization built them. At that time the technology didn't exist to debunk Lowell though many were skeptic. Same data, different conclusions.

Probability is in the field of statistics which is a form of mathematics. That isn't science.

Geologic effects of flowing water can be observed. One can observe the effect on mars and say that looks like water flowed there. To then take that observation and conclude that an alien race built it isn't science.

Data is just data. It can be falsified, but those tricks will be caught with doing the experiments by others.

 

[Rick W]

"Data is just data"
It's science that collects that data. Lowell used the science of astronomy to gather and present his data.
It's the scientist that makes a conclusion.

Yes, science like any other man-centered attribute (his intelligence) can be corrupted, falsified for just about any motivation.

 

[kevinmaynard]

"Data is just data"
It's science that collects that data. Lowell used the science of astronomy to gather his data.
It's the scientist that makes a conclusion.

Yes, science like any other man-centered attribute (his intelligence) can be corrupted, falsified for just about any motivation.

Science is the methodology. Science didn't draw the conclusion. A human did. The methodology is set up to self correct through repetition of experiments.