[_ Old Earth _] Creationists launch peer-reviewed journal.

[Deep Thought]

Problem is -- those who believe in the doctrines of atheist evolutionism know almost nothing about the Bible -- they don't want to talk about it because they do not generally know anything about it. So that thread is only going to get Bible-believing Christians to respond.

You'll find a lot of atheists have read a more of the Bible than a lot of Christian Fundamentalists. John has admitted he hasn't read the whole Bible.

 

[John]

Problem is -- those who believe in the doctrines of atheist evolutionism know almost nothing about the Bible -- they don't want to talk about it because they do not generally know anything about it. So that thread is only going to get Bible-believing Christians to respond.

You'll find a lot of atheists have read a lot more of the Bible than most a lot of Christian Fundamentalists. John has admitted he hasn't read the whole Bible.

Yeah but there is reading and then there is understanding.

 

[DavidLee]

Bobryan, correct me if I am wrong, but did you ever provide any testable predictions from YEC, or any application?

Without them you must admit YEC isn't science.

I think that I asked you that a while ago and do not remember you ever answering. but again, correct me if I am wrong

From the OED:

science |ˈsīəns|
noun
the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment : the world of science and technology.
• a particular area of this : veterinary science | the agricultural sciences.
• a systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject : the science of criminology.
• archaic knowledge of any kind.
ORIGIN Middle English (denoting knowledge): from Old French, from Latin scientia, from scire ‘know.’

scientific method
noun
a method of 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.

I think you are confusing applications of the scientific method with science itself.
The presence of predictions does not indicate truth. The lack of testable predictions does not indicate falsehood. If an event cannot be repeated, it cannot be tested scientifically. One can use scientific apparatus to test a current condition or ongoing sequence of events.

To ignore a wide body of evidence contradicting any position is a failure to follow the method.

 

[freeway]

As I've said before, science in its pure form is a good thing, because science itself never makes a guest at to the prediction of how or why . Science gives answer in tangible form, if we do not get the answer we were hoping for, then go back and try something else..no jumping to conclusions that is where the scientist comes in , on all side of the story.. ID.. Atheists evolutionist. you and me..
freeway.............. 8-) 8-)

 

[freeway]

But it fun for debating................. 8-) .

 

[VaultZero4Me]

How do you test a hypothesis without predictions?

How is it not good science for a theory to actually have some application?

Where is all this contridictory evidence and how is the overwhelming majority unaware of it?

 

[freeway]

"VaultZero4Me" How do you test a hypothesis without predictions?
How is it not good science for a theory to actually have some application?

See there you have it, we don't agree 100% and you naturally assume "I'm wrong"... re read did I say not to test a theory, NO. I said when you go beyond that you jump into the realm of belief, faith, and hope all the right ingredients for a religion...

Where is all this contridictory evidence and how is the overwhelming majority unaware of it?

Look them up so many could be quoted or linked about how science has come to the wrong conclusion. Granted great amounts have been retracted but others are still being taught in school books and talked about it the scientific circle, in internet blogs as if still true. To go one step further, evolution is a faith based belief, that you want to be real, but you jump past 100% provable fact and draw a conclusion that can not be verified ...there is no way of proving it..gaps... you will come back by saying the evidence points in that or this direction, but does it really???????? again faith based= religion.. 8-) 8-)

and YES belief in God, Jesus and Holy Spirit is faith based....

 

[BobRyan]

How do you test a hypothesis without predictions?

How is it not good science for a theory to actually have some application?

Where is all this contridictory evidence and how is the overwhelming majority unaware of it?

The well known atheist darwinis Colin Patterson was correct when he pointed to the obvious fact that stories "about how one thing came from another" are just "stories easy enough to tell but they are NOT science". It makes for good atheist darwinist religion - but only junk-science as the myriad of hoaxes propping up that religion have demonstrated.

Those who attack the Intelligent Design discoveries in science are simply ignoring the progress IN SCIENCE already made when it comes to "detecting design" in the forces of nature itself. As has been proven in triplicate on this area of the board.

Creation science by contrastto atheist religionists is not proving "And God said" the way that atheist religionists try to prove "God did not do this" in their endless story telling. So it is likely to focus more on the pure-science of the field of study by limiting it to "facts" supported within ID and then adding the religion argument that this is compatible with an accurate rendering of the text of scripture.

As John pointed out in the 30-year secret -- such boneyard finds are predictable in the Bible world view.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

[I think you are confusing applications of the scientific method with science itself.
The presence of predictions does not indicate truth. The lack of testable predictions does not indicate falsehood. If an event cannot be repeated, it cannot be tested scientifically. One can use scientific apparatus to test a current condition or ongoing sequence of events.

To ignore a wide body of evidence contradicting any position is a failure to follow the method.

This is why Vernher Von Braun wrote that letter to the California school board of eductation in the 1970's protesting their dark-ages style censorship against any data that led to a conclusion in favor of "design".

This is why EVEN atheist Darwinists themselves like Colin Patterson keep reminding their fellow evolutionist devotees that "STORIES about how one thing came from another" are in fact "stories EASY enough to tell but they are NOT science".

AND this is why Patterson when confronted with the atheist religionist attitude of darwinists observes that the entire field of study "appears to convey ANTI-Knowledge" and "Does more harm than good" when taken in the context of the rigid scientific parameters of systematics.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Problem is -- those who believe in the doctrines of atheist evolutionism know almost nothing about the Bible -- they don't want to talk about it because they do not generally know anything about it. So that thread is only going to get Bible-believing Christians to respond.

You'll find a lot of atheists have read a lot more of the Bible than most a lot of Christian Fundamentalists. John has admitted he hasn't read the whole Bible.

Yeah but there is reading and then there is understanding.

In fact in all the threads started here on this board trying to draw out CHRISTIANS who have married the gosple to atheist darwinism and get them to consider the damage they have done to the Bible -- get no substantive contribution AT ALL from devotees to evolutionism so far.

They demonstrate the proof of my argument - even on this very board!

For the most recent thread -- look here
viewtopic.php?f=14&t=32659&start=0#p386293

WHERE is the in depth thoughtful "BIBLE ARGUMENT" made by devotees to evolutionism claiming that the Gospel -- that the Bible is teaching evolutionism? It is not there.

Here is another attempt to get them to show they have a leg to stand on from a Bible POV -- and as soon as the Bible is the focus -- they cave...
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=26461&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=60#p381291



Bob

 

[Free]

More accurately, those who believe in the existence of "atheist evolutionism" know almost nothing about science. The only people I know of who believe in "atheist evolutionism" are creationists.

On the contray, you claim to be a Christian and also believe in evolution. Therefore, you are a theistic evolutionist. Those who are atheists believe in atheistic evolution. For you, evolution was meant to accomplish something--the creation of man in God's image. If there is no God, then evolution is just evolution, and we are here as the result of time, matter and chance. There is a difference.

 

[VaultZero4Me]

"VaultZero4Me" How do you test a hypothesis without predictions?
How is it not good science for a theory to actually have some application?

See there you have it, we don't agree 100% and you naturally assume "I'm wrong"... re read did I say not to test a theory, NO. I said when you go beyond that you jump into the realm of belief, faith, and hope all the right ingredients for a religion...

I was actually responding to David Lee's post. I wasn't assuming anything on your post :D

 

[VaultZero4Me]

Look them up so many could be quoted or linked about how science has come to the wrong conclusion. Granted great amounts have been retracted but others are still being taught in school books and talked about it the scientific circle, in internet blogs as if still true. To go one step further, evolution is a faith based belief, that you want to be real, but you jump past 100% provable fact and draw a conclusion that can not be verified ...there is no way of proving it..gaps... you will come back by saying the evidence points in that or this direction, but does it really???????? again faith based= religion..

and YES belief in God, Jesus and Holy Spirit is faith based....

I honestly have tried to find real challenges to ToE. I haven't found any.

And for science coming to the wrong conclusion, sure it does, but it works to correct it self. Thats the beauty behind science. Its the best way we know how to weed out errors and bias.

And for evoloution being "faith", sure, if you look at everything too deeply, everything is faith. I crank my car each morning and I have faith that it will start. I don't know for sure.

I have faith in history for it to be somewhat reliable.

I have faith that Gravity will work to push me towards the center of the earth and not reverse.

But, there is a difference between complete faith, and faith based on evidence.

And the evidence behind it is really deep. Much more than many theories that never get told that they are "just" a theory.

 

[freeway]

"VaultZero4Me" How do you test a hypothesis without predictions?
How is it not good science for a theory to actually have some application?

See there you have it, we don't agree 100% and you naturally assume "I'm wrong"... re read did I say not to test a theory, NO. I said when you go beyond that you jump into the realm of belief, faith, and hope all the right ingredients for a religion...

I was actually responding to David Lee's post. I wasn't assuming anything on your post :D

Well in that case,, How is the weather there today,, here in Portland Oregon... hot almost 100 8-) 8-)

 

[BobRyan]

Bobryan, correct me if I am wrong, but did you ever provide any testable predictions from YEC, or any application?

Without them you must admit YEC isn't science.

I think that I asked you that a while ago and do not remember you ever answering. but again, correct me if I am wrong

If you have been paying attention - my argument is that atheist darwinism is pretty much the junk-science religion that all of the confirmed darwinist hoaxes shows it to be. Making it poor religion AND junk science.

My argument has been that ID is the "academic FREEDOM to follow the data where it leads" -- science "by definition".

My argument has been that EVEN when we get to the religion argument of YEC -- IT does NOT have the junk-science stack of confirmed hoaxes used to prop it up that we SEE with the junk-science religion we know of today as atheist darwinism. RATHER it leaves science UNCORRUPTED and also relies on a pristine rendering of the text of scripture.

It has no need at all for junk-science hoaxes to "fill in the gaps".

So while YEC (not ID) relies on scripture for direction - it still does not go to the junk-science extremes of the junk-science bad-religion of atheist darwinism.

What part of that was unclear?

Bob

 

[jmm9683]

So in other words ID has no testable predictions or applications, gotcha Bob.

 

[BobRyan]

Problem is -- those who believe in the doctrines of atheist evolutionism know almost nothing about the Bible --

More accurately, those who believe in the existence of "atheist evolutionism" know almost nothing about science.

Indeed the fact that atheist evolutionists know so little about true science has been a problem.

Colin Patterson admits that their religionist approach to evolutionism has created "More harm than good " when it comes to the objective "standards" of systematics.


The only people I know of who believe in "atheist evolutionism" are the devotees to the false religion of atheism AND those Christians that unwittingly follow them.

Bob said --

they don't want to talk about it because they do not generally know anything about it. So that thread is only going to get Bible-believing Christians to respond.

Barbarian
As you learned, it is impossible for a Bible-Believing Christian to consistently accept YE creationism, since Genesis directly denies the "life ex nihilo" doctrine of the YE religion.

As you learned we have no threads at all on here where the believers in atheis darwinist story telling show any interest at all in understanding the text of scripture they claim to be bending to support atheist darwinism.

When the topic of scripture surfaces -- they simply flee the discussion -- at least so far.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

So in other words ID has no testable predictions or applications, gotcha Bob.

Let me guess - you still live in the dark -- no TV nor Radio??

OR are you finally going to admit that these are indeed based on intelligent transmition of electromagnetic wave forms -- you know "intelligent design detected in one of the four primary forces in nature"??

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him think.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Barbarian -- Sorry that once "again" you've been suckered into thinking that in PAtterson's letter below he denied ANYTHING of what was quoted prior -- IN FACT he AFFIRMS it.

Maybe a little "red lettering" will help disabuse you of the myths you seem tied to

(from your OWN quote of Patterson here -
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=32699&st=0&sk=t&sd=a#p386847 )

Dear Mr Theunissen,

Sorry to have taken so long to answer your letter of July 9th. I was away for a while, and then infernally busy. I seem fated continually to make a fool of myself with creationists. The specific quote you mention, from a letter to Sunderland dated 10th April 1979, is accurate as far as it goes. [/color] The passage quoted continues "... a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way to put them to the test."

Instead of HELPING your argument -- you just unwittngly shot yourself in the foot using Patterson to finish what my first Patterson quote started -- why do that? How is shooting your own side "more" helping you??

you reach for a quote of Patterson saying that your atheist darwinist storytelling about "How one thing came from another" IS NOT SCIENCE??

You then think that HELPS your argument?

This only "proves" that PAtterson's statement that the ToE conveys "antiknowledge" is SEEN to be true in the way the devotees to that religion pursue their blind faith arguments.



Bob

 

[jmm9683]

So in other words ID has no testable predictions or applications, gotcha Bob.

Let me guess - you still live in the dark -- no TV nor Radio??

OR are you finally going to admit that these are indeed based on intelligent transmition of electromagnetic wave forms -- you know "intelligent design detected in one of the four primary forces in nature"??

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him think.

Bob

Are you really this dumb? Someone detecting the transmission of electromagnetic waves knows exactly what they are looking for. It is testable because the methods/techniques/tools used to create them are known. It's really not that hard to understand.

Compare that to so-called design by a supposed supernatural being which you have no knowledge of. You can say anything you want is design. "Look! That potato looks like Mother Theresa! God must have designed it that way." There is no testability and no application.