[_ Old Earth _] For the Christians... can you change?

[Jayls5]

What qualitative/quantitative empirical scientific data would convince you that you are wrong about something you consider an absolute by the bible?

It doesn't even have to be significant like the existence of God himself, but I'd really like to see some things that would convince you your interpretation of a certain passage was wrong.

 

[John]

What qualitative/quantitative empirical scientific data would convince you that you are wrong about something you consider an absolute by the bible?

It doesn't even have to be significant like the existence of God himself, but I'd really like to see some things that would convince you your interpretation of a certain passage was wrong.

For me its impossible, there is simply too much evidance for creation

 

[Snidey]

So you're saying that scientifically you could not have your mind changed? And you wonder why evolutionists frown upon the creationist view of the scientific method?

 

[jmm9683]

For me its impossible, there is simply too much evidance for creation

Thanks for the good laugh. There is no credible evidence for creationism which is what you actually need. So until we start seeing creation essays in academic journals and the like, creationism will be regarded as pseudoscience. You can keep posting rehashed Hovind arguments and stuff from Answers in Genesis and Creation Wiki, but it's not credible evidence and frankly it's embarrassing.

 

[Jayls5]

What qualitative/quantitative empirical scientific data would convince you that you are wrong about something you consider an absolute by the bible?

It doesn't even have to be significant like the existence of God himself, but I'd really like to see some things that would convince you your interpretation of a certain passage was wrong.

For me its impossible, there is simply too much evidance for creation

Oh I love this logic.

If you say "too much," you mean it has a qualitative/quantitative amount that you acknowledge. You say that this amount cannot be surpassed by any hypothetical evidence what-so-ever? If so, you're about to make it to my ignore list.

I have no interest in discussing something with someone who has such a closed mind.

 

[John]

For me its impossible, there is simply too much evidance for creation

Thanks for the good laugh. There is no credible evidence for creationism which is what you actually need. So until we start seeing creation essays in academic journals and the like, creationism will be regarded as pseudoscience. You can keep posting rehashed Hovind arguments and stuff from Answers in Genesis and Creation Wiki, but it's not credible evidence and frankly it's embarrassing.

Of course no creation scientists are credible *insert rolling eyes emocon here*

 

[jmm9683]

For me its impossible, there is simply too much evidance for creation

Thanks for the good laugh. There is no credible evidence for creationism which is what you actually need. So until we start seeing creation essays in academic journals and the like, creationism will be regarded as pseudoscience. You can keep posting rehashed Hovind arguments and stuff from Answers in Genesis and Creation Wiki, but it's not credible evidence and frankly it's embarrassing.

Of course no creation scientists are credible :-?

They don't have any publishings in peer-reviewed scientific journals, therefore nope. And there is a difference between a scientist that believes in creation (which most don't) and a creation "scientist," which is a misnomer because creationism isn't science.

 

[John]

Creation scientist: heres my paper for review
Evolutionist: nope your a creationist therefore you fail. *throws paper away*

 

[Snidey]

Creation scientist: heres my paper for review
Evolutionist: nope your a creationist therefore you fail. *throws paper away*

Creation scientist: Here's my paper for review! Brb church
Evolutionist: Um, I read this, and I listed numerous problems. I can't support your conclusions based upon the evidence. Also it's rude to go to church mid-review.
Creation scientist: This is oppression! BTW do you know of any local degree mills?

 

[jmm9683]

Creation scientist: heres my paper for review
Evolutionist: nope your a creationist therefore you fail. *throws paper away*

You are quite the conspiracy theorist. How about they don't have actual science backing up their claims. If someone could actually demonstrate that the Earth is significantly younger than believed then it would be published. But low and behold they cannot. Nor can they support any of their other wacky claims.

 

[Jayls5]

Creation scientist: heres my paper for review
Evolutionist: nope your a creationist therefore you fail. *throws paper away*

You are quite the conspiracy theorist. How about they don't have actual science backing up their claims. If someone could actually demonstrate that the Earth is significantly younger than believed then it would be published. But low and behold they cannot. Nor can they support any of their other wacky claims.

Sadly enough, the only way to reconcile this fact is by purporting a widespread conspiracy to support some atheism, even though evolution does not necessitate atheism... which is another thing they happen to argue a lot. "surprise!"

 

[Bryce]

^On topic

Good question, but as a christain myself; I doubt any evidence will ever be conclusive enough to destroy the creationist argument.
But, can I?
Yes.
It's simply a matter of proving the information evolutionist suggest, leaving the concern of a doubt, behind.

Perhaps the question should not be 'can you change' but 'Are you capable of change'

 

[proponent]

What qualitative/quantitative empirical scientific data would convince you that you are wrong about something you consider an absolute by the bible?

It doesn't even have to be significant like the existence of God himself, but I'd really like to see some things that would convince you your interpretation of a certain passage was wrong.

For me its impossible, there is simply too much evidance for creation

You really are a one trick dog aren't you? He never so much as mentioned evolution, yet that's the bandwagon you jump on. If you can't imagine yourself not believing in evolution is there anything in the bible you can imagine yourself not believing in, mana raining from the sky, perhaps? I've never seen any credible evidence for this happening what-so-ever. Could you be convinced that it never happened if there was evidence?

 

[Jayls5]

to answer one of the things in the thread, by "can" I meant "what empirical criteria" would change your view from something you considered an absolute in the bible?

I think this is fairly important, given the fact that it pretty much dictates whether or not anyone with credentials should waste their time explaining a theory to a brick wall.

 

[DavidLee]

What qualitative/quantitative empirical scientific data would convince you that you are wrong about something you consider an absolute by the bible?

It doesn't even have to be significant like the existence of God himself, but I'd really like to see some things that would convince you your interpretation of a certain passage was wrong.

What empirical evidence can you offer that anything in the bible isn't true?
Why do you want to convince someone they are wrong?

 

[Skavau]

What qualitative/quantitative empirical scientific data would convince you that you are wrong about something you consider an absolute by the bible?

It doesn't even have to be significant like the existence of God himself, but I'd really like to see some things that would convince you your interpretation of a certain passage was wrong.

For me its impossible, there is simply too much evidance for creation

Scientific evidence for Creation or Biblical evidence?

 

[John]

What qualitative/quantitative empirical scientific data would convince you that you are wrong about something you consider an absolute by the bible?

It doesn't even have to be significant like the existence of God himself, but I'd really like to see some things that would convince you your interpretation of a certain passage was wrong.

For me its impossible, there is simply too much evidance for creation

Scientific evidence for Creation or Biblical evidence?

Both, for example they found many chariots at the bottom of the red sea. They think the y found noahs ark, Evidence for a found is all around you. etc etc

 

[jwu]

Both, for example they found many chariots at the bottom of the red sea. They think the y found noahs ark, Evidence for a found is all around you. etc etc

Wasn't both Ron Wyatt? The same guy who also claims to have found the ark of the covenant, among many other things?

Sorry, that guy is a fraud.

[edit: will take edit to a new post]

 

[John]

Both, for example they found many chariots at the bottom of the red sea. They think the y found noahs ark, Evidence for a found is all around you. etc etc

Wasn't both Ron Wyatt? The same guy who also claims to have found the ark of the covenant?

Sorry, that guy is a fraud.

Hmmm http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7b17zJIPoM

 

[jwu]

Both, for example they found many chariots at the bottom of the red sea. They think the y found noahs ark, Evidence for a found is all around you. etc etc

Wasn't both Ron Wyatt? The same guy who also claims to have found the ark of the covenant?

Sorry, that guy is a fraud.

Hmmm http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7b17zJIPoM

http://www.wyattmuseum.com ...thought so.

This is the list of Wyatt's claimed discoveries from wikipedia:

* The true Noah's Ark (the Durupınar site, located 18¼ miles south of Mount Ararat at an altitude of 6,525 feet above sea level)
* Anchor stones (or drogue stones) used by Noah on the Ark
* The post-flood house, grave markers and tombs of Noah and his wife
* The location of Sodom and Gomorrah and the other (3) Cities of the Plain: Zoar, Zeboim and Admah
* Sulfur/brimstone balls from the ashen remains of Sodom and Gomorrah
* The Tower of Babel in Central Turkey
* The site of the Israelites' crossing of the Red Sea (which Wyatt located in the Gulf of Aqaba)
* Chariot wheels and other relics of the pursuing army of Pharaoh at the bottom of the Red Sea
* The true site of the biblical Mt. Sinai (located by Wyatt in Saudi Arabia at Jabal al Lawz) as recorded in the book of Galatians 4:25
* A chamber at the end of a maze of tunnels under Jerusalem containing artifacts from Solomon's 1st Temple
* The true site of the Crucifixion of Jesus the Messiah
* The Ark of the Covenant
* The original stones of the Ten Commandments (the 2nd set)
* The Blood of Jesus, dripped onto the Mercy seat of the Ark of the Covenant, directly beneath the Crucifixion site

[emphasis mine]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Wyatt

I wouldn't believe anything that Wyatt said. He even claims to have found the original stones of the ten commandments! That'd be all over the news if there were any substance to that claim!
And he claims to have found actual blood from Jesus! That'd be Christianity's most holy relic!
One has to be very gullible to believe just a word of what Wyatt says...