Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

1…200201203205206…232

Comments

  • #6062
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    That looks suspiciously like avoiding the question.
    ... not avoiding the question ... just putting off answering it, until we get other more fundmental issues, that are salient to answering it, agreed first.


  • #6063
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    marienbad wrote: »
    How are they co-ordinated ?
    If you don't know that, then they don't want you to know ... and I am not going to risk life and limb by telling you on a public forum.


  • #6064
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,888 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    J C wrote: »
    If you don't know that, then they don't want you to know ... and I am not going to risk life and limb by telling you on a public forum.

    You're good for a laugh if nothing else:pac:


  • #6065
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    You're good for a laugh if nothing else:pac:
    ... a nervous laugh ... I guess !!!:)


  • #6066
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,888 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    J C wrote: »
    ... a nervous laugh ... I guess !!!:)

    What's there to be nervous about? You're moving into the realms of conspiracy theory now.


  • Advertisement
  • #6067
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    What's there to be nervous about?
    Nothing, if you continue saying and believing that.:)


  • #6068
    marienbad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    J C wrote: »
    If you don't know that, then they don't want you to know ... and I am not going to risk life and limb by telling you on a public forum.

    So how do you know then ?


  • #6069
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    marienbad wrote: »
    So how do you know then ?
    I'm indwelt by the Holy Spirit of God ... so, when it comes to spiritual discernment, I know all there needs to be known.;)


  • #6070
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,888 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    J C wrote: »
    Nothing, if you continue saying and believing that.:)

    Well you have managed (yet again) to deflect yourself away from another hard question, you're quite the professional at this stage.


  • #6071
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    Well you have managed (yet again) to deflect yourself away from another hard question, you're quite the professional at this stage.
    I call it being as wise as a serpent ... and as gentle as a dove, myself.:);)


  • Advertisement
  • #6072
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,851 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    J C wrote: »
    ... not avoiding the question ... just putting off answering it, until we get other more fundmental issues, that are salient to answering it, agreed first.

    That's just a longwinded way of admitting to avoiding the question.

    It's a simple question. How would you test the hypothesis? Why do you need to set preconditions for answering a simple question? It's almost as if what you're describing isn't science at all.


  • #6073
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,779 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    That's just a longwinded way of admitting to avoiding the question.

    It's a simple question. How would you test the hypothesis? Why do you need to set preconditions for answering a simple question? It's almost as if what you're describing isn't science at all.

    Because he has no answer.

    MrP


  • #6074
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    That's just a longwinded way of admitting to avoiding the question.

    It's a simple question. How would you test the hypothesis? Why do you need to set preconditions for answering a simple question? It's almost as if what you're describing isn't science at all.
    ... and therein lies the issue ... I'm not going to go around a 'merry-go-round' whereby various definitions of conventional science are used, depending on the purpose of thhe argument.

    ... so does everyone agree that conventional science rules out the investigation of supernatural explanations for physical phenomena?


  • #6075
    Leroy42
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,098 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    So you think that conventional science (otherwise known as fact based explanation) cannot be used for god.

    So what basis do you use?

    And, I asked this earlier but you never answered, does this non science method not give the same basis to believe in fairies or Santa Claus?


  • #6076
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Leroy42 wrote: »
    So you think that conventional science (otherwise known as fact based explanation) cannot be used for god.

    So what basis do you use?

    And, I asked this earlier but you never answered, does this non science method not give the same basis to believe in fairies or Santa Claus?
    Never mind what I think, for now, do you accept that conventional science rules out the scientific investigation of supernatural cause for physical phenomena?


  • #6077
    Leroy42
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,098 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    No I don't. If science can explain something that admit they don't know and then use the current understanding of the rules of the universe to explain it.

    If that can't provide the answer they look at alternatives, again looking for evidence.

    Previously, atoms would have been considered 'supernatural', then quarks, quantum physics is well outside the previously accepted norm. Yet science has proved constantly the ability to accept new evidence.

    I direct contradiction to faith.

    Now, how about dealing with the issue the questions I raised .


  • #6078
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,851 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    J C wrote: »
    ... and therein lies the issue ... I'm not going to go around a 'merry-go-round' whereby various definitions of conventional science are used, depending on the purpose of thhe argument.

    ... so does everyone agree that conventional science rules out the investigation of supernatural explanations for physical phenomena?

    What's with this "conventional science" business? Science is science. The scientific method is the scientific method. You've proposed a hypothesis, and I've asked how you'll test it. It's a simple question.

    If you're describing what the rest of us consider "science" as "conventional science", then by implication you're proposing some sort of "alternative science" that has different methodologies and/or standards of proof. That's not how science works, and if that's what you're proposing, then you're essentially admitting that what you're talking about isn't science.

    You've talked before about "creation science", whose methodology (as far as I've been able to tell) involves starting from the assumption that the Bible is infallible, and coming up with whatever convoluted explanations are necessary to make the facts fit that narrative.

    You can call that what you like, but you can't call it science - science never admits of the possibility that there are truths that can't be challenged.


  • #6079
    marienbad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    So JC to get us back on track - are you saying that all those readings over 6000 years are false/ falsified ?


  • #6080
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Leroy42 wrote: »
    No I don't. If science can explain something that admit they don't know and then use the current understanding of the rules of the universe to explain it.

    If that can't provide the answer they look at alternatives, again looking for evidence.

    Previously, atoms would have been considered 'supernatural', then quarks, quantum physics is well outside the previously accepted norm. Yet science has proved constantly the ability to accept new evidence.

    I direct contradiction to faith.

    Now, how about dealing with the issue the questions I raised .
    ... so are you saying that conventional science does or does not rule out the scientific investigation of supernatural causes for physical phenomena?


  • #6081
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    What's with this "conventional science" business? Science is science. The scientific method is the scientific method. You've proposed a hypothesis, and I've asked how you'll test it. It's a simple question.

    If you're describing what the rest of us consider "science" as "conventional science", then by implication you're proposing some sort of "alternative science" that has different methodologies and/or standards of proof. That's not how science works, and if that's what you're proposing, then you're essentially admitting that what you're talking about isn't science.

    You've talked before about "creation science", whose methodology (as far as I've been able to tell) involves starting from the assumption that the Bible is infallible, and coming up with whatever convoluted explanations are necessary to make the facts fit that narrative.

    You can call that what you like, but you can't call it science - science never admits of the possibility that there are truths that can't be challenged.
    ... so, at the end of all that, ... are you saying that conventional science does or does not rule out the scientific investigation of supernatural causes for physical phenomena?
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    science never admits of the possibility that there are truths that can't be challenged.
    ... with the possible exception of the spontaneous generation and evolution of life ... apparently.


  • Advertisement
  • #6082
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    marienbad wrote: »
    So JC to get us back on track - are you saying that all those readings over 6000 years are false/ falsified ?
    There is no such thing as a radiometric reading of any age?


  • #6083
    marienbad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    J C wrote: »
    There is no such thing as a radiometric reading of any age?

    OK JC let me try and ask you another way - are their objects on this planet that tests have determined are more than 6000 years old ?


  • #6084
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    marienbad wrote: »
    OK JC let me try and ask you another way - are their objects on this planet that tests have determined are more than 6000 years old ?
    Do you know of any ?


  • #6085
    Mutant z
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,487 ✭✭✭Mutant z


    How could anyone believe that the earth is 6000 years old its laughable.


  • #6086
    marienbad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    J C wrote: »
    Do you know of any ?

    Are you going to answer my question JC ?


  • #6087
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    marienbad wrote: »
    Are you going to answer my question JC ?
    I just did ... I am unaware of any valid tests that you have asked about ... but perhaps you are???


  • #6088
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Mutant z wrote: »
    How could anyone believe that the earth is 6000 years old its laughable.
    It was once thought that the Sun being the centre of the Universe was laughable.
    Measuring scientific validity by whether it causes laughter, isn't a very reliable method !!!:)


  • #6089
    marienbad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    J C wrote: »
    I just did ... I am unaware of any valid tests that you have asked about ... but perhaps you are???

    Let me put this another way then - are you saying there is nothing on this planet , around this planet and even this planet itself over 6000 years old ?


  • #6090
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    marienbad wrote: »
    Let me put this another way then - are you saying there is nothing on this planet , around this planet and even this planet itself over 6000 years old ?
    As a Conventional Scientist, I have an open mind about your question.
    ... so are you aware of any definitive test that proves that natural objects are very old?


  • Advertisement
  • #6091
    marienbad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    J C wrote: »
    As a Conventional Scientist, I have an open mind about your question.
    ...

    I am not a scientist -conventional or otherwise so I have to ask you what do you mean by the above ?


Advertisement