Online reading group and book discussion forum
  HOME ENTER FORUMS OUR BOOKS LINKS DONATE ADVERTISE CONTACT  
View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Fri Sep 24, 2021 3:28 pm





Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 594 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 40  Next
Young Earth Creation theory put to rest! 
Author Message
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 6179
Location: Canberra
Thanks: 2573
Thanked: 2527 times in 1894 posts
Gender: Male
Country: Australia (au)

Post Re: Young Earth Theory put to rest!
tat tvam asi wrote:
... alien seeding theories ... solves nothing in the end and provides absolutely no alternative to evolution.


hmmm. I agree there is no direct evidence for alien intelligence. What I don't comprehend though, in terms of evolution, is how the Egyptians built the pyramids. The intelligence in the design and construction of the pyramids seems so far in advance of any human knowledge, incorporating mathematical ratios for the whole earth and unbelievable precision in placement of immense stones. The decline in ability to make pyramids indicates a loss of this high ancient knowledge. Evolution proceeds by small steps, not by vast jumps. Ability to make pyramids seems unprecedented in terms of prior human evolution. Maybe it is just a myth, but I'm not sure you can dismiss the idea that the pyramids, especially when they were covered by shining white limestone until the Muslim conquest, are signs of external contact with the earth. Graham Hancock's material on how the tubes from the pyramid chambers point to stars is compatible with such a claim. But it would be nice to think humans were smart enough to make the pyramids without help.



Fri Mar 19, 2010 11:49 pm
Profile Email WWW
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Tenured Professor


Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 3564
Location: Michigan
Thanks: 1321
Thanked: 1152 times in 844 posts
Gender: Male

Post Re: Young Earth Theory put to rest!
I have noticed that, usually, when you ask a person why some task is impossible, they will usually give you a fairly good plan on exactly how to tackle it in a feasible way.

Ancient humans could not have possibly created the pyramids because they would have had to quarry stone from miles away, painstakingly roll them to the site on a series of log pulls, have hundreds or thousands of workers on hand to muscle them into place, build sand traps to erect the heavy blocks, and then polish them until they shine.

Clearly, this kind of thing is possible. Especially when you have your own nation to force into hard labor.

As for the mathematics? Is it so hard to believe that history is not just a series of achievements? Look at the middle east. Once a beacon of science, intellectualism, and the pursuit of knowledge, now a fractured, tribal blood-feud. (brought on by a resurgence of fundamentalist religion. Go figure.)

Dark ages Europe was no picnic after the comparative grand works of Greece and Rome. All cases of people losing knowledge and having to re-discover it. Why could this not be true of the Egyptians?


_________________
In the absence of God, I found Man.
-Guillermo Del Torro

Have you tried that? Looking for answers?
Or have you been content to be terrified of a thing you know nothing about?

Are you pushing your own short comings on us and safely hating them from a distance?

Is this the virtue of faith? To never change your mind: especially when you should?

Young Earth Creationists take offense at the idea that we have a common heritage with other animals. Why is being the descendant of a mud golem any better?

Confidence being an expectation built on past experience, evidence and extrapolation to the future. Faith being an expectation held in defiance of past experience and evidence.


Sat Mar 20, 2010 1:18 am
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Reading Addict


Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 1367
Location: Florida
Thanks: 581
Thanked: 551 times in 412 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Young Earth Theory put to rest!
Hey Robert, I'm not saying that aliens definitely don't exist or that they couldn't have visited the earth in the past. It isn't proven but It's possible. It also doesn't negate evolutionary processes existing in the universe either. Some people would say we didn't evolve, evolution is wrong, rather we were genetically engineered by alien life. The point is where did that potential alien life that came and engineered us originate from? It just pushes the question of origins back. They would have been genetically engineered as well. But at some point somewhere down the line life would have had to evolved into existence. To step from the BB to the first class of alien life to the aliens that seeded the earth evolution has to fit in somewhere, or we're back to a supernatural God (with no beginning or end and uncreated) deciding to create aliens that decided to create more aliens that at some point came to the earth and engineered humanity. It's a mess. The point is that evolution would have to remain as a process in the universe and the alien seeding ideas don't eliminate it.

John Anthony West thinks that humanity evolved to high knowledge during the last several Great Year's and then went through lows during the bottom of the Yuga cycles. It's atlantian type ideas for the knowledge of Egypt, not alien seeding. And this doesn't provide an alternative to evolution either. So YEC, OEC, AS, and Atlantian ideas fail to provide an alternative to the evolutionary process as I understand. So all of this butting heads with science about discovery of evolution is unwarrented at best.


_________________
YEC theory put to rest!!!

https://www.ex-christian.net/


The following user would like to thank tat tvam asi for this post:
johnson1010
Sat Mar 20, 2010 7:33 am
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 6179
Location: Canberra
Thanks: 2573
Thanked: 2527 times in 1894 posts
Gender: Male
Country: Australia (au)

Post Re: Young Earth Theory put to rest!
I'm not suggesting anything contrary to evolution, just pointing out that the unique nature of the Egyptian pyramids may be hard to explain through the incremental logic of evolution. Anyway, it is a fun topic to invent myths for.

Osiris, Isis, Nephthys, Horus and Thoth, maybe three or four others to make up the eight (ogdoad) or the nine (ennead), land in the ocean in a space pod from a distant star. They move to Egypt because it is fertile, isolated, climatically stable and at the geographic meeting point of the main land masses of the planet. Over thousands of years they live as semi-secret Gods. The fields of reeds are due west of the Nile mouth in the Bay of Libya, where the alien gods live on floating islands and some humans are allowed. They largely keep their knowledge and existence invisible to humans, but arrange to build the pyramids as a monument to their cosmic origins. Carrying his trusty harmonic djed, Osiris gradually morphs into the green god of life and death and the sun. Meanwhile, he and his team establish Atlantis by building oceanic cities on large fabric bags of floating fresh water. The end of Atlantis comes when much of California falls into the sea with a giant slip of the San Andreas Fault, sending a mile high tsunami several times around the world ocean that obliterates the hidden alien civilization on the high seas, with Aeolia the only remnant.

Here are some sites of possible interest - endless ...
http://www.world-mysteries.com/mpl_2.htm
http://www.cheops.org/startpage/thefind ... ndings.htm
http://www.ancientegyptonline.co.uk/pyr ... .html#star
http://initiation.cc/assets/images/CheopsPic.jpg
http://www.scribd.com/doc/3459621/The-G ... he-Earth-I
http://www.grahamhancock.com/forum/FordR3.php



Sat Mar 20, 2010 9:08 am
Profile Email WWW
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
pets endangered by possible book avalanche

Diamond Contributor

Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 4898
Location: Florida
Thanks: 177
Thanked: 344 times in 294 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Young Earth Theory put to rest!
tat tvam asi wrote:
The evolution of creationist apologetics.

A) Primitive = YEC: God created the world in six days about six thousand years +/-ago and science is wrong, there's no evolution.

B) Advancing = OEC: God created the world billions of years ago, as science shows, but God created man in his own image and there's still no evolution even though science says there is.

C) Modernizing = ID: God created the world billions of years ago and it has been evolving just as science says, but God has been directing the evolving process which resulted in humanity.

Where can they go from here? At some point it would seem that they'll have to flat out take up the scientific method for what it actually is because they've been coming closer and closer to it, step by step, all along. At some point the two paths seem destined to converge. By then those who remain in the primitive and advancing stages would likely be such a minority that they have no pull any more. The rejection of science will have faded out altogether. This new converging realm is where a Christian like Robert seems to fit in and is currently pioneering and discovering possibilities. It accepts the scientific method and pushes beyond ID fallacies.


You make this sound ike a progession but it is not.

The scientific method has one requirement within it which dooms it to ultimate failure.


_________________
n=Infinity
Sum n = -1/12
n=1

where n are natural numbers.


Last edited by stahrwe on Sat Mar 20, 2010 4:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Sat Mar 20, 2010 4:04 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Tenured Professor


Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 3564
Location: Michigan
Thanks: 1321
Thanked: 1152 times in 844 posts
Gender: Male

Post Re: Young Earth Theory put to rest!
It fails to conform to your favorite fairy tales?


_________________
In the absence of God, I found Man.
-Guillermo Del Torro

Have you tried that? Looking for answers?
Or have you been content to be terrified of a thing you know nothing about?

Are you pushing your own short comings on us and safely hating them from a distance?

Is this the virtue of faith? To never change your mind: especially when you should?

Young Earth Creationists take offense at the idea that we have a common heritage with other animals. Why is being the descendant of a mud golem any better?

Confidence being an expectation built on past experience, evidence and extrapolation to the future. Faith being an expectation held in defiance of past experience and evidence.


The following user would like to thank johnson1010 for this post:
Interbane
Sat Mar 20, 2010 4:24 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

BookTalk.org Moderator
Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 7193
Location: Da U.P.
Thanks: 1123
Thanked: 2176 times in 1731 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Young Earth Theory put to rest!
Quote:
The scientific method has one requirement within it which dooms it to ultimate failure.


The same one you've been shown to be wrong about multiple times? Let's hear it again!!!



Sat Mar 20, 2010 4:25 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
pets endangered by possible book avalanche

Diamond Contributor

Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 4898
Location: Florida
Thanks: 177
Thanked: 344 times in 294 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Young Earth Theory put to rest!
johnson1010 wrote:
It fails to conform to your favorite fairy tales?



No, repeatability. Do you remember the post I did once before about repeatability?


_________________
n=Infinity
Sum n = -1/12
n=1

where n are natural numbers.


Sat Mar 20, 2010 5:52 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Reading Addict


Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 1367
Location: Florida
Thanks: 581
Thanked: 551 times in 412 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Young Earth Theory put to rest!
I haven't heard it yet Stahrwe, just for the sake of knowing I'd like to hear what dooms the scientific method to ultimate failure.


_________________
YEC theory put to rest!!!

https://www.ex-christian.net/


Sat Mar 20, 2010 7:19 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

BookTalk.org Moderator
Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 7193
Location: Da U.P.
Thanks: 1123
Thanked: 2176 times in 1731 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Young Earth Theory put to rest!
Quote:
No, repeatability. Do you remember the post I did once before about repeatability?


I remember. Do you remember my explanation for why you're dead wrong? Google it, you'll save yourself some embarrassment. :lol:



Sat Mar 20, 2010 10:06 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Reading Addict


Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 1367
Location: Florida
Thanks: 581
Thanked: 551 times in 412 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Young Earth Theory put to rest!
YEC has been put to rest. It's like the few Japanese soliders lost on different south pacific Islands that had no idea the war was over, even years after the war had long since ended.

YEC ended the minute the sun was proven the center of the solar system and not something created after the earth orbiting around the earth, as Genesis suggests. That's why people thought the earth was the center of the solar system - Genesis formats it that way when taken "literally". YEC was finished at that point. Everyone promoting YEC thereafter, and I mean everyone, have been like lost soliders thinking the war is still going when it isn't. It ended before Darwinian Evolution ever hit the scene. YEC is over. The scientific method is only getting stronger with time and that's why apologetics have been slowly gravitating towards the scientific method to appear more rational and reasonable. In time, creationism will likely merge completely resulting in accepting science wholly while clinging to the notion that there's a reason for it all. Perhaps, in time, that will be let go as well as apologetics continue to evolve.

The bottom line is that when dealing with the question of absolute ultimates we're dealing with the mystery behind why existence even exists in the first place. There's no fixed answer. It just exists, it just is. Neither can there be any one fixed meaning for that which has always been and will always be which is what mere existence is in the deepest sense. A truly deep spiritual realization involves understanding that much about the mythological God symbolism - that its a metaphor for the mysery of existence underlying everything. So the final struggle to fight for some fixed meaning for evolution that comes out in ID, actually comes to an abrupt end when approaching the question of absolute ultimates. The final point of religious contention is then openly lost just as every other smaller point of contention along the way during this evolving process of apologetics.

That would be coming into the final D phase in the A,B,C evolution of creationist apologetics putting the entire venture (YEC, OEC, and ID) to rest once and for all by completely merging into the scientific method.


_________________
YEC theory put to rest!!!

https://www.ex-christian.net/


Sat Mar 20, 2010 11:29 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

BookTalk.org Moderator
Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 7193
Location: Da U.P.
Thanks: 1123
Thanked: 2176 times in 1731 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Young Earth Theory put to rest!
Bah, I think Stahrwe was scared of looking foolish again. In science, experiments must be repeatable. This does not mean the phenomena that are studied must be repeated or repeatable. Creationists don't put forth the mental effort to realize the distinction, and look stupid for mistaking the two. Here's some information about repeatability and evolution:

"Most creationists now reluctantly concede that so-called microevolution (i.e., evolution below the ill-defined biblical "kinds" level) does occur. There is just too much supportive evidence (drug resistance, pesticide resistance, alternate host development, etc.) for them to deny the reality of microevolution any longer. Since that target is no longer available for them to snipe at, they now focus on so-called macroevolution, i.e., normally understood to mean evolution at or above the species level. (It is difficult to pin down creationists on what they actually mean by macroevolution since their definitions of biblical "kinds" are so vague and are continuously metamorphosing to suit their needs.) However creationists define macroevolution, they are adamant that its occurrence cannot possibly be accounted for by the TOE. Their reasoning, if one can call it that, goes something like this: Since the emergence of all the basic "kinds" occurred so far back in the distant past, when no one was around to actually see it happening, it is impossible to develop a valid scientific explanation for how the process took place. Valid scientific theories must be based on things that can be observed and tested by repeatable experimentation. Since macroevolution to form the different "kinds" could not be directly observed and tested by repeatable experimentation, it is not a valid scientific concept.

What the anti-evolutionists seem to misunderstand (or ignore) is that, in science, a particular phenomenon under investigation does not actually have to be repeated or reproduced from scratch, in toto, in order to arrive at valid scientific explanations pertaining to that phenomenon? For example, geologists do not have to actually reproduce the Ice Age Missoula Flood(s) in order to determine that it occurred, when it occurred, how widespread it was, and to develop meaningful theories about its cause. Examination of the geological evidence left behind by the historical event is all it takes to arrive at verifiable scientific conclusions about its occurrence. Science is only concerned with the evaluation of verifiable evidence (circumstantial, after the fact, or otherwise) that is consistent among observers, regardless who examines it or when it was produced. Repeatability in science refers to the availability of pertinent evidence, not the ability to completely replicate the overarching phenomenon being investigated. There are a number of historical sciences (cosmology, paleontology, geology, archeology, etc.) which employ this method of evidence testing.

To meet the criterion of scientific authenticity, observations must be available to all interested investigators and must be consistent (within the limits of statistical variation) among all investigators. It is the consistency of the observations and their openness to all investigators to which the term "repeatability" in science refers. As stated above, there is no requirement that the entire scope of the phenomenon under study must be duplicated in order to develop valid scientific theories that explain the phenomenon. It is by using this same line of reasoning that juries are able to arrive at meaningful verdicts. As in the case of scientific investigation, the original crime does not have to be recreated in its entirety in the court room. Examination of evidence left at the crime scene and elsewhere is often all that is needed for a conviction. What is required in both a court of law and science is not absolute certainty. Verdicts/scientific theories must only be correct "beyond a reasonable doubt" in order for them to be valid and instructive.

Regarding the creationist claim that macroevolution cannot be observed and experimentally repeated, if one defines macroevolution as evolution occurring at the species level, then their claim is clearly false. (See here.) Even if one goes along with one of the creationists' more fuzzy higher-level definitions of "kind, " there is still a plethora of observed, testable and repeatable evidence that supports macroevolution. (See here.) Just because creationists are unaware of (or choose to ignore) this evidence does not mean that it does not exist and that their claims have any merit. To falsely claim, as creationists do, that the TOE is not observable and repeatable in the scientific sense serves only to call attention to their ignorance of the scientific method.

As a corollary to their claim that the TOE is not a scientific theory, the creationists must believe then that, either scientists are too dumb to recognize the purported fatal flaws in the theory, or they must believe that there is some kind of conspiracy going on within the scientific community to suppress the facts. Since most scientists are not noted for being dumb, it is presumably the conspiracy theory to which they give the most weight. In this respect, they have much in common with all the other conspiracy kooks who pollute the Internet with their cockamamie fantasies.

The truth is, any scientist who could disprove any of the major tenets of the TOE would be a shoo-in for a Nobel Prize, would achieve instant worldwide fame and scientific acclaim, and would be the recipient of more grant money than he/she could spend in a lifetime. Scientists are not just in the business of proving theories, they are in the business of disproving them as well. Nothing would make a scientist happier (and more famous) than shooting down a well-established theory like the TOE. Evolutionary scientists test the TOE every time they do research on the subject. By investigating evidence that verifies the theory, they are also investigating evidence that could potentially disprove it. All it would take would be something like the discovery of a rabbit fossil in Precambrian rock or an aquatic mammal with gills, and it would be the end of the TOE as we know it. (Tellingly, no such evidence has ever been discovered.) Taking these facts into consideration, orchestrating a worldwide conspiracy to conceal any serious shortcomings of the TOE would be a virtual impossibility - especially considering that many of these scientists are, themselves, practicing Christians. Only someone unaware how both human nature and science work could peddle such a nonsensical idea."



Sun Mar 21, 2010 12:14 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
pets endangered by possible book avalanche

Diamond Contributor

Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 4898
Location: Florida
Thanks: 177
Thanked: 344 times in 294 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Young Earth Theory put to rest!
tat tvam asi wrote:
I haven't heard it yet Stahrwe, just for the sake of knowing I'd like to hear what dooms the scientific method to ultimate failure.



Suppose we conducted an experiment to determine if God exists. We structure the experiment so that at a certain time and place if He exists He will be present.

At the appointed time and palce scientists are present from all over the world along with media, religions people, and the curious.

At the appointed hour God appears and stays until everyone present is satisfied that He is God, not just satisfied, but convinced beyond any doubt. God leaves.

Science must continue to deny God because the experiment in not repeatable.

As to Interbane's objection, God isnot a phenomena but in point of fact his objection is bogus anyway unless hec an cite an example of a phenomena which only occurred once. The scientific method is not perfect. It was designed to look at things in a very limited way. A way I add which is not even natural so it should not come as a surprise that science comes to incorrect conclusions before we even get to the economic incentives.


_________________
n=Infinity
Sum n = -1/12
n=1

where n are natural numbers.


Sun Mar 21, 2010 2:59 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
pets endangered by possible book avalanche

Diamond Contributor

Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 4898
Location: Florida
Thanks: 177
Thanked: 344 times in 294 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Young Earth Theory put to rest!
Interbane wrote:
Bah, I think Stahrwe was scared of looking foolish again. In science, experiments must be repeatable. This does not mean the phenomena that are studied must be repeated or repeatable. Creationists don't put forth the mental effort to realize the distinction, and look stupid for mistaking the two. Here's some information about repeatability and evolution:

"Most creationists now reluctantly concede that so-called microevolution (i.e., evolution below the ill-defined biblical "kinds" level) does occur. There is just too much supportive evidence (drug resistance, pesticide resistance, alternate host development, etc.) for them to deny the reality of microevolution any longer. Since that target is no longer available for them to snipe at, they now focus on so-called macroevolution, i.e., normally understood to mean evolution at or above the species level. (It is difficult to pin down creationists on what they actually mean by macroevolution since their definitions of biblical "kinds" are so vague and are continuously metamorphosing to suit their needs.) However creationists define macroevolution, they are adamant that its occurrence cannot possibly be accounted for by the TOE. Their reasoning, if one can call it that, goes something like this: Since the emergence of all the basic "kinds" occurred so far back in the distant past, when no one was around to actually see it happening, it is impossible to develop a valid scientific explanation for how the process took place. Valid scientific theories must be based on things that can be observed and tested by repeatable experimentation. Since macroevolution to form the different "kinds" could not be directly observed and tested by repeatable experimentation, it is not a valid scientific concept.

What the anti-evolutionists seem to misunderstand (or ignore) is that, in science, a particular phenomenon under investigation does not actually have to be repeated or reproduced from scratch, in toto, in order to arrive at valid scientific explanations pertaining to that phenomenon? For example, geologists do not have to actually reproduce the Ice Age Missoula Flood(s) in order to determine that it occurred, when it occurred, how widespread it was, and to develop meaningful theories about its cause. Examination of the geological evidence left behind by the historical event is all it takes to arrive at verifiable scientific conclusions about its occurrence. Science is only concerned with the evaluation of verifiable evidence (circumstantial, after the fact, or otherwise) that is consistent among observers, regardless who examines it or when it was produced. Repeatability in science refers to the availability of pertinent evidence, not the ability to completely replicate the overarching phenomenon being investigated. There are a number of historical sciences (cosmology, paleontology, geology, archeology, etc.) which employ this method of evidence testing.

To meet the criterion of scientific authenticity, observations must be available to all interested investigators and must be consistent (within the limits of statistical variation) among all investigators. It is the consistency of the observations and their openness to all investigators to which the term "repeatability" in science refers. As stated above, there is no requirement that the entire scope of the phenomenon under study must be duplicated in order to develop valid scientific theories that explain the phenomenon. It is by using this same line of reasoning that juries are able to arrive at meaningful verdicts. As in the case of scientific investigation, the original crime does not have to be recreated in its entirety in the court room. Examination of evidence left at the crime scene and elsewhere is often all that is needed for a conviction. What is required in both a court of law and science is not absolute certainty. Verdicts/scientific theories must only be correct "beyond a reasonable doubt" in order for them to be valid and instructive.

Regarding the creationist claim that macroevolution cannot be observed and experimentally repeated, if one defines macroevolution as evolution occurring at the species level, then their claim is clearly false. (See here.) Even if one goes along with one of the creationists' more fuzzy higher-level definitions of "kind, " there is still a plethora of observed, testable and repeatable evidence that supports macroevolution. (See here.) Just because creationists are unaware of (or choose to ignore) this evidence does not mean that it does not exist and that their claims have any merit. To falsely claim, as creationists do, that the TOE is not observable and repeatable in the scientific sense serves only to call attention to their ignorance of the scientific method.

As a corollary to their claim that the TOE is not a scientific theory, the creationists must believe then that, either scientists are too dumb to recognize the purported fatal flaws in the theory, or they must believe that there is some kind of conspiracy going on within the scientific community to suppress the facts. Since most scientists are not noted for being dumb, it is presumably the conspiracy theory to which they give the most weight. In this respect, they have much in common with all the other conspiracy kooks who pollute the Internet with their cockamamie fantasies.

The truth is, any scientist who could disprove any of the major tenets of the TOE would be a shoo-in for a Nobel Prize, would achieve instant worldwide fame and scientific acclaim, and would be the recipient of more grant money than he/she could spend in a lifetime. Scientists are not just in the business of proving theories, they are in the business of disproving them as well. Nothing would make a scientist happier (and more famous) than shooting down a well-established theory like the TOE. Evolutionary scientists test the TOE every time they do research on the subject. By investigating evidence that verifies the theory, they are also investigating evidence that could potentially disprove it. All it would take would be something like the discovery of a rabbit fossil in Precambrian rock or an aquatic mammal with gills, and it would be the end of the TOE as we know it. (Tellingly, no such evidence has ever been discovered.) Taking these facts into consideration, orchestrating a worldwide conspiracy to conceal any serious shortcomings of the TOE would be a virtual impossibility - especially considering that many of these scientists are, themselves, practicing Christians. Only someone unaware how both human nature and science work could peddle such a nonsensical idea."


I'm afraid you are confused again. Of couse you don't have to reproduce something for which there is historic evidence. But suppose you had a theory that there had been some kind of flood. You set out looking for evidence, find it and report it along with the statement, "No one else need go and see for themselves." That will not work. Others will need to verify, etc. in order to be accepted, and so, we do in fact have the requriement for repeatability, in this case of observing the evidence. You state I am wrong and then proceed to explain how I am correct.


_________________
n=Infinity
Sum n = -1/12
n=1

where n are natural numbers.


The following user would like to thank stahrwe for this post:
Interbane
Sun Mar 21, 2010 3:13 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

BookTalk.org Moderator
Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 7193
Location: Da U.P.
Thanks: 1123
Thanked: 2176 times in 1731 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Young Earth Theory put to rest!
Your intellect is astounding!



Sun Mar 21, 2010 3:18 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 594 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 40  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:



Site Resources 
HELPFUL INFO:
Community Rules & Tips
Frequently Asked Questions
BBCode Explained
Author Interview Transcripts
Book Discussion Leaders

IDEAS FOR WHAT TO READ:
Bestsellers
Book Awards
Banned Books
• Book Reviews
• Online Books
• Team Picks
Newspaper Book Sections

WHERE TO BUY BOOKS:
• Coming Soon!

BEHIND THE BOOKS:
• Coming Soon!

PROMOTE YOUR BOOK!
Advertise on BookTalk.org
Promote your FICTION book
Promote your NON-FICTION book





BookTalk.org is a thriving book discussion forum, online reading group or book club. We read and talk about both fiction and non-fiction books as a community. Our forums are open to anyone in the world. While discussing books is our passion we also have active forums for talking about poetry, short stories, writing and authors. Our general discussion forum section includes forums for discussing science, religion, philosophy, politics, history, current events, arts, entertainment and more. We hope you join us!


Navigation 
MAIN NAVIGATION

HOMEFORUMSOUR BOOKSAUTHOR INTERVIEWSADVERTISELINKSFAQDONATETERMS OF USEPRIVACY POLICYSITEMAP

OTHER PAGES WORTH EXPLORING
Banned Book ListOnline Reading GroupTop 10 Atheism Books

Copyright © BookTalk.org 2002-2021. All rights reserved.

Display Pagerank