15 Sep 07
Originally posted by whodeyAbiogenesis is a testable hypothesis.
The creation myth? Why not say the abiogenesis myth? You either view life as being created from a source of directed intellegence or without it. Either way you are talking about mysterious forces that we cannot fully comprehend. It simply makes us feel better about ourselves by leaving the "God" term out of the equation because it diludes us into thinkin ...[text shortened]... or form evolving from nonliving matter, however, they can neither observe it nor duplicate it.
15 Sep 07
2 edits
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThere are 31 verses in Genesis chapter one.
Abiogenesis is a testable hypothesis.
What fully conclusive and indistutable scientific fact proves without a shadow of doubt one or more of those verses cannot be true?
Is there something we know that proves verse 1 is not true?
Is there something we know that proves that verse 2 is not true?
What about the third, fourth, and fifth verse?
Which one cannot be true because of some near universally accepted scientifically known fact?
15 Sep 07
Originally posted by jaywillthat is a great way to put it
There are 31 verses in Genesis chapter one.
What fully conclusive and indistutable scientific [b]fact proves without a shadow of doubt one or more of those verses cannot be true?
Is there something we know that proves verse 1 is not true?
Is there something we know that proves that verse 2 is not true?
What about the third, fourth, and ...[text shortened]...
Which one cannot be true because of some near universally accepted scientifically known fact?[/b]
15 Sep 07
Originally posted by jaywillWhen are you going to understand that science cannot prove a negative? Science, also, cannot prove "beyond a shadow of a doubt" that The Hobbit isn't true.
There are 31 verses in Genesis chapter one.
What fully conclusive and indistutable scientific [b]fact proves without a shadow of doubt one or more of those verses cannot be true?
Is there something we know that proves verse 1 is not true?
Is there something we know that proves that verse 2 is not true?
What about the third, fourth, and ...[text shortened]...
Which one cannot be true because of some near universally accepted scientifically known fact?[/b]
Think about it, learn it, and stop asking these types of questions...please!
15 Sep 07
Originally posted by TheSkipperIt would be nice if you did not treat me as if I think science is useless or not important. I am fascinated with science and have been a subscriber to Discovery Magazine.
When are you going to understand that science cannot prove a negative? Science, also, cannot prove "beyond a shadow of a doubt" that The Hobbit isn't true.
Think about it, learn it, and stop asking these types of questions...please!
If "beyond a shadow of doubt" seems unfair to you then how about just a reasonable doubt?
Notice that I ASKED the question. I did not state catagorically that you have no examples.
If this question seems unfair to you, there are a number of smug type who seem sure that Genesis can be discarded because of something we know science has proved.
Sorry to say but there are one or two of those types who frequent this Forum.
Now as to science not being able to prove a negative ?? Are you SURE about that ? To a reasonable degree of certainty why cannot science prove a negative?
15 Sep 07
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Think about it, learn it, and stop asking these types of questions...please!
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You don't want me to ask these types of questions?
Hey, I didn't write the name of this discussion "Creation verses Evolution".
If some make these types of dichotomies then I can ask these types of questions.
15 Sep 07
Originally posted by jaywillLook, the BEST way to promote your particular idea about how life evolved is by making sure that it makes more sense than the other guy's idea. Asking the other guy to somehow "disprove" every idea you come up with is silly, and a waste of time.
[b]+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Think about it, learn it, and stop asking these types of questions...please!
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You don't want me to ask these types of questions?
Hey, I didn't write the name of this discussion "Creation verses Evolution".
If some make these types of dichotomies then I can ask these types of questions.[/b]
Maybe you don't understand what proving a negative is all about, i will give you an exmple.
I'm going to assume you do not believe the tooth fairy exists...now prove that it does not exist.
Good luck.
15 Sep 07
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadIt is simply this, we can have an event that happened hours ago, odds
I was just about to say that I have never met anyone who has attempted to defend creationism by being completely truthful, but then I realized that since you never seem to make any concrete statements you are probably not quite lying. But then you are usually so vague that you can hardly be said to be defending creationism. Your argument usually amounts t re definitely being somewhat dishonest by always avoiding any actual analysis of the subject.
are what we see in the here and now we have a better grip on when it
comes to what is, isn't valid data when it comes to understanding
that event than what we could on a event that happened 300 years
ago. Now if you disagree, why? Personally, I believe we have to deal
with less assumptions the closer to the present time than the distant
past.
Do you accuse people of lying that disagree with you when it comes to
this subject as a matter of standard practice?
Kelly
16 Sep 07
1 edit
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I'm going to assume you do not believe the tooth fairy exists...now prove that it does not exist.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Do you think that a belief in an intelligent creative law giver behind the natural laws that govern the universe and a tooth fairy who allegedly puts a dime under children's pillows when they lose a tooth - are roughly the same idea?
So by comparing an intelligent uncreated and eternal Divine Life as the source of all created lives with the tooth fairy you hope to demonstrate that both ideas are equally qualified to be dismissed by the thinking man?
16 Sep 07
Originally posted by TheSkipperScience, also, cannot prove "beyond a shadow of a doubt" that The Hobbit isn't true.
When are you going to understand that science cannot prove a negative? Science, also, cannot prove "beyond a shadow of a doubt" that The Hobbit isn't true.
Think about it, learn it, and stop asking these types of questions...please!
How about carbon dating J. R. R. Tolkien's remains? If his remains aren't prehistoric, then you can pretty well conclude that the Hobbit isn't true. 🙂