god, life + creation

Originally posted by twhitehead
Science is not something that can be created. It is a way of looking at the world. If you are asking about the proportions of various religions amoungst scientists that would be a hard question to answer as the definition of a scientist is vague and so is the definition of a Christian.
However many of the more famous scientists professed to be Christian. ...[text shortened]... ing since the creation and was created in such a way as to make it appear that there were stars.

Most of my arguements in this thread however are to do with the distance from earth to stars and how this either proves that the earth is greater than 10,000 years or that most of the stars you see at night are not really there, you are just seening light that has been travelling since the creation and was created in such a way as to make it appear that there were stars.

*banging head against keyboard* Why can't you have the light and the stars?!

Originally posted by Halitose
Most of my arguements in this thread however are to do with the distance from earth to stars and how this either proves that the earth is greater than 10,000 years or that most of the stars you see at night are not really there, you are just seening light that has been travelling since the creation and was created in such a way as to make it appear that ]

*banging head against keyboard* Why can't you have the light [b]and the stars?![/b]

Are you asking either:

1) why can't you have light eminating from stars which haven't become cold and dead?

or 2) why can't you have light that is not of stella origin, and stars (which may or may not produce light themselves)?

EDIT: Oxford comma

Originally posted by Starrman
or 2) why can't you have light that is not of stella origin and stars (which may or may not produce light themselves)?

Halitose has just returned from a 3-week holiday to the Diskworld. His exposure to its light has affected his discernment in this reality.

Originally posted by Halitose
Thats a lot of conclusions to jump to with preciously little hard scientific proof.

There is no hard evidence that Jesus ever existed outside of some stories, yet that doesn't stop some people from thinking that they know the truth.

Originally posted by KneverKnight
There is no hard evidence that Jesus ever existed outside of some stories, yet that doesn't stop some people from thinking that they know the truth.

That might be the point Halitose is trying to make.

By the way his cap is yellow.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
That might be the point Halitose is trying to make.

By the way his cap is yellow.

I thought his point was the opposite, but his cap may be yellow.
Praise be.

Originally posted by KneverKnight
I thought his point was the opposite, but his cap may be yellow.
Praise be.

He hasn't attached the bells yet, but as you point out, there is already so much reason to rejoice.

[handspring]

Originally posted by Halitose
Yes. And your point is?

My point is that if ture its capable that we and every other galaxy has a parallel, ( could be the reason why gravity is so waek, their particles are travelling in and out of each pararllel.) and that on occasions they collide greating a 'big bang'

We could all die tomorrow 😲

Originally posted by trevor33
If god created the earth as we know it in 7 days then why is there so evidence to support that life evolved over millions of years. Or is it that the 7 days quoted in the bible is actually a metaphor and that it was created over 7 million or billoin years, or that its all a lie and god dosen't exist ant that everything in the bible is fake.

The "evidence" that points to evolution is predicated on the assumption of empiricism. If one does not assume empiricism first, then the "evidence" does not point to evolution.

Evidence is more than objective facts if it "points" to anything. Objective facts should be neutral. But mix this "information" with a specific "world-view" such as empiricism - then the facts start pointing. But it is the presumption of a particular world-view that causes this.

Evolution itself is painfully bad as a scientific theory since a good scientific theory requires it to to be disprovable. You can not disprove evolution - it's too broad a theory - and and has no criteria that make it falsifiable. As a theory - evolution is more like a religion. It has all the earmarks of religion, faith, faithful followers, dogmatics, etc. It's even a bad religion because no one is allowed to ask questions or express doubts. If a scientists express a doubt in the theory of evolution, the priests of science will either excommunicate you or make you a human sacrifice on the alter of their "science god".

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Halitose has just returned from a 3-week holiday to the Diskworld. His exposure to its light has affected his discernment in this reality.

By the by, 'The Science of the Discworld' is a very interesting read and actually has some very good science in it.

Originally posted by Coletti
The "evidence" that points to evolution is predicated on the assumption of empiricism. If one does not assume empiricism first, then the "evidence" does not point to evolution.

Evidence is more than objective facts if it "points" to anything. Objective facts should be neutral. But mix this "information" with a specific "world-view" such as ...[text shortened]... ll either excommunicate you or make you a human sacrifice on the alter of their "science god".

I had to look up "empiricism". And no I do not think science is based on any such assumption. What you appear to be saying is that the fact that you are reading this post is based on the assumption that you can see and if we do not assume that first then the evidence does not show that you are reading my post.
Its interesting that you feel evolution can not be falsified. Creationists have been claiming for centuries that they have disproved it.
Yes it is a broad theory which covers both micro evolution which can be directly observed and experimented with today and the evolution of all living things which can also be observed though to a lesser degree.
My understanding of the definition of empiricism was that it is not a religion or matter of faith but rather restricts itself to observation. You seem to imply otherwise.
Do you have any alternative hypotheses? Can they be falsified? If you declare that observation is wrong then can you find one single scientific theory that can be disproved ? What is different between the theory of evolution and any other scientific theory ? Other than it conflicts with your personal fear of being decended from a monkey ?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I had to look up "empiricism". And no I do not think science is based on any such assumption. What you appear to be saying is that the fact that you are reading this post is based on the assumption that you can see and if we do not assume that first then the evidence does not show that you are reading my post.
Its interesting that you feel evolution ca ...[text shortened]... tific theory ? Other than it conflicts with your personal fear of being decended from a monkey ?

I had to look up "empiricism". And no I do not think science is based on any such assumption.

http://www.answers.com/'scientific_method

Originally posted by twhitehead
I had to look up "empiricism". And no I do not think science is based on any such assumption. What you appear to be saying is that the fact that you are reading this post is based on the assumption that you can see and if we do not assume that first then the evidence does not show that you are reading my post.
Its interesting that you feel evolution ca ...[text shortened]... tific theory ? Other than it conflicts with your personal fear of being decended from a monkey ?

What is different between the theory of evolution and any other scientific theory ?

Only part of the Theory of Evolution, namely microevolution, can be verified via the scientific method.

Originally posted by Halitose
Only part of the Theory of Evolution, namely microevolution, can be verified via the scientific method.

I've heard this on numerous occasion from the Creation Crowd. What, if anything, would you consider strong evidence of so-called "macroevolution"? Or, have you simply decided there is currently a sufficient lack of evidence for the theory, and therefore there will never be any evidence that could sway your opinion?

Originally posted by David C
I've heard this on numerous occasion from the Creation Crowd. What, if anything, would you consider strong evidence of so-called "macroevolution"? Or, have you simply decided there is currently a sufficient lack of evidence for the theory, and therefore there will never be any evidence that could sway your opinion?

What, if anything, would you consider strong evidence of so-called "macroevolution"?

Ironclad empiricle proof.

Or, have you simply decided there is currently a sufficient lack of evidence for the theory, and therefore there will never be any evidence that could sway your opinion?

Perhaps the discovery of the any creature's history (e.g. fish to amphibian or reptile to bird) with the distinct development indisputibly consistant without any leaps or gaps in the record. No large morphological jumps please - and no wishful thinking.

A suitably defendable mechanism for this evolving from one creature to the next would also be great.