100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Evolution Is it Compatible With THE BIBLE? | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Somewhere in the 19th century, the scientific community realized and distinguished that they weren't in a competition with religious dogma, and didn't have to establishing irrefutable 'Scientific Laws' to compete with religious dogma; that it wasn't science role to deal in absolute answers of the divine type. Science dropped 'law', and replaced it with 'scientific theory': remaining in the question and scientific inquiry, rather than being syphoned in the domains of the absolute or dogmatic. Bravo voileazur! (I picture the scientist plodding forward discovering all kinds of fascinating things and the Bible fundamentalist reading his reports in shock and horror at seeing that these discoveries don't jive with his dogma.) Thanks for the link, I will watch it. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Somewhere in the 19th century, the scientific community realized and distinguished that they weren't in a competition with religious dogma, and didn't have to establishing irrefutable 'Scientific Laws' to compete with religious dogma; that it wasn't science role to deal in absolute answers of the divine type. Science dropped 'law', and replaced it with 'scientific theory': remaining in the question and scientific inquiry, rather than being syphoned in the domains of the absolute or dogmatic. Bravo voileazur! (I picture the scientist plodding forward discovering all kinds of fascinating things and the Bible fundamentalist reading his reports in shock and horror at seeing that these discoveries don't jive with his dogma.) Thanks for the link, I will watch it. Well, thank you 'jeanniebean'.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the more actual science they use(NOT THEORIES AND GUESSES)testable science only helps to support the bible
i.e... the flood,soddom and gomorrah,young earth CREATION!!! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the more actual science they use(NOT THEORIES AND GUESSES)testable science only helps to support the bible i.e... the flood,soddom and gomorrah,young earth CREATION!!! Well lets start with the flood shall we? Modern geology, and its sub-disciplines of earth science, geochemistry, geophysics, glaciology, paleoclimatology, paleontology and other scientific disciplines utilize the scientific method to analyze the geology of the earth. The key tenets of flood geology are refuted by scientific analysis and do not have any standing in the scientific community. What are you talking about exactly and where are these actual "scientists" that are on board with Noah's Flood? I would like to do a little background checking on their academic qualifications. Im sure you dont mind. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Watch the 'youtube' piece http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg&feature=related. Worth every minute!!! Just finished watching the presentation, and I'm watching the Q&A now. Very well put together, and a lot of good information. Thanks! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the more actual science they use(NOT THEORIES AND GUESSES)testable science only helps to support the bible i.e... the flood,soddom and gomorrah,young earth CREATION!!! Well lets start with the flood shall we? Modern geology, and its sub-disciplines of earth science, geochemistry, geophysics, glaciology, paleoclimatology, paleontology and other scientific disciplines utilize the scientific method to analyze the geology of the earth. The key tenets of flood geology are refuted by scientific analysis and do not have any standing in the scientific community. What are you talking about exactly and where are these actual "scientists" that are on board with Noah's Flood? I would like to do a little background checking on their academic qualifications. Im sure you dont mind. you can also log on creationscience.com and watch his hydro plate theory whinch CAN BE SCIENTIFICALLY TIED TOGETHER IN CAUSE AND EFFECT ORDER |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Supreme Court already ruled against Creationism for two reasons: 1. It is not accepted science 2. It is a veiled way to slip religion into the classroom. It would be ok to teach in philosophy, but it is not a science. Wait... wait, let me check my calendar... ok yeah it is 2009, not science.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Right. Brown's The Scientific Case for Creation was reviewed by Jim Lippard who said Brown made serious errors, including using "mistaken claims about what others have written."
Philosopher Robert T. Pennock describes Brown's position as being typical, other than the unique feature of his hydroplates hypothesis, of YECs in desiring to explain all major terrestrial features in terms of a catastrophic Biblical flood. TalkOrigins reports that Walt Brown has had contentious relations with other creationist organizations. Answers in Genesis has a standing offer to Brown to publish some of his material in their journals but Brown has declined. The old earth creationist organization Answers in Creation has published material rebutting Brown's hydroplate theory. The Christian American Scientific Affiliation website features a debunking of Brown's video "God's Power and Scriptures Authority" by Steven H. Schimmrich of Kutztown University. Brown also has repeatedly claimed that no "evolutionist" will engage in a written debate with him, but has been accused of discouraging or avoiding such debates. An abortive attempt at such a debate was held in 1989 and 1990 in the pages of Creation/Evolution, the National Center for Science Education journal, before Brown refused to continue. Joe Meert of Gondwana Research, a journal promoting research related to the origin and evolution of continents, had a signed contract for such a debate with Walter Brown in 2000. Brown apparently disputed the terms of the signed contract and it did not take place; although Brown has his own account of the situation. According to Georgia State University biology professor Fred K. Parrish, who was "tricked" into a April 1985 public debate with Brown, Brown debates around the U.S. and has a set of preconditions (such as Brown speaks first, the debate moderator sits on his side, etc).  It sounds like a General Religion Forum Discussion. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Right. Brown's The Scientific Case for Creation was reviewed by Jim Lippard who said Brown made serious errors, including using "mistaken claims about what others have written." Philosopher Robert T. Pennock describes Brown's position as being typical, other than the unique feature of his hydroplates hypothesis, of YECs in desiring to explain all major terrestrial features in terms of a catastrophic Biblical flood. TalkOrigins reports that Walt Brown has had contentious relations with other creationist organizations. Answers in Genesis has a standing offer to Brown to publish some of his material in their journals but Brown has declined. The old earth creationist organization Answers in Creation has published material rebutting Brown's hydroplate theory. The Christian American Scientific Affiliation website features a debunking of Brown's video "God's Power and Scriptures Authority" by Steven H. Schimmrich of Kutztown University. Brown also has repeatedly claimed that no "evolutionist" will engage in a written debate with him, but has been accused of discouraging or avoiding such debates. An abortive attempt at such a debate was held in 1989 and 1990 in the pages of Creation/Evolution, the National Center for Science Education journal, before Brown refused to continue. Joe Meert of Gondwana Research, a journal promoting research related to the origin and evolution of continents, had a signed contract for such a debate with Walter Brown in 2000. Brown apparently disputed the terms of the signed contract and it did not take place; although Brown has his own account of the situation. According to Georgia State University biology professor Fred K. Parrish, who was "tricked" into a April 1985 public debate with Brown, Brown debates around the U.S. and has a set of preconditions (such as Brown speaks first, the debate moderator sits on his side, etc). It sounds like a General Religion Forum Discussion. we can both find people who disagree with whom steps or doesn't step into the spotlight. how about DR. KENT HOVIND? i know you'll find alot of people that disagree with him but that doesn't make them right. did you actually watch what DR. BROWN HAD TO SAY? or read icons of evolution.these people aren't trying to you saved but rather giving you more information to consider besides the one-sided evolutionary view |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Krimsa
on
Thu 02/05/09 09:48 AM
|
|
I have already told you that if you have read a book or have something of interest to share, then you need to be capable of summarization. Every time you have asked me a question, I have done this for you. To just throw a book title out there but then offer no summarization leads me to believe that A. you have not read it yourself or B. You are unable to comprehend the subject matter so therefore you avoid summary.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have already told you that if you have read a book or have something of interest to share, then you need to be capable of summarization. Every time you have asked me a question, I have done this for you. To just throw a book title out there but then offer no summarization leads me to believe that A. you have not read it yourself or B. You are unable to comprehend the subject matter so therefore you avoid summary. if you read it for yourself you more likely to have more of an open mind rather than biased opinion from something that i write. that's what i do |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
how about DR. KENT HOVIND? i know you'll find a lot of people that disagree with him but that doesn't make them right. did you actually watch what DR. BROWN HAD TO SAY? or read icons of evolution.these people aren't trying to you saved but rather giving you more information to consider besides the one-sided evolutionary view What makes the people who disagree with Dr. Hovind's "Theories" right is scientific fact. And what would have really happened, had his "theories" actually happened. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes I have read Walt Brown's theory. I have several problems with it in fact. To begin with "hydroplate theory" is a hypothesis, not a legitimate scientific theory. It is incapable of any broad predictions (the way plate tectonics does), and it hasn't survived the rigorous scrutiny required of a scientific theory which I already mentioned. Inconsistencies of the "hydroplate hypothesis" have been widely noted. This is my main issue with it but Im sure if I were to look at it again, I could find more problems.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have already told you that if you have read a book or have something of interest to share, then you need to be capable of summarization. Every time you have asked me a question, I have done this for you. To just throw a book title out there but then offer no summarization leads me to believe that A. you have not read it yourself or B. You are unable to comprehend the subject matter so therefore you avoid summary. if you read it for yourself you more likely to have more of an open mind rather than biased opinion from something that i write. that's what i do Not his theory! That book! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
how about DR. KENT HOVIND? i know you'll find a lot of people that disagree with him but that doesn't make them right. did you actually watch what DR. BROWN HAD TO SAY? or read icons of evolution.these people aren't trying to you saved but rather giving you more information to consider besides the one-sided evolutionary view What makes the people who disagree with Dr. Hovind's "Theories" right is scientific fact. And what would have really happened, had his "theories" actually happened. evolution doesn't have any actual testable science. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What are you talking about? Do you understand the difference between a hypothesis and a theory? What about a natural law?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What are you talking about? Do you understand the difference between a hypothesis and a theory? What about a natural law? you need to ask yourself that !! but please explain the natural law to me so that i may up my intelligence from your point of view |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The reason that I am asking you that is you don’t seem to differentiate between these Christian "scientists" who have come up with hypotheses and an actual theory that has withstood scientific evaluation and scrutiny. That is why I posed the question to you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The reason that I am asking you that is you don’t seem to differentiate between these Christian "scientists" who have come up with hypotheses and an actual theory that has withstood scientific evaluation and scrutiny. That is why I posed the question to you. that 's just a ridiculous statement about me. what would call evolution? some of the scientists (Christian and none)have agreed that evolution doesn't make a good hypothese much less an actuall theory. who are the one's scrutinizing these so'called theories?apparently they are ONLY seing from their point of view. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The reason that I am asking you that is you don’t seem to differentiate between these Christian "scientists" who have come up with hypotheses and an actual theory that has withstood scientific evaluation and scrutiny. That is why I posed the question to you. that 's just a ridiculous statement about me. what would call evolution? some of the scientists (Christian and none)have agreed that evolution doesn't make a good hypothese much less an actuall theory. who are the one's scrutinizing these so'called theories?apparently they are ONLY seing from their point of view. The theory of Evolution is just that. A Theory. Definition of a theory taken from Wikipedia "Definitively speaking, a theory is a unifying principle that explains a body of facts and the laws based on them. In other words, it is an explanation to a set of observations. Additionally, in contrast with a theorem the statement of the theory is generally accepted only in some tentative fashion as opposed to regarding it as having been conclusively established. This may merely indicate, as it does in the sciences, that the theory was arrived at using potentially faulty inferences (scientific induction) as opposed to the necessary inferences used in mathematical proofs. In these cases the term theory does not suggest a low confidence in the claim and many uses of the term in the sciences require just the opposite." Now here is hypothesis also taken from Wiki. A hypothesis consists either of a suggested explanation for an observable phenomenon or of a reasoned proposal predicting a possible causal correlation among multiple phenomena. The term derives from the Greek, hypotithenai meaning "to put under" or "to suppose." The scientific method requires that one can test a scientific hypothesis. Scientists generally base such hypotheses on previous observations or on extensions of scientific theories. Even though the words "hypothesis" and "theory" are often used synonymously in common and informal usage, a scientific hypothesis is not the same as a scientific theory. A Hypothesis is never to be stated as a question, but always as a statement with an explanation following it. It is not to be a question because it states what he/she thinks or believes will occur. These were both taken from objective sources on the internet. They are not in my own words so you can not accuse me of "making it up" or being "biased." |
|
|
|
|
