Originally posted by Eladar If you have to make an assumption about the existence of God and having to reject a miracle, then it is not science.
Your definition of science is simply how one works science into your religious beliefs.
In the scientific method, one rejects hypotheses that are not falsifiable. Hence, miracles are rejected as valid hypotheses - not because they are wrong per se, but because they cannot be verified. Maybe there was a miracle last week which created the universe, all the people and their memories etc. Could very well be. We can't verify that hypothesis, so we reject it.
Originally posted by KazetNagorra In the scientific method, one rejects hypotheses that are not falsifiable. Hence, miracles are rejected as valid hypotheses - not because they are wrong per se, but because they cannot be verified. Maybe there was a miracle last week which created the universe, all the people and their memories etc. Could very well be. We can't verify that hypothesis, so we reject it.
Oh! So that's what he was saying. That was unreal. "making assumptions
about god", that's precisely what we're not doing. LOL!
Originally posted by C Hess Oh! So that's what he was saying. That was unreal. "making assumptions
about god", that's precisely what we're not doing. LOL!
We do not have to make an assumption about creation, like we do for evolution, for we have a book where we are told what happened. And anyway, the Cambrian Explosion has already shown that evolution is false. That leaves only Creationism as a reliable theory.
Originally posted by KazetNagorra In the scientific method, one rejects hypotheses that are not falsifiable. Hence, miracles are rejected as valid hypotheses - not because they are wrong per se, but because they cannot be verified. Maybe there was a miracle last week which created the universe, all the people and their memories etc. Could very well be. We can't verify that hypothesis, so we reject it.
Which is exactly why I said that origins is not a topic fit for science. It is by definition a topic based on how one views the existence of God.
Originally posted by RJHinds We do not have to make an assumption about creation, like we do for evolution, for we have a book where we are told what happened. And anyway, the Cambrian Explosion has already shown that evolution is false. That leaves only Creationism as a reliable theory.
Originally posted by Eladar Which is exactly why I said that origins is not a topic fit for science. It is by definition a topic based on how one views the existence of God.
Evolutionists try to make it one. They call it "abiogenesis" because they know "spontaneous generation" has been proven wrong by the Law Of Biogenesis, but they don't like that law.
Originally posted by Eladar Which is exactly why I said that origins is not a topic fit for science. It is by definition a topic based on how one views the existence of God.
Absolutely not, because there is no need to assume divine intervention when discussing the origins of life. Even if God did intervene, there is no way we could establish it - God might have done anything - so we must reject the hypothesis for the same reason we reject the everything-created-last-week-hypothesis.
Originally posted by KazetNagorra Absolutely not, because there is no need to assume divine intervention when discussing the origins of life. Even if God did intervene, there is no way we could establish it - God might have done anything - so we must reject the hypothesis for the same reason we reject the everything-created-last-week-hypothesis.
God's way of creation may not be a miracle to someone as intelligent as God who understands how it is done. It may only be a miracle to dumb evolution scientist who obvious know very little about how life is created.
Originally posted by RJHinds God's way of creation may not be a miracle to someone as intelligent as God who understands how it is done. It may only be a miracle to dumb evolution scientist who obvious know very little about how life is created.
Where do you get off acting like you are some kind of expert on the subject? You have no degree in ANY science, your 2 years in college is not a qualification to speak as you do. You act as if you are the worlds expert on science and know everything about it when in fact all you can do is spout BS from your creationist buddies who ALSO have so much bias even if they are scientists they have no street cred in the sciences.
You don't go into a scientific field with an agenda built in, that is the opposite of seeking the truth of a subject.
It was thought for centuries the sun rotated around the Earth and the Earth was the center of the universe.
Do you think the same? That is exactly the position you are in when it comes to evolution.
Originally posted by sonhouse Where do you get off acting like you are some kind of expert on the subject? You have no degree in ANY science, your 2 years in college is not a qualification to speak as you do. You act as if you are the worlds expert on science and know everything about it when in fact all you can do is spout BS from your creationist buddies who ALSO have so much bias eve ...[text shortened]... .
Do you think the same? That is exactly the position you are in when it comes to evolution.
I believe I am in the right position. My science teacher taught me that that the theory of evolution and millions and billions of years is baloney.
Originally posted by RJHinds I believe I am in the right position. My science teacher taught me that that the theory of evolution and millions and billions of years is baloney.
So we get to the cause of your delusions. You had a fricking IDIOT teacher who was NOT a teacher but a politician looking for converts. I am sorry for your brain and your delusions.
Originally posted by RJHinds I believe I am in the right position. My science teacher taught me that that the theory of evolution and millions and billions of years is baloney.
Then your science teacher was an incompetent one. Your loss.
Why creationism is not a valid scientific hypothesis.
30 Apr '14 15:53
Back to Top