Originally posted by Halitose Using their currently scarce observations, I'd say they have the model about as accurate as one can get it. (Billions of years) It might just never have happened if they were preempted by the creation of a mature universe.
If your epistemology allows you to fall back on this explanation, then what use do you have for any science, since any descriptive claim is subject to the same refutation [plants are only green because God made them that way, not because they evolved to photosynthesize], and any predictive claim is subject to being preempted [this apple will fall if I drop it, unless God steps in and stops it].
If you truly believe your claim, then science has no worth to you, since you must find that all scientific predictions are equally likely to fail, and all scientific descriptions are equally skeptical.
Originally posted by DoctorScribbles I don't have a biologist's understanding of it, for I have never studied it scientifically. My understanding of it derives primarily from popular science literature. I understand the core principle to hold that natural selection, which has been observed to occur in the wild and in the laboratory, is the explanatory phenomenon that accounts for th ...[text shortened]... selves according to my design goals did not detract from the intelligence or value of my design.
The intelligent designer was GOD. We as humman beings just did not happen.All that science is looking at is those things, that have created by GOD. Sciencetists have created nothing. they have only dicovered and named what GOD has already created.
Originally posted by blindfaith101 Sciencetists have created nothing. they have only dicovered and named what GOD has already created.
Did scientists or GOD create the atomic bombs that the United States dropped on Japan? Did scientists or GOD create the airplanes from which they were dropped?
Originally posted by DoctorScribbles Good. Now, did this happen billions of years ago, as the cosmologists say?
Could it be that the hours of a day elapsed slower than they do now. Up until Adam sinned were we not living in the space of time of GOD'S Will. No that man is living in a sinful state time is moving faster and faster. As we get closer to the end of time and enter into eternity.
Originally posted by blindfaith101 Could it be that the hours of a day elapsed slower than they do now.
Not according to the literalist KellyJay. If God inspired 'day' to be written, then 'day' as we understand it is exactly what he meant, and to think otherwise is to fail to give him literary credit.
Originally posted by DoctorScribbles Did scientists or GOD create the atomic bombs that the United States dropped on Japan? Did scientists or GOD create the airplanes from which they were dropped?
GOD created the molecules and the rocks that went into making those bombers and bombs. Man used them in the way that he thought they were or should be used. Being that this was done in the time of war, and not in the time of peace, were they not used as they should.
Would they not have not been ussed differently if they were created during a time of peace. Knowing the destructive powers that they contained.
Originally posted by DoctorScribbles Not according to the literalist KellyJay. If God inspired 'day' to be written, then 'day' [b]as we understand it is exactly what he meant, and to think otherwise is to fail to give him literary credit.[/b]
Then it would be true that GOD did all HE did in the literal time of one day.
Originally posted by DoctorScribbles If your epistemology allows you to fall back on this explanation, then what use do you have for any science, since any descriptive claim is subject to the same refutation [plants are only green because God made them that way, not because they evolved to photosynthesize], and any predictive claim is subject to being preempted [this apple ...[text shortened]... c predictions are equally likely to fail, and all scientific descriptions are equally skeptical.
C'mon Doc, thats not the way I see it. The way you described is very closed-minded indeed. My differences with mainstream science only hinge on their proposed start of the universe and the few repercussions that use this base assumption for further ramification.
The big bang is a model, not absolute fact. The past, in such a gigantic sense is not quite falsifiable IMO.
Originally posted by Halitose C'mon Doc, thats not the way I see it. The way you described is very closed-minded indeed. My differences with mainstream science only hinge on their proposed start of the universe and the few repercussions that use this base assumption for further ramification.
The big bang is a model, not absolute fact. The past, in such a gigantic sense is not quite falsifiable IMO.
What characteristic of the Big Bang model makes it not falsifiable?
Originally posted by Halitose It being a proposed once off event with little conclusive proof?
A lack of proof, conclusive or otherwise, does not imply that a theory is not falsifiable. Think about it - it suggests that it is quite falsifiable. There is no proof supporting the theory that a unicorn lives inside of my toilet and drinks the flushed water, and that theory is also falsifiable.
Theories about one-time events may be falsifiable. For example, if the Big Bang theory claimed that it happened yesterday, I could demonstrate that theory to be false using empirical evidence.
So, why do you say the Big Bang theory is not falsifiable? Or do you now agree that it is?
Originally posted by DoctorScribbles A lack of proof, conclusive or otherwise, does not imply that a theory is not falsifiable. Think about it - it suggests that it is quite falsifiable. There is no proof supporting the theory that a unicorn lives inside of my toilet and drinks the flushed water, and that theory is also falsifiable.
Theories about one-time events may be falsifiabl ...[text shortened]... .
So, why do you say the Big Bang theory is not falsifiable? Or do you now agree that it is?
Originally posted by Halitose I stand corrected... 😏
Very good. Let us pop that issue off the stack and return to my claim about your epistemology having no use for science. You originally refuted my claim about it by saying that the Big Bang was a special case meriting that special epistemology. Now you have retracted that refutation, admitting that the Big Bang is not a special case among scientifc theories.
Do you now accept my claim about your epistemology having no use for science, or would you care to attempt to refute it on other grounds?
Originally posted by DoctorScribbles Very good. Let us pop that issue off the stack and return to my claim about your epistemology having no use for science. You originally refuted my claim about it by saying that the Big Bang was a special case meriting that special epistemology. Now you have retracted that refutation, admitting that the Big Bang is not a special case among scientif ...[text shortened]... stemology having no use for science, or would you care to attempt to refute it on other grounds?
Fair enough. As I said before, its a plausible enough theory.
Originally posted by DoctorScribbles Very good. Let us pop that issue off the stack and return to my claim about your epistemology having no use for science. You originally refuted my claim about it by saying that the Big Bang was a special case meriting that special epistemology. Now you have retracted that refutation, admitting that the Big Bang is not a special case among scientif ...[text shortened]... stemology having no use for science, or would you care to attempt to refute it on other grounds?
Although it is one specific case where science seems to contradict a literal interpretation of the Bible...and therefore merits special epistemology.
A Serious Question: Literalism v. Time
22 Oct '05 18:005 edits
Back to Top