Sea floor spreading proving Earth more than 6K yo.

Originally posted by KellyJay
What would you think you'd see, fossils on mountain tops of sea creatures?
Kelly

That is explained by plate tectonics, the earths crust is moving, hence why we get earthquakes. Besides that's one small piece of the picture, for your version to have occurred, I would make a guess that every single scientific discipline is incorrect. How can that be?

Originally posted by KellyJay
Science cannot prove God, it has built in blinders for such a thing.
Kelly

So what are you criticizing it for? Also what do you mean built in blinders? The only outcome which can be reliable is the positive one, the negative one could be as a result of confounding, this can't happen for the positive result. Science may as well proceed on an agnostic basis; and answer its questions in its own terms. The evidence is clearly for an old universe and clearly for an old earth. If your dates are correct then when God hit the reset button he did a good job of making the universe appear old. With exception of ethics religion doesn't add anything useful to science.

Originally posted by DeepThought
With exception of ethics religion doesn't add anything useful to science.

Religion doesn't add anything useful to ethics either and it certainly doesn't add ethics to science. Religion subtracts from ethics.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Religion doesn't add anything useful to ethics either and it certainly doesn't add ethics to science. Religion subtracts from ethics.

I was trying to preempt them bringing ethics into the equation. The religious narrative involves non-repeatable observations, so it's no use for science which requires observations to be repeatable.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Science cannot prove God, it has built in blinders for such a thing.
Kelly

Such as what?


It is very easy to say "science can't prove god because it's biased or blind" ...

But you don't just get to assert it, you have to prove it.


Science is the study of the reality we live in whatever that reality is.



And while a being as powerful as your god could hide itself from our experiments
if it so chose... That is not the fault of science.


I defy you (or anyone else) to explain how it is that science is incapable of
detecting, or dealing with, god/s.


You certainly can't just assert that science can't detect god/s and expect anyone
to accept that on your say so.

Originally posted by DeepThought
I was trying to preempt them bringing ethics into the equation. The religious narrative involves non-repeatable observations, so it's no use for science which requires observations to be repeatable.

That's too limited.

Just because an event only happens once and is not repeatable does not
mean its immune from scientific analysis or enquiry.

Having events repeat is obviously helpful and allows for greater study and
more reliable conclusions. But being non-repeatable isn't a get out of jail
free card for avoiding science.

There are all kinds of things that are studied that you can't do repeatable
experiments on... The Earth's climate for example.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
That is explained by plate tectonics, the earths crust is moving, hence why we get earthquakes. Besides that's one small piece of the picture, for your version to have occurred, I would make a guess that every single scientific discipline is incorrect. How can that be?

Plate tectonics has been used in support of the worldwide flood.

Dating methods wrong:

YouTube

YouTube

The Instructor

Originally posted by googlefudge
That's too limited.

Just because an event only happens once and is not repeatable does not
mean its immune from scientific analysis or enquiry.

Having events repeat is obviously helpful and allows for greater study and
more reliable conclusions. But being non-repeatable isn't a get out of jail
free card for avoiding science.

There are all ...[text shortened]... re studied that you can't do repeatable
experiments on... The Earth's climate for example.

I said observation, not event. The big bang only happened once, but we can make repeated measurements of the cosmic microwave background. Other than ancient accounts, there is is an absence of scientifically useful evidence either for or against any particular miracle. How do you intend to make a repeatable observation to determine the veracity of the Lazarus story? We don't have anything independent of the bible to check the details, so we're basically left speculating about medical conditions that leave the victim appearing to be dead from which they can recover, but we can't do tissue tests so we can't prove anything. Basically the evidence they are giving is no use to science because there isn't anything repeatable or predictable happening with miracles.

Originally posted by DeepThought
I said observation, not event. The big bang only happened once, but we can make repeated measurements of the cosmic microwave background. Other than ancient accounts, there is is an absence of scientifically useful evidence either for or against any particular miracle. How do you intend to make a repeatable observation to determine the veracity of the to science because there isn't anything repeatable or predictable happening with miracles.

Macroevolution a.k.a. evilution is not repeatable, so it is just speculation that has become a religious belief of atheists. If it should be taught in science classes, then opposing religious beliefs should also have their place. Otherwise, remove them all from science classes.

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
Macroevolution a.k.a. evilution is not repeatable, so it is just speculation that has become a religious belief of atheists. If it should be taught in science classes, then opposing religious beliefs should also have their place. Otherwise, remove them all from science classes.

The Instructor

so what should a science teacher teach when it comes to creationism that wouldnt involve telling a story? what are the scientific facts he would convay to the children?

Originally posted by stellspalfie
so what should a science teacher teach when it comes to creationism that wouldnt involve telling a story? what are the scientific facts he would convay to the children?

They could be taught that living things appear to be designed by a super intelligent designer and what these design features are for one thing. Even evolutionists have admitted that there is an appearance of design in nature.

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
Macroevolution a.k.a. evilution is not repeatable, so it is just speculation that has become a religious belief of atheists. If it should be taught in science classes, then opposing religious beliefs should also have their place. Otherwise, remove them all from science classes.

The Instructor

Dope it's been observed in laboratory experiments on fruit flies, repeatedly.

Originally posted by RJHinds
They could be taught that living things appear to be designed by a super intelligent designer and what these design features are for one thing. Even evolutionists have admitted that there is an appearance of design in nature.

The Instructor

i said no stories. what are the scientific theories, give me the science rj. what science will the children be taught.

the science teacher sets up his equipment gathers the class and says 'im going to show you guys an experiment that show how we know there is an intelligent designer'...........what does he show them?

Originally posted by stellspalfie
i said no stories. what are the scientific theories, give me the science rj. what science will the children be taught.

the science teacher sets up his equipment gathers the class and says 'im going to show you guys an experiment that show how we know there is an intelligent designer'...........what does he show them?

And further, since you will undoubtedly show some bogus pseudo science nonsense video espousing nothing but the opinion of the maker, would it be allowed to show irrefutable evidence against such bogus pseudo science BS?

Originally posted by sonhouse
And further, since you will undoubtedly show some bogus pseudo science nonsense video espousing nothing but the opinion of the maker, would it be allowed to show irrefutable evidence against such bogus pseudo science BS?

Well, your evilutionists are claiming millions and billions of years in age for things they have no idea how old they are and no way to prove it to the students. Giving something an age should be prohibited in science classes for all those things that are claimed to be millions and billions of years old. That is lying to the students.

The Instructor