Jump to content


Photo

Science 101


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
64 replies to this topic

#61 usafjay1976

usafjay1976

    Member

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 418 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas
  • Interests:Religion, Creation, Air Force, Traveling, Cooking, Movies
  • Age: 39
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 11 December 2012 - 08:37 AM

I posted post #60 about a week ago. No response yet. Anyone?

#62 herebedragons

herebedragons

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 84 posts
  • Age: 45
  • Christian
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Michigan

Posted 11 December 2012 - 09:26 AM

I posted post #60 about a week ago. No response yet. Anyone?


I plan to respond when I get time, this is finals week for me, so kinda busy.

In the mean time maybe you could respond to some of the things I posted and maybe answer some of the questions I had for you.

HBD

#63 usafjay1976

usafjay1976

    Member

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 418 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas
  • Interests:Religion, Creation, Air Force, Traveling, Cooking, Movies
  • Age: 39
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 14 December 2012 - 06:41 AM

herebedragons,

Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. I went through some of our previous discussions but I couldn't find any specific questions. Would you mind repeating them? Thanks.

#64 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,140 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 14 December 2012 - 07:24 AM

.... I have no idea what you mean by "identical genetic coding". That's what duplicates are, two identical (or near-identical) bits of code.


They are not necessarily the same. Duplication is a copying process with identical coding as a result. But they may just be the same without having come into being by duplication.

#65 usafjay1976

usafjay1976

    Member

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 418 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas
  • Interests:Religion, Creation, Air Force, Traveling, Cooking, Movies
  • Age: 39
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 14 December 2012 - 08:30 AM

Hi usafjay ... There appears to be serious confusion over what "empirical" means compared to "experimental." They are not the same thing. Empirical evidence is knowledge that we can acquire through the use of our senses. It can involve experimentation or observation. Thus, an Empiricist is someone who believes that the only knowledge we can use to construct reality is that which we derive from our senses - or in other words, the only things that really exist are those we can discover with our senses ... or empirically. This is opposed to Rationalism which contends that our senses can be deceived and therefore the only things that we can confidently use to construct our reality are those that we rationalize or logically deduce in our minds. Empirical evidence is not the same as experimental evidence but they are often mistakenly considered to be synonymous. The empirical method is the process of collecting data and using that empirical data to create and verify theories. Empirical data can be obtained from observations or from the results of experimentation. I posted a rather lengthy discussion about how observational science works here and apparently it got overlooked. Experimental evidence is a part of empirical evidence but is much more rigorous in its collection. This is the scientific method of which you refer to in your OP. It is generally used to establish causation. Without experimental evidence causation is difficult to establish conclusively (and even with experimental results causation is still somewhat tentative). However, to repeat, it is not the only reliable way to collect data. Our senses can deceive us and observational sciences need to recognize this. One way to ensure that a conclusion is justified using observational data is to collect data from multiple sources or approach a problem from different directions. If multiple lines of evidence all point to the same conclusion, then the conclusion is supported. Another important point is that conclusions based on observations should agree with previously established theories until enough evidence is accumulated to require adjustment to the established theory. As a simple example ... are you familiar with Criss Angel? So when I observe him levitate there is no reason to conclude that gravitational theory needs to be re-thought. There is no reason to conclude there is some magical force behind his defiance of gravity. Gravity is so firmly established that even though we observe him defy gravity we know it must be our senses that have been deceived. However, if we observed many people levitating, in all kinds of situations, we may need to rethink the theory and come up with a viable explanation for the phenomenon. The conclusion of the matter is this: If you think there is insufficient evidence to support the theory of evolution, that is a reasonable position. If your premise is that the evidence for evolution is purely circumstantial, I can understand that. But to say that it is not scientific because it is not experimental science is not a tenable position. I also find it inconsistent that because evolution cannot meet the unrealistically high level of empirical evidence that is demanded, that it should be replaced with theories that have even fewer examples of empirical evidence. Personally, I see this as a matter of where a person sits on the continuum between empiricism and rationalism ... too far towards the empiricism end and one denies the reality of anything outside of our senses; too far towards the rationalism end and one denies the reality of our senses. To find a place somewhere close to the middle of this spectrum is to have the best chance of constructing an accurate view of reality. HBD


Herebedragons,
I believe mixing evolution with creation contradicts the Bible. Why? Because Genesis is the beginning of the bible and tells of how God created the world and all things in it. This is our foundation. If you have a weak foundation, anything else you build on it will crumble. Example: If you mix evolution with creation, you have a weak foundation. Was 6 days 6 literal days or was it billions of years? Did God really create all the creatures in this world or just some of them and let evolution take over? Did Christ really die on the Cross for our sins and rise again or is this just a story as well? If we can’t take Genesis as being literal, and if we can’t believe God is the creator of all things, does that not weaken our faith? How are we to believe anything in the Bible?
I read this article titled The Perils of Theistic Evolution. I found it interesting to say the least, and I would think any true Christian that believes in theistic evolution would find it a good read.
http://creation.com/...istic-evolution
One of the problems with evolution is it is generally taught as fact. If it is indeed a fact, than there is no God. That’s my main problem. If it was taught as a theory and the problems with the theory, and how conclusions were drawn, that would be a different story. I’m sure some of this is taught in college level classes. But ever since elementary schools, we immediately start hearing about the big bang, dinosaurs, billions of years, and how everything evolved. Never is it mentioned that there is no evidence for this, no evidence for biogenesis, just “yep, it evolved, it’s our best guess and here is how we guess it probably happened”.
I don’t put my faith in probablies or maybes. I don’t discount or limit God by mixing in His creation and His Word with evolution and what fallible man believes.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users