Why Did Old Testament People Live So Long?

[thesometimesaint]

Common ancestory is not an established fact, it is only a theory. Please stop saying it is a fact when it is not. For it to be a fact- it has to have been observed firsthand and it must be testable. Please give me a reference where both of these principles have been documented and obseved and tested showing how all life came from a common ancestor.

 

No. Theories do not have to be firsthand observable or testable. Though that is certainly preferable. IE We have yet to reproduce a sun in the lab. But would be absurd to claim that they don't exist or never happened because of it. Therefore are just windows in the firmament.  

http://www.nas.edu/evolution/TheoryOrFact.html

 

Common Ancestry observed and tested.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/universal-common-ancestor/

[thesometimesaint]

Just to clarify- microevolution within a species is a fact. Whether these small changes can add up to big changes creating new entire species and thus account for all life evolving from a common ancestor is a theory.

 

Incorrect. At the DNA level there is no difference between so called micro-evolution and so called macro-evolution.

[Rob Osborn]

No. Theories do not have to be firsthand observable or testable. Though that is certainly preferable. IE We have yet to reproduce a sun in the lab. But would be absurd to claim that they don't exist or never happened because of it. Therefore are just windows in the firmament.  

http://www.nas.edu/evolution/TheoryOrFact.html

 

Common Ancestry observed and tested.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/universal-common-ancestor/

So, you now say its a theory and not fact. Thats what I have been saying all along.

[thesometimesaint]

So, you now say its a theory and not fact. Thats what I have been saying all along.

 

Depending on context either one is correct. IE; Gravity is a fact. The explanation of gravity is a theory.

 

With tongue in cheek. I hope you get the point. 

 

Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory

News • Science & Technology • science • christianity • ISSUE 41•33 • Aug 17, 2005

 

The debate over the teaching of evolution in public schools continues, a new controversy over the science curriculum arose Monday in this embattled Midwestern state. Scientists from the Evangelical Center For Faith-Based Reasoning are now asserting that the long-held "theory of gravity" is flawed, and they have responded to it with a new theory of Intelligent Falling.

Rev. Gabriel Burdett explains Intelligent Falling.

"Things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational force, but because a higher intelligence, 'God' if you will, is pushing them down," said Gabriel Burdett, who holds degrees in education, applied Scripture, and physics from Oral Roberts University.

Burdett added: "Gravity—which is taught to our children as a law—is founded on great gaps in understanding. The laws predict the mutual force between all bodies of mass, but they cannot explain that force. Isaac Newton himself said, 'I suspect that my theories may all depend upon a force for which philosophers have searched all of nature in vain.' Of course, he is alluding to a higher power."

Founded in 1987, the ECFR is the world's leading institution of evangelical physics, a branch of physics based on literal interpretation of the Bible.

According to the ECFR paper published simultaneously this week in the International Journal Of Science and the adolescent magazine God's Word For Teens!, there are many phenomena that cannot be explained by secular gravity alone, including such mysteries as how angels fly, how Jesus ascended into Heaven, and how Satan fell when cast out of Paradise.

The ECFR, in conjunction with the Christian Coalition and other Christian conservative action groups, is calling for public-school curriculums to give equal time to the Intelligent Falling theory. They insist they are not asking that the theory of gravity be banned from schools, but only that students be offered both sides of the issue "so they can make an informed decision."

"We just want the best possible education for Kansas' kids," Burdett said.

Proponents of Intelligent Falling assert that the different theories used by secular physicists to explain gravity are not internally consistent. Even critics of Intelligent Falling admit that Einstein's ideas about gravity are mathematically irreconcilable with quantum mechanics. This fact, Intelligent Falling proponents say, proves that gravity is a theory in crisis.

"Let's take a look at the evidence," said ECFR senior fellow Gregory Lunsden."In Matthew 15:14, Jesus says, 'And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.' He says nothing about some gravity making them fall—just that they will fall. Then, in Job 5:7, we read, 'But mankind is born to trouble, as surely as sparks fly upwards.' If gravity is pulling everything down, why do the sparks fly upwards with great surety? This clearly indicates that a conscious intelligence governs all falling."

Critics of Intelligent Falling point out that gravity is a provable law based on empirical observations of natural phenomena. Evangelical physicists, however, insist that there is no conflict between Newton's mathematics and Holy Scripture.

"Closed-minded gravitists cannot find a way to make Einstein's general relativity match up with the subatomic quantum world," said Dr. Ellen Carson, a leading Intelligent Falling expert known for her work with the Kansan Youth Ministry. "They've been trying to do it for the better part of a century now, and despite all their empirical observation and carefully compiled data, they still don't know how."

"Traditional scientists admit that they cannot explain how gravitation is supposed to work," Carson said. "What the gravity-agenda scientists need to realize is that 'gravity waves' and 'gravitons' are just secular words for 'God can do whatever He wants.'"

Some evangelical physicists propose that Intelligent Falling provides an elegant solution to the central problem of modern physics.

"Anti-falling physicists have been theorizing for decades about the 'electromagnetic force,' the 'weak nuclear force,' the 'strong nuclear force,' and so-called 'force of gravity,'" Burdett said. "And they tilt their findings toward trying to unite them into one force. But readers of the Bible have already known for millennia what this one, unified force is: His name is Jesus."

 

The Onion.

Edited March 26, 2014 by thesometimesaint

[The Nehor]

So, you now say its a theory and not fact. Thats what I have been saying all along.

Excuse me for a moment. I need to go bang my head against a wall to knock this stupidity out of it.

[Gray]

What do you mean by evolution?

 

the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations

[Gray]

Just to clarify- microevolution within a species is a fact. Whether these small changes can add up to big changes creating new entire species and thus account for all life evolving from a common ancestor is a theory.

 

There is no meaningful distinction between the two. It's just a question of time. Small changes accumulate over time, and amount to large changes. 

[Rob Osborn]

There is no meaningful distinction between the two. It's just a question of time. Small changes accumulate over time, and amount to large changes. 

Well, thats the theory anyways.

[Rob Osborn]

Excuse me for a moment. I need to go bang my head against a wall to knock this stupidity out of it.

Perhaps so, then you can come back smarter and meet me in dialogue. hehe.

[The Nehor]

Perhaps so, then you can come back smarter and meet me in dialogue. hehe.

I will have to bang it harder, cause fractures, and shove bone into the brain before what you say will make enough sense so that I can dialogue with you.

[Rob Osborn]

 

Depending on context either one is correct. IE; Gravity is a fact. The explanation of gravity is a theory.

 

With tongue in cheek. I hope you get the point. 

 

Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory

News • Science & Technology • science • christianity • ISSUE 41•33 • Aug 17, 2005

 

The debate over the teaching of evolution in public schools continues, a new controversy over the science curriculum arose Monday in this embattled Midwestern state. Scientists from the Evangelical Center For Faith-Based Reasoning are now asserting that the long-held "theory of gravity" is flawed, and they have responded to it with a new theory of Intelligent Falling.

Rev. Gabriel Burdett explains Intelligent Falling.

"Things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational force, but because a higher intelligence, 'God' if you will, is pushing them down," said Gabriel Burdett, who holds degrees in education, applied Scripture, and physics from Oral Roberts University.

Burdett added: "Gravity—which is taught to our children as a law—is founded on great gaps in understanding. The laws predict the mutual force between all bodies of mass, but they cannot explain that force. Isaac Newton himself said, 'I suspect that my theories may all depend upon a force for which philosophers have searched all of nature in vain.' Of course, he is alluding to a higher power."

Founded in 1987, the ECFR is the world's leading institution of evangelical physics, a branch of physics based on literal interpretation of the Bible.

According to the ECFR paper published simultaneously this week in the International Journal Of Science and the adolescent magazine God's Word For Teens!, there are many phenomena that cannot be explained by secular gravity alone, including such mysteries as how angels fly, how Jesus ascended into Heaven, and how Satan fell when cast out of Paradise.

The ECFR, in conjunction with the Christian Coalition and other Christian conservative action groups, is calling for public-school curriculums to give equal time to the Intelligent Falling theory. They insist they are not asking that the theory of gravity be banned from schools, but only that students be offered both sides of the issue "so they can make an informed decision."

"We just want the best possible education for Kansas' kids," Burdett said.

Proponents of Intelligent Falling assert that the different theories used by secular physicists to explain gravity are not internally consistent. Even critics of Intelligent Falling admit that Einstein's ideas about gravity are mathematically irreconcilable with quantum mechanics. This fact, Intelligent Falling proponents say, proves that gravity is a theory in crisis.

"Let's take a look at the evidence," said ECFR senior fellow Gregory Lunsden."In Matthew 15:14, Jesus says, 'And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.' He says nothing about some gravity making them fall—just that they will fall. Then, in Job 5:7, we read, 'But mankind is born to trouble, as surely as sparks fly upwards.' If gravity is pulling everything down, why do the sparks fly upwards with great surety? This clearly indicates that a conscious intelligence governs all falling."

Critics of Intelligent Falling point out that gravity is a provable law based on empirical observations of natural phenomena. Evangelical physicists, however, insist that there is no conflict between Newton's mathematics and Holy Scripture.

"Closed-minded gravitists cannot find a way to make Einstein's general relativity match up with the subatomic quantum world," said Dr. Ellen Carson, a leading Intelligent Falling expert known for her work with the Kansan Youth Ministry. "They've been trying to do it for the better part of a century now, and despite all their empirical observation and carefully compiled data, they still don't know how."

"Traditional scientists admit that they cannot explain how gravitation is supposed to work," Carson said. "What the gravity-agenda scientists need to realize is that 'gravity waves' and 'gravitons' are just secular words for 'God can do whatever He wants.'"

Some evangelical physicists propose that Intelligent Falling provides an elegant solution to the central problem of modern physics.

"Anti-falling physicists have been theorizing for decades about the 'electromagnetic force,' the 'weak nuclear force,' the 'strong nuclear force,' and so-called 'force of gravity,'" Burdett said. "And they tilt their findings toward trying to unite them into one force. But readers of the Bible have already known for millennia what this one, unified force is: His name is Jesus."

 

The Onion.

 

Yeah and in the context of Darwinian evolution of all species having a common ancestor- thats the part that is called "theory" because it is not a proven fact. It literally means, it being a theory, that it could in fact be incorrect. Thats why its called a "theory".

[The Nehor]

Yeah and in the context of Darwinian evolution of all species having a common ancestor- thats the part that is called "theory" because it is not a proven fact. It literally means, it being a theory, that it could in fact be incorrect. Thats why its called a "theory".

Stop misusing words. There is a difference between a scientific theory and the usual use of the word theory.

scientific theory:

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method, and repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation.

Now stop it. This is not the first time people have told you this.

[thesometimesaint]

Stop misusing words. There is a difference between a scientific theory and the usual use of the word theory.

scientific theory:

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method, and repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation.

Now stop it. This is not the first time people have told you this.

 

You have to remember Rob is using his own special definitions of words. Just like the Mad Hatter in Alice Through the Looking Glass.

Edited March 26, 2014 by thesometimesaint

[stemelbow]

Stop misusing words. There is a difference between a scientific theory and the usual use of the word theory.

scientific theory:

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method, and repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation.

Now stop it. This is not the first time people have told you this.

 

I don't see why people are getting upset with Rob.  his views are cute enough.  no need to get upset about it.  Besides he's right when he says "that it could in fact be incorrect". 

 

When our eyes are opened the creationists and those who oppose them so staunchly/dogmatically will all be surprised and delighted to learn how it all really took place.  "oopsies, my bad" will be shouted eternally in the heavens.  But I'll be sitting there going, "I told ya so...none of yas knew what the heck you were talking about.  Then Father will say, 'Shut up, the dude who didn't try to learn anything.  Head on down to the telestial world at this moment.  How'd you sneak in here in the first place?'" 

 

At least I'll get one satisfaction out of all of this. 

[The Nehor]

I don't see why people are getting upset with Rob.  his views are cute enough.  no need to get upset about it.  Besides he's right when he says "that it could in fact be incorrect". 

 

When our eyes are opened the creationists and those who oppose them so staunchly/dogmatically will all be surprised and delighted to learn how it all really took place.  "oopsies, my bad" will be shouted eternally in the heavens.  But I'll be sitting there going, "I told ya so...none of yas knew what the heck you were talking about.  Then Father will say, 'Shut up, the dude who didn't try to learn anything.  Head on down to the telestial world at this moment.  How'd you sneak in here in the first place?'" 

 

At least I'll get one satisfaction out of all of this.

The problem is not with Rob's conclusions. He might be right. We might all be wrong. The problem is that he lies. He says objectively wrong things to support his views and misrepresents and lies about those who disagree with him.

[stemelbow]

The problem is not with Rob's conclusions. He might be right. We might all be wrong. The problem is that he lies. He says objectively wrong things to support his views and misrepresents and lies about those who disagree with him.

 

Fine.  But he's just following scripture.  Don't blame him for that.

[The Nehor]

Fine.  But he's just following scripture.  Don't blame him for that.

I'm not. I am blaming him for lying about and misrepresenting scientific study.

[stemelbow]

I'm not. I am blaming him for lying about and misrepresenting scientific study.

 

But the precedent was set for him already. 

[thesometimesaint]

But the precedent was set for him already. 

 

I actually like Rob, and agree with him far more about the truly important stuff than I disagree with him.

 

Two wrongs don't make a right. Eventually whether we go to see God or he comes to see us, all our questions will be answered to our complete satisfaction. In the mean time we work it out the best we can using what limited tools we do have.

[stemelbow]

I actually like Rob, and agree with him far more about the truly important stuff than I disagree with him.

 

Two wrongs don't make a right. Eventually whether we go to see God or he comes to see us, all our questions will be answered to our complete satisfaction. In the mean time we work it out the best we can using what limited tools we do have.

 

Good enough.  I don't know why I butted in here.  In the sum its that I wish I was a creationist and felt compelled enough to defend it. 

[thesometimesaint]

Good enough.  I don't know why I butted in here.  In the sum its that I wish I was a creationist and felt compelled enough to defend it. 

 

If used broadly enough all Theists are Creationists. IE;  God had something to do with it. OTOH Creationism has a specific meaning which science can't support.

When scientific research produces empirical evidence and theoretical conclusions which contradict a literalist creationist interpretation of scripture, young earth creationists often reject the conclusions of the research or its underlying scientific theories or its methodology This tendency has led to political and theological controversy . Two disciplines somewhat allied with creationism—creation science and intelligent design—have been labelled "pseudoscience" by scientists^. The most notable disputes concern the evolution of living organisms, the idea of common descent, the geological history of the Earth, the formation of the solar system and the origin of the universe.

[Rob Osborn]

Stop misusing words. There is a difference between a scientific theory and the usual use of the word theory.

scientific theory:

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method, and repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation.

Now stop it. This is not the first time people have told you this.

Its a theory, its not a proven fact. Its that simple.

[The Nehor]

Its a theory, its not a proven fact. Its that simple.

 

No, it isn't. You say that and are using non-scientific definitions for the word theory and fact.

 

Using the scientific definitions the evidence supporting evolution is a fact and the explanation for how that evidence tied together is a proven theory. Of course it is all subject to overthrow if new data later contradicts these findings. That is true of all scientific data. It is THAT simple.

[Rob Osborn]

I'm not. I am blaming him for lying about and misrepresenting scientific study.

I am not lying or misrepresenting scientific study. I am nailing it square on its head. Give up the whole "theory" thing so we can move on people. You look up any textbook on scientific theory and not one says that it is indisputable fact. Why are people so uptight about evolution from common descent beibg a theory and thus possibly not true? Its not a fact such as a law so why treat it as such? Its as if you are so afraid it may indeed be false that you protect it at all cost even if it means pretending its a fact.

[Rob Osborn]

BTW, just so everyone thinks I dont have a double standard I believe special Creation by God is a theory too. I have no problem with separating fact from theory.