Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Four Big Bangs: Theism Defended Against Atheism With Science

BCSpace

By BCSpace
in General Discussions

Recommended Posts

cdowis Grand Master

cdowis

Posted
Posted

What American history class teaches that there was an ancient war where millions of warriors died in the battle?

 

Well, did you read the source documents in class?  

 

Oops,none are extant -- they were destroyed by the Spanish, et al.

Rodeo Community Regular

Rodeo

Posted
Posted

Nonsense. We don't know exactly what electricity is. But we do use it. You are using it right now.

 

That is a perfect example of the fallacy of Ad Hoc ergo Post Hoc reasoning.

Difference here is that we actually know electricity exists. We can observe it, test it, etc. Lifes origins are far from observation, testable, etc. I could hypothesize that we are just an alien experiment and still be in the same position as you.

1
thesometimesaint Grand Master

thesometimesaint

Posted
Posted

Have any of you really looked at the evidences for catastrophe theory with an open mind?

 

Depends on what you mean by catastrophe theory. Major catastrophic events have happened in the past and presumably will happen in the future. IE; There has been 5 major extinctions level events in earths long history. A world wide flood in the time of Noah not so much. 

thesometimesaint Grand Master

thesometimesaint

Posted
Posted (edited)

Well, did you read the source documents in class?  

 

Oops,none are extant -- they were destroyed by the Spanish, et al.

 

Sorry the only language I read in is English. BTW The Mayan civilization was destroyed long before Spain existed as a country. 

Edited by thesometimesaint
MormonFreeThinker Mentor

MormonFreeThinker

Posted
Posted (edited)

Yet in both articles they are not sure how life first evolved and that they are just guessing. 

 

We do not know, and the scriptures do not talk about abiogenesis. 

The scriptures talk about the creation of plants, animals, and humans, not about the creation of bacteria or the first cell. I believe that God used Evolution to create plants, animals, and humans. 

 

I simply don't know the cause of abiogenesis, what about you? Do you know? What is the evidence? 

Edited by MormonFreeThinker
ERayR Grand Master

ERayR

Posted
Posted

We do not know, and the scriptures do not talk about abiogenesis. 

The scriptures talk about the creation of plants, animals, and humans, not about the creation of bacteria or the first cell. I believe that God used Evolution to create plants, animals, and humans. 

 

I simply don't know the cause of abiogenesis, what about you? Do you know? What is the evidence? 

 

Slaps forehead and groans.  :crazy: :crazy: 8P 8P

Rodeo Community Regular

Rodeo

Posted
Posted

We do not know, and the scriptures do not talk about abiogenesis. 

The scriptures talk about the creation of plants, animals, and humans, not about the creation of bacteria or the first cell. I believe that God used Evolution to create plants, animals, and humans. 

 

I simply don't know the cause of abiogenesis, what about you? Do you know? What is the evidence?

There is no evidence for abiogenesis.

danielwoods Grand Master

danielwoods

Posted
Posted

but you said that science cannot prove the past 

 

I made a point you ignored. So I illustrated my point by making a conclusion. 

 

The point is that data we collect about the past has to be interpreted. You didn't even acknowledge this to be the case. Ones interpreation is based on your a priori beliefs. Beliefs that can't be proven or demonstrated, such as uniformitarianism (the present is the key to the past). My interpretation of the data we observe is different from yours, and by extension so are my conclusions.

 

For example. The geologic column. How did it get there? We both observe the same data (the column), but we come to different conclusions. If you are correct, that it is representative of millions of years of evolution, then the Bible is false. I don't think that the geologic column represents millions of years though. I think it represents a major world wide flood, which then caused a world wide ice age. So you see, the same data can be interpreted in different ways.

cdowis Grand Master

cdowis

Posted
Posted (edited)

. BTW The Mayan civilization was destroyed long before Spain existed as a country. 

 

Did you even bother to google it?  

 

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=did%20spanish%20destroyed%20mayan%20books&safe=active

 

 

For example, 

 

"The Maya - a powerful pre-Colombian civilization who reached their cultural zenith around 600-800 A.D. before falling into steep decline - were literate and had books, written in a complex language including pictograms, glyphs and phonetic representations. A Maya book is referred to as a codex (plural: codices). The codices were painted onto a paper made of bark from the fig tree, and folded out like an accordion. Unfortunately, zealous Spanish priests destroyed most of these codices during the conquest and colonial era and today only four examples survive.              http://latinamericanhistory.about.com/od/Maya/p/Maya-Books.htm
Edited by cdowis
thesometimesaint Grand Master

thesometimesaint

Posted
Posted

I made a point you ignored. So I illustrated my point by making a conclusion. 

 

The point is that data we collect about the past has to be interpreted. You didn't even acknowledge this to be the case. Ones interpreation is based on your a priori beliefs. Beliefs that can't be proven or demonstrated, such as uniformitarianism (the present is the key to the past). My interpretation of the data we observe is different from yours, and by extension so are my conclusions.

 

For example. The geologic column. How did it get there? We both observe the same data (the column), but we come to different conclusions. If you are correct, that it is representative of millions of years of evolution, then the Bible is false. I don't think that the geologic column represents millions of years though. I think it represents a major world wide flood, which then caused a world wide ice age. So you see, the same data can be interpreted in different ways.

 

Science is not based on what is proven. It is based on what is falsifiable. Lets keep it simple shall we? For thousands of years it was widely believe that the bigger an object is the faster it falls. Galileo falsified that belief.

 

The Bible has been falsified in many of its claims. BTW The Bible doesn't anywhere give the age of the earth. That is from the fevered mind of Archbishop Ussher.

SEE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ussher_chronology

ERayR Grand Master

ERayR

Posted
Posted

Maybe. Not all experiments are successful in the desired outcome.

 

I did not intimate in any way they were.  I did not even mention outcomes.

 

Oh, and by the way, your examples were outcomes from highly controlled lab environments which favors it being an alien experiment more than a random happening.

thesometimesaint Grand Master

thesometimesaint

Posted
Posted

Yes I already know that these experiments prove intelligent design. What I want to know is how come they cannot reproduce life "naturally" without an intelligent designer manipulating the environment and outcomes.

 

More Post Hoc Ergo Prompter Hoc fallacy.

thesometimesaint Grand Master

thesometimesaint

Posted
Posted

I did not intimate in any way they were.  I did not even mention outcomes.

 

Oh, and by the way, your examples were outcomes from highly controlled lab environments which favors it being an alien experiment more than a random happening.

 

Neither Abiogenesis nor Evolution is random.

ERayR Grand Master

ERayR

Posted
Posted

For example. The geologic column. How did it get there? We both observe the same data (the column), but we come to different conclusions. If you are correct, that it is representative of millions of years of evolution, then the Bible is false. I don't think that the geologic column represents millions of years though. I think it represents a major world wide flood, which then caused a world wide ice age. So you see, the same data can be interpreted in different ways.

 

Or maybe consider catastrophism.  It works really well.

1
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...