Right Divider
Body part
My apologies... please continue with your questions.
The earth is flat and we never went to the moon--Part II
- Thread starter DFT_Dave
- Start date
- Status
Thank you.
OK.
I haven't seen any science textbook that says the earth is under 10000 years old.
About how old do you think the earth is?
OK, this is starting to get off topic (imagine that!) of what shape the earth is.
My main interest is the connection to scripture.
I can't imagine anyone could read all the descriptions of earth in scripture and ever come away with the notion that earth is a ball, much less a spinning ball.
Unless you throw all of it on the pile of spiritualizing or calling it all metaphoric.
That pile keeps growing.
That's because they're written by people who reject that God made the universe in 6 days, and those in positions of authority within the scientific community do anything they can to silence those who even voice any sort of opinion against Darwinism.
"Slaughter of the Dissidents" by Jerry Bergman details this.
Just about 7000 years old.
There is enough scripture in the Bible that says the earth is a ball. But even if it didn't say anything at all about the shape of the earth, we would know that it's a ball because of everything that's been talked about in this and the original thread so far.
https://creation.com/isaiah-40-22-circle-sphere
https://kgov.com/flat
https://kgov.com/flat-earth
No reason to read it any other way than plainly.
You're moving the goalposts, Tam.
The Bible is supported by science.
That is not to say that there are things in the Bible that cannot be explained by science.
As far as the six day creation, why do you say that "science" does not support it? Because last I checked, the only thing that darwinists can even try to use as evidence for millions of years is the millions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the earth, which is evidence of a global flood, not millions of years...
So you disagree with Psalm 19:1-6?
Because if science is the study of nature, and all of creation points to God, then by definition science is examining God's handiwork.
There are only three (and I challenge you to come up with a fourth) theoretical possibilities for the origin of the universe.
The first and second laws of thermodynamics state that the universe could not have created itself and that the universe could not have always existed (the first and second possibility).
Unless you can come up with an alternative to the only remaining option, that a supernatural Creator brought the universe into existence, there is no other plausible theory of origin of the universe.
Scientists make claims.
Science is just knowledge.
Which is, what, exactly?
Because as I said above, the evidence is that the earth is young.
https://kgov.com/old
That's a list of things that scientists claim are old but are really not.
I don't understand this argument. This sounds like you're simply stating that science can't explain the supernatural. How is that anything but a tautology? Anything supernatural would not fall under the purview of science, by definition.
That isn't to say that there is no evidence for creation or that miracles violate the laws of reason but simply that God did not used some form of technology or materialistic/naturalistic science to perform the creation or any other miracle.
Right Divider
Body part
Those are not scientific in the true sense. Conjecture about the distant past is not true science.
About 7000 years or so.
OK.
That is simply not true. Scripture does not teach a flat earth. Many have devised a story where they claim that it does, but it does not.
Believe me, I've investigated many of those scripture that people claim say the earth is flat and they fail once you read them in context.
Real scientific observation supports a global and not a flat earth. I'd love to hear your explanation of how these observations can be explained on a flat earth.
Right Divider
Body part
I wouldn't put it that way. Any one time event does not fall in the domain of what I will call operational science where repeated and repeatable observations are required. One time events require another type of knowledge (science).
:thumb:
One time events may be difficult to study but that doesn't put them outside the purview of science in any fundamental way. A physical event inside the physical universe that happens via the normal physical laws of the natural world cannot be said to be a super-scientific (i.e. super natural) event in any meaningful sense. In fact, it is the understanding of the laws of physics that would permit any understanding at all of a one time only physical events, if any such event has ever occurred. (Its sort of hard to think of a truly one time event, apart from something like the Big Bang, which is not even secular science places outside of the category of the theoretical.)
Science, by the way, is NOT defined by the so called "scientific method", which I think is where you're coming from here. There was all kinds of science that occurred before there was any such word as "science" or any concept of a formal "scientific method". Science, in the sense in which are discussing it, is simply the application of sound reason to the understanding of the physical world (universe).
Clete
Right Divider
Body part
I'm not arguing that. I'm saying that non-repeatable events that cannot be repeated to measure and analyze in the that, for example, gravity can be experimented on.
Do you not see the difference between these two types of "knowledge"?
Who are you arguing with?
I am arguing with the notion that one time events are some how outside the purview of science.
What sort of one time event are you refering to?
Right Divider
Body part
Who are you arguing with? I said no such thing.
Any one time event cannot be repeated for experimentation purposes, like operational science requires.The kind of science whereby we understand the effects of gravity, or chemical reactions, or ballistics, or etc. etc. etc.
There are different types of science.
Your implication, it seemed to me, was that a one time event is somehow super-scientific and is outside that which science can study and understand anything about. And while a one time event cannot be repeated, by definition, it's effects can be studied and we can thus form theories concerning the event that should yield testable predictions about other effects that we should be able to find evidence for if that theory is correct. All of which is a very scientific process.
What sort of one time event are you talking about?
Right Divider
Body part
See above.... I was not saying that they "cannot be studied". I cannot see where you got that from what I posted. I was simply saying (again) that they are not studied in the same way as repeatable events can be studied (by the very nature of repeatability).
How would you apply your "testable predictions" model to something like the virgin birth or the creation of all things?
Well, don't be offended by my challenge. It simply seemed to me that you were relagating one time events to a category that would render them unfalsifiable, which would not be a desirable position to hold.
I agree with you that unrecorded, one time events cannot be studied directly in the same sense that an event like the freezing of a body of water can be.
The virgin birth is a tough one. My mind goes to the fact that it is Adam in which we all fell, not Eve. As such, it would seem that sin passes from one generation to the next through the father rather than through the mother. If so, anyone born of a virgin would not inherit the sin nature which would be evidenced by the person's ability to live a life free of sin. Of course, testing that theory can only be done by God but the point is that it can be done.
The Creation of all things is easier, especially if you have an aproximate age of the creation. If God created the universe only so many thousands of years ago then there should be a whole list of not so old things.
Sorry it took so long to respond to this. I somehow over looked the notification.
Clete
Right Divider
Body part
Please show some quote from me that could lead you to that conclusion. I cannot see how you got there from what I wrote.
That was exactly my point and nothing else.
I never opposed that in any way.
Again, never opposed that in any way.
No problem.
Clete, I was simply making it clear that there are different kinds of science and that they require different ways of working out the results.
A classic example of a problem with science is when evolutionists run "experiments" trying to "prove" a one time event, like the origin of their supposed first life form.
Or when some oppose the virgin birth as "unscientific", while not even understanding what science really is.
As I said, it bore clarification and did so without injury.
You see! I think we're in complete agreement and then you go and say something like this that throws the whole point into doubt again.
In what way would running experiments be fundamentally antithetical to an attempt to prove a one time event? People who don't believe in God actually do believe that life arose spontaniously from a collection of organic molecules. If they can devise an experiment to test that hypothesis then more power to them! I doubt very much that their experiments will ever succeed but that doesn't make them unscientific.
I guess what I don't get is what the purpose of making the distinction between one time events and common every day events is designed to do. How does that advance the argument? Whether one type of events is studied with a different type of science or not, it's still science, right? I mean, science is really just the application of sound reason to some system one wishes to understand. So whether one uses the formal "scientific method" or not, so long as the system or event in question is come at in a rationally consistent and objective manner, then it's still science, right? If so, then where's the profit in making the distinction between one time events and regular events?
Clete
Right Divider
Body part
I didn't say that it would be antithetical to an attempt to prove a one time event. My point is that it cannot be repeated and therefore a different type of science is required.
The "origin of life" event is a strange one in that it begins with shear speculation about the distant past and so any "experiment" to test that hypothesis is tainted from the start.
Yes.
Yes.
They are different, that's all.
Historical events, like the virgin birth, cannot be experimented on.
Okay, so my question is, "So what?"
How does making that observation move our side of the debate forward?
(At this point I'm not in disagreement with you, I'm just poking around and thinking it through with you.)
Clete
But you can't leave out that the cars are both moving at 100 mph relative to a motionless road. So both cars are moving at 100 mph not 0 mph.
You can't have a "speed/velocity" unless you have an immovable reference point.
Atheism is the absence of absolutes, nothing is constant, unchanging, or absolute in an evolving universe.
--Dave
- Status