Have you read any of the other posts? Does only that which is a considered scienctific field allowed in the realm of truth?
ARCHIVE: Best evidence for young earth supernatural creation.
- Thread starter noguru
- Start date
Have you read any of the other posts? Does only that which is a considered scienctific field allowed in the realm of truth?
PlastikBuddha
New member
It certainly doesn't mean it is true, either. Science requires a bit more than that. Namely, evidence. If all we were basing our assumption that G.W. was indeed the first president of the US of A was one textbook then we would be foolish indeed- but there are many sources for this information.
Why did you so quickly edit your original post?
Can a history book contain scientific truths?
Evoken
New member
PlastikBuddha
New member
Not in a form that is verifiable- it may allude to them, but the book itself is not evidence.
A history book is not evidence? Oh my gosh.
What evidence can you provide (without using a history text, letter, note, poem, scribble, tablet, etching, etc...) that George Washington was married?
I want scientific evidence...you know...only that which can be proved in say a physics class.
You have to use only that which can be proven using a physics text.
Did you change what you originally wrote because you knew you were wrong?
Evoken
New member
You are obfuscating. Just post evidence from any scientific dicipline that supports creationism. That is all the OP is asking for.
Evo
PlastikBuddha
New member
The history books are based on facts- verifiable facts. I imagine Washington's marriage was no big secret and that letters, court documents, church records or whatever could be produced to back up that claim. I am willing to accept that he was married until proven otherwise. What does this have to do with the bible being scientific?
SUTG
New member
Something like "I used to believe in the story of evolution until I became a systems engineer and worked on complex defense systems and then realized that the cell was complex. You can read about this in my Cell Trends Too thread. With the current DNA evidence I realized that the "molecules to man" theory was impossible and the best explanation was the explanation given in genesis which also solves the Starlight Travel problem. Most scientists are now abandoning evolution. I believe the eventually all scientist will abandon the theory, I only hoope i will be alive to see it. Oh yeah, and the Second law of Thermodynamics and ireeducible Complexity."
You are again incorrect. Here is what the opening post asked for:
Where in the opening post did it ever mention evidence from a scientific discipline?
Let's try this real slow.
The opening post asked for evidence.
I provided some from a history book.
My evidence was not accepted because it was from a history book and would not be used in a "science class". I am merely trying to determine why is history not considered evidence by noguru!
I then used the same "rules" of excluding that which I was unwilling to accept in asking a history question...but the proof can only come from a science textbook.
I want to know why is a history text not evidence in a science class. And then I want to ask is a science text evidence in a history class?
In post (#26) you are unwilling to accept a history book as evidence. Now you are willing to accept historical documents (i.e. history texts) as evidence.
I quoted from a history book (the Bible) as evidence. It was excluded because it was not a science book. Why is only that which is in a science book allowed as evidence?
Let me get this straight. Only that which can be proved in a science class is true. If it can't be proved in a science class it's true, "but only if it is fictional."
Did you go to public schools?
PlastikBuddha
New member
You can't see the difference between a history textbook and the documents and records that provided its basis? In scientific matters, only scientific evidence is allowed. The bible, history texts, comic books- these don't cut the mustard.
macguy
New member
I don't think the Bible is scientific per se, and you're correct in that regard. However, although it is not meant to provide a scientific perspective the purpose of the Bible is to give a historical account of what did occur.
Damian
New member
I did not respond to your original post, but to the original post of the moderator of this thread.
PlastikBuddha
New member
I'm not arguing to throw the bible out with the bath water- just claiming that it is not sufficient to back up a "scientific" claim of supernatural creation. Of course, I haven't seen you try to use it in that way. You already have a good idea of what does and doesn't belong in a discussion like this, and you've argued your side well.
Did you just compare the 15 volume history textbook set "History of United States Naval Operations in World War II" (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0762854316/interesting-20)
To a comic book?
PlastikBuddha
New member
In terms of relevence to a discussion on the science of a supernatural creation? You better believe I did.