ARCHIVE: Best evidence for young earth supernatural creation.

[Damian]

Because I wanted to change what I wrote?

Good answer.

 

[chatmaggot]

Good answer.

Again, it was changed because the original was wrong. Correct?

 

[P8ntrDan]

Oh come one, don't you remember the verses that describe the structure of the water molecule, the germ theory of disease, and the nature of gravity?

Proverbs 30:33
Shaking milk makes butter, and hitting the nose brings blood. So fighting comes because of anger.

Sounds like enough 'science' to pull me through! :Clete:

 

[bob b]

noguru seemed to indicate earlier by the following quote "Are you going to use this in science class?" that only that which can be discussed in a science class can be considered true.

I quoted a history text (the Bible) and it was excluded as evidence. I wanted to know why? Just because the Bible isn't a science textbook DOESN'T mean that when it talks about scientific matters it isn't true.

It seems to me that this thread is demonstrating that our society has become so overly impressed with science that it has come to believe that nothing can be true unless or until scientists say that it is true.

We sometimes hear that scientists must be right about what has happened in the past, because if we look around us we see amazing marvels of technology like computers, TVs and cell phones, as if the development of these had anything to do with historical theories like the ToE..

Does modern education merely fill student's heads with memorized facts (and fanciful theories) instead of teaching them critical thinking skills?

 

[Evoken]

It seems to me that this thread is demonstrating that our society has become so overly impressed with science that it has come to believe that nothing can be true unless or until scientists say that it is true.

We sometimes hear that scientists must be right about what has happened in the past, because if we look around us we see amazing marvels of technology like computers, TVs and cell phones, as if the development of these had anything to do with historical theories like the ToE..

Does modern education merely fill student's heads with memorized facts instead of teaching them how to think?

You dissapoint me bob

Where is the evidence for creationism??


Evo

 

[PlastikBuddha]

Proverbs 30:33
Shaking milk makes butter, and hitting the nose brings blood. So fighting comes because of anger.

Sounds like enough 'science' to pull me through! :Clete:

That's science? The first is a recipe, the last two are obvious statements that anyone could observe. I suppose it could be broadly considered scientific in that it involves observation and deduction, but that's hardly enough to qualify as a scientific treasure trove.

 

[chatmaggot]

You dissapoint me bob

Where is the evidence for creationism??


Evo

Why is historical evidence excluded?

 

[PlastikBuddha]

It seems to me that this thread is demonstrating that our society has become so overly impressed with science that it has come to believe that nothing can be true unless or until scientists say that it is true.

We sometimes hear that scientists must be right about what has happened in the past, because if we look around us we see amazing marvels of technology like computers, TVs and cell phones, as if the development of these had anything to do with historical theories like the ToE..

Does modern education merely fill student's heads with memorized facts (and fanciful theories) instead of teaching them critical thinking skills?

Science is THE critical thinking tool.

 

[Evoken]

Why is historical evidence excluded?

Why do you use a diabolical avatar?


Evo

 

[Evoken]

Science is THE critical thinking tool.

Did you use critical thinking to arrive at that conclusion?


Evo

 

[PlastikBuddha]

Why is historical evidence excluded?

What historical evidence? The bible? There are so many creation stories out there from so many different religions. Why should one have precedence, beyond the fact that it is one that you happen to subscribe too?

 

[P8ntrDan]

No offense, but the best proof of creation of a young earth or whatever is the lack of proof for evolution. Neither can be proven scientifically, so both are theories, and both are based off belief. I just belive evolution to be a lie, as the age is based off of radiocarbon dating, which is terribly inaccurate. Radiocarbon dating has been proven inaccurate by the fact that it dated a freshly killed seal at 1300 years, had a 15,000 year difference in ages from samples taken of the same block of peat, dated a living snail shell at 27,000 years old, and dated a piece of coal that was documented to be 1680 years old at 300,000,000 years. The very most a C-14 dating can give you is 60,000 years because of its half life of 5,730 years. However, the story presented by the bible, with a water dome around the earth and the flood explains the levels of C-14. Also, the Geological timeline that scientists use by looking at rock layers is very inconsistant and a very small percentage of the world actually matches up with it. So, like I said before, the best reason to chose to belive creation is the lack of proof for evolution. Also, the documented timeline for Jesus's ancestory is actually good proof, but, just like Nacho Libre's partner, I guess you're all saying "I only belive in science..."

 

[PlastikBuddha]

Did you use critical thinking to arrive at that conclusion?


Evo

See below- I was answering the original question then everything went all crazy like.

 

[chatmaggot]

Why do you use a diabolical avatar?


Evo

It isn't a demon. In another thread on TOL the discussion was about Bigfoot. There was a link to a YouTube video about bigfoot.

After a few more clicks of similar videos there was a video of a bigfoot attack! The video can be found here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsVx09Jzvhg

My avatar is a screenschot of the bigfoot licking his/her lips before attacking.

 

[PlastikBuddha]

Did you use critical thinking to arrive at that conclusion?


Evo

Indeed. It's called the scientific method. Got anything better in your bag of tricks?

 

[P8ntrDan]

That's science? The first is a recipe, the last two are obvious statements that anyone could observe. I suppose it could be broadly considered scientific in that it involves observation and deduction, but that's hardly enough to qualify as a scientific treasure trove.

I was just making a joke. :doh:

 

[PlastikBuddha]

I was just making a joke. :doh:

Sometimes the PlastikBuddha misses those- and I am the last one laughing. :doh:

 

[P8ntrDan]

Indeed. It's called the scientific method. Got anything better in your bag of tricks?

I'd like to see each step that led you to that conclusion

 

[PlastikBuddha]

I'd like to see each step that led you to that conclusion

To the conclusion that science is the best critical thinking tool? Mostly it's because I have yet to encounter anything as effective as the scientific method in determining truth. 1. Examination of the evidence. 2. Formulating a hypothesis. 3. Testing the hypothesis. It works. Utilitarianistic, maybe- but I'm a pragmatist at heart.

 

[P8ntrDan]

To the conclusion that science is the best critical thinking tool? Mostly it's because I have yet to encounter anything as effective as the scientific method in determining truth. 1. Examination of the evidence. 2. Formulating a hypothesis. 3. Testing the hypothesis. It works. Utilitarianistic, maybe- but I'm a pragmatist at heart.

I know that, I'd just like to see your evidence, hypothesis, and test that led to your conclusion.