Creation vs. Evolution

[noguru]

My claim is based on reading scripture. You may also benefit from Ussher's Annals of the World.

Some people say Young Earth Creationists believe the world is only 10,000-20,000 years old. I believe 6,000 to 10,000 would be more accurate for what they believe. I believe only about 6,000 years ago. That is what I believe the generations spoken of in the Bible and chronologies derived from the Bible (and human history) show.

Right, so you want your reading of Genesis to serve as the foundational assumption of any research program into origins. That is religion, not science. It is really rather simple, no matter how much you object. I have no problem with that as long as you are honest about it.

 

[noguru]

That doesn't answer any of my questions. I don't think they were unreasonable. I think you don't know anything about the origins of our species, or indeed anything about the history of our planet.

I hope no one takes you seriously.

Stuart

Why would they? He is floundering around with science as well as theology. One must consider the source when reading comments, and compare those comments to what can be determined. A person who is incompetent eventually shows their true colors.

 

[Jacob]

It is what it is. You do not seem to be offering a compelling argument for anything you are posting. What is it exactly that you are claiming? Your ideas are as clear as a brook right after a sudden intense summer rain. That part is transparent.

I'm claiming a few things.

Science does not disprove the Bible.

The first sin of Adam and Eve (the first man and first woman respectively), who lived about 6,000 years ago, brought about what many people call "the fall".

The fall may have involved the bringing about of the second law of thermodynamics, or the second law of thermodynamics existed since God spoke the world into existence.

All mankind existing today came through one woman, Eve, and at least one of the four women who were her descendants, who are the four wives of Noah and his sons.

I am also claiming that the timetables often recognized by many scientists (often scientists who do not believe in God of Jesus) may not be entirely reliable, though they and others have come to believe in them.

 

[noguru]

I am evaluating whether or not you believe empiricism is the only way of knowing anything.

1.) Do you accept empiricism as a way to verify claims?

2.) If you do not think empiricism is the only way to verify claims, what other methodology are you offering?

Will you answer these questions squarely?

I doubt it. It serves your purpose to conceal the weaknesses of your argument, because it has no strengths. And you think that claims of divine authority can rescue you from that fate.

 

[Jacob]

That doesn't answer any of my questions. I don't think they were unreasonable. I think you don't know anything about the origins of our species, or indeed anything about the history of our planet.

I hope no one takes you seriously.

Stuart

I don't have the same questions you do, but I hope you see I have reasons for believing what I do.

 

[Jacob]

1.) Do you accept empiricism as a way to verify claims?

Some but not all claims can be verified through empiricism.

2.) If you do not think empiricism is the only way to verify claims, what other methodology are you offering?

If I must pick a philosophical theory of knowledge, I would probably be correspondence. I believe truth is that which corresponds to reality.

Will you answer these questions squarely?

I trust God and I believe science is useful for understanding His creation.

I doubt it. It serves your purpose to conceal the weaknesses of your argument, because it has no strengths. And you think that claims of divine authority can rescue you from that fate.

I'm certainly not going to say I don't believe in God.

 

[noguru]

I'm claiming a few things.

Science does not disprove the Bible.

I agree. Since they deal with different things, and scripture is not scientific text.

The first sin of Adam and Eve (the first man and first woman respectively), who lived about 6,000 years ago, brought about what many people call "the fall".

What objective criteria will you use to verify/falsify that claim?

The fall may have involved the bringing about of the second law of thermodynamics, or the second law of thermodynamics existed since God spoke the world into existence.

What objective criteria will you use to verify/falsify that claim?

All mankind existing today came through one woman, Eve, and at least one of the four women who were her descendants, who are the four wives of Noah and his sons.

What objective criteria will you use to verify/falsify that claim?

I am also claiming that the timetables often recognized by many scientists (often scientists who do not believe in God of Jesus) may not be entirely reliable, though they and others have come to believe in them.

What objective criteria will you use to verify/falsify that claim?

Can you demonstrate in any objective way for others to see that your model is more accurate?

 

[noguru]

Some but not all claims can be verified through empiricism.

If I must pick a philosophical theory of knowledge, I would probably be correspondence. I believe truth is that which corresponds to reality.

So you do accept empiricism as a way to verify/falsify claims for some things?

What percentage?

What objective criteria do you use to determine when we cannot use empiricism?

Correspondence?

How does that work?

Is this correspondence subjected to any objective criteria we can use to verify/falsify its accuracy?

The rest of what you posted has nothing to do with science as it is currently used.

Are you saying that your belief in God should be broadcasted from the platform created by science?

 

[Jacob]

I agree. Since they deal with different things, and scripture is not scientific text.

Okay, but you just posted recently that my problem is that I am dealing with both Theology and science which can't be done?!

What objective criteria will you use to verify/falsify that claim?

That's a difficult question, because the words "the fall" are not found in the scriptures, as far as I know. I believe they are a Theological idea.

What objective criteria will you use to verify/falsify that claim?

That is also a difficult question. I hope my answer will help you see. Simply the fact that the second law of thermodynamics could not have existed before the creation of the world.

What objective criteria will you use to verify/falsify that claim?

I would go to the Bible for this, though some people say it can be proven by science, or that science has come to the same conclusion (sometimes with the added position that it is (their belief) though on a different timetable).

What objective criteria will you use to verify/falsify that claim?
That's a good question. I trust genealogies and the fossil record before I can think to examine claims by evolutionists, for example.

Can you demonstrate in any objective way for others to see that your model is more accurate?[/QUOTE]
I don't know if I understand your question.

 

[Jacob]

So you do accept empiricism as a way to verify/falsify claims for some things?

Yes.

What percentage?

I simply believe we can detect things through our senses, but that not all measurements or observations will explain everything about the world in which we live. I don't have a percentage.

What objective criteria do you use to determine when we cannot use empiricism?

I can answer with a question. How do you test the claim that all knowledge comes to us by way of empiricism?

Correspondence?

Correspondence theory of truth

How does that work?

The article I just provided a link for will help you along your way.

Is this correspondence subjected to any objective criteria we can use to verify/falsify its accuracy?

I believe there is such a thing as both objective and subjective truth.

The rest of what you posted has nothing to do with science as it is currently used.

Not all knowledge is obtained through science.

Are you saying that your belief in God should be broadcasted from the platform created by science?

It is God who created the world in which we live.

 

[noguru]

Okay, but you just posted recently that my problem is that I am dealing with both Theology and science which can't be done?!

That's a difficult question, because the words "the fall" are not found in the scriptures, as far as I know. I believe they are a Theological idea.

That is also a difficult question. I hope my answer will help you see. Simply the fact that the second law of thermodynamics could not have existed before the creation of the world.

I would go to the Bible for this, though some people say it can be proven by science, or that science has come to the same conclusion (sometimes with the added position that it is (their belief) though on a different timetable).
Can you demonstrate in any objective way for others to see that your model is more accurate?
I don't know if I understand your question.

So in other words you want us to abandon empirical falsification/verification in science if they contradict your interpretation of Genesis. This is exactly what I have been saying about your claims all along. Despite the fact that you try to conceal your non-scientific claims with fancy sounding "science" talk.

 

[Jacob]

So in other words you want us to abandon empirical falsification/verification in science if they contradict your interpretation of Genesis. This is exactly what I have been saying about your claims all along. Despite the fact that you try to conceal your non-scientific claims with fancy sounding "science" talk.

I don't believe I have said this, but I do not have any reason to doubt this is what you have been saying.

I believe people are capable of making errors. That is fundamental to my position.

 

[noguru]

Yes.

Then we agree on this.

I simply believe we can detect things through our senses, but that not all measurements or observations will explain everything about the world in which we live. I don't have a percentage.

I am asking you to demonstrate the veracity of your claims, not to simply restate what you believe.

I can answer with a question. How do you test the claim that all knowledge comes to us by way of empiricism?

I answered this already. You logic is akin to verifying a letter in the alphabet. We establish their representation as real components of words and real syllables. In a similar manner empirical evidence is based on real events that we experience.

At any rate, you have already agreed with the validity of this method for some things, why are you rejecting it now?

Oh that's right because you are trying to deceive us.

Correspondence theory of truth

This theory of knowledge still compares an idea to the reality around us, that reality is what we call empirical evidence. You still have not escaped the reality of empiricism, as much as you are trying to wiggle out of it.

I believe there is such a thing as both objective and subjective truth.

Yes. This is covered in philosophy 101. However, what would you call a "subjective truth" that is not an accurate representation of the "objective truth"?

Not all knowledge is obtained through science.

I agree. But we were discussing science, not something else.

It is God who created the world in which we live.

Would you like to broadcast your belief about this one more time, because I do not think you have made it abundantly clear that this is what you believe?

:help:

:rotfl:

 

[noguru]

I don't believe I have said this, but I do not have any reason to doubt this is what you have been saying.

I believe people are capable of making errors. That is fundamental to my position.

Errors are certainly a fundamental part of your position.

 

[noguru]

Untellectual, you certainly are a slippery fellow. I do not trust you as far as I can throw you.

 

[Jacob]

Then we agree on this.

Ok.

I am asking you to demonstrate the veracity of your claims, not to simply restate what you believe.

If you don't understand what I am saying, I feel the need to say what I am saying.

I answered this already. You logic is akin to verifying a letter in the alphabet. We establish their representation as real components of words and real syllables. In a similar manner empirical evidence is based on real events that we experience.

It is true that we as individuals experience things. Sometimes, however, we rely on the testimony of someone else who has experienced things. And often this is done in science.

At any rate, you have already agreed with the validity of this method for some things, why are you rejecting it now?

Oh that's right because you are trying to deceive us.

Why do you believe I am trying to deceive you or anyone else? I do believe empirical means are a way of knowing some things, but not all things. It is possible to me that something can be known and yet not be empirically testable. Why do you think I am now rejecting that some things are known, and can be known, empirically?

This theory of knowledge still compares an idea to the reality around us, that reality is what we call empirical evidence. You still have not escaped the reality of empiricism, as much as you are trying to wiggle out of it.

I don't understand what you just said.

Yes. This is covered in philosophy 101. However, what would you call a "subjective truth" that is not an accurate representation of the "objective truth"?

People sometimes make subjective claims about objective truth or truths.

I agree. But we were discussing science, not something else.

We are now discussing philosophy, where the epistemology of science can be examined. That is, to not accept all that is called science on blind faith.

Would you like to broadcast your belief about this one more time, because I do not think you have made it abundantly clear that this is what you believe?

:help:

:rotfl:

I'm confused as to if you are trying to build me up in the things of God, or pretend you are a Christian in order to tear me down. Do you believe God created the world? You know what I believe on the subject.

 

[Jacob]

Errors are certainly a fundamental part of your position.

I believe the genealogies in the Bible are more reliable than carbon dating.

 

[Jacob]

Untellectual, you certainly are a slippery fellow. I do not trust you as far as I can throw you.

You were asking yesterday if I wanted to confide in you. Now you say you don't trust me.

 

[alwight]

I believe the genealogies in the Bible are more reliable that carbon dating.

Then that's just blind faith, not a problem with all the various concurring scientific dating methods available that don't help Genesis with being a narrative and factual account.

 

[noguru]

You were asking yesterday if I wanted to confide in you. Now you say you don't trust me.

Your credibility is horrendous. I don't care what religion you claim. Your claimed religion does not save you from your real behavior. Later.