- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: The Scientific Establishment Is Finally Starting To Take Intelligent Design Seriously
Posted on 5/23/22 at 7:48 am to BamaAtl
Posted on 5/23/22 at 7:48 am to BamaAtl
quote:Ah, the old "spark" theory. THAT explains it!
After that initial spark
Ladies and Gentlemen, please cast all the other deliberations aside!
BamaAtl just identified an originating spark accounting for previous unknowns in science.
0
Posted on 5/23/22 at 7:52 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
There is voluminous evidence of a massive Mesopotamian flood. The evidence is not just Biblical. It is physical and described in cuneiform records as well.
Sure, but the story makes no moral sense whatsoever if it were a regional flood. The writers of the story clearly believed in a global flood. And if that’s not the case, and it’s clearly not, what reason do I have to take anything else in there at face value? Especially when we know with a reasonable degree of historical certainty other things in there (the exodus account, the Roman census of the gospels, etc) did not and could not have happened as described as well? When we know the creation account couldn’t have happened?
Posted on 5/23/22 at 7:59 am to Roger Klarvin
quote:
I don’t have any emotional attachment to his name.
One day you will. One day everyone will say His name.
Posted on 5/23/22 at 8:02 am to Roger Klarvin
quote:
neither testable or falsifiable.
You would have to agree that covers a lot of claims made by proponents of evolution.
Posted on 5/23/22 at 8:04 am to Flats
quote:
You would have to agree that covers a lot of claims made by proponents of evolution.
Such as?
Posted on 5/23/22 at 8:05 am to riccoar
Every knee shall bow and every tongue confess....
Posted on 5/23/22 at 8:21 am to Roger Klarvin
quote:
Such as?
All life descended from the same single cell organism, for starters.
There are enormous gaps in both our knowledge and the fossil record, but people "know" random mutation/natural selection filled those gaps. That can be tested to a degree depending on evidence, but it can never be falsified.
Posted on 5/23/22 at 8:27 am to Flats
quote:
All life descended from the same single cell organism, for starters.
There are enormous gaps in both our knowledge and the fossil record, but people "know" random mutation/natural selection filled those gaps. That can be tested to a degree depending on evidence, but it can never be falsified.
That’s not true at all. Evolutionary theory could be immediately falsified by even a single discovery in multiple different fields.
For instance, if even one single fossilized organism were found outside of its expected rock strata the entire theory collapses instantaneously.
That’s the thing about foundational concepts in the sciences, they always have to be true all the time without exception or they must be refined or discarded. And for 150 years people have been trying to find just one thing to falsify evolutionary theory and yet it remains as the foundational principle of all the biological sciences.
This post was edited on 5/23/22 at 8:30 am
Posted on 5/23/22 at 8:41 am to Roger Klarvin
quote:
For instance, if even one single fossilized organism were found outside of its expected rock strata the entire theory collapses instantaneously.
You ignored the first claim. Is it possible to falsify the claim that all life on earth descended from the same single-celled organism, the formation of which we'll conveniently exclude from our all encompassing foundational principle for all biology because we can't explain it. How does one falsify a historical claim that wasn't observed and can't be recreated?
As for the rest, the theory changes all the time to explain whatever we find. Evolution is supposed to be gradual; no, wait, sometimes it's sudden. Well, it's both. Ever hear of "punctuated equilibrium?"
Posted on 5/23/22 at 8:51 am to bayoubengals88
quote:
(he [Jordan Peterson] certainly rejects biblical literalism.)
The other Christians in this thread would be wise to do the same when it comes to online conversations.
Firstly, Jordan Peterson is a very new "Christian"; the Boy Genius isn't sure of his Faith yet or understanding of Scripture (he's no Bible teacher -- he's still learning himself.)
More importantly, if Scripture isn't taken literally when it is the obvious intent (as specifically in Genesis), then God is being called a liar and His claims illegitimate or silly.
Lukewarm "Christians" who abide in this position are hedging their bet. It will bite them in The End.
Pagans/Agnostics/Atheists all snicker over pulling the wool over Christians' eyes on selling the "Biblical literalism")
Posted on 5/23/22 at 8:54 am to bayoubengals88
quote:
Christianity being an alternative to nihilism and a provider of meaning. The soul finishing satisfaction in what it longs for, which you kind of alluded to.
Far more than that.
Are you familiar with the Gospel and Sinners' need for Redemption and a Savior?
Posted on 5/23/22 at 8:59 am to Flats
quote:
Is it possible to falsify the claim that all life on earth descended from the same single-celled organism
Sure, discover an organism without RNA or DNA as it’s base components. Or an organism that possesses DNA or RNA but that utilizes wholly unique mechanisms of replication.
quote:
How does one falsify a historical claim that wasn't observed and can't be recreated?
Because it’s not a historical claim, it’s a scientific claim.
quote:
the theory changes all the time to explain whatever we find.
This is incorrect, the foundational concepts remain unchanged. If they changed, it would no longer be evolutionary theory.
quote:
Evolution is supposed to be gradual; no, wait, sometimes it's sudden. Well, it's both. Ever hear of "punctuated equilibrium?"
This has nothing to do with the base principles of evolutionary theory. If I paint my house over any time frame from 1 week to 10 years, at what point have I not in fact painted the house?
Posted on 5/23/22 at 9:05 am to Liberator
quote:He's a better Bible teacher than most Baptist preachers.
Firstly, Jordan Peterson is a very new "Christian"; the Boy Genius isn't sure of his Faith yet or understanding of Scripture (he's no Bible teacher -- he's still learning himself.)
quote:
More importantly, if Scripture isn't taken literally when it is the obvious intent (as specifically in Genesis), then God is being called a liar and His claims illegitimate or silly.
If this were true, Genesis 1 and 2 would be irreconcialiable. It's the least literal of any section of Scripture. Posted on 5/23/22 at 9:13 am to Liberator
quote:
More importantly, if Scripture isn't taken literally when it is the obvious intent (as specifically in Genesis), then God is being called a liar and His claims illegitimate or silly.
Genesis 1 and 2 are direct contradictions if taken as literal truth. They by definition cannot both be literally true
Posted on 5/23/22 at 9:39 am to Roger Klarvin
quote:Well (a) you're entitled to your own "moral" conclusion, I guess. (b) Flood stories abound in nearly all protohistoric cultures, not just the Mesopotamian subsets. (c) It seems glacier derived inland lakes/seas released at various points resulting in prodigious flooding (GLOF) which would have devastated anything in the path. (d) Civilization in that timeframe often coalesced in low-lying areas abutting rivers/streams. So settlements would have been particularly vulnerable to GLOF disasters. (e) For any survivors, these catastrophes would seem like the end of the world.
Sure, but the story makes no moral sense whatsoever if it were a regional flood.
Posted on 5/23/22 at 9:42 am to Roger Klarvin
quote:
Sure, discover an organism without RNA or DNA as it’s base components.
And the Theory of Evolution would just be tweaked to encompass the new mechanism. "All forms of life descended from 2, not 1 organism. Evolution!!!"
quote:
Because it’s not a historical claim, it’s a scientific claim.
This is silly and Hankish. It's a claim about something that happened in history; call it what you want. We didn't observe it; one of the foundational principles of the scientific method. We can't recreate it; that's sort of another big one.
quote:
This is incorrect, the foundational concepts remain unchanged. If they changed, it would no longer be evolutionary theory.
This is just false. Slow, gradual change over time WAS a foundational concept of evolution. When the fossil record didn't always support it just got amended. "Well, sometimes it's slow and gradual and sometimes it's not. It depends on what we find". No matter what physical evidence is found "evolution" just gets expanded to explain it. And there are plenty of scientists who don't believe in God any more than you do who've noticed how the game works and think it looks more like a religion than science.
Posted on 5/23/22 at 10:05 am to Roger Klarvin
quote:
Especially when we know with a reasonable degree of historical certainty other things in there (the exodus account, the Roman census of the gospels, etc) did not and could not have happened as described as well?
quote:
When we know the creation account couldn’t have happened?
The Bible is loaded with allegory. e.g., Everyone knows mustard seeds don't grow to become huge trees. Farmers of the time would certainly have known that. But reference of "huge tree" in the parable as opposed to big plant provides the audience with clearer meaning. Similarly, the "days" of Genesis are of unspecified timeframes. What is it we know of for certainty is incorrect re: the exodus? Same for the census, it doesn't seem like a terribly important detail, why would it be exaggerated, embellished, invented?
Posted on 5/23/22 at 11:10 am to Flats
quote:
Slow, gradual change over time WAS a foundational concept of evolution.
Neither gradualism nor punctuated equilibrium fundamentally disagree on the basic tenets of evolutionary theory - only on the speed of the mechanism.
Posted on 5/23/22 at 4:49 pm to Liberator
quote:Yes, but thankfully that’s not the only aspect of Christianity that I’m familiar with.
Are you familiar with the Gospel and Sinners' need for Redemption and a Savior?
Posted on 5/23/22 at 5:37 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
And for 150 years people have been trying to find just one thing to falsify evolutionary theory and yet it remains as the foundational principle of all the biological sciences.
You are wrong in so many ways.
Its called the Second Law of Thermodynamics
Maybe you should read up on it.
Page 22 of 23
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News