Young earth vs old earth theory?

So you’re calling every fossil fuel company silly for developing fuel for your car that you don’t even believe in. You just pay money to a pump that pumps fuel that doesn’t even exists. How silly is that ?

 

Your petroleum powered car. The stars in the sky that took billions of years for you to see that are no longer there. Science doesn’t prove anything. But there is more evidence then assuming all the fossils and carbon dating is wrong. Maybe you don’t believe in things like particle accelerators and science. But some do and it has given you cell phones that can’t exist without a universe that is billions of years old.

 

I've never heard a more ridiculously false idea of how science works!!

Who are these "interpreters" who make the decisions on how this univere works?

It's as if you think scientists measure stuff and then stand back to see what others make of it.

But in the real world, scientists create and test theories which are descriptions of the mechanisms at work in our universe. They are absolutely not waiting around for someone else to do their job.

 

All deniers are doing is admitting they don’t understand anything beyond what they are told to believe by people like Sean Hannity. and Tucker Carlson.

 

perfect stop the steal donor

 

It has been my experience that people who believe in creation "science" exhibit the same adamantine rejection of accepted fact and the same rhetorical tactics as holocaust deniers, anti vaxxers and flat earthers. That is, the structure of their arguments and rebuttals are almost identical, only the subject differing.

 

I see youve drunk the koolaid Dunning Kruger and extreme confirmation bias conspire to enable you to wholly accept marginalized "experts" peddling garbage science designed to confirm your particular "delivered" personal philosophy,

I can totally understand how something as arcane as nuclear physics is nothing more than atheistic mumbo jumbo to scriptural literalists

 

Science is not a school.

Not a prediction; a supposition. The power of prediction ONLY exists in closed systems, such as logic and mathematics. It does NOT exist in open systems, such as science and religion. Science can only "predict nature" via the formalization of theories into a closed system, such as mathematics.

WRONG. See above.

WRONG. See above. Predictions are the direct result of a closed functional system (such as mathematics). Without such a closed system, there is NO power of prediction. There is only supposition.

No it isn't...

We are all unique.

 

Well done !

 

Correct.

Correct. The Bible contains a story of [1] creation, [2] the fall, [3] redemption (salvation), and [4] restoration.

Everything contained within the Bible is significant for one reason or another, even the "boring" listings of genealogy and tribe numbers and etc...

Faith is simply belief in (or against) a circular argument. Evidence is simply any statement that supports an argument.

Correct.

Correct, but it DOES have supporting evidence. The Bible, for example, is supporting evidence for it. So is life itself. So is the very high number of people who call themselves "Christians".

I don't either. It is simply faith, as I have defined it earlier. There also happens to be supporting evidence, but supporting evidence is not a proof of anything.

Science does not make use of supporting evidence. Science only makes use of CONFLICTING evidence, which is what falsifies theories. No theory of science is ever proven to be true; it is merely accepted as true until it is falsified. Many theories of science have yet to be falsified. Those theories are what constitute "science", which is a set of falsifiable theories. There is no supporting evidence involved, no schooling involved, no college courses involved, no credentials involved, no people involved, no consensus involved, no peer review involved, and etc... Just the theories themselves. Not saying that those things don't happen or aren't useful, but just that they aren't what science is nor do they make anything into science.

 

Only religious faith demands unwavering devotion to ideas that lack evidence. That same tenant filters into the politics of gop devotees as well.

If someone disappointed you 10 of 11 times, that would be enough evidence to look elsewhere for answers. That’s science. It doesn’t seem to faze devotees of trickle down in the gop. Why ? Because they have faith. No proof, no evidence and no ideas of their own. But they do have preachers......

 

Opinions are not supporting evidence.

 

Lots of opinions about science....none of which is true. Just find a science text, and read it. It’s not magic like religion professes to be. .

 

A book opinions is not supporting evidence. If it was, the Tora, Quran etc. would all be just as valid evidence. They are not. You chose to accept one of eight major religions to believe over science and disregards the rest as evidence. Scientist just disregard all eight. What makes you so special ?

 

"Science does not make use of supporting evidence.

Patently false!
Evidence can either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis.

 

The things he is saying are just so obviously absurd, that, at this point, he ia3 just trying to get attention.

 

I concur.

 

Schools are where science is taught. There are also schools of thought. NONE of either of these suggests your notions in this thread concerning how science works, where laws come from, what a theory is,, whether a human has to be there as a witness, whether we can use science to better understand what will happen under certain conditions in the future, etc.

Laws are predictions. If a law or theory has no predictive value then it is absolutely worthless. We value the theories of evolution and relativity ONLY because they have predictive value.

How could one possibly suggest that a theory (which explains a mechanism) or a law (which states a relationship) could be of value if they don't place limits on outcomes?

Whether a system is closed or not is only one of the reasons that a law or theory may not predict accurately. And, remember that there are laws even in thermodynamics that pertain to systems that aren't closed. Laws can have all sorts of limitations. One has to know the law well enough to understand where it may be depended upon.

Newton thought his law of gravity was solid. But, he didn't know about the theory of relativity. That has nothing to do with "closed" or "open" - it has to do with the fact that in the natural sciences one can never be free of the possibility of factors that we just don't know about.

Another demostration of this is the failure to resolve quantum mechanics and Einstein gravity.

 

Science makes massive use of supporting evidence.

It's just that supporting evidence doesn't result in a proof of truth.

It meaks no sense AT ALL to attempt to move from the fact that there is no way of proving a theory to be true to the idea that there is no use of supporting evidence.

Neither the theory of relativity nor the theory of evolution received acceptance until there was supporting evidence.

And, the very idea that scientists aren't constantly developing evidence is just plain silly.

 

Science is not a textbook. Religion is not magic.

 

They ARE evidence for their related religions, just as the Bible is evidence for Christianity.

Yes, I do. I choose it on a faith basis.

WRONG. My religious choices have absolutely NOTHING to do with my acceptance or rejection of science. Religion is not at odds with science. They are completely separate and different things.

No, I accept the rest as evidence all the same.

No, they don't. There are scientists with all sorts of religious beliefs.

 

When I first joined this forum, I saw some pretty responsible and educated people on it. Most different from the forum I was going to. However, those people would actually read articles referenced to. While there some in here that will do so, you and many other don't. That is the answer to your question. You will find references listed in the articles. New Scientist and Stanford University as examples.

 

It doesn't.

Incorrect.

There is no such thing as a "scientific theory". There are only theories. The theories which are falsifiable, and continue to survive internal and external testing, are theories of science. Theories which fail such testing are no longer theories of science. Theories which are not falsifiable are theories of religion.

Supporting evidence is only useful for theories of religion. All the supporting evidence in the world makes no lick of difference with regard to theories of science. CONFLICTING evidence, however, is very important with regard to theories of science. That is what falsifies them, you see...

 

Secularists will never understand "Faith." It's beyond them. Even doubting Thomas as an Apostle could not understand it. He needed empirical evidence. And, he got it when Jesus appeared from nowhere in a windowless room showing himself and his wounds in his hands and feet. Only then would Thomas "Believe in Christ." He still lacked faith. If you believe the Gospel of Thomas is actually from Thomas then you see he had no faith.

Religion is not at odds with science. But, science isn't at odds with Religion either. Science, properly interpreted, shows the Bible to be true including Genesis.

There are some scientists that believe in God. There are some that don't. There are some that don't do their science work trying to prove either one true.

 

I can't believe this is still a thing.

I live in a country with some of the dumbest people on the planet.