The Definition of Real Science

[Gus Bovona]

Thanks to the Father and to the Lord Jesus Christ, I know in Whom I believe.

By His grace & by His help, I see the iniquities that most Christians ignore in His words.

Thanks to Jesus, I see the movements of apostasy for what they are like the Promise Keeper's movement and the "holy laughter" movement.

I also have been delivered from dark forces when I had foolishly sowed to the works of the flesh.

I see the truth in His words and how science like to double talk when it comes to that definition of real science for why the evolution theory is a false science.

You can't see it like most Christians cannot see the iniquities of some of their "regular" but unbiblical church practices because like I was, I took everything at face value. No more thanks to Jesus Christ in being my Good Shepherd & Friend to help me to follow Him.

So, fellow guest member, Gus, do consider where you are going after you die, because the evolution theory is a lie. God is personal with us and we can get to know Him through His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ.

Seek the Lord while He may still be found because after the pre great tribulation rapture event when God will judge His House and a lot of saved believers will be left behind for being in unrepentant iniquity, if you are not saved before then, you will see Him in the clouds & the everlasting gospel will be preached all over the world by that first angel before that fire gets sent on the third of the earth.

Just know you can still call on Jesus Christ to save you when you see death coming.

May God bless you in your time here.

I don't see anything in there that shows that you're correct other than you saying that you're correct. If I missed it, let me know.

 

[Gus Bovona]

Jesus prophesied that in the latter days only a few will be ready as found abiding in Him because of the many iniquities abounding for when He judges His House at the pre great tribulation rapture event.

As much iniquities & dark forces He has delivered me from, I hope in him to bring me Home faultless and not just keeping me from falling.

Gus, as Christianity is riddled with false teachings and yet the authority is the Word of God, the Lord Jesus Christ, as the meat of His words have been kept in the KJV by those who loved Him & His words, where is the authority for real science unless YOU hold them to that definition of what real science is & not allow them to blur that line with suppositions or assumptions or a series of unproven hypothesis like spinning a fairy tale.

Science doesn't work on authority, it works on evidence, and the success of science is all around you. You're even talking with me through technology that is founded on science.

Prove everything, Gus. Do not take their word for it.

No person can prove everything, and science does plenty that isn't proof, as I've mentioned before.

Like that article about fossilized whale bones on the Andes mountaintops with other marine fossils found with land animal fossils buried together in the same sediments in one smooth gradient. The article tried to explain away how the marine fossils got up there by the mountain suddenly rising from the sea but they NEVER explained how the land animal fossils were found with them in that same sediment in that one smooth gradient.

If that article wants to be taken seriously, why is it on some web site instead of being a proper scientific study? Of course, the problem is that that article implies that so much of science well-supported by evidence must somehow be wrong, yet it does nothing to account for all that evidence, makes it highly problematic to begin with. It's not even a serious attempt.

They will not apply the reservoir effect to the carbon dating for why the land animal fossils are different from marine fossils,

It doesn't look like science is ignorant of the reservoir effect: the second footnote in the Wikipedia article on the marine reservoir effect is from a scientific journal.

and they still refuse to accept the fact that a Biblical global flood would throw off their carbon dating methods when it is based on the assumption that there was no global calamity in the last 55,000 years.

There's plenty of reasons to not accept a global flood other than how it might have affected carbon dating. See my previous links.

I used my brain. Evidence of the Biblical global flood.

You should have more humility, as one person's brain is often not sufficient. That's why science is so powerful, it harnesses many, many people's brains.

How about you? Can you explain away the fossilized land animals found buried with marine fossils together on that Andes mountaintop?

I'm not trusting your or my geological expertise to confirm or disconfirm any theory about those fossils. But I am pretty sure that geology, as a discipline, explains it, and that explanation fits with data from all those other disciplines I mentioned in an earlier post.

But why does any of this evidence matter if denying evolution is a necessary consequence of believing in Jesus? I don't see why you bother with evidence: believe in Jesus leads to denying evolution, and no intermediary steps are necessary. So why are we talking about evidence? You're not accepting evolution on the basis of evidence, you're not accepting evolution on the basis of Jesus.

 

[ChristB4us]

I don't see anything in there that shows that you're correct other than you saying that you're correct. If I missed it, let me know.

But isn't that what you said also, fellow member, Gus?

No. But that has nothing to do with whether your fallible belief in Jesus that leads to you rejecting evolution is somehow better than the thousands if not hundred of thousands of scientists who are actually part of an institution designed to correct bias in discovering knowledge and which argues for accepting evolution.

Numbers do not make a false science true. The evolution theory is still a false science when macroevolution cannot be observed nor proven.

 

[ChristB4us]

Science doesn't work on authority, it works on evidence, and the success of science is all around you. You're even talking with me through technology that is founded on science.

Technology founded on practical science.

No person can prove everything, and science does plenty that isn't proof, as I've mentioned before.

If that article wants to be taken seriously, why is it on some web site instead of being a proper scientific study? Of course, the problem is that that article implies that so much of science well-supported by evidence must somehow be wrong, yet it does nothing to account for all that evidence, makes it highly problematic to begin with. It's not even a serious attempt.

It doesn't look like science is ignorant of the reservoir effect: the second footnote in the Wikipedia article on the marine reservoir effect is from a scientific journal.

There's plenty of reasons to not accept a global flood other than how it might have affected carbon dating. See my previous links.

You should have more humility, as one person's brain is often not sufficient. That's why science is so powerful, it harnesses many, many people's brains.

I'm not trusting your or my geological expertise to confirm or disconfirm any theory about those fossils. But I am pretty sure that geology, as a discipline, explains it, and that explanation fits with data from all those other disciplines I mentioned in an earlier post.

But why does any of this evidence matter if denying evolution is a necessary consequence of believing in Jesus? I don't see why you bother with evidence: believe in Jesus leads to denying evolution, and no intermediary steps are necessary. So why are we talking about evidence? You're not accepting evolution on the basis of evidence, you're not accepting evolution on the basis of Jesus.

How about how science says the evolution theory has been proven and is true and yet we see no change in adding to the laws of science like "the Law of Evolution".

Can you point me to my local macroevolution facility where they can add to my DNA & I can fly and reproduce as a new species? No.

Why not if it has been proven? Because they do not know the mechanism for macroevolution. Why don't they know? Because it has never been observed for why it can never be proven. Hence a false science running amok with a series of unproven hypothesis that the fairy tale has a cult following to it.

Some believers even say it takes more faith to believe in the evolution theory than in the Bible. Sounds true to me.

 

[Sereni-tea]

The very reason we can do science at all is because God is a God of order. He has created this universe and His fingerprints are all over it. By studying His universe we see His glory, from the smallest sub-atomic particle, to the largest galaxy.
The Bible tells us to "love the Lord your God with all our heart, mind, soul and strength".

We expect scientific theories to be substantiated by evidence, and rightly so. And the peer-review system in the scientific community does just that. Is it a perfect system? No, nothing ever is. But it is a very good system.

But we, as Christians, should likewise use our minds to make sure that we are reading our Bibles correctly. As I have mentioned elsewhere, it is important for us to read Scripture in its literary and cultural context as this provides us with a better understanding of what the author is saying. This is not always easy or evident from our English translations, especially when we are so far removed in space and time from the original settings. Doing so can help ensure that we do not make the error of claiming that Scripture is saying something that it is not.

When it comes to science, Christians do not need to be afraid of what the scientific evidence shows, or doesn't show. It is God's universe, and the truth will shine through. However, it does not serve us or honour God by making leaps in judgement just because we want to prove our particular understanding of God's Word. Saying fossils on mountains prove a global flood is a massive leap, one we would not accept from science, so we should not accept it from ourselves either.

If there is evidence for, or against, any part of the theory of evolution, it should be presented in the peer-review system. Likewise, if there is evidence for, or against, a global flood, it should also be peer-reviewed.

In a similar way, Christians should discuss these topics in a humble and gentle manner, striving always to learn from each other and so bring honour and glory to God. Christians have a wide range of views on these topics and I have theologians I respect greatly on both sides.

Do not think that science and Christianity are enemies - they are not.

 

[Carbon]

The very reason we can do science at all is because God is a God of order. He has created this universe and His fingerprints are all over it. By studying His universe we see His glory, from the smallest sub-atomic particle, to the largest galaxy.
The Bible tells us to "love the Lord your God with all our heart, mind, soul and strength".

We expect scientific theories to be substantiated by evidence, and rightly so. And the peer-review system in the scientific community does just that. Is it a perfect system? No, nothing ever is. But it is a very good system.

But we, as Christians, should likewise use our minds to make sure that we are reading our Bibles correctly. As I have mentioned elsewhere, it is important for us to read Scripture in its literary and cultural context as this provides us with a better understanding of what the author is saying. This is not always easy or evident from our English translations, especially when we are so far removed in space and time from the original settings. Doing so can help ensure that we do not make the error of claiming that Scripture is saying something that it is not.

When it comes to science, Christians do not need to be afraid of what the scientific evidence shows, or doesn't show. It is God's universe, and the truth will shine through. However, it does not serve us or honour God by making leaps in judgement just because we want to prove our particular understanding of God's Word. Saying fossils on mountains prove a global flood is a massive leap, one we would not accept from science, so we should not accept it from ourselves either.

If there is evidence for, or against, any part of the theory of evolution, it should be presented in the peer-review system. Likewise, if there is evidence for, or against, a global flood, it should also be peer-reviewed.

In a similar way, Christians should discuss these topics in a humble and gentle manner, striving always to learn from each other and so bring honour and glory to God. Christians have a wide range of views on these topics and I have theologians I respect greatly on both sides.

Do not think that science and Christianity are enemies - they are not.

Amen.

 

[Mikeuk]

The definition of real science is what can be observed and proven.

The phenomenon of macroevolution has never been observed nor proven as they do not know the method that causes it for it has never been observed.

What makes a scientific theory valid?

When the phenomenon has been observed in the real world.

Evolutionists roll out the scientific theory of gravity as they hold an object in the air & let go to see it drop to demonstrate the phenomenon of gravity.

This is an example of switch & bait tactic, hoping nobody notice they are not giving an example of macroevolution to observe that phenomenon in the real world.

Some do ask them to give an example of macroevolution, but instead, evolutionists gives an example of microevolution BUT the lizard is still a lizard and a bird is still a bird. That is what the Law of Biogenesis is about as life does not comes from nothing, but life comes from similar life, thus disproving spontaneous generation and along with it, the core of the evolution theory which is macroevolution.

The evolution theory is a false science as they coined microevolution from the Law of Biogenesis, while the devil is hoping you do not see the difference when it comes to macroevolution.

1 Timothy 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: 21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.

Some anti-KJVers will say "science" is the wrong word and that it should be "knowledge" but since science deals with facts as observed and proven, we are talking about real science in the same way we are talking about real knowledge.

You do not need to go to macro evolution to see The pseudoscience of materialists in action.
Despite the loud noise in media and the billions thrown at OOL research here are the facts about abiogenesis.

1/ Nobody knows when , where , how or what happened to create the first living thing. There is no process conjectured for the step from non life to life. So it is pure conjecture. Abiognesis is not ony not a valid theory, it is not even a valid hypothesis. There is nothing to test. What is certain is the first living thing (by definition of Harvard and NASA ) was complex, and therefore a highly unlikely chemical event to happen from random chance. Nobody knows what the building blocks of life are, because nobody knows what the first living thing was made of!

Therefore any who believe in abiogenesis, have a faith, not a scientific justification for it!!!

It gets worse.

2/ At a cellular level the minimum cell we know is a massively complex , self designing , self repairing, factory of tens thousand proteins
Nobody has any clue how the first living thing( they cannot define ) evolved to be the present minimum cell. Indeed every attempt at backwards engineering by knocking out redundant function has failed below 500 genes!!! So there is no "science" of the evolution to present cells either!


So nobody knows how life started and nobody knows how it evolved from there at a cellular level. There is ony belief

IN SUMMARY SCIENCE KNOWS NOTHING AT ALL ABOUT ORIGIN OF LIFE

It is talked up, only because for atheists it is the "ony way" life can have started

Meanwhile
3/ in buenos airies, tixtla etc, bread in the eucharist really did become recently livibng cardiac tissue. Multiple forensic scientists and cardiologists in multiple locations confirmed it.

They are Life from no life.
Or as the atheist forensic pathologist lawrence stated "credible evidence of created tissue"
That alone is enough to disprove Darwin by the test darwin set in his book. Life that did not come from progressive small change.


So Christians have the evidence of science, abiogenesis believers none at all.
So why are schoolkids taught the wish beliebe abiogenesis faith instead of science?

 

[ChristB4us]

The very reason we can do science at all is because God is a God of order. He has created this universe and His fingerprints are all over it. By studying His universe we see His glory, from the smallest sub-atomic particle, to the largest galaxy.
The Bible tells us to "love the Lord your God with all our heart, mind, soul and strength".

We expect scientific theories to be substantiated by evidence, and rightly so. And the peer-review system in the scientific community does just that. Is it a perfect system? No, nothing ever is. But it is a very good system.

But we, as Christians, should likewise use our minds to make sure that we are reading our Bibles correctly. As I have mentioned elsewhere, it is important for us to read Scripture in its literary and cultural context as this provides us with a better understanding of what the author is saying. This is not always easy or evident from our English translations, especially when we are so far removed in space and time from the original settings. Doing so can help ensure that we do not make the error of claiming that Scripture is saying something that it is not.

When it comes to science, Christians do not need to be afraid of what the scientific evidence shows, or doesn't show. It is God's universe, and the truth will shine through. However, it does not serve us or honour God by making leaps in judgement just because we want to prove our particular understanding of God's Word. Saying fossils on mountains prove a global flood is a massive leap, one we would not accept from science, so we should not accept it from ourselves either.

If there is evidence for, or against, any part of the theory of evolution, it should be presented in the peer-review system. Likewise, if there is evidence for, or against, a global flood, it should also be peer-reviewed.

In a similar way, Christians should discuss these topics in a humble and gentle manner, striving always to learn from each other and so bring honour and glory to God. Christians have a wide range of views on these topics and I have theologians I respect greatly on both sides.

Do not think that science and Christianity are enemies - they are not.

But.. do not think that science is infallible and void of fallible men & there is such a thing as false science or false knowledge.

1 Timothy 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: 21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.

Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

2 Peter 3:3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. 5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. 8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. 10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. 11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, 12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? 13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness. 14 Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.

What do they do with the evolution theory but deny the Biblical global flood that Jesus said had happened along with Peter.

We & the world are being lied to by that false science, the evolution theory.

 

[ChristB4us]

The very reason we can do science at all is because God is a God of order. He has created this universe and His fingerprints are all over it. By studying His universe we see His glory, from the smallest sub-atomic particle, to the largest galaxy.
The Bible tells us to "love the Lord your God with all our heart, mind, soul and strength".

We expect scientific theories to be substantiated by evidence, and rightly so. And the peer-review system in the scientific community does just that. Is it a perfect system? No, nothing ever is. But it is a very good system.

Hence prove all things by Him and not take them at their words either, not in your church or in that science

But we, as Christians, should likewise use our minds to make sure that we are reading our Bibles correctly. As I have mentioned elsewhere, it is important for us to read Scripture in its literary and cultural context as this provides us with a better understanding of what the author is saying. This is not always easy or evident from our English translations, especially when we are so far removed in space and time from the original settings. Doing so can help ensure that we do not make the error of claiming that Scripture is saying something that it is not.

They use the evolution theory to deny the Biblical global flood that covered the mountains. See that effect? Now the cause is unjust and thereby false.

When it comes to science, Christians do not need to be afraid of what the scientific evidence shows, or doesn't show. It is God's universe, and the truth will shine through. However, it does not serve us or honour God by making leaps in judgement just because we want to prove our particular understanding of God's Word. Saying fossils on mountains prove a global flood is a massive leap, one we would not accept from science, so we should not accept it from ourselves either.

Genesis 7:17 And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth. 18 And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters. 19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. 20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered. 21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man: 22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died. 23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark. 24 And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days.

When you see how they did not explain how the land animal fossils were buried with the marine fossils together in that same smooth gradient on that Andes mountaintops, and that there are other marine fossils on mountaintops all over the world, that is that false science straining at the gnat in denying the evidence of the Biblical global flood when they had tried to explain away by the mountains rising suddenly from the sea.

If there is evidence for, or against, any part of the theory of evolution, it should be presented in the peer-review system. Likewise, if there is evidence for, or against, a global flood, it should also be peer-reviewed.

When in respect to the false science, the evolution theory, but that is akin to fans in Marvel or DC fandom.

In a similar way, Christians should discuss these topics in a humble and gentle manner, striving always to learn from each other and so bring honour and glory to God. Christians have a wide range of views on these topics and I have theologians I respect greatly on both sides.

I recognize that only God can cause the increase even for unbelievers that believe every thing about the evolution theory at face value when they should not when it doesn't pass the definition of what real science is which is defined as what can be observed and proven. When they keep deferring from that to unfounded and unproven theoretical science in a string of runaway hypothesis when they have not proven one, always presenting the "evidence" in light of the unproven evolution theory & its unproven timetable, believers need to recognize a fairy take is being spun here, especially when they find "new facts" to back peddle on like... birds did not evolve form dinosaurs but dinosaurs evolved from birds, you really have to wonder about "facts" when all of it is based on assumptions aka speculations aka suppositions of possibly or maybe or etc. that everybody overlooks such wordings in these peer reviews as if they know what they are talking about.

Do not think that science and Christianity are enemies - they are not.

Real science and Christianity are not enemies, but false science as in false knowledge is.

1 Timothy 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: 21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.

 

[ChristB4us]

You do not need to go to macro evolution to see The pseudoscience of materialists in action.
Despite the loud noise in media and the billions thrown at OOL research here are the facts about abiogenesis.

1/ Nobody knows when , where , how or what happened to create the first living thing. There is no process conjectured for the step from non life to life. So it is pure conjecture. Abiognesis is not ony not a valid theory, it is not even a valid hypothesis. There is nothing to test. What is certain is the first living thing (by definition of Harvard and NASA ) was complex, and therefore a highly unlikely chemical event to happen from random chance. Nobody knows what the building blocks of life are, because nobody knows what the first living thing was made of!

Therefore any who believe in abiogenesis, have a faith, not a scientific justification for it!!!

It gets worse.

2/ At a cellular level the minimum cell we know is a massively complex , self designing , self repairing, factory of tens thousand proteins
Nobody has any clue how the first living thing( they cannot define ) evolved to be the present minimum cell. Indeed every attempt at backwards engineering by knocking out redundant function has failed below 500 genes!!! So there is no "science" of the evolution to present cells either!


So nobody knows how life started and nobody knows how it evolved from there at a cellular level. There is ony belief

IN SUMMARY SCIENCE KNOWS NOTHING AT ALL ABOUT ORIGIN OF LIFE

It is talked up, only because for atheists it is the "ony way" life can have started

Meanwhile
3/ in buenos airies, tixtla etc, bread in the eucharist really did become recently livibng cardiac tissue. Multiple forensic scientists and cardiologists in multiple locations confirmed it.

They are Life from no life.
Or as the atheist forensic pathologist lawrence stated "credible evidence of created tissue"
That alone is enough to disprove Darwin by the test darwin set in his book. Life that did not come from progressive small change.


So Christians have the evidence of science, abiogenesis believers none at all.
So why are schoolkids taught the wish beliebe abiogenesis faith instead of science?

Thanks for sharing real science to expose that which is a false science called the evolution theory.

 

[Gus Bovona]

Fine. let us look at your question below:

"Do you deny that detectives can solve cases without eyewitness?"

I believe detectives can solve a case without eyewitnesses but that does not mean they did it right. Evidence of wrong people being convicted on the "evidence" and sent to jail and later released when it was proven they were not the guilty party.

To wit I had replied with my question: "Can a detective prove or disprove a hypothesis without being eyewitnesses themselves?"

The answers to both of our questions is "sometime" and thus not "always".

So, the phrase with "but" in it, in bold above, creates a little vagueness, and we have to settle the issue about the detective once and for all.

Sure, detectives can be wrong, but the issue isn't whether people can be wrong, the issue is whether a direct observation of the phenomenon in question is **always** necessary to draw some conclusion about that phenomenon. I offered the example of a detective solving a crime - correctly - without an eyewitness or any direct observation of the crime itself as one common example that happens all the time and which disproves the claim that you must have direct observation. Do you agree, yes or no, that my example about the detective disproves the idea that we always must have direct observation of a phenomenon in order to make some conclusion about that phenomenon? I think you do, but I have to be sure before moving forward.

 

[ChristB4us]

So, the phrase with "but" in it, in bold above, creates a little vagueness, and we have to settle the issue about the detective once and for all.

Sure, detectives can be wrong, but the issue isn't whether people can be wrong, the issue is whether a direct observation of the phenomenon in question is **always** necessary to draw some conclusion about that phenomenon.

But you are giving the example of the detective in not having seen the murder hence the phenomenon and so derive their conclusions on the evidence which is based on what exactly? Switching over to the evolution theory;

The Geological Evolution time table does not exists anywhere in the world. Not one place.

Radiocarbon dating is based on the assumption that there has been no global calamity for the last 55,000 years, thus discounting the Biblical global flood.

Plus, even though science knows about the reservoir effect, they do not always apply it in regards to their radiocarbon testing results.

I offered the example of a detective solving a crime - correctly - without an eyewitness or any direct observation of the crime itself as one common example that happens all the time and which disproves the claim that you must have direct observation.

How did they solve the crime correctly? How can scientist determine the age of any thing correctly when it is based on that assumption that there has been no global calamity in the last 55,000 years??

Do you agree, yes or no, that my example about the detective disproves the idea that we always must have direct observation of a phenomenon in order to make some conclusion about that phenomenon? I think you do, but I have to be sure before moving forward.

Maybe if you give an example of an actual detective case that mirrors how the evolutionist do it in determining the age of the earth might help.

Like say.. a dead body could have been in a freezer and then placed somewhere to throw off the time of death. Right? If they did not catch that, then what?

Like determining the age of a fossil based on the assumption that there has been no global calamity for the last 55,000 years. If they did not catch that Biblical global flood, & thus ignore it, how accurate can that finding be to reach a definite conclusion at all even though they believe they are doing it right?

 

[Gus Bovona]

But you are giving the example of the detective in not having seen the murder hence the phenomenon and so derive their conclusions on the evidence which is based on what exactly? Switching over to the evolution theory;

The Geological Evolution time table does not exists anywhere in the world. Not one place.

Radiocarbon dating is based on the assumption that there has been no global calamity for the last 55,000 years, thus discounting the Biblical global flood.

Plus, even though science knows about the reservoir effect, they do not always apply it in regards to their radiocarbon testing results.

How did they solve the crime correctly? How can scientist determine the age of any thing correctly when it is based on that assumption that there has been no global calamity in the last 55,000 years??

Maybe if you give an example of an actual detective case that mirrors how the evolutionist do it in determining the age of the earth might help.

Like say.. a dead body could have been in a freezer and then placed somewhere to throw off the time of death. Right? If they did not catch that, then what?

Like determining the age of a fossil based on the assumption that there has been no global calamity for the last 55,000 years. If they did not catch that Biblical global flood, & thus ignore it, how accurate can that finding be to reach a definite conclusion at all even though they believe they are doing it right?

Sorry, you gotta choose one of the following:

1. Detectives sometimes solve crimes correctly without direct observation by anyone of the crime as it happened.
2. Detectives never solve crimes correctly without direct observation by anyone of the crime as it happened.
3. I don't know or haven't decided yet whether detectives sometimes solve crimes correctly without direct observation by anyone of the crime as it happened.

I believe I have covered a set of mutually exclusive possibilities, so one of them has to obtain. Which is it, for you? 1, 2, of 3 above?

 

[Mikeuk]

A scientific theory is valid if it fits the available evidence, and remains valid until it can be disproved. Science is an ever changing displine and the word "fact" should be held a little loosely. Newtownian physics was "fact" (and for the most part is still valid within the macroscopic universe) however, when quantum physics came along, it revolutionised physics.

Some, however, have turned it into Science (with a captial "S"), a religion of its own that they think can solve all the questions of life, the universe and everything. It can't of course.

Just a side point, "science" is from a Latin word scire which means "to know". The Greek word in the 1 Tim 6:20 verse is gno'-sis, which I think is more accurately translated as "knowledge", but sadly I am not a Greek scholar so will leave that to others.

But lets clarify what science does.
I speak as someone who did math modelling of complex physical systems in military and other contexts.
I am an electronic physicist/mathematician by training who also was involved in big astrophysics projects too.

We fit patterns to observations limited to our data set limited to those things which do repeat or can be repeated.
Thats a big limitation. Science cannot study everything.
We are modelling observations, not the so called real world. Which is a big philosoophical difference.
Ask such as Kant the philosopher

Our perception of the universe is via observation and therefore is limited to our senses.
If our senses do not sense it, it is not the same as it does not exist. Ask a blind cave fish whether jupiter exists!
Or take a TV. It perceives a 3d world as 2d representation. We cannot know how many dimensions are there we cannot percieve.

We know what things "are" only in terms of how they radiate in our senses, how they respond to radiation, or how they are observed to respond to each other. We do not know what they "are" or why they "are" in any philosophical sense.
So as philosophers such as Kant have said, the we only know the phenomena, not the underlying thing - the noumenna that produces the behaviour. Like aristotle said, we observe a world of shadows of reality, not the reality.

You cannot answer the question what "is" gravity, or why "is" gravity. You can only describe what it does.
Does it do it everywhere? You cannot say. What you can say is the name "dark matter" is a name given to an error, where the pattern we model for gravity doesnt work on the shape of galaxies very well.

It surprises most people that ohms law is not the equation that lives by that name. That is just a definition of resistance. Ohms law is far more limited. It says for a range of materials, and operating conditions resistance is ROUGHLY constant. Many materials do not obey ohms law at all.
Those are the empirical laws which like boyles - charles law etc calibrate the model.

Like a suit of clothes fitting a body, the model fits the universe reasonably well. Mostly. But the suit of clothes, is does not describe the body except in a narrow context and aspect. It is not the body . It does not underpin it.
So the idea that "the laws of science underpin the universe " is a fundamental misunderstanding of science..
It does not explain it, it observes by codifying patterns.

But the model also breaks down. For scientific model to work we need causality. We need determinism. That is the state of the universe progresses by the action of the laws. So even though weather is too complex and chaotic, in principle it needs to be deterministic to model it.

But we already know in the land of the small those rules do not work at all.
When bohr won the argument against einstein since confirmed by bell experiments the very fabric of those assumptions breaks down.
The so called two slit experiments show that something does not even exist till observed. Where was it before then? Everywhere. Nowhere.
Arguably it did not exist. It is not we do not know where it is. It did not exist anywhere except as a likelihood of existing.
So we have a paradox of existence.
Einstein hated the idea that the moon did not exist till he looked at it, but that is the logical conclusion. Also that my world and your world are different. As experiments have also born out. By observing an observer.

Actually no, we dont have a paradox.
The scientific model is just a model.
It has no idea what is actually there.
If the model does not work, or give absurd answers. It is because it is just a model.
And like the supposed "singularity" at the heart of black holes. It doesnt work everywhere. It never could.

So it is not that the "room for God " has shrunk because of science.
Nothing has actually changed. We can only sit in awe and wonder at creation.

As for the things that do not repeat.
So called veridical near death experiences show that our consciiousness is not confined to the brain.
There is an increasing voice of neuroscientists now accepting that.
And that alone destroys the evolutionist view of life.
There is a spirit world too. Dimensions we do not normally percieve. That is why we cannot model them.

 

[makesends]

Sorry, you gotta choose one of the following:

1. Detectives sometimes solve crimes correctly without direct observation by anyone of the crime as it happened.
2. Detectives never solve crimes correctly without direct observation by anyone of the crime as it happened.
3. I don't know or haven't decided yet whether detectives sometimes solve crimes correctly without direct observation by anyone of the crime as it happened.

I believe I have covered a set of mutually exclusive possibilities, so one of them has to obtain. Which is it, for you? 1, 2, of 3 above?

The fact that they are mutually exclusive doesn't mean that they are comprehensive. For example, 1 and 2 are mutually exclusive, but they don't deny that there is a 3. So, 1 and 2 and 3 being mutually exclusive doesn't mean that there can't be a 4.

 

[Gus Bovona]

The fact that they are mutually exclusive doesn't mean that they are comprehensive. For example, 1 and 2 are mutually exclusive, but they don't deny that there is a 3. So, 1 and 2 and 3 being mutually exclusive doesn't mean that there can't be a 4.

Good point. But what could 4 be? I can't imagine what other response besides 1, 2, or 3 is possible.

 

[makesends]

Good point. But what could 4 be? I can't imagine what other response besides 1, 2, or 3 is possible.

I don't know. Maybe, "I'm in the twilight zone right now, but I feel something on the edge of my noticing it." Lol, ask @ChristB4us , to whom you seemed to think he was trying a fourth. My only point was that your explanation, for why only 3 options, seemed mistaken.

 

[Gus Bovona]

I don't know. Maybe, "I'm in the twilight zone right now, but I feel something on the edge of my noticing it." Lol, ask @ChristB4us , to whom you seemed to think he was trying a fourth. My only point was that your explanation, for why only 3 options, seemed mistaken.

I'm open to the suggestion of another option.

 

[ChristB4us]

Sorry, you gotta choose one of the following:

Not really.

1. Detectives sometimes solve crimes correctly without direct observation by anyone of the crime as it happened.

"Sometimes" is the relative word based on doing it correctly.

2. Detectives never solve crimes correctly without direct observation by anyone of the crime as it happened.

That is not true. Just because innocent people have been convicted and sent to prison on the base of evidence does not mean they never did it right for every case in USA or in the world.

3. I don't know or haven't decided yet whether detectives sometimes solve crimes correctly without direct observation by anyone of the crime as it happened.

When we look at how they do it, is telling, Gus.

I believe I have covered a set of mutually exclusive possibilities, so one of them has to obtain. Which is it, for you? 1, 2, of 3 above?

Can you prove there was no global calamity within the last 55,000 years?

How about for my side of the discussion are extra biblical sources attesting to the Biblical global flood.

Flood Legends From Around the World

May I add that the ancient Chinese pictograph for boat is made up of three smaller pictographs of "eight mouths vessel".

Ancient Chinese Pictograph for Boat

Coincidence? I think not. If we went on the premise that the Bible is true, and that there was only 8 survivors of that global calamity, then we are all related to each other to Noah and his family. That means from that family, is why there would be handed down through the generations, different variations of the flood legends from all over the world.

 

[Gus Bovona]

Not really.

"Sometimes" is the relative word based on doing it correctly.

That is not true. Just because innocent people have been convicted and sent to prison on the base of evidence does not mean they never did it right for every case in USA or in the world.

When we look at how they do it, is telling, Gus.

OK, you have no interest in an honest discussion. I'm willing to answer any question you ask me as long as you reciprocate, but you are unwilling to do that. And the question I'm asking you is not a trick question, either; it's actually something that anyone with a modicum of knowledge about how the world works understands and could answer. But you won't.

I'm not going to continue this conversation with you. Best wishes.