(October 23, 2015 at 2:40 pm)Esquilax Wrote: He did leave it at "I don't know," genius. He then proceeded to point out how.....

*edit mine*

Then he didn't in fact leave it at "i don't know' then, did he?

(October 23, 2015 at 2:50 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:

(October 23, 2015 at 2:40 pm)Esquilax Wrote: He did leave it at "I don't know," genius. He then proceeded to point out how.....

*edit mine*

Then he didn't in fact leave it at "i don't know' then, did he?

It was a separate point of discussion, you pedant...

(October 23, 2015 at 11:30 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(October 23, 2015 at 10:26 am)SteelCurtain Wrote: Which is exactly what "Christian Science" is. Any "reputable" (and by reputable I mean accepted by Christians) Christian source has a statement of faith like the one from AiG I posted above. They literally state that any evidence which contradicts scripture must, by definition, be wrongly interpreted. Science can never start with an unassailable position. That is the antithesis of science.

This is a generalization.  I would also point out that many naturalist make a similar claim (and with much less reason). I also take into consideration, that either the info gathered from science or scripture, may be wrongfully interpreted by myself.

It is a generalization based on evidence. That I provided above. "Reputable" Christian sources all use the statement of faith.

AiG Wrote:By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.
https://answersingenesis.org/about/faith/

If you could, provide a "naturalist" source, claiming to be performing science, that states that if they discover evidence that contradicts their claim, they will disregard it. I'll wait...

(October 23, 2015 at 11:30 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(October 23, 2015 at 10:26 am)SteelCurtain Wrote: If they start with the conclusion, then it is not scientific. By definition. If you start with the conclusion that the world must be 6,000 years old, and then go and search for corroborating evidence, even if said evidence is collected in a "scientific" manner, you are still only collecting evidence in a scientific manner. The interpretation of the evidence with the conclusion already in mind is not science. It is arm waving at its basest.

So then... if I am told by my teacher, that evolution is true, and then proceed to demonstrate in a scientific manner that it is true, then it is not science?   It would seem that under this definition much of science, is not science!

No. You are not doing science in a lecture hall. If you do testable, repeatable experiments in the lab that produce results that corroborate your hypothesis, you are but a fly in the wall of the mountains of other experiments that have done the same results.

Please, if you would, link to a creationist experiment. What have the creationists tested that provides a prediction of future phenomena, as a scientific theory would? I'll wait...

(October 23, 2015 at 11:30 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(October 23, 2015 at 10:26 am)SteelCurtain Wrote: Empirical observation is the only method for arriving at a realistic conclusion. Getting your "truth" from a 2000 year old book and co-opting modern knowledge into that, I'm sorry, is not a reconciliation of truth. It's wish granting, and I'll not be a part of it.

Are you saying, that unless something is observed, it is not science?  Can science make an inference based on what is observed, to come to a conclusion about what was likely the cause (which was not empirically observed)?

And now you're mincing words. One does not need to witness a gene mutating in order to witness the evidence that it leaves. I don't need to be there to see a Mt. Vesuvius erupting, but by dating the igneous strata and exhuming the mummified remains of the Pompeians, we can tell a story. Be careful in tugging at this string, because it will unravel your sweater.

(October 23, 2015 at 3:04 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote: Be careful in tugging at this string, because it will unravel your sweater.

Steel Curtain gonna pull this thread as you walk away; you'll soon be naked, lyin' on the floor.

You come undone, sucka'!

(October 23, 2015 at 3:07 pm)TRJF Wrote:

(October 23, 2015 at 3:04 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote: Be careful in tugging at this string, because it will unravel your sweater.

Steel Curtain gonna pull this thread as you walk away; you'll soon be naked, lyin' on the floor.

You come undone, sucka'!

I was singing the sweater song as I typed!

Great minds...

If you're going, be sure to go on Christmas Eve, because that day it's free for everyone. Otherwise it's fucking $29.95 for adults.

I didn't realize the origins of the universe
would be decided by a creative writing contest.

I'm completely open minded, that means I will consider anything that has supporting evidence. By making unwarranted assumptions, you're shutting out vast areas of consideration; becoming closed minded by loading the question.

By holding onto a "conclusion" based on no evidence and demanding people come up with better ones is to have entirely closed your mind.

Okay, I totally want to go there.

Quote:the reason you can't understand the concept of a "timeless creator", is because you're not spiritual. the bible states that God is a spirit,

And the reason you can is because you are an infant who believes in fucking magic.

Grow the fuck up, boy.

Isn't Christmas Eve the WORST time to have that open? All the Christers will be home with their babies and the holiday celebrations (or taking their kids to the movies so they don't go nuts). The only people who have free time to jaunt down on vacation to the Creation Museum would be atheists and other heathens.