Nose Fly thinks everything just happened this way by years of methodical changes and evolution. Fly thinks everything came from nothing.
Creation vs. Evolution
- Thread starter MichaelCadry
- Start date
- Status
alwight
New member
The scientific method however rather requires that an ability to falsify is an important factor, but I can't honestly detect anything like that amongst your otherwise apparently empty assertions and presuppositions. :think:
Jose Fly
New member
That remains to be seen.
Are you saying that God couldn't author a book that didn't appear to be divinely inspired, was inconsistent, and had no external evidence?
Sheesh, try and keep up. The context of this entire discussion is what is and isn't acceptable in science.
Lon
Well-known member
The technician wasn't cleaning his equipment like he was supposed to have done.
Dear Jose,
I think it is appalling for you to want to test God scientifically. It is very disrespectful, regardless of your intentions. I don't want to discuss this issue because I revere God too much to put Him to the test! Yes, I know, yours is a scientific approach. Doesn't matter much to me what you call it. I will give you something though. It is written, "And in the days when the 7th angel shall sound, the 'mystery of God' shall be finished, as He hath declared to His servants, the prophets." So there you go. You've got to wait a while longer. You've waited longer for other things, so don't expect super quick answers. I'll tell you this, though, I am not going to go into all the details of it all. The first six of the angels have already sounded, and you've all missed them all. So look for big changes coming soon. Anyway, you can read these words in the book of Rev. 10:7KJV. Check it out, even if you have to Google it. I know that you might not own a Bible. Go check it out. Jesus also says not to put God to the test. So you'd best beware.
That's it from me on the subject. I've got much to do. I've even gotten far behind here. I need to go over pages of posts here that I did not get to do a few days ago because of being sick and having computer problems. I still have not caught up and my email is way too full. Certainly, it is probably 200 posts behind, but I will catch up to it. The coming weekend will help. I have not felt up to snuff for days now.
In My Neck Of The Woods, We Say, "God Bless Your Soul,"
Michael
Last edited:
Jose Fly
New member
Really? The God you believe in isn't all-powerful?
Jose Fly
New member
Then you should be chastising 6days. He's the one saying God can be scientifically tested.
Jose Fly
New member
Again, try and keep up.
You've said that the means to conduct a scientific investigation of God is by seeing if the Bible is divinely inspired, consistent, and externally supported. I asked if it was possible for God to author a book that didn't show those things, and you said it wasn't. Given that in most Christian circles God is believed to be all-powerful, the obvious follow-up to your statement is to ask if the God you're positing is all-powerful. If God is all-powerful, then your test isn't really a test of God (since God could just as easily do the exact opposite); if God isn't all-powerful, then we probably need to step back and clarify what you mean when you use the term "God".
This is how science works 6days. If you propose a hypothesis and a means to test it, other scientists are going to ask questions. I do this almost every day....it's how we mutually ensure we're doing the best work we can.
So again, is the God you're offering up for testing all-powerful or not?
Dear Jose,
I do not need to chastise 6days. He is saying God could be tested, not that we should.
Michael
6days continues to prostitute science
6days continues to prostitute science
As to testing your Nomadic creation fable (aka – God’s Word) – why don’t you ask:
* Do rivers turn to blood (outside of your fable)?
* Do animals gab with people?
* Does DNA instantly transform into sodium and chlorine?
6days continues to prostitute science
Science tries to identify the natural laws and principles that explain the world of nature. Probing for signs of intelligence in the universe is a very valid application of science. The purported evidence of God (specifically – God as defined within the quirky cult called creationism) that 6days alludes to (esp. Genesis) is ignored, and for good reason. It is nonsense. For example, as was pointed out some time ago, both the Geological Society of America, and a subchapter formed by the Christian Geologists, have authored specific position statements distancing themselves from the geological babble that those of 6day’s ilk propound. Almost every major discipline in science that deals with old-earth or biology rejects the pseudo-scientific silliness that 6days peddles here every day.
Newton didn’t buy into a creation week of 6 24-hour days. Lord Kelvin didn’t buy into a young earth. Were they good Christians, and are they considered to be fathers of modern science?
Largely true, but science, just like people, has now left childhood behind – “when I was a child, I thought as a child, etc”.
But in my long dealing with numerous scientists (some atheists), I have never met any that fit that sordid description you just gave. Do you live in a really disreputable community?
Nope
Old Testament – slaughter the kids, save the virgins for the soldiers. New Testament – “Bring the little ones unto me, for of such …”. Internal consistency failed.
There’s lots of disconfirming external evidence.
As to testing your Nomadic creation fable (aka – God’s Word) – why don’t you ask:
* Do rivers turn to blood (outside of your fable)?
* Do animals gab with people?
* Does DNA instantly transform into sodium and chlorine?
Yup, when they are found to be wrong. Just like science is designed to do. But aren’t you intimating that “science is falsifying the Theory of Evolution itself”?
alwight
New member
Just because you don't like the actual nuts and bolts that scientific endeavour requires, it isn't moving any goalposts to suggest that you have absolutely no rational mechanism for putting any divinity, never mind your specific one, under scientific scrutiny.
You may as well be like Michael who makes no effort at all to put his personal beliefs to any rational test, who in fact is way too scared of even the very idea of daring to test his own idea of God. He doesn't seem to understand that putting one's personal concepts of God to the test is not the same thing as disrespecting any real divine entity established to be worthy of deference, fear and respect.
alwight
New member
Why shouldn't those who honestly don't believe in your particular God, nor perhaps those of anyone else's version, be expected to defer to what are after all simply personal beliefs and not established nor even imo establish-able facts?
If your particular God is true then why shouldn't we who nevertheless still doubt be free to explore the specific evidence, if it exists, and not to passively accept your special pleading rather than someone else's?
Dear alwight,
You are just wishing. I am far from being 'scared' to 'test' my God. The thing is, I don't need to. Don't pretend that you know how I feel or what I think. We used to be such good friends. But you like to take pot shots at me so that there is no recovery whatsoever possible. My God can stand up to any scrutiny and IS All-powerful. You DO disrespect Him, so don't play innocent. You don't know Him and I do know Him. He is the originator of love and is made of love. He emanates it from every fiber of His being. And He is light, an unending light that glows forever and ever. He is the Alpha {beginning} and the Omega {ending}. He has tons of facets to His personality and is like an awesome being/ spirit. If He wished, He could pierce your heart and loosen those scales upon your eyes that keep you from seeing what is going on. It is all done under a veil, like a fourth dimension. He shall let you see in the end and you will writhe in agony and cry with huge tears because you have chosen your fate, because you were stubborn and thought too highly of yourselves, having egos that are inflated. That is the difference between an atheist and a theist. The ego. Right DavisBJ and Stuart, and I could easily go on, but I will spare others, yet they shall find out the hard way, regardless.
So don't worry Alwight, I am a capable person and my God doesn't need testing, but do it if you must, for you will not keep your fingers out of the fire. So burn them. You risk that every time. Now I know why God made a hell and that there really IS a necessity for one. Do you realize how HOLY He is and that you probably don't even truly know what Holy means or is. You don't see how it is that the devil leads you around spiritually and mentally into a strange type of thinking; that your thinking is rational, even though it is not. And that you make up things in your head to satisfy the missing links that make your story or beliefs cogent and flowing. You let yourselves be misled by an evil spirit, just like Eve did in the garden of Eden.
Michael
Last edited:
alwight
New member
Michael below is an earlier post of yours where you simply will not tolerate anyone putting your God to the test.
I have been trying to explain how it is that I and others do expect that other people's ideas of gods not only can be put to the test but in fact should be before a simple mindless acceptance. Of course I can put your ideas of God to the test and have no problem with that and will not be put off by those like you who may claim that I don't have the right.
lain:
Dear alwight,
You do whatever floats your boat. If that's what makes you happy, go for it.
Michael
alwight
New member
I understand that you have probably never even wanted to question the God you believe to be true and certainly don't want to do that here, since apparently you'd probably much rather preach and quote from Revelation, right?
6days
New member
Jose... your prediction and guarantee failed. And you aren't scoring points with your 'theology'. God is omnipotent. He can do anything within His nature. God can not tell lies. Your argument that He 'could do the exact opposite' is incorrect and not scriptural.JoseFly said:
- Status