• This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.

Creationists vs "Atheistical Darwinialistic evolutionalists"

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
There's this thing called "the weight of scientific evidence." It may be that some evidence could be used to support multiple, even contradictory, assumptions. (This reminds me of the old saying, "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.") So the question should be, "On which side of the balance does the weight of scientific evidence fall?" Certainly not on the side of YEC.

There is NO SUCH stupid thing as "the weight of scientific evidence". There is also no such thing as "scientific consensus"!

That's not to say that people don't use such terms but simply that they are contradictions. The real scientific method is about proof not some sort of consensus of opinion building. The real scientific method does not function like a civil court where some group of people vote on a verdict based on the preponderance of the evidence. The actual scientific method has to do with the dispassionate application of logic to answer a specific question. That question being, "Is hypothesis XYZ true or is it false?" The answer is never a matter of opinion - ever. As such, "scientific opinion" is an oxymoron and any such opinion that is offered is merely that, an opinion. You can base an opinion on scientific data but that doesn't make your opinion science and if you try to force it to be so, as virtually all of modern science has done, then you undermine science and turn it into opinion and as a result you undermine the very idea of truth itself and build a society where people grow up believing that any fact of reality is just someone's opinion and the result is a society without any absolutes and therefore no morals and therefore no civility and therefore no freedom, which is precisely the road your so called science has had us on for that past century or more.

Clete
 

User Name

Well-known member
Correction:

"meaning that it would, under normal circumstances, take light 27,000 years to travel from this supernova to reach earth."

Your statement stacks the deck against my position, by excluding any alternate explanation other than your own.

My rewording of it is neutral to both our positions.

Would you agree with my rewording of your comment?

No. Explain to us, scientifically, how light from a supernova that is 28,000 light years away can be seen in a universe that is less than 10,000 years old, and give us a scientific estimate for when the star went supernova.
 

User Name

Well-known member
You just refuse to take the blinders off.

Explain to us, scientifically, how light from a supernova that is 28,000 light years away can be seen in a universe that is less than 10,000 years old, and give us a scientific estimate for when the star went supernova.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber

Please clarify.

Explain to us, scientifically, how light from a supernova that is 28,000 light years away can be seen in a universe that is less than 10,000 years old, and give us a scientific estimate for when the star went supernova.

Did you even bother to read the explanation given here?
 

User Name

Well-known member
Please clarify.

You said, "under normal circumstances, take light 27,000 years to travel from this supernova to reach earth." Provide observational evidence for light taking much less than 27,000 years to travel 27,000 light years of distance.

Provide scientific evidence for these circumstances that are not normal.

Did you even bother to read the explanation given here?

Can you summarize that Gish gallop and give me the CliffsNotes version, please?
 

User Name

Well-known member
Thank you!

It's just stunning to me how people can think they're scientific when they literally don't understand the most basic principles of reason and logic.

"It's important to note that this fallacy should not be used to dismiss the claims of experts, or scientific consensus. Appeals to authority are not valid arguments, but nor is it reasonable to disregard the claims of experts who have a demonstrated depth of knowledge unless one has a similar level of understanding and/or access to empirical evidence." - https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
You said, "under normal circumstances, take light 27,000 years to travel from this supernova to reach earth."

I did say that.

Provide observational evidence for light taking much less than 27,000 years to travel 27,000 light years of distance. Provide scientific evidence for these circumstances that are not normal.

Job 9:8
Psalm 104:2
Isaiah 40:22, 42:5, 44:24, 45:12, 48:13, 51:13
Jeremiah 10:12, 51:15
Zechariah 12:1

https://kgov.com/stretch

Gish gallop

It's not. It's an article. Try reading it.

Can you summarize that . . . and give me the CliffsNotes version, please?

No. Don't be lazy, UN, try putting some effort into your studies. You just might learn something.
 
Top