Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

Was the earth created before the sun?
Light preceded the sun?
The moon is an independent light source?
We have moved on from scripture long ago.
It is interesting that you think todays science will be unrecognizable in 100 years but want to defend the accuracy of an ancient collection of books.
Now I don't care who you are, that's funny!

 

All proven by the application of good science.
Awesome.
Just like the flat earth theory, the number 10 on the list. It states that the biblical era understanding was completely wrong and not reversed until the era of the great explorers.
Great site!

 

Ah, so by an 'intrinsic' grasp on concepts what you meant was the experience of an emotional response? If so then perhaps you have a point. I didnt think that was what you meant so apologies if I got the wrong end of the stick.

 

Well, I guess it is equivocation time again.

A scientific theory cannot be proved to be true.
A "theory" as in "I've got a theory that Joe is dating Nancy" can be proved to be true.

Your website is a pop culture article by some author that I cannot find any reference to them.

Here is a comment by one of our Nobel physicists..

Feynman goes on to discuss how an unexpected experimental result can “start us guessing again,” or lead to new theory. He continues,

You can see, of course, that with this method we can attempt to disprove any definite theory. If we have a definite theory, a real guess, from which we can conveniently compute consequences which can be compared with experiment, then in principle we can get rid of any theory. There is always the possibility of proving any definite theory wrong; but notice that we can never prove it right. Suppose that you invent a good guess, calculate the consequences, and discover every time that the consequences you have calculated agree with experiment. The theory is then right? No, it is simply not proved wrong.


If you would care to search under something like
"can a scientific theory be proven true", you will find many items that confirm what I said.

 

Once again you are making assertions without backing up your claims. Where does the bible state these inconsistencies? Perhaps you have misinterpreted the biblical passages. Please provide Chapter and verse.

If you wish to discredit my arguments it would be best if you counter my arguments instead of the straw man arguments you keep digging up.

 

Too bad you didn't go to the list's #1 which was the Big Bang Theory. Once again proving another argument that I have been stating that some believe it is fact, when I have already disproved that notion.

 

No credible poster has stated it was a fact. You're jousting with windmills.

 

Regardless, I have provided theories that have been proven to be true. Do you really want to argue that the Earth does not orbit the Sun?

I don't understand why Richard Feynman would say that because he is either wrong, or being taken out of context. I suspect the latter. It is possible that he is speaking of current theories that are not yet proved can be disproved or are in fact not proven to be false but not therefore true? I'm not sure.

There are many more examples of scientific theories that have proved true. The theory of heavier than air flight and related aerodynamic theories for example.

 

Emphasis added by me:

 

"1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." Here's where earth precedes the sun.

"3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day." Here's where light precedes the sun and defines day and night.

"16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also." Here is where the moon is considered to be a light in and of itself. Also interesting is that all kinds of things populate earth before there is a sun to nourish them.

This is certainly in perfect keeping with what science has discovered, n'est ce pas?

 

Earth orbit sun is not a theory, never was. You are misusing the words.

Same with the "theory of heavier than air flight". Not a theory.


Feynman said it because it is correct. Its not out of context, and he sure is not wrong.

It is a very simple obvious concept, just give it a chance, and you will see.

Any physical law or theory relies on the data that went into to.
Its impossible to gather all data on all possible situations.
There could always be something out there that shows the theory is wrong.


There is always the possibility of proving any definite theory wrong; but notice that we can never prove it right

You will hear the same thing from any scientist.

Look for yourself, or ask if you have access to any scientist. You will see i am right.

 

He was the exception I was noting.
LOL!

 

The mention of the Earth proceeds the creation of the Sun only because the first line of the story is explanatory; This is the story of God creating the Heavens and the Earth in other words. Then the bible says, "and the Earth was without form, and void;" Hence, the Earth having not formed and being a void which is what (?) emptiness, did not yet exists.

Tada - the Big Bang.

The expansion begins. Just like scientists say happened. The light being the formation of stars and galaxies and the darkness being the vast emptiness of space in between.

Light did precede the Sun because the Sun is not the very first star. Day is simply a reference to the effects of the light and night is a reference to those areas of the sky not lit up by stars.

Yes, this is in perfect keeping with what science believes. God made the Sun first to rule the day, then he made the Earth and the moon. The moon is a source of light in and of itself. It is called "Moonlight".

So you still have yet to provide examples of "all kinds of ridiculous notions."

 

Okay I think we are beating a dead horse here if we cannot agree on this point.

 

Wow!
Those are the worst, most tortured excuses I have seen yet. They are absolutely childish and silly.
When it says "the earth was..." it is categorically stating that it DID exist. Really bad attempt. Really bad.
The light was called Day and the dark Night. It wasn't different areas of the sky. Really bad. Ridiculous.
Then you say the sun DOES define the day and the moon DOES define the night. We know that "moonlight" is nothing more than a reflection, don't we? Don't we? Remove the sun and you think the moon is a "source" of light?
If you believe that, we begin to understand why you are so disconnected with science.
What we see here is that apologetics will go to extreme, frankly humiliating ends to try to keep even a tendril of connection to reality when discussing scripture. These are such incredible stretches of credulity that it is hard to know how to address them.
It's an old tale that ancients used to try to understand what they couldn't possibly. Why try to make it any more than that?

 

Wow, one part of a book predicted something that happened in another part of the book (which has not actually been verified to have happened)! Color me shocked! Shocked that you'd make this analogy more than anything, honestly. The comparison fails so badly that it's really hard to take it seriously.

"Remarkably consistent" is a weird term to use when it's barely consistent at all. Taken at its word, what we have is a story of god creating the world in seven days, with one man and woman, followed by a global flood event within recent human history that wiped out all life on earth save for two animals of each "kind" on a single wooden boat. You have to interpret the hell out of that to get anything even remotely resembling reality. You have to throw half of it away and take the rest as the most bizarrely hidden metaphor I've ever heard of in literature. I'd call the interpretation that it describes a flat earth with a solid dome above it just as reasonable. Yeah, sure, you can completely reinterpret it, but at that point there's no point in appealing to its consistency, as you're not describing Genesis any more.

So is the flood in the babylonian mythos. But it doesn't get any credit for including a flood when there have been a lot of floods throughout history.

You completely abuse the equivocation fallacy and try to compare faith in god with acceptance of well-evidenced models of the universe. You are completely wrong and I'm sick to death of explaining it to you.

I'm sorry you're too thick to understand the difference between faith in god and acceptance of leading scientific theories?

 

How is it that something that is "without form and void" exists? Look at the definitions:
form·less 1. without a clear or definite shape or structure.
void 1. a completely empty space.

There were different areas of the sky. The one facing the Sun is day, and the one facing away is night. How is that really bad & ridiculous?

The Sun rules the day (not defines) and the Moon rules (not defines) the night. This is true today.

Nobody, not even the Bible claims that the Moonlight is not a reflection of sunlight. I think that even primitive people understood that.

You are really misrepresent my position then claiming it is disconnected with science.

There is by no means any stretching of credulity as you cannot dispute anything I said without misrepresenting what I said.

 

Sorry to see that. I thought you might be inclined to learn something, when you are wrong.

If the topic is scientific theory, then it is impossible to ever prove it is right. Our PhD / Nobel physicist there knows it; everyone with basic science knows it; every reference you can find will say it too.

You can say you've never been proved wrong.
I dont have such illusions about myself, I dont mind being wrong.

 

Let's recap, shall we?
You think the bible starts with a discussion of something that doesn't exist. Check.
You think that part of the sky faces the bright side of the sun, and part that apparently faces the dark side of the sun. Check.
The bible says there are two great lights, but it really means only one of them is turned on. Check.
Tell me how this misrepresents your position.

 

My son's playdoh has no definite shape or structure. Whenever he makes it into a shape that is empty, it is both formless and void. OMG, did his playdoh just vanish out of existence? OR maybe neither formless nor void actually mean non-existent.

Besides, that is actually rather moot. The Hebrew 'tohu vav bohu' that many see translated as 'formless and void' is actually rather more nuanced. One word, 'tohu', can mean confused, or in disarray. 'Bohu' is harder to translate as it appears much less often, but seems to indicate 'barren', or 'desolate'. Many translations do not use the phrase 'formless and void', in fact it can easily be argued that 'formless and void' is actually less faithful to the original Hebrew, being heavily influenced by Greek mythology, than other translations such as "waste and void", "desert and empty", or "ruined and uninhabited".

 

I used to know someone who was a member of the old flat Earth society. Although often misrepresented by the media the organisation was an exercise in critical thinking

In answer to this I would point to the plethora of ancient alien, ancient mystery shows that appear on our screens

 

I see no point in arguing something so ridiculous as your position. Apparently it is you who are not inclined to learn something when you are wrong. The very notion of what you are suggesting is dumbfounding.

 

The problem is, filtering the information from the internet to identify what might be correct information and what is rubbish. It is a talent future generations will need to come to grip with

 

You're dumbfounded by one of the core concepts of all modern scientific theory? Then by what reasoning do you think you can carry on an adult conversation about science?

 

Did I say, "the Bible starts with a discussion of something that doesn't exist"? No. I didn't say that.
Did I say, "part of the sky faces the bright side of the Sun, and part that apparently faces the dark side of the Sun"? No. I did not say that.
Did I say, "The Bible says there are two great lights, but it really means only one of them is turned on"? No, I did not say that either.
It not only misrepresents my positions, it is a total fabrication on your part.