Young earth vs old earth theory?

Seriously. Have you ever read a dictionary or science text ? Please show an illustration from a science text that refutes the phrase.

 

all this semantical bullshit about evidence and proof is easily put to rest


Evidence
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Jump to navigationJump to search
For other uses, see Evidence (disambiguation).

The balance scales seen in depictions of Lady Justice can be seen as representing the weighing of evidence in a legal proceeding.
Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion,[1] because evident things are undoubted. There are two kind of evidence: intellectual evidence (the obvious, the evident) and empirical evidence (proofs).

The mentioned support may be strong or weak. The strongest type of evidence is that which provides direct proof of the truth of an assertion. At the other extreme is evidence that is merely consistent with an assertion but does not rule out other, contradictory assertions, as in circumstantial evidence.

In law, rules of evidence govern the types of evidence that are admissible in a legal proceeding. Types of legal evidence include testimony, documentary evidence, and physical evidence.[2] The parts of a legal case which are not in controversy are known, in general, as the "facts of the case." Beyond any facts that are undisputed, a judge or jury is usually tasked with being a trier of fact for the other issues of a case. Evidence and rules are used to decide questions of fact that are disputed, some of which may be determined by the legal burden of proof relevant to the case. Evidence in certain cases (e.g. capital crimes) must be more compelling than in other situations (e.g. minor civil disputes), which drastically affects the quality and quantity of evidence necessary to decide a case.

Scientific evidence consists of observations and experimental results that serve to support, refute, or modify a scientific hypothesis or theory, when collected and interpreted in accordance with the scientific method.

In philosophy, the study of evidence is closely tied to epistemology, which considers the nature of knowledge and how it can be acquired.

 

Even YOU point out that there is a substnative difference between what science accepts as a theory and what we can all call theories in popular parlance and religion.

In science, a theory is a collection of one or more hypotheses that have undergone serious testing to the point of acceptance. Hypotheses have specific requirements as well.

Theories in science don't come from there being a theory with no evidence or testing and then move on from there. That's just absolutely not what happens.

Let's remember that this is a KEY concept in science and that there is NOTHING similar in religion or common parlance where any idea is accepted as a theory regardless of ANY testing of it's likely truth.

There is a very real difference between how science defines "theory" and how religion and common parlance define "theory".

 

While science does make use of logic (for internal consistency testing), science is NOT logic in and of itself. They are two separate things.

Science makes use of deductive logic, but it is not deductive logic in and of itself. Science is, rather, a set of falsifiable theories.

The Bible is simply the holy book of a particular religion.

You've falsified Christianity?!?!?!? WHOA!!!!! Do tell us all how you've done so...

This part you have right.

Life span was no shorter then than it is now. The difference nowadays is that many less people die in infancy.

No theory of science is ever proven true. It is only assumed to be true until it is proven to be false (via falsification).

 

I have consistently taken that position. You merely just say that but then continue to act as if a theory of religion is somehow a theory of science.

 

Repetition of same tired BS instead of learning what I am teaching you.

Summarily dismissed.

 

Science theories are useful in providing understanding in a particular area and is dependent upon the evidence.

The difference between true and false should be avoided. A theory is useful under the constrictions of the evidence provided.

For example, modern physics usurps Newtonian physics when more evidence is brought to bear. Which is more useful playing golf ? It certainly isn’t Quantum Theory. It’s useless problem solving in golf within evidence used. So, is either true or false ? It depends upon evidence used and required. Wind speed and direction is worth while evidence, Cell phone use in the area, not so much.

 

Jesus. True. The "Christ" part is the unsubstantiated myth.

LOL!!! So you follow the carnal perspective of "the natural man" and think the bible is a record. In so doing you are guaranteed to entirely miss the spiritual meaning and teachings in it. It is not a "record" of anything but the writings of spiritual devotees whose message you miss. Other than that, none of the fantasmic stories and myths in the bible cannot be verified, .... AND, they fundamentally conflict with science. And at each step along the way as science advanced, the claims of the certainty of the myths held by "believers" retreated. First to go was the idea that the sun orbited around the earth....

"The concept of a heliocentric model of the solar system also encountered fierce resistance from religion, which saw God’s chief creation man placed at the centre of the universe. Even some of Aristarchus’ contemporaries, such as the philosopher Cleanthes (330-230 BC), took exception to Aristarchus for diminishing the importance of the Sun by setting it amongst the “fixed stars”. Aristarchus was also attacked for propounding the ideas of Anaxagoras (497–428 BC), who two centuries earlier had asserted that the Sun is a star, and not a god.

"the geocentric model of the solar system with the Earth placed at its centre proposed by such Greek philosophers as Plato (428-348 BCE), and Aristotle (384–322 BCE) became the accepted version of celestial events."

"Renaissance mathematician and astronomer Nicolaus Copernicus tried to revive Aristrachus’ heliocentric theory, and by 1532 had basically completed his manuscript entitled ‘De revolutionibus orbium coelestium’ (On the Revolutions of Heavenly Spheres). In his seminal work, Copernicus formulated a fully predictive model of the universe in which the Earth is just another planet orbiting the Sun, but fear of being branded a heretic by the Christian Church meant that he waited until his deathbed in 1543 before publishing the book."

http://www.astronomytrek.com/who-discovered-the-earth-moves-around-the-sun/



Then Darwin's theory of evolution was embraced by the Catholic Church, but today, evangelicals still reject it.


And we have the age of the earth.


So the bible is certainly not a record of reliable facts. Jesus apparently lived, but so did many other avatars including Buddha. But Krishna? I dunno.

And all are traditionally embellished with magical powers to make them super-human, when in reality what they had was a connection to the inner life which most of us have great difficulty matching even just a tiny bit. And therefore, we get the belief in the miracles of Jesus and the rest.

 

The constant misstating of evidence and facts in science is wearing. Evidence that is fact based in science is NOT just used to support a theory. It is what it is. They are used to add understanding.

And, it you claim to be some kind of a teacher, get your facts right.

 

Your opinion (that science does not make use of supporting evidence) is illogical

 

FALSE.

I point out why theories of religion can not possibly be theories of science - EVER.

There is a bright line. That line can not be crossed.

Religion and science are two entirely different systems.

They do not share root assumptions. They don't share logic. They don't share definitions for the key features such as "evidence", "fact", "hypothesis", "theory". They don't share process.

They don't even share objectives.

The result is that ANY mixing between science and religion is sure to produce garbage.

 

Literally every word of your comments is pure garbage. It is as if you are intentionally saying absurd things. I don't have any patience or tolerance for discussions where people are intentionally saying absurd things for attention. Bye.

 

He claims science does not use supporting evidence but can't provide supporting evidence for his claim. Oh, the irony!

 

Ha ha...exactly.

 

Correct.

Buzzword fallacy. Define "way more".

Yes, it is. Who ever gave you this crazy notion that word definitions somehow change "because, well, SCIENCE"??

That would be a measurement, not a fact.

The word 'fact' is defined by logic. A fact is an assumed predicate. If you and I both agree about something, then that something becomes a fact. If one of us disagrees about it, then it returns back to being an argument (IOW, is no longer a fact). That's all that facts are. They are not proofs, nor universal truths, nor "well recorded observations".

Incorrect. See above.

The mere existence of the Bible itself is evidence of God's existence.

The Bible is merely supporting evidence for God, and is NOT a proof of God. Christianity can only be accepted as a True or a False on a faith basis. Otherwise, one is committing at least one (but more likely several) logical fallacies. According to what you consider science to be (supporting evidence!!), Christianity would be science rather than religion. I am telling you that it is religion (due to its focus on supporting evidence rather than conflicting evidence) (IOW, falsification).

They are two different things.

 

False authority fallacy. Dictionaries do not define words.

 

Being a statement doesn't even imply that the statement is true.

Calling it evidence when it may well be false is a demonstration of how wrong you are about statements.

??
I would point out that a large percent of the words in the English language have more than one meaning.

And, that is especially true for any word that is a term of art - that is, pertaining to a specialized field of thought.

So, science does have science-specific definitions of words such as those I've mentioned.

A well documented measurement is a fact. The fact is that the measurement happened in the manner documented. There is no implication beyond that.

Again, this is just plain nonsense.

Maybe in your specific religion it is But, it's not in other religions. And, it certainly is not in science.

There is no possibility of science forming an argument that includes god in any way. So, it's not just the Bible - nothing in science can possibly have anything to say about god.

This is a fundamental difference between science and religion.

No. There is no possibility of science accepting the bible as evidence of ANYTHING about the supernatural, including god. Remember? Science has no tools for addressing god. Science doesn't allow god or the supernatural in any hypothesis.

This isn't a resul of disbelief. Many scientists are Christian. The restriction comes from how science is designed. It just doesn't have any tools for addressing any religious concept.

Yes - science and religion are VERY separate. The really don't share anything at all.

 

The key difference is that theories of religion cannot be falsified, but theories of science CAN be falsified... The definition of the word 'theory' itself does not change because, well, "science!"...

No, a theory is simply an explanatory argument. Whether about science, religion, or basic discussion with people, that's all that a theory is. A theory can indeed become a theory of science IF it continues to pass internal consistency testing (against logic) and IF it continues to pass external consistency testing (against its null hypothesis), of which such testing is required to be accessible, quantifiable, specific, and produce a specific result.

No, that's actually precisely what happens. A theory of science starts out as any other theory starts out (as a circular argument). Inspiration can come from anywhere. The internal and external testing is what allows for a theory to move beyond being a simple circular argument (as Christianity is) and instead become a theory of science (as the theory of gravitation is).

No, there isn't. It is defined exactly the same. Word definitions do not change because, well, "SCIENCE!!!"

You simply refuse to learn what science is and how it works, and what religion is and how it works, and what evidence is and how it works.

 

You aren't even speaking English at this point. You seem to be speaking Liberal...

 

Okay then. Bye. Obviously you refuse to learn.

 

If liberal is depending upon science and conservative on the Bible and Sean Hannity, count me in. So, liberal is being educated ? English ? Seriously ?

 

Words from the great educator.

 

Continued refusal to learn.

 

So, self proclaimed authorities and Trump and Hannity get to say up is down and down is up.

Sounds like living in a world where five people at a bar who can agree on something becomes fact, and 3400 universities are just jacking off for federal funds. Amazing.

 

It's amazing that the entire scientific community refuses to learn from someone with zero education or experience in any scientific field. What are they thinking?