Do creationists have anything new?

[Milton Platt]

Philosophers??????

Are you saying modern science came from those philosophers. Now who is being ridiculous?

There is a philosophy of science, yes...college courses can be taken on it.

 

[RESOLUTION]

There is a philosophy of science, yes...college courses can be taken on it.

Not really what I asked.

 

[gnostic]

You see inventions are not creation of humans and the planet. The first scientists were Christians,. You did know that didn't you?

Actually, the first scientists were the ancient Greeks.

 

[RESOLUTION]

Actually, the first scientists were the ancient Greeks.

So ancient Greeks had laboratories and all the equipment then? Philosophers were not really scientist in the actual definition of todays scientist and true scientist. We have had this argument before elsewhere on the forum or maybe earlier in this thread.

Having worked in Laboratories for a number of years in industry, I can tell you that sometimes the general consensus of what is science and makes a scientist differs between theory and fact.
Between scientist and layman's knowledge of scientist and science.

My personal experience is that laypersons argue from a position of no experience of involvement with science or scientist. Whilst the scientist only argue from their own personal knowledge within their own field of science building on the basic blocks which unites all science.

 

[Darkstorn]

So ancient Greeks had laboratories and all the equipment then?

Sure, why not?

If your precious "first scientists"(who also happen to be Christians according to your baseless claim) had it, why not the ancient Greeks? Or even Arab muslims?

I mean, their tools and methods might not have been supremely accurate.

But i think it's naive and ridiculous to think that we're much better off now: Our understanding of the universe is exponentially more complex than any ancient peoples' but it's ignorant to assume even WE have "ALL the equipment."

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

So ancient Greeks had laboratories and all the equipment then?

They had universities and science-y tools. Have you ever used a compass, ruler, protractor, or whatever? Are you into proto-robotics? The Greeks and the Chinese and basically (it feels like, anyway) everyone on earth not beholden to Abraham's God were able to do wondrous things. Solomon can't even make a box-like temple without hiring outsiders to do the math.

 

[gnostic]

So ancient Greeks had laboratories and all the equipment then?

Do not put modern context of science into ancient science.

Philosophers were not really scientist in the actual definition of todays scientist and true scientist.

On normal circumstances, I would totally agree with you about today's science, that science is separate from philosophy.

But back then, it was different, science and mathematics were parts of "natural philosophy".

Not all Greek philosophies were natural philosophy, RESOLUTION.

Natural philosophy, like natural science, tried to explain the world without magic, and without god or divine intervention.

Some philosophers were mathematicians, astronomers, physicians, inventors and engineers.

Not all philosophies are the same.

 

[RESOLUTION]

Sure, why not?

If your precious "first scientists"(who also happen to be Christians according to your baseless claim) had it, why not the ancient Greeks? Or even Arab muslims?

I mean, their tools and methods might not have been supremely accurate.

But i think it's naive and ridiculous to think that we're much better off now: Our understanding of the universe is exponentially more complex than any ancient peoples' but it's ignorant to assume even WE have "ALL the equipment."

WORDS... in the great scheme of things simply means YOU don't know how the Universe Works.
Is the Universe Science?
Or is it the study of the natural and physical world and how it works?

Is there any science or experiments that will tell you how the first life came into existence when it comes
to human beings? Is there any way man can recreate the things we see around us and experience without
it coming from what already exists?

No one was comparing now and then. We know that you like many others; only know what you are told.
You,like the scientist cannot prove a theory to yourself or anyone else.

Do you have a point about what I actually said?

 

[RESOLUTION]

They had universities and science-y tools. Have you ever used a compass, ruler, protractor, or whatever? Are you into proto-robotics? The Greeks and the Chinese and basically (it feels like, anyway) everyone on earth not beholden to Abraham's God were able to do wondrous things. Solomon can't even make a box-like temple without hiring outsiders to do the math.

Kelly go study your time periods. The first university and where it was.
And also the definition of science.

 

[RESOLUTION]

Do not put modern context of science into ancient science.

gnostic said: ↑
Actually, the first scientists were the ancient Greeks.

I didn't, had you read the reply correctly, you would have seen the person I was replying to had. Your correct position would to have been to address the issue they raised. The issue I was actually replying to.

As for ancient science... did it really exist in comparison to "modern science".

Was there really a point to what you said. I don't see it, in the context of the discussion???

On normal circumstances, I would totally agree with you about today's science, that science is separate from philosophy.

But back then, it was different, science and mathematics were parts of "natural philosophy".

Not all Greek philosophies were natural philosophy, RESOLUTION.

Natural philosophy, like natural science, tried to explain the world without magic, and without god or divine intervention.

Some philosophers were mathematicians, astronomers, physicians, inventors and engineers.

Not all philosophies are the same.

The reason we have modern science is because Christian Scientist wanted to understand the creation of their God and how it worked.
IIt does not change the fact.

 

[Darkstorn]

WORDS... in the great scheme of things simply means YOU don't know how the Universe Works.

But you do, right?

Fine, show it.

Is the Universe Science?
Or is it the study of the natural and physical world and how it works?

Isn't the basic definition of science "the study of the natural and physical world and how it works?"

What are you asking exactly? It the universe science, or is it, mayhap, science?

Is there any science or experiments that will tell you how the first life came into existence when it comes
to human beings?

When it comes to human beings? That's recent history man.

I would say HUMAN existence could be for example, explained entirely by evolution. But i don't think you believe in evolution.

I bet you also have an answer. I bet you consider evidence inconsequential.

Is there any way man can recreate the things we see around us and experience without
it coming from what already exists?

No?

I mean, for us to utilize it, i believe it must by definition exist.

No one was comparing now and then.

Your "first scientists" aren't exactly "now" either. So you were.

We know that you like many others; only know what you are told.

Either you only know what you are told, or you have direct experience of reality no one else is privy to. In which case, present evidence of your direct understanding.

Otherwise it would seem that you only know what you are told.

You,like the scientist cannot prove a theory to yourself or anyone else.

Yet a non-scientist could? I probably should've seen this before i even started this reply:

You're not very good at this debating thing, are you? A lot of your points seem to hinge on blind faith on your words.

You make the argument that i only know what i am being told. And you are expecting me to believe what you are telling me at the same time...

Argh.

Do you have a point about what I actually said?

I already did, as my post's very existence shows. I answered your post, and argued its points.

It would seem you are trying to move the goal posts here so pot calling the kettle black.

Kelly go study your time periods. The first university and where it was.

Ancient higher-learning institutions - Wikipedia

That's a start.

Oh right, they aren't actually *called* universities. That's the only thing that matters. What they are called. Yes.

And also the definition of science.

is it the study of the natural and physical world and how it works?

 

[gnostic]

There were no scientists among the Christians, contemporary to Jesus or his disciples afterward, during the 1st century CE, RESOLUTION.

When the 1st century Christian movement died out, many different sects sprung up in the 2nd century and onwards.

But Jesus and apostles followed a foreign religion and were influenced by the pre-Christian Book(s) of Enoch, a Hellenistic texts. The whole resurrection and afterlife belief were originally Greek and Egyptian concepts that the Christians borrowed.

If you ever read the book of Enoch, you can see the parallels when comparing the ideas of New Testament books, and showed that the Christians of the 1st century were as clueless to science as the Hellenistic Jews.

 

[RESOLUTION]

Darkstorn,

I believe God created it... I believe the fact we have learned so much from science shows it was not an
accident and did not create itself.

Does that mean you can prove differently? Did you have a point, wasn't it a mute argument on your part?

2.

Show me science and exclude anything in the universe.
Still want to proceed? I wasn't asking I was questioning what had been said.

3,
Evolution is not about how life came into being.
It is how man himself in theory thought life might have progressed. But Evolution has never been an answer
nor can it be on how like first started. Red Herrings are not good arguments. Evolution is outdated too. Mankind
not changed for a long time, has it?

4.
So where did the first man and woman come from if as you say they/it already existed?
Doesn't work does it?

5.
The fact is we have no evidence of now and then so we could not be comparing.
Silly answer by yourself, wasn't it.

6. By all means dazzle us with knowledge - but if you want to show us you are not being deliberately
obtuse, then tell us how life got here. You only know what you were told.

7. You think my faith is blind? I am not the person who believes the created didn't have a creator.
If you can prove Evolution from day one and can also tell us how the first life came into existence
then please do so. Show us your faith is not even more blind than what you think mine is.
I believe in a Creator because the first man and woman had no parents as the rest of creation.
Please try and keep to the debate instead of personal attack. Seems my debating skills are alot better than
yours.

8. Subterfuge.. You know my post showed you had deliberately taken things off course.
The fact you thought I had said something another poster said, proved you were the one who was getting
confused and asking me and not the original poster about their comments.
Seems in reality you don't have a playing field to move a goal post. And as for the pot and Kettle it appears
kitchen doesn't exist.

9.Your name is Kelly now?
The first University was actually in Morroco. If you refer to cat before it existed. Does that mean
the cat existed in another form. So the fact someone says there was Universities and there wasn't Universities
in Ancient Greece means that they were something else? I don't think so. Goal post, moving, kettle, black
and pot!


As for the rest... I don't think you feel as smug as you did before, do you


It is the right colour just the wrong use.

 

[RESOLUTION]

There were no scientists among the Christians, contemporary to Jesus or his disciples afterward, during the 1st century CE, RESOLUTION.

When the 1st century Christian movement died out, many different sects sprung up in the 2nd century and onwards.

But Jesus and apostles followed a foreign religion and were influenced by the pre-Christian Book(s) of Enoch, a Hellenistic texts. The whole resurrection and afterlife belief were originally Greek and Egyptian concepts that the Christians borrowed.

If you ever read the book of Enoch, you can see the parallels when comparing the ideas of New Testament books, and showed that the Christians of the 1st century were as clueless to science as the Hellenistic Jews.

Did Christ need science?
Why did the fig tree die without human intervention or disease?
How did Christ raise the dead and heal the sick? What scientist can do what Christ did when he fed over 5,000 men not to mention the women etc with 5 loaves and two fishes.

Did you witness these things in the 1st Century AD? Do you know what AD stands for?

AD
eɪˈdiː/
abbreviation
adverb: AD

1. Anno Domini (used to indicate that a date comes the specified number of years after the traditional date of Christ's birth).

Who is most likely to be right? You or the disciples?


The facts remain the Samaritans and other sects such as Pharisee and Sadducee had different beliefs.
Pharisees believed in a resurrection and Angels.
But the Sadducees didn't. They were able to have the same beliefs because they knew that when the Messiah came he would give them the final truth which came from God.

John 4:25 The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things.


The full study of the truth and the way in which man receives the truth shows us that
Man makes up what he does not know.

Gamaliel was a Pharisee and a teacher of the Law. He was held in great esteem by the Jews of those times.
34 Then stood there up one in the council, a Pharisee, named Gamaliel, a doctor of the law, had in reputation among all the people, and commanded to put the apostles forth a little space;


Faith does the things that science cannot do. It does the things that man cannot explain.
So is the question really which is the most valuable to man?
Science or God? Self or Faith? Can any exist outside God?


There are historians from the time of Christ. What we do know is Christ had such an impact on the world and the
Apostles, that the truth of the OT, shows they would have all died out and the movement of the Jewish faith having been fulfilled not existed in this present day.

The OT and the NT is about a God who is present amongst his people. Can science explain that?
Paul was well educated and yet even he at one point failed to recognise the truth.

Faith is a living well of water which is constantly giving life to man from the source his creator.

 

[LukeS]

What about the "Darwinists go to hell" rebuttal.

We potentially have contradictory double standards here (I'm a scientist bent on falsificaitonism and yet I still I take the religious idea of "hell" seriously).

By the Bertrand Russell's principle of explosion, anything follows from a contradiction.

Even this:

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth."

 

[Desert Snake]

We're still waiting for any evidence of evolution. Right now, theres a bucket of sand, and a fragment of a bone from southern africa.

 

[Altfish]

We're still waiting for any evidence of evolution. Right now, theres a bucket of sand, and a fragment of a bone from southern africa.

This post is meant to be a joke? Isn't it?

 

[Desert Snake]

This post is meant to be a joke? Isn't it?

The thread premise is a joke. The fact that you apparently can't understand the faults in your theories, or don't pay any attention to other facts, could be a joke, if it were humorous.

 

[Altfish]

The thread premise is a joke. The fact that you apparently can't understand the faults in your theories, or don't pay any attention to other facts, could be a joke, if it were humorous.

Scientists are the ones at fault for not seeing the faults in theories!!! Priceless. Nobel Prizes are awarded for new theories. That is fame and fortune. Science does nothing but 'try to disprove theories'

Meanwhile creationists.....

 

[LukeS]

True of false:

Even if there were evidence for YEC, the scientists would lop off the "C" with Occam's Razor.