God Recreated the Earth 6,000 Years Ago!

[McBell]

Huh? Why cannot creationism postulate hypotheses? Be specific.

I have no idea what creationists don't postulate a hypothesis.
Perhaps you should ask them?

 

[leibowde84]

You are correct in the abstract. You are yet to account for personal biases, which all scientists, creationist and otherwise, hold.

OK. I never denied biases. However, the scientific method is designed to avoid biases, as it separates us from our biased and unreliable subjective experience.

 

[gnostic]

Huh? Why cannot creationism postulate hypotheses? Be specific.

Hypothesis, in science (or scientific hypothesis) required it to be possible to be testable and falsifiable.

Formulating hypothesis is one of the steps in the Scientific Method.

In that formulation, the scientist must not only provide an explanation to the phenomenon he is investigating, but he must also -

• make some predictions that will either verify or refute the hypothesis,
• and devise of method or procedure that will allow the scientist to test the hypothesis.

So hypothesis has to comprise of 3 main features:

1. explanation(s)
2. prediction(s)
3. method of testing

Without all 3, then creationism isn't testable, and if it isn't testable, it isn't a hypothesis.

Have you heard of the term "falsification" or "falsifiability", billardsball?

Falsification doesn't mean a statement is false. It means that statement can be refuted, when tested. So falsifiable means refutable or testable.

Creationism is not falsifiable and not testable, because God (as the "creator") is not falsifiable or not testable. Therefore, creationism is not scientific.

Thief has use the argument that creationism have evidences through cause-and-effect, eg God is the "cause" of creation, with creation (world, nature, man) being "effect". But that's not how cause-and-effect works in science.

In order for the cause-and-effect be "scientific", there needs to be evidences cause CAUSE as well as evidences for EFFECT; so there need to be evidences for the existence of a creator God, but there isn't any evidence.

Cause needs evidences, as do effect. You can't have no evidences for CAUSE.

Thief's version of cause-and-effect is weak and woefully insufficient.

You should read scientific method and falsification, then you would realise that creationism is not a scientific hypothesis, because they don't fit the premises of hypothesis.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Sounds like you need to pay attention.

Yes, things that actually work can be used for good and bad. Just like kitchen knives. Evolutionary theory does a lot of good and has been misappropriated for some harm.

Creation science doesn't do anything at all, so it can't be used. When somebody can actually do something with creation science, instead of just talk about it, you'll have the world's attention.

I take it you did not do a search as recommended.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Show one which is testable by experiment.

Hypothesis: "The solar system is less than 100,000 years old." A number of experiments and peer-reviewed works call this question to the table.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Hypothesis, in science (or scientific hypothesis) required it to be possible to be testable and falsifiable.

Formulating hypothesis is one of the steps in the Scientific Method.

In that formulation, the scientist must not only provide an explanation to the phenomenon he is investigating, but he must also -

• make some predictions that will either verify or refute the hypothesis,
• and devise of method or procedure that will allow the scientist to test the hypothesis.

So hypothesis has to comprise of 3 main features:

1. explanation(s)
2. prediction(s)
3. method of testing

Without all 3, then creationism isn't testable, and if it isn't testable, it isn't a hypothesis.

Have you heard of the term "falsification" or "falsifiability", billardsball?

Falsification doesn't mean a statement is false. It means that statement can be refuted, when tested. So falsifiable means refutable or testable.

Creationism is not falsifiable and not testable, because God (as the "creator") is not falsifiable or not testable. Therefore, creationism is not scientific.

Thief has use the argument that creationism have evidences through cause-and-effect, eg God is the "cause" of creation, with creation (world, nature, man) being "effect". But that's not how cause-and-effect works in science.

In order for the cause-and-effect be "scientific", there needs to be evidences cause CAUSE as well as evidences for EFFECT; so there need to be evidences for the existence of a creator God, but there isn't any evidence.

Cause needs evidences, as do effect. You can't have no evidences for CAUSE.

Thief's version of cause-and-effect is weak and woefully insufficient.

You should read scientific method and falsification, then you would realise that creationism is not a scientific hypothesis, because they don't fit the premises of hypothesis.

The God of the Bible offers you the opportunity to test Him and to affirm or falsify for yourself, fully to your satisfaction, the data.

The Bible is eminently falsifiable because it offers prophesies which were made in the past about future events, which events' dates have passed successfully. For example, I read in Jeremiah the other day how scattered Israelites would ALWAYS be objects of both wonder and derision in the lands to where they fled to reside.

Anyone who does not understand the Jewish people have provided creative power and intelligentsia worldwide, while remaining EVER SINCE the diaspora unto today, the objects of derision and anti-Semitism understands neither history nor the predictive power of the Holy Bible.

I was a Junior in a secular college when I re-dealt with spirituality yet TESTED as a skeptic and rationalist what I was reading and studying in the scriptures. The hypothesis/testable/falsifiable/scientific method MUST be applied by ANY thinking person to the scriptures. Can you do so without scientism and a bias towards pure empiricism? I can. That doesn't mean I'm "more spiritual" than you; it rather affirms the Bible truth that all of us are lost sheep, prone to wander.

Consider--if even ONE spiritual event in history for any one person, whether religious or no, is real, dialectical materialism is, um, falsified, and it's hypothesis has been found wanting.

 

[viole]

The God of the Bible offers you the opportunity to test Him and to affirm or falsify for yourself, fully to your satisfaction, the data.

The Bible is eminently falsifiable because it offers prophesies which were made in the past about future events, which events' dates have passed successfully. For example, I read in Jeremiah the other day how scattered Israelites would ALWAYS be objects of both wonder and derision in the lands to where they fled to reside.

Anyone who does not understand the Jewish people have provided creative power and intelligentsia worldwide, while remaining EVER SINCE the diaspora unto today, the objects of derision and anti-Semitism understands neither history nor the predictive power of the Holy Bible.

I was a Junior in a secular college when I re-dealt with spirituality yet TESTED as a skeptic and rationalist what I was reading and studying in the scriptures. The hypothesis/testable/falsifiable/scientific method MUST be applied by ANY thinking person to the scriptures. Can you do so without scientism and a bias towards pure empiricism? I can. That doesn't mean I'm "more spiritual" than you; it rather affirms the Bible truth that all of us are lost sheep, prone to wander.

Consider--if even ONE spiritual event in history for any one person, whether religious or no, is real, dialectical materialism is, um, falsified, and it's hypothesis has been found wanting.

Is there a prophecy that can give us some figure when those Jews will believe that Jesus is the Messiah?

There does not seem to be a lot of progress in that area.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Desert Snake]

OK. I never denied biases. However, the scientific method is designed to avoid biases, as it separates us from our biased and unreliable subjective experience.

Actually, as soon as you ask the OP //position/, to prove their position, then, you have put that burden of proof on your position. So, can you prove your theories/statements?

 

[McBell]

Actually, as soon as you ask the OP //position/, to prove their position, then, you have put that burden of proof on your position. So, can you prove your theories/statements?

I am not making any claim asking you to prove your claim.
I understand you have to push this nonsense because it is the best you can come up with in order to shift the burden of proof and distract from the fact you have none yourself.

 

[Desert Snake]

I am not making any claim asking you to prove your claim.
I understand you have to push this nonsense because it is the best you can come up with in order to shift the burden of proof and distract from the fact you have none yourself.

Your not doing the equation, here. Expecting burden of proof from a position, then puts that burden of proof, likewise, on some one saying it is false. Asking for proof from Creationists, does nothing more than shift that burden of proof to yourself.

 

[McBell]

Your not doing the equation, here. Expecting burden of proof from a position, then puts that burden of proof, likewise, on some one saying it is false. Asking for proof from Creationists, does nothing more than shift that burden of proof to yourself.

Except I am not saying your claim is false.
I am merely asking you to support your claim.

You are assigning to me a claim I did not make.
The only reason to do that is to distract from your lack of support for your claim.

 

[Desert Snake]

Except I am not saying your claim is false.
I am merely asking you to support your claim.

You are assigning to me a claim I did not make.
The only reason to do that is to distract from your lack of support for your claim.

Non-creationists, don't like the facts. We are dealing with an impossible/statistically, situation, without some form of creation. That's all there is to it. I've already explained this fact, elsewhere.

Without repetition of creation, /we cannot assume it randomly occurred.

 

[McBell]

Without repetition of creation, /we cannot assume it randomly occurred.

prove it.

Please note I am not saying you are wrong.
I have only asked you to support your claim.
So there is no burden of proof on me to prove you wrong.

 

[metis]

Is there a prophecy that can give us some figure when those Jews will believe that Jesus is the Messiah?

There does not seem to be a lot of progress in that area.

And for good reason.

 

[metis]

Without repetition of creation, /we cannot assume it randomly occurred.

Who says there hasn't been any "repetition of creation"?

 

[outhouse]

Hypothesis: "The solar system is less than 100,000 years old." A number of experiments and peer-reviewed works call this question to the table.

No they have not.

Its why you cannot provide credible sources.

Your just pulling this from a YEC website that produces rhetoric

 

[leibowde84]

Hypothesis: "The solar system is less than 100,000 years old." A number of experiments and peer-reviewed works call this question to the table.

That seems like it goes against all evidence and dating methods we have discovered over the past 200 years. Can you back up the claim in bold? I ask because I have looked and I haven't seen anything, but I'd like to check them out. Not that peer reviewed articles magically grant a hypothesis legitimacy, as there are no authorities in science. But it sounds interesting. Thanks.

 

[metis]

Ours is roughly 4.5 billion years old.

 

[Mindmaster]

I'm still trying to figure out how this thread is 90 pages long.. lol

 

[BilliardsBall]

Is there a prophecy that can give us some figure when those Jews will believe that Jesus is the Messiah?

There does not seem to be a lot of progress in that area.

Ciao

- viole

1. A tremendous number of Jews believed in the Messiah when He first came--including the NT authors.

2. Both testaments describe Jewish disbelief as causing diaspora and suffering. It's yet another prophecy supporting the first. If all Jews believed as I do, and THEN they were in diaspora as being both a wonder and a curse in the countries to where they were driven--unendingly for millennia--the first prophecy would be broken.

I of course, noted, however, how rather than deal with the truth of the prophecy--Jews in 100 nations have been a wonder and a derision just as prophesied, you shifted the goal posts to talk about what you think is a different, unfulfilled prophecy. Even a cursory reading, of say, Deuteronomy 29-32, will show you dozens of verses that will make you say, "Whoa! God predicted the Jewish people would distrust Jesus, go into a LENGTHY diaspora, experience certain significant persecutions, and return to Israel in the end of days..." Wow!