The Truth of Genesis

[Justadude]

Nonsense. Every scientist worth his salt knows it's just a theory that can't be proved. It remains the best guess outside of the Bible. So, if the most qualified scientists accept evolution as a theory, how come you know more than them to say it is real? And what else could it be but on the basis of faith in probabilities and educated guesses?

I urge you to make an effort to understand science topics before you act like you're a knowledgeable authority.

"Just a Theory": 7 Misused Science Words

"Climate-change deniers and creationists have deployed the word "theory" to cast doubt on climate change and evolution.

"It's as though it weren't true because it's just a theory," Allain said.

Part of the problem is that the word "theory" means something very different in lay language than it does in science: A scientific theory is an explanation of some aspect of the natural world that has been substantiated through repeated experiments or testing. But to the average Jane or Joe, a theory is just an idea that lives in someone's head, rather than an explanation rooted in experiment and testing.​

Here's some more reading material to help you.

NSTA News

Untitled Document

 

[reformed1689]

Show me any scientific organization that requires its employees to reject everything that goes against the organization's religious beliefs.

Show me a scientific organization that is not Christian that would accept a biblical narrative as a basis for a starting point.

 

[reformed1689]

"Climate-change deniers and creationists have deployed the word "theory" to cast doubt on climate change and evolution.

Christians don't doubt climate change. It is this idea of man-made climate change that will somehow destroy the earth in a doomsday scenario that we reject. God controls the climate, not man.

 

[reformed1689]

I've asked you before to show where any scientific organization requires its employees to do anything like what ICR does, and you've not posted a single thing.

Don't need to.. Just look at how they talk about the Bible. All you need to know.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Just an FYI
"When the animal or plant dies, it stops exchanging carbon with its environment, and thereafter the amount of 14C it contains begins to decrease as the 14C undergoes radioactive decay. Measuring the amount of 14C in a sample from a dead plant or animal, such as a piece of wood or a fragment of bone, provides information that can be used to calculate when the animal or plant died. The older a sample is, the less 14C there is to be detected, and because the half-life of 14C (the period of time after which half of a given sample will have decayed) is about 5,730 years, the oldest dates that can be reliably measured by this process date to around 50,000 years ago."

thats fine. But things determine the rate of decay.

And they assume all things are the same today as they have always been.

 

[reformed1689]

thats fine. But things determine the rate of decay.

And they assume all things are the same today as they have always been.

Which we already know is not the case.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Which we already know is not the case.

Exactly

hence I would not expect it to be reliable beyond the flood since no one was there to know what the earth was like.

 

[Justadude]

Show me a scientific organization that is not Christian that would accept a biblical narrative as a basis for a starting point.

Don't need to.. Just look at how they talk about the Bible. All you need to know.

So you cannot show where any scientific organization operates the way you claimed, which means your claim was nothing more than baseless rhetoric.

 

[reformed1689]

So you cannot show where any scientific organization operates the way you claimed, which means your claim was nothing more than baseless rhetoric.

I didn't claim organizations, I claimed scientists. You are the one focused on organizations. You are the one with the double standards.

 

[Justadude]

I didn't claim organizations, I claimed scientists. You are the one focused on organizations. You are the one with the double standards.

Same problem. When shown the anti-scientific rules ICR has all their employees work under, your reply was to accuse scientists of the same thing. But you've done nothing to show that your accusation is anything more than baseless rhetoric.

 

[reformed1689]

Same problem. When shown the anti-scientific rules ICR has all their employees work under, your reply was to accuse scientists of the same thing. But you've done nothing to show that your accusation is anything more than baseless rhetoric.

You don't think scientists automatically throw out results of things that do not adhere to presuppositions that they deem without fault and absolutely true?

 

[Truth OT]

Show me a scientific organization that is not Christian that would accept a biblical narrative as a basis for a starting point.

Genuine scientific inquiry should not accept any narrative as a starting point. Science starts with data and follows the story the data tells.

 

[reformed1689]

Genuine scientific inquiry should not accept any narrative as a starting point. Science starts with data and follows the story the data tells.

Well then that outright should throw macro evolution out the door. There is not a shred of evidence that leads to that conclusion.

 

[Truth OT]

And they assume all things are the same today as they have always been.

Please elaborate on this assertion.

 

[Truth OT]

Well then that outright should throw macro evolution out the door.

Micro and macro evolution aren't scientific distinctions. Why do you separate them?

 

[reformed1689]

Micro and macro evolution aren't scientific distinctions. Why do you separate them?

Macro is, in fact, distinctly different than micro.

 

[Truth OT]

Macro is, in fact, distinctly different than micro.

How so?

 

[reformed1689]

How so?

Micro is adaptations within species, Macro is the evolution of a new species. Macro does not exist. Macro has never been observed either.

 

[Truth OT]

Macro is the evolution of a new species.

Speciation is the evolutionary process by which populations evolve to become distinct species. The biologist Orator F. Cook coined the term in 1906 for cladogenesis, the splitting of lineages, as opposed to anagenesis, phyletic evolution within lineages. It is further noted that speciation occurs when there is a new species, not just a new sub-species. For example, many pet owners are excited to own dogs that have been bred together to create a new breed. The new breed is not considered a new species. The reason for this is that the new breed is still able to reproduce with the other breed.

Are you saying macro is speciation and speciation is not actually thing?

 

[Justadude]

You don't think scientists automatically throw out results of things that do not adhere to presuppositions that they deem without fault and absolutely true?

I've seen no evidence of that.