And yet ANOTHER icon bites the dust!!

[bob b]

http://answersingenesis.org/docs/4133.asp

[Stratnerd]

This is the same cut and paste that you did not so long ago under the "Is the big bang true?"

Do you have nothing more to add?

[bob b]

S,

I can always hope that there are new visiters since I last tried to get some discussion going on the failings of the Big bang idea.

[Stratnerd]

Interesting article at:

http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/space/09/20/cosmic.radiation.reut/index.html

[rbisback]

Is there another or many other explanations for the data? There most certainly will be. When one looks for an answer, there is always one to be found. Notice in the article it states EVOLUTION of the universe. So Ben, there is your refutation, evolution is most certainly tied into it.
Strat,

You are constatnly harangueing us about our knowing the Bible is true, yet every evolutionism believer KNOWS evolution is "true" and only look at things with that perspective in mind, and only look for answers to what they see with that perspective. That indicates that YOU have the same problem as we do.

[Stratnerd]

R'back

That indicates that YOU have the same problem as we do.Hardly! But I'm glad you admit it's a problem. I can think of many scenarios (I would call these expectations or predictions) about the world if it was indeed created, flooded and repopulated just a few thousand years ago. IF the world were like this I would be bible-thumper too but what I see clearly "falsifies" this notion. I started out life as a creationist so I don't see how your argument holds.

and only look for answers to what they see with that perspective Scientistis look for tests not answers. More specifically, scientists should find the hypothesis that are most directly related to the theory and evaluate them. For example, the article says "Had the verification not been made, it would have tossed much current thinking into doubt, according to John Carlstrom of the University of Chicago."

Do creationists ever say... "we did this study and if the results didn't demonstrate X, Biblical literalism would be in serious trouble"?

[rbisback]

Incorrect sentence, it should have said "Evolutionists" not "Scientists" because there are plenty of scientists that believe evolution is false, and correctly so.

I would have to state that the sentence is false also. The rest of your argument is false also because there has NOT been verification yet.

If creationists do a study and it is falsified then much of CURRENT THINKING on how we view Biblical literalism would have to be tossed. There are you happy?

[Stratnerd]

there are plenty of scientists that believe evolution is false, and correctly so. Sure, no problem but there are no scientists that are creationists because the latter cannot do science.

I would have to state that the sentence is false also. The rest of your argument is false also because there has NOT been verification yet. Falsification is more powerful than verification but article implied that based on a particular model, results that were expected were observed. This is verification.

If creationists do a study and it is falsified then much of CURRENT THINKING on how we view Biblical literalism would have to be tossed. There are you happy? Show what reasonable (not birds from lizard eggs) predictions, when bourne out, would falsify biblical literalism?

[rbisback]

" Sure, no problem but there are no scientists that are creationists because the latter cannot do science."

Strat you are so full of it. There are plenty of creationists who are scientists, you know that, yet you lie about it, (normal MOI for evolutionismists, just look at public waste facility books on evolution and you will find them chock full of lies). Creationists have found that life cannot come from non-life (Pasteur). Developed laws of physics. Found the cure for Polio. So, what other Clintonesque statements are you going to make Strat?

[Stratnerd]

R'back..... here's a clue - for free. Creationists can do science - sure but they can't do creationism as science!

There are certain requirements for something to be science... dogmatic adherence to religious text isn't one of them.

[rbisback]

And who came up with that rule strat? You totally believe in evolution, so you can't do science!

[Stratnerd]

And who came up with that rule strat?I think most philosophers of scientists as well as most working scientists would have the presence of alternative hypotheses as a salient feature of doing science.

You totally believe in evolution, so you can't do science! When I look at the issue as a whole at least I allow for the possibility that organisms did not evolve (that's the alternative hypothesis) therefore that's science.

[bob b]

S,

>>I think most philosophers of scientists as well as most working scientists would have the presence of alternative hypotheses as a salient feature of doing science.<<

So what is the alternative hypothesis to evolution?

>>When I look at the issue as a whole at least I allow for the possibility that organisms did not evolve (that's the alternative hypothesis) therefore that's science.<<

Do you really believe that "no evolution" is the only legitimate alternative hypothesis?

Are you mentally incapable of even considering the obvious alternative hypothesis? Do the words choke in your mouth?

Why is that?

[AVmetro]

There are certain requirements for something to be science... dogmatic adherence to religious text isn't one of them.

What are the requirements for something to be "science"?

If you mean "adhereing blindly to biblical text", then I see your point.

But I see no problem in weighing the evidence against scriptures.

Dating methods are something I could not honestly put my faith in for example.

God bless--AV

[Stratnerd]

So what is the alternative hypothesis to evolution? There are different evolutionary scenarios:
- evolution on the planet within a few million years
- evolution on the planet within a few thousand years
-evolution on the planet with limitless time
- several origin of life
- Lamarkian evolution

and non evolutionary scenarios
- spontaneous generation of organisms
- organisms give rise to (what we would call) higher level taxonomic orders (e.g., mammals giving birth to trees and birds)
- spontaneous appearence of organisms (not by natural means - the process cannot be investigated but as a historical phenomenon - yes) and this would include Judeo-Christianity creation as well as the hundred other creation myths.
-alians planted life here as it looks today.
Do you really believe that "no evolution" is the only legitimate alternative hypothesis? No see above. All equally legit? No.
Are you mentally incapable of even considering the obvious alternative hypothesis? You mean "poof" god did it?
Do the words choke in your mouth? sticks and stones..

[Stratnerd]

AV, I'll post my response in Science 101.

[rbisback]

When I look at the issue as a whole at least I allow for the possibility that organisms did not evolve (that's the alternative hypothesis) therefore that's science.""

No you don't, daschel wannabe!

[Stratnerd]

I'm glad you joined Bob in finding me so interesting as to take the time to discuss my "real feelings". You should probably get in contact with my wife she probably has a few questions for you.

[rbisback]

she probably has a few questions for you.

I kinda doubt that!