Please explain what you think the fundamental difference, in scientific terms, between non-living and living manner is.
The Hebrew language has 7,000 words. English has over a million, with about 170,000 words in use at any particular time. English meanings are also in constant flux. I recommend looking at how Ussher arrived at his calculations, and then a study of how certain Hebrew words were used throughout the Bible.
Ussher was not a Biblical author. His information cannot be considered inspired by God to the extent we accept the work of the original authors as inspired.
Science uses both deductive and inductive logic.
Religion does also.
Eye witness testimony is not the same as conducting repeatable experiments and making conclusions based off observations of the results of those experiments. Literally anyone can just claim they saw something. It takes a lot more to scientifically prove something. There also has to be concensus before a theory becomes a theory. I suppose you could argue that people can agree that somebody saw something, but again without being able to repeat it, how do you prove it?
1 Like
So they based their “science” off the Bible instead of the scientific method? How is that scientific?
That is the nature of miracles. However, even seeing a miracle first hand isn’t always enough. Many people witnessed the miracles of the Bible and still didn’t believe. That’s essentially what Jesus told Lazarus in the parable. Thats why he wants us to believe by faith…
Proof in terms of epistemology isn’t really a scientific domain outside of mathematics.
Historical accounts of ‘miraculous’ events are by definition beyond the empirical process of discovery - since the term ‘miracle’ implies unnatural. Of course, one could assign a probability to such claims, given what we know about natural processes that occur now and at the time of said claims. And if one were to do that, you’d find nothing but hearsay, or the evolution of pagan mythology as it transitioned into Western / Zoriastrian monotheism.
So, in the domain of science, I would say there’s no meaningful evidence that some event happened in history that contradicts fundamental theories of the natural world, and instead, evidence exists of the evolution of ancient mythology being assigned and personified into natural processes. And as science grows, such mythologies get dimmer and dimmer, being replaced with more practical philosophies of being, rather than assertions of magic.
2 Likes
There are many real scientists with a much broader view than what you are expressing.
No real scientist would pretend to understand much, within the realm of science. Science can’t really explain a thing…except for the kind of science that penetrates into consciousness.
I believe they have been able to create amino acids in the lab which are one of the building blocks of life.
All that’s needed for life are self replicating polymers to begin evolution. These can be split / replicated by forces of motion, say in the ocean. And like you mentioned, we have shown that natural chemical forces can give rise to these starting forms of “life”. Abiogenesis is really just a chemical event. Yes, we don’t know exactly how it happened, but we have some evidence to show that it’s probably wasn’t something miraculous
“We”?? You and Frankenstein?
Life originates each moment naturally, since time without beginning. Every form is latent in voidness
We don’t need Freakazoids
Concrete thinking is bad rp5x5. Yes, “we” as humans have shown experimentally that chemical processes can create biological material that are building blocks to the evolution of life, namely simple polymers that could evolve membranes.
Ugh. A bit late:
Due to corresponding [kamma] there are four types of [patisandhi]
1, Opatika patisandhi (spontaneous rebirth)
2. Samsedaja patisandhi (born or arisen from moisture)
3. Andhaja patisandhi (oviparous)
4. patisandhi (born from a womb, viviparous)
Morphogenetic fields are latent in voidness.
Nothing is new in Kuon.
Had to read it a couple times myself.
Perhaps Mary rode a stegosaurus to Bethlehem?
1 Like
Ouch!
No.
But in truth So-called “science” today is pseudoscience, because they hold onto unsound theories and block anything else. No real science, is closed minded and think they understand things. Just brainwashed, toy people upholding enforced, consensus and authority,
There is much reason to believe Human Antiquity goes much further back then the dimwits say, and some reason to think some of the giant reptilians survived much later than the concrete thinking dimwits say.
Obviously Biblical dating cannot be interpolated literally. In the same way extreme Darwinists and arrogant science that turn it into a religion are grasping at straws but want to convince people they have all the answers.
Need I mention detailed dragon stories from all over the world?
Archeology continues to reset, but it has much to learn.
No, people here can’t have a genuine discussion, that’s why I don’t post here much.
That said, please just drop the Archbishop of whatever’s calculation of a 10,000 year old earth. That is not a failure of science, it is a failure of the left to look at where current Evangelical/Fundamental/Bible-believing Christian theology is on such topics.
The 10kyr earth crap is the flat earth of Christian theology understanding.
Yes, I really have a Physics degree, and a couple of other science and engineering degrees, and am Born Again.
You started with an insulting strawman argument, but I bothered to reply because you show some genuine interest in the question that you asked, albeit poorly.
-
Dino’s and Humans: The Bible is clear that God’s interaction with time is way different from our own. Regardless of God building the earth, from Creation of matter/energy, thru Dinos, and then taking the earth that was mostly purged of large fauna and planting Man in it, or just placing all that crap in a pre-made earth in an instant is of no great consequence to my everyday life.
However, as human scientists, we need to pursue the evidence by the relatively few and forensic approaches that we have availible.
More apropos is the " Cambrian explosion" of modern species, but Paleontology is just a hobby for me… -
Human “races”: Traditionally, it was believed that these came down from the three sons of Noah. However, it is clear that as Humans spread across the earth, natural selection turned the cold weather climate inhabitants whiter, and the warm weather inhabitants darker. That is just one example of selected traits. Still all are human, still capable of viable interbreeding (same species), and children of God. And yes, this means that I have no problem with genetic down-selection, that is how we got dogs from wolves.
More apropos: The archeology finds that I have read about push dates of pre-human hominids as recent as 1-2Million years ago. 1M years is about 70K generations of a relatively small population until recent times. Is that 70K-140K generations enough instances to get all of the genetic improvement done?
Here is a bit of sanity about this.
