Changes

::::::::In science it is all about testability. This doesn't mean that you have to repeat the event, but that you can repeat the observation that support a theory, and that you can predict observations. Supernatural explanation fails in this respect, by you own admission, since you can't study the supernatural. But also this is a digression, and should be discussed on the Philosophy of Science or Creationism pages. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:38, 7 December 2007 (EST)

::::::::In science it is all about testability. This doesn't mean that you have to repeat the event, but that you can repeat the observation that support a theory, and that you can predict observations. Supernatural explanation fails in this respect, by you own admission, since you can't study the supernatural. But also this is a digression, and should be discussed on the Philosophy of Science or Creationism pages. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:38, 7 December 2007 (EST)

::::::::: You can have (and test) observations that ''support'' the theory, but you can't test the theory itself if it was in the past.  Repeatability frequently applies to the test, not the event, but in those cases it is the observation that is being checked, not whether the event happened.  That is, you can repeatedly test the C12/C14 ratio in a sample, but you are checking the ratio, you are not checking how that ratio came to be there.  To study how it came to be there, you would need to repeat the original event, which is, of course, impossible.  So the observation of the ratio is science, but the explanation of how it came to be there is not.  And whilst you can't study the supernatural, you can make predictions based on a supernatural explanation and test those predictions.  And this has been done (i.e. predictions based on the creation model) with the predictions being tested and found to be correct.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:51, 8 December 2007 (EST)

::::::::: You can have (and test) observations that ''support'' the theory, but you can't test the theory itself if it was in the past.  Repeatability frequently applies to the test, not the event, but in those cases it is the observation that is being checked, not whether the event happened.  That is, you can repeatedly test the C12/C14 ratio in a sample, but you are checking the ratio, you are not checking how that ratio came to be there.  To study how it came to be there, you would need to repeat the original event, which is, of course, impossible.  So the observation of the ratio is science, but the explanation of how it came to be there is not.  And whilst you can't study the supernatural, you can make predictions based on a supernatural explanation and test those predictions.  And this has been done (i.e. predictions based on the creation model) with the predictions being tested and found to be correct.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:51, 8 December 2007 (EST)

::::::::::No, even if you would be able to repeat the original event, the observations might still be wrong, just like observations in the present can be wrong. But it seems that you are hiding behind the fact that we cannot go back in time, which is true. But if you reject any claim about the past, because the past is inaccessible, then it would evenly apply to your claims about the past. You cannot go back in time and see creation happen either. If you reject scientific theories because their observations might be wrong, your theory explaining those same observations has exactly the same problem. [[User:Order|Order]] 02:50, 9 December 2007 (EST)

::::::::::It is good to see that creationist made some progress, but of course we do not know where this will lead. If we can test the supernatural, science can start cataloging it. Maybe at some point in the future we know why nature is fond of beetles. But as said, when we start testing the supernatural, it might turn out to quite different from what any of us believes. Would you accept any evidence that would contradict your beliefs? If the preditions creationists fail, would it make you change your view on this matter?

::::::::::Anyway, you seem to be mostly hiding behind the fact that we cannot go back in time, which is true. But, even if you would be able to repeat the original event, the observations might still be wrong, just like observations in the present can be wrong. In addition, if you reject any claim about the past, because the past is inaccessible, then it would evenly apply to your claims about the past. You cannot go back in time and see creation happen either. If you reject scientific theories because their observations might be wrong, your theory explaining those same observations has exactly the same problem. [[User:Order|Order]] 02:50, 9 December 2007 (EST)

:"''It doesn't give useful answers to the scientific questions.''": It is, in that sense, not a science book, but that doesn't meant that when it touches on areas of science, such as astronomy (creation of sun, moon, and stars), geology (flood), etc. that it is incorrect.

:"''It doesn't give useful answers to the scientific questions.''": It is, in that sense, not a science book, but that doesn't meant that when it touches on areas of science, such as astronomy (creation of sun, moon, and stars), geology (flood), etc. that it is incorrect.

::No, sometimes it is correct, sometimes its incorrect. And the knowledge in it is patchy. It doesn't tell us how the moon sun or starts were made, only that it happened. Is say not much about geology, nothing about how rock formations, clay, granite, minerals, natural resources were formed. And physics is mostly absent, just like mathematics. [[User:Order|Order]]

::No, sometimes it is correct, sometimes its incorrect. And the knowledge in it is patchy. It doesn't tell us how the moon sun or starts were made, only that it happened. Is say not much about geology, nothing about how rock formations, clay, granite, minerals, natural resources were formed. And physics is mostly absent, just like mathematics. [[User:Order|Order]]

::::::::Actually there were never human eyewitnesses to creation, if we look at it literal. Adam wasn't created yet. But as said, this kind of apologist arguments are intellectually challenging, but I consider them other than that rather pointless. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:38, 7 December 2007 (EST)

::::::::Actually there were never human eyewitnesses to creation, if we look at it literal. Adam wasn't created yet. But as said, this kind of apologist arguments are intellectually challenging, but I consider them other than that rather pointless. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:38, 7 December 2007 (EST)

::::::::: God witnessed it.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:51, 8 December 2007 (EST)

::::::::: God witnessed it.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:51, 8 December 2007 (EST)

::::::::::Just repeating it doesn't make an argument stronger. As said I am quite happy to continue this discussion, even though I am certain that you not run out of arguments to counter my arguments, but I am equally certain that I can keep this going as well. What I still cannot fully grasp why you need to want to prove so badly that all other interpretations are wrong. If you your interpretation is right, it remains right, no matter what Augustine thought about it. [[User:Order|Order]] 02:50, 9 December 2007 (EST)  

::::::::::Just repeating it doesn't make an argument better. As said I am quite happy to continue this discussion, even though I am certain that you will not run out of arguments to counter my arguments, but I am equally certain that I can keep this apologetic ping pong going as well. What I still cannot fully grasp why you need to want to prove so badly that all other interpretations are wrong? If you your interpretation is right, it remains right, no matter what Augustine thought about it. [[User:Order|Order]] 02:50, 9 December 2007 (EST)  

:"''When scientists develop theories that contradict your interpretation of the bible, they do it because they have a different interpretation of the bible, and not because they want to bring god down.''": Already answered above.

:"''When scientists develop theories that contradict your interpretation of the bible, they do it because they have a different interpretation of the bible, and not because they want to bring god down.''": Already answered above.

:"'' ''Their'' findings do not contradict ''their'' view of the bible, only ''your'' view of it.''":  Which scientists are you talking about?  In the case of atheists, their "findings" often ''do'' contradict "their" reading of it—because that is their motive.  That's why we have so many atheists claiming that the Bible got it wrong—because they believe that the science ''does'' contradict (their reading of) the Bible.

:"'' ''Their'' findings do not contradict ''their'' view of the bible, only ''your'' view of it.''":  Which scientists are you talking about?  In the case of atheists, their "findings" often ''do'' contradict "their" reading of it—because that is their motive.  That's why we have so many atheists claiming that the Bible got it wrong—because they believe that the science ''does'' contradict (their reading of) the Bible.