nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 735:
Line 735: + + + +
→Atheist Science: Spong, the Big Bang, and testing.
But lets stick to your testability criterion for a while, since as I said I don't want to convince you that I am right, but to concinve you that you might be wrong. Can you give me a repeatable test that we could run to distinguish between the authenticity of the gospels of Luke, Thomas and Joseph Smith? [[User:Order|Order]] 10:48, 20 December 2007 (EST)
But lets stick to your testability criterion for a while, since as I said I don't want to convince you that I am right, but to concinve you that you might be wrong. Can you give me a repeatable test that we could run to distinguish between the authenticity of the gospels of Luke, Thomas and Joseph Smith? [[User:Order|Order]] 10:48, 20 December 2007 (EST)
: If you pointed me to Spong, I'd probably show you where he was wrong, because he is about so much. ''What'' apologist arguments for the last 2000 years? For most of the last 2000 years the church (the apologists) argued essentially what I've been arguing.
: The claim that the Big Bang idea accurately predicted the background radiation is nowhere near as clearcut as your comment would imply[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4678/]. I've already said (in other conversations if not this one) that science can be ''useful'' in studying history; by testing some details of the historical claims, but that it cannot test for the actual events themselves occurring. So I accept the archaeological evidence example, and the DNA example too, for that matter. But aren't DNA tests done in a lab?
: Repeatable testing is part of the scientific method, which I've said can't be used on past events, such as the writing of the books you mentioned, so I don't see why you would ask me for such tests of them.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:19, 21 December 2007 (EST)
===Legitimate views===
===Legitimate views===