You use this same basic phrase over and over again as a response to many posters - “…get credentials…write up a theory…present to the Association of XYZ…then you can overturn…”Philipp, “evolution” is not nonsense to the hundreds of thousands of scientists around the world who study it. Since 1859 it has been strengthened year by year until today there is no convincing alternative explanation for species diversity.
At present “IDvolution” has no traction within the scientific community. If you believe it has merit as a theory, perhaps you should gain some scientific credentials and write up your theory for presentation to the community. The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) is a staunch advocate of the advancement of science, so that might be the place to begin presenting your ideas. That is the way to gain traction for your theory to replace the theory of evolution.
StAnastasia
What? In the intellectual realm of science, this is a non-answer. You are now speaking figuratively. I teach English and frequently examine poetic language and figures of speech. They are beautiful and moving. But they have little to do with determining the age of the earth. In years before present.Look, there is a point to be made here.
As I have posted before - look at time like a curled up measuring tape. From God’s perspective maybe it is 7 layers, but man who is living on the tape itself has to look back through each event (graduation). We can count back all the events (graduations/markers) to the very beginning and count 14 Billion. But how old is it really?..
This isn’t about private life. It is about the community of empirical research, which is all about publication, open descriptions of methods and processes, and signed articles open to peer review. All of the stuff posted earlier here about C14 in dinosaurs was unsigned from one anonymous website–basically negligible in the world of science.You use this same basic phrase over and over again as a response to many posters - “…get credentials…write up a theory…present to the Association of XYZ…then you can overturn…”
Out of curiosity, do you follow this advice in your own life?..
The “simply from empirical evidence” was the key modifying adverbial phrase. Are you acknowledging this now? Are you stating that it is your faith that prevents you from acknowledging the overwhelming empirical evidence of a 4.5 billion year-old earth?Perhaps I misunderstood.
Your prior post.
"Oh, come on.
No one in America today believes in a 6-10 thousand yr-old earth simply from the empirical evidence.
Stop pretending that this is about inconclusive evidence. That is an insult to other adults here. "
Which statement are you referring to, specifically, that is false?That is 100% false and a common propaganda statement that I commonly see on antitheist sites.
You missed the point - there is no empirical (repeatable, testable and predictable) evidence.The “simply from empirical evidence” was the key modifying adverbial phrase. Are you acknowledging this now? Are you stating that it is your faith that prevents you from acknowledging the overwhelming empirical evidence of a 4.5 billion year-old earth?
Or not?
I have been where you have been. Then I began to try and sort out all the data. There is an a priori bias built in.The “simply from empirical evidence” was the key modifying adverbial phrase. Are you acknowledging this now? Are you stating that it is your faith that prevents you from acknowledging the overwhelming empirical evidence of a 4.5 billion year-old earth?
Or not?
Go to Greenland. Collect a piece of the Amitsoq gneiss. Take it to a Radiometric dating laboratory. Have it dated. Repeat. Test. I predict an age of about 3 billion years.You missed the point - there is no empirical (repeatable, testable and predictable) evidence.
I don’t believe that any person who explores natural science considers it nonsense. Women and men in this endeavor have made valuable contributions to human welfare.Philipp, “evolution” is not nonsense to the hundreds of thousands of scientists around the world who study it. Since 1859 it has been strengthened year by year until today there is no convincing alternative explanation for species diversity.
This is a statement of faith. ALL species, technically, are equally “unique” and “individual.”I don’t believe that any person who explores natural science considers it nonsense. Women and men in this endeavor have made valuable contributions to human welfare.
However, though millions of scientists since 1859 have explored the origin of species diversity, there is only one species totally different in kind from all others because its nature is totally different in kind from all others. This species is the human species whose nature is an unique unification of spirit/matter, rational/corporeal, soul and body.
The human species has a origin which may incorporate what science knows about the material aspects of anatomy. However, the distinctive spiritual features of the human species leads to the possibility of two sole parents of all humanity. The viable, but not adequately explored, spiritual component of the unique human person is the foundation for monogenism.
yes or no, buffalo: is your rejection of the thousands of pages of empirical data on the age of the earth based on your religious faith?You missed the point - there is no empirical (repeatable, testable and predictable) evidence.
You are claiming unique courage for this position of yours? Really?I have been where you have been. Then I began to try and sort out all the data. There is an a priori bias built in.
I am looking for converging evidence. That is -historical and pure scientific. I am intereseted in the intersection between faith and reason. I am looking deeper than many dare to. …
oh, myYou missed the point - there is no empirical (repeatable, testable and predictable) evidence.
Absolutely! I studied, earned the doctorate, teach, write, and propose papers to conferences. Some are accepted, some are not. I’m still waiting to hear whether my paper for the American Scientific Affiliation in July will be accepted. If it isn’t, I plan to attend anyway.You use this same basic phrase over and over again as a response to many posters - “…get credentials…write up a theory…present to the Association of XYZ…then you can overturn…” Out of curiosity, do you follow this advice in your own life?.
Yet another classic example of I’ll avoid your remarks if you answer my question.Which statement are you referring to, specifically, that is false?
I have asked you several times now if it is your faith and interpretation of Genesis that drives you to reject the vast scientific expert consensus on the age of the planet.
Yes, or no?
A direct honest answer is what I am asking for.
Yes, all species, technically, are equally unique and individual if one means that each species has a discernable uniqueness. Obviously, individual species are different from one another which is the point of post 804…This is a statement of faith. ALL species, technically, are equally “unique” and “individual.”
Yes. That humans are unique is a theological, not a scientific claim. Anteaters are unique, as are Tasmanian Devils and Woolly Mammoths and humans and Haleakala Geese.This is a statement of faith. ALL species, technically, are equally “unique” and “individual.”
Good. It will always repeat this way if your underlying assumptions are consistent. Don’t make it correct.Go to Greenland. Collect a piece of the Amitsoq gneiss. Take it to a Radiometric dating laboratory. Have it dated. Repeat. Test. I predict an age of about 3 billion years.
That is empirical, repeatable, testable and predictable evidence.
rossum
No.yes or no, buffalo: is your rejection of the thousands of pages of empirical data on the age of the earth based on your religious faith?
yes, or no?
I answered yours - now you answer mine -yes or no, buffalo: is your rejection of the thousands of pages of empirical data on the age of the earth based on your religious faith?
yes, or no?