Needs graphics
Posted on 07/09/2003 12:08:32 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
Illustrating again that Creationism is just another PostModern-Deconstructionist attack on scientific inquiry.
Spare me the empty rhetoric. Give me your defintion of science, otherwise, I and all others here will have to conclude that you are not prepared to defend your statements.
Give me your definition of science.
Spare me the empty rhetoric. Give me your defintion of science, otherwise, I and all others here will have to conclude that you are not prepared to defend your statements.
Do you have a reading problem? What you are trying to do is play the gotcha game: lure someone into making a restrictive definition, then jump up and say, "AhHa! this widget A doesn't fit into box B."
Problem is, Science is what scientists do. It works by consensus, not definitions. The standards and practices of science adapt to the problem at hand. The only master rule is that the consensus has to hold up over time.
I just did. Science is what scientists do (professionally). Is that too simple for you?
otherwise, I and all others here will have to conclude that you are not prepared to defend your statements.
What sort of overweening arrogance could possibly lead someone to pretend to speak for "all others here"? And what sort of chutzpah could lead someone who just yesterday posted a claim about homeschooling that he declined to defend, to demand such a defense from others?
Ooh. You can play the gotcha game too.
What was that definition of madness? Doing (or posting) the same thing over and over again, somehow expecting that the result will be different this time?
Exactly, To quote Karl Popper, a real philosopher:
"This, then for me is science. I do not try to define it, for very good reasons. ... Definitions are either abbreviations and therefore unneccessary...or they are Aristotelian attempts to 'state the essence' of a word, and therefore unconscious conventional dogmas. "
Popper proposes a rough demarcation criterion for science vs. non-science (that science is predictive, it actively looks for tests and refutations, etc.) I happen to think his demarcation proposal can be improved (I'm not the first or even the hundred-and-first to say this); but in general I agree with his rejection of attempts to define science, except in terms of a description of how science is done.
The quote, BTW, is from 'The Problem of Demarcation (1974), which is excerpted in a book of essays by Popper, called Popper Selections, edited by David Miller, Princeton University Press, 1985.
I am curious where you get this idea. Outside of the Bible (or a book written using the Bible or about the Bible), would you please show documented records that Jesus truly existed?
For example, just basic questions as the time and order of creation are greatly disputed among fundamentalist Christians. Do you want the public schools to take sides while teaching ”creationism?”
Take this question:
The creation “day” lasted :
A. 24 hoursThe answer to the above question is extremely important; for instance, take a look at dating of fossils. A mammal fossil that is 6 million years old will be acceptable to a subset of Creationists but not to others. A mammal fossil that is 13,000 years old will be acceptable to another subset of Creationists but not to others. Similarly, a mammal fossil that is 7,000 years old will be acceptable to another subset of Creationists but not to others.B. 1000 years.
C. 7,000 years.
D. An indeterminate amount of time (it could be anywhere from 24 hours to zillions of years)
When did God create the large Earth mammals?
Young Earth Creationists of the 24-hour creation days spend quite a bit of time ridiculing fossil tests that do not match their sectarian interpretation of the Bible, while other Christian fundamentalists have accepted those dates without any trouble for many decades.
I know of three verses that refer to Jesus at creation:
Here's John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.In chronological Bibles, John 1:1 is the first verse listed. Here's John 1:10
He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him.1 Corinthians 8:6
Yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.That's a reference to God and Jesus, from which all things came. Which aligns with the above verses and the following verses.
Colassians 1:15-16a
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by him all things were created...Hebrews 1:1-2
In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe.The Bible tells us God created everything through Jesus, the Word.
I don't have time to get into the details but if you're looking for a source for this belief...
There is a mention by Josephus, although John the Baptist got much bigger press.
Thanks. Was wondering if there were any others like Roman or official records?
Needs graphics
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.