The Genesis Account and Science

Saquist said:
The begining of the Tread explicitly stated that the facts would be considered in comparision to the Genesis account not theories or best guesses....That would be the fourth time I'd have to explain that to you.
Click to expand...
What facts? (Please do not adopt that partonising tone. It is irrelvant to the discussion and only serves to make you look small.)
I have presented the facts:
the Earth was not dark.
The Earth was not formless.
The Earth was not watery.
And iceaura has pointed out that it was not rocky.
Those are the facts.
They are exactly contrary to the claims of Genesis. How many times do I have to explain this to you? Which part are you having difficulty in understanding? Why are you having difficulty in understanding it? Do you have any intention to try to understand it?
 
Saquist, I promised not to call you a cretin, so I shan't.
You observed:

My dear Ophilolite that is exactly have you haven't done. Please for the sake of every one observing the thread explain the Genesis model as scientificly wrong and please attempt to seperate your scientific hypothesis and theory from the science which is “ Science, in the broadest sense, refers to any system of objective knowledge ."

Are you blissfully unaware that hypothesis and theory constitute objective knowledge when such hypothesis and theory have been formulated by the scientific method. If you were unaware of that consider yourself informed now. As noted in my prior post the objective knowledge that we have demonstrates beyond any reasonable doubt that the Genesis account in regard to the four aspects we have been considering is wrong. That's it. I will be happy to provide you with references, general or particular, if you will indicate which aspect of this objective knowledge you are disputing.

There is an old Hopi saying which roughly translated goes "the tracker who follows the bear wishing it to be a deer will be eaten by the bear". Don't you just love that native American wisdom?
 
An they will not be considered for the critical analysis of the Genesis Account. That is now the fifth time I've had explain that to you.

You can either accept this devisions or chose to remain in contradiction with a fellow geologist.

Remeber...I stick to my guns...

Science: state of knowing:facts...

The parts excluded from debate: scientific theory: hypothesis: conjecture: Extrapolation: Speculation..

That is now the Fight time I've outline the threads determination. You can of course contine down this line of reasoning to attempt to force me to change the premise of the thread, but consider your sucess rate so far with propperly motivating.

Is this really worth your time?
I'm sure this must be a communication oversight on my part so allow me to all inclusive...

"All scientific :theories, extrapolations, speculations, hypothesis, conjecture will be set aside in favor of direct observations, and facts established excluding any information that hasn't been confirmed by ,said, direct observation. The model being entertained will be a biblical model put under the scrutiny of scientific observed fact."

In Essence: We are establishing a new new theory that does not directly hinge on what we currently theorized happen on Earth during it's creation.

We have on record aGeologist, comprehending this premise, and stating definitively that the Genesis account is scientificly sound.

We are further exploring this, again, minus current scientific speculation.

If there is any where, haven't made the point of the thread clear...please ask for clarification...I will refer you to this post.
 
Perhaps you are just not expressing yourself well, or I am just not understanding...

You are saying that you are attempting to devise a brand new theory of the formation of the earth and heavens based solely on the account in Genesis - regardless of anything we know today based on science?

If that's true, then what are you looking for verifcation on?
You could say that the stars really ARE attached to a dome in space, and it wouldn't matter, right?

What exactly is it you are looking for from otehrs on this thread?

I honestly have no clue.
Perhaps if you try rewording, rather than simply restating, your intentions.
 
Saquist said:
"All scientific :theories, extrapolations, speculations, hypothesis, conjecture will be set aside in favor of direct observations, and facts established excluding any information that hasn't been confirmed by ,said, direct observation. The model being entertained will be a biblical model put under the scrutiny of scientific observed fact."
Click to expand...

Perhaps the problem is the percieved line between scientific theory and scientific fact.

Maybe you should clearly state the scientific facts as you see them that clearly supoport the Genesis account (up to day one only, if you prefer) and align them with what Genesis does say.

For example.
Geneis says:
2 Now the earth was [a] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
[a - Or possibly became]
The scientific facts that support this part of the account are as follows:
Blah Blah Blah.

Maybe that will help clarify your position.

What are those supporting facts?
 
You think the stars are attached to a dome in space?
I understand if this is not something you wish to consider seriously...but is it your purpose to derail the thread aswell.

So, there is no established knowledge about the creation of the Earh...
I make this assumption...is this correct or is this false?
 
Saquist said:
You think the stars are attached to a dome in space?
Click to expand...

Of course not, but that was a prevailing theory at one time.

I want you to seperate what you [percieve to be facts and what you perceve to be theory.
For example...
The earth revolves around the sun - is that theory or fact?
The closest star (other then the sun) is appoximately 4.2 light years away - fact or theory?
and so on...
 
Fact:

I'm on the other side of Dell Dimension 5150 Desktop conversing with and individual self designated one raven who as requested a less than comprehensive list of scientific fact in what I can only presume is attempt to redirect the conversation to discuss the difference between scientific theory and fact.

You mean as such?
 
Saquist said:
You can either accept this devisions or chose to remain in contradiction with a fellow geologist.
.
Click to expand...
One swallow does not make a spring, and one geologist does not make a subduction zone.
The guy was wrong. Learn to live with it.

Saquist said:
Science: state of knowing:facts...

The parts excluded from debate: scientific theory: hypothesis: conjecture: Extrapolation: Speculation..
Click to expand...
You do not understand what science is. That is now abundantly clear. Your also refuse to understand what science is. That is now clear.
I have also tried to explain this to you multiple times, but you will not listen. I failed to understand the premises of this thread because they are so absurd as to be utterly pointless. Really, try to get an education. It won't do you any harm. Goodnight.
 
Well excellent.
We have a control then.

Why do you not know the difference between Scientific Fact and Unknown?
 
Ophiolite said:
One swallow does not make a spring, and one geologist does not make a subduction zone
The guy was wrong. Learn to live with it..
Click to expand...

Is that your conclusion?

You do not understand what science is. That is now abundantly clear. Your also refuse to understand what science is. That is now clear.
I have also tried to explain this to you multiple times, but you will not listen. I failed to understand the premises of this thread because they are so absurd as to be utterly pointless. Really, try to get an education. It won't do you any harm. Goodnight.
Click to expand...


You're saying things are either known or theory and theory isn't unkown its classified as known?
 
Saquist said:
So, there is no established knowledge about the creation of the Earh...
I make this assumption...is this correct or is this false?
Click to expand...

So, if you say there is no established fact of the creation of the earth, why do you also say:
Saquist said:
The model being entertained will be a biblical model put under the scrutiny of scientific observed fact."
Click to expand...

Do you honestly not see the difficulty in understanding your goal with this discussion.

If you mean to place this hypothesis under the scrutiny of "scientific fact", yet you claim there is no "scientific fact" that can be used to scrutinize the hypothesis, what, then, is the point?
You can say anything at all you wish to say, and it can not be scrutinized under scientific fact.

Please tell me what about this you do not understand.
 
So, if you say there is no established fact of the creation of the earth, why do you also say:
Click to expand...

actually I was asking a question...still waiting for your explanation.

What are established facts on the creation of the solar system and the Earth.

You of all people on this obviously stagnate thread should know. You are of course the only one with a rebutal
 
The onus is on you to support your hypothesis with scientific fact, as you claimed you could do.

Do so.
 
Saquist said:
So, there is no established knowledge about the creation of the Earh...
I make this assumption...is this correct or is this false?
Click to expand...
To all interested lurkers this statement epitomises Saquist's ignorance. We have abundant knowledge about the Earth's origin, but he rejects it because, like all scientific knowledge it is provisional. Does this mean it is uncertain? Yes,. but in most cases to a vanishingly small degree. We have coroboration of these theories throug our studies in astronomy, astrophysics, planetology, geology, mineralogy, nuclear chemistry, geochronology, seismology, computer simulation....the list goes on.

Yet Saquist seems to prefer the notoriously suspect eyewitness testimony. For example he states this to be a fact:
"I'm on the other side of Dell Dimension 5150 Desktop."

Now that is not very scientific, is it? What is the other side? That implies there is a side and the other side. Would it not have been more scientific to state he is in front of (or behind) the Dell? Why introduce the ambiguity of the other side. (Might this be the Dark Side we hear so much of?:) )

But how does he know it is a Dell Dimension 5150 Desktop? Did someone tell him? They might be lying? Did he read it on the machine? How do we know his vision is accurate? How do we know he did not mistype the name of the machine? (After all he mistypes so many other things it seems unlikely he would type this name flawlessly.) How do we know this is not a Dell fake? How do we know that it was not mislabelled at the factory?

Yet Saquist would have us believe that it is a fact that he is on the other side of a Dell Dimension 5150 Desktop. Now, I agree it is probable that he is indeed in fornt of, to the side of, in the vicinity of such a machine. I accept it has high degree of probability of being true, of being a fact. Just as the current theories as to the origin of the Earth have a high degree of probability of being true, of being facts. But in both cases the results are provisional and subject to change through later observation or reinterpretation of that obsevervation.

Consequently the premises set out by Saquist for this thread are revealed as truly dumb. And that folks, is a fact!;)
 
Thankyou...

Proceeding...

Watery, formless, and dark does not violate established facts. In the absent or articulate objection making use of scientific fact...I will continue...

Edit: IF you guys don't know what a scientific fact is we could continue down this line.
 
Ophiolite said:
To all interested lurkers this statement epitomises Saquist's ignorance. We have abundant knowledge about the Earth's origin, but he rejects it because, like all scientific knowledge it is provisional. Does this mean it is uncertain? Yes,. but in most cases to a vanishingly small degree. We have coroboration of these theories throug our studies in astronomy, astrophysics, planetology, geology, mineralogy, nuclear chemistry, geochronology, seismology, computer simulation....the list goes on.
Click to expand...

So your saying it's uncertain and it's stupid to question what is uncertain?
Oh...wait..."It's ignorant to question what is uncertain?

Is this what you mean?

Thus you think the tread is "dumb: because it addressed the uncertainty involved in science and proceeds to make a different proposal.

Hense you presence in the thread marks you as a person participating in a dumb thread....theres a word for these kind's of people ...

a "dumb"y I think is the propper designation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top