Quote
Quote
So an atheist who says the Bible cannot be true (without doubt) is just as unqualified as a creationist?
Unqualified for what, exactly?

Well if they are saying that the Bible cannot literally be true, then I think it's safe to say that something like 99.999999% certainty could be acceptible, same as I could be 99.9999999% certain that the sun is going to rise in the east tomorrow.
Yes, I fully expected this backpeddling. What evomonger would be caught dead without their double standards?

Quote
You never know, it might not. And you never know, a supernatural being might have created the earth and all the animals that ever lived in it in 6 days, 6000 years ago. There's a lot of evidence contrary to this though, so the proof you present will need to address it. Can we see it please?
No you cannot see it. Saying "please" won't help. Actions speak louder than words. You need to do "please" by removing your evogoggles. Then you'll see plenty.

Now it's time to attend to the other matters, like I said I would.
Quote
You continually claim that creationism is science. I'm explaining to you what a scientific test is. You can test in whatever ways you like but there are certain standards that need to be met if you want to call the test scientific.
And the certain standards you have in mind are double. Not convincing.

Quote
I've talked with Russ earlier about prophecies. There are all kinds of ways you can claim prophecies to be true after the fact, and prophecies which don't actually come true can be ignored. You can also usually shoehorn the words of a prophecy into whatever after-the-fact event you want.
I don't have to shoehorn anything to know that Babylon has fallen and can't get up. No, somehow I don't think you have seriously considered the prophesies.
Quote
What's more, the fact that the Bible contains some historical accuracies is not in question. There really was a Bethlehem. The Romans really were there. However, you seem to think that this also validates the more mystical claims contained therein. So where's the archaeological evidence for the 6-day creation? How can you actually prove that Jesus was the son of God and that he rose from the dead? If you want to believe this it's your choice, but the belief exists outside of the bounds of testable science.
Scoffers said the NT was written between 400 & 600 AD... False. Scoffers said the OT was written at the end of the Babylonian captivity... False. Scoffers said there was no Jerico... False. No Solomon... False. No Hittite Empire... False. See a pattern here? Speculation doesn't work. Legit scientific research works.

Now you claim folks who see this pattern and believe it holds are just "religious", and their belief disqualifies them from science. Then you turn around and claim they don't want to participate in scientific investigations. I see no evidence to support your position. Your first argument is shown to be false by the very founders of every major branch of science, and your second is contrary to the actions of those you support.

Quote
Quote
Your position, in case you've forgotten, is that the history recorded in the Bible must be erased/disregarded when forming an hypothesis.
I never said this, and what I've said above will hopefully make the point clear.
Ah yes. Post 254350 must have slipped your mind.
Quote
Maybe you should explain that to Ken Ham, who says:
Quote
Quote:
You might not believe the Bible but I do. And I believe it gives me the right basis to understand this universe and correctly interpret the facts around me. I’m going to give you some examples of how building my thinking on the Bible explains the world
Presupposition: the Bible is correct. Therefore, all observations must be consistent with this idea. He also claims that evolutionary scientists presuppose evolution to be correct, ignoring the body of evidence that is the reason for this theory gaining acceptance in the first place. Bias and science make bad bedfellows. A scientist should follow where the evidence leads, not presuppose an idea and then try to fit the facts to it. Good and workable hypotheses are based on evidence.
Let's see... Ken Ham says he uses the Bible to help him understand things (interpret evidence) and you're saying he's not allowed to do this. You dispute the obvious & claim evolutionists don't make presuppositions & of course later you have to apply a double standard so you can overlook it when they do.

When flipflopping and slinging mud I suppose it might be easy to forget one's original contention...
Quote
Quote
Quote:
I present evidence and you attack Carl Baugh.
I explained to you that the "evidence" he's presented has been scrutinised by experts and found not to be what he claims it is. I've also explained why his "evidence" should be suspect in the first place. I was hoping you'd give me an example of a real scientific test for creationism being conducted by someone with real scientific qualifications, but I understand that this is probably a tall order.
You make claims about his evidence being bad, but you don't support them. I'm not aware of any scientific problems with the biosphere project. Why don't you educate me?

I get the impression Glen J. Kuban has convinced you that Dr. Baugh is a fraud. But Kuban seems to be the only source if you ever take the time to investigate. Other sources badmouth Dr. Baugh, but only because they've listened to Kuban & were predisposed to dislike any creationist. Don't dilly-dally if you do investigate. Kuban tends to alter & retract things very frequently. I did my own investigating before I bothered to travel all the way to Glen Rose, TX. Subsequently I went to defend Dr. Baugh on a forum by pointing out inconsistencies in Kuban's stories, but most of the material had disappeared & links were dead. New lies were up & I had to start over.

I don't claim Dr. Baugh is right about everything. He may be overly optimistic about some things. But he deserves to be treated fairly when he conducts research like the biosphere project, rather than rejected on the basis of one man's accusations. If there's an actual problem with the research, just say so.
Quote
Quote
Why would you bother to practice science in the first place unless you believed it would produce results?
The way science should be conducted, as I've explained, is to approach research with open-minded skepticism. You should be willing to learn from your results and accept when your ideas appear to be wrong. This is admittedly difficult to do -- some scientists themselves could do with a lesson here -- but it's necessary in order to arrive at the truth. Believing that something has to be true, and shoehorning all the evidence to fit that belief, is not scientific. If I'm still not getting the point across then I don't know what else I can say. Preconceived beliefs are just not compatible with scientific investigation. Besides, why investigate if you think you are already so certain of what the answer is?
If hypocrisy were a weapon you'd be dangerous. But it isn't, so I italicized it.

Still no answer to my question. It'd be more efficient if you used less words when you dodge.

Quote
Let's make this clear: when you say the Bible is "true," you mean "literally true," don't you.
True means true. You mistakenly place the term 'literally' in the wrong place. You mean to construct a straw man and say we interpret the Bible as "true only when every last word is interpreted in the most literal manner possible", but you fail to do so.

As it is, you have placed the term so that it modifies the adjective 'true', rather than the interpretive process. Yes, the Bible is literally true. No, the Bible is not to be interpreted in the stupidsnottyfauxliteral manner of the scoffers. The only legit way to interpret any text is to try to determine what the writer intends to say. Nothing else will do.

Dark Matter + Dark Energy = Dark Truth

"We find that such evidence demonstrates that the ID argument is dependent upon setting a scientifically unreasonable burden of proof for the theory of evolution." - Judge Jones Kitzmiller case
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Falsify.cfm

"To Compel A Man To Furnish Funds For The Propagation Of Ideas He Disbelieves And Abhors Is Sinful And Tyrannical." - Thomas Jefferson

"And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath?" - Thomas Jefferson