(Scientific method in Genesis)
Yep, he was created on the sixth day, fourth hand is still waaaaay closer than millions and millions of years.
Observe (scientific method) God saw.
Analyze (scientific method) It was good.
Record times and data ( The evening and the morning were the first day)
Follows a logical order.
43 comments
YOU have to have a hypothesis which YOU can gather data for, YOU can test, YOU can analyze, and most importantly, YOU can -falsify-. Or, YOU can read about someone else's experiment (which meets the criteria I described) and YOU can do the experiment -again-.
I dare you to repeat creation as the Bible describes it.
Ya know, if you recorded before you analyzed, you wouldn't get things so badly wrong.
As for Christ going back into schools, it's a waste of time. If he hasn't graduated after 2000 years he's never going to make it.
His expulsion was fully warranted- he knew the alcohol ban, but still turneed water into wine, and as for incident with the five loaves and two fishes, the parents of the coeliac kids are still muttering about suing the school district.
You know nothing but a few words of the scientific method.
I have an idea. Instead of putting "Christ back in schools," let's put science, real science, into your church. Poof! There goes religion.
Where the f**k do you get fourth hand from? As for rest.. there is no point trying to explain.
Have you ever read a science book, in fact have you ever read a book? Having mummy read the Wholly Babble to you before tucking you in doesn't count.
Debbie, darling, you really should avoid commenting on subjects you know nothing about, like the scientific method. It makes you look like a clueless twit.
wow major science fail. How much of that can you observe or test through evidence? Can you disprove any of it, or attempt to? If the end result remains, "because god said so", then it's not scientific.
Seriously, I need to reduce my brain stuff to that of a sheep to be able to even approach that argument fairly.
No thanks. Keep it to yourself, Deb. Even, umm, 'innocent' tots have a better grasp of science than that.
You use the term "scientific method" but you don't seem to understand it that well. Don't worry I can help.
1. "God saw." In science it is not good enough for one party to observe something once. It is necessary for other parties to observe it, over and over again if need be. 2."It was good." This "analysis" is worded far too vaguely to mean anything. Good in what way? This analysis is too indefinite to be accepted scientifically.
This is so good im going to use it in my first evolution lecture of the semester tommorow morning
cheers for the monday morning amusement, im sure my students will love you for it!!!!
Put Christ Back Into Schools?
I'd put myself back there first if I were you, Debs. It clearly didn't work too well first time around.
Record times and data (The evening and the morning were the first day)
But there was no sun yet, so what was a "day"?
Observe, infer, analyse, experiment, conclude.
These are the correct steps of a scientific theory...
If I was to argue in such a way I would do the following:
- Observe: the world been created
- Infer: god created the world
- Analyse: Research methods for such an act to occur
- Experiment: attempt to recreate observation through inference
- Result: experimental failure.
- Conclude: that it is impossible to recreate the creation of the universe on any reasonable scale and that the experiment was a failure. No conclusion can therefore be drawn until technology improves or more observations are aquired.
- infer: that god did it because you couldn't...realize that you just fell back down to step two rather than actually gaining a conclusion.
Yeah... it doesn't really work in this case due to the use of circular logic and untrusted sources.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.