Absurdities of so called science

[MoonLancer]

would you like to show evidence that contradicts a "same stat past" or are you done? if your entire augment rests on an assertion that you have no evidence for, i would love to explain what you could do with such an argument if their wasn't censorship on these forums.

 

[Jester4kicks]

There is no way for me to address all your questions. So, I only take the last one:

I said I know how is the radiometric dating done. I would say it is a very precise work. However, I also said that I don't think the results of all dating are accurate. In other words, I only treat the dates as relative and proportional values, but not as real values. This way of recognition does not affect my secular science research at all. I still send samples to get dates. And I always have a peaceful mind in interpreting and using these dates.

So how much real time is represented by, say, 300 million years, which is given by radiometric dating? I do not know. I think it is 100 m.y. older than 200 m.y.. But I do not know how long is the 100 m.y. difference in reality. Sounds strange, but I do think I have good reason to see it this way.

How do I treat the creation "days"? I don't know either. But I don't like to think it is a 24-hr period of time as we know it. The meaning of "day" in the creation process is not defined. However, I do take the sequence (day 1, day 2 etc.) seriously. I think the sequence is real and is very critical.

This is all about the real nature of time, which no one really knows today.

So my response to your comments: 1) all data are acceptable and are functional; And 2) God will show me what time REALLY is when I see Him in face. (side point: I do think there is still time in Heaven)

Ok... now I'm REALLY confused.

-You believe the bible is literal... expect in Genesis 1 where the word "day" is used... in which case, it's not literal? If it was meant to be taken literally, why use the specific term "day"?

-You trust radiometric dating (even if not fully)... but you still think the earth was flat enough to be covered in water as early as 5,000 years ago... while radiometric dating shows the highest mountain ranges as being FAR older than that.

I'm also still waiting to hear why you think the flood DID occur... rather that your basis for thinking if it COULD have occurred.

Do we have all kinds of global problems today? We do have many, right? For example, over population, water shortage, global epidemics, terrorism, nuclear proliferation, ID theft, etc. etc. I am sure to say that all these global-scale problems appeared because we developed the modern technology. Without the technology, we still have problems, but no global problem.

I am not against technology. It is God's gift and I am all for it. But I also recognize that the advance of technology does not create a better society, but make the society a more dangerous place.

Is this where we get into the whole conversation over how "guns don't kill people... people kill people"?

One question left to reply.

What's that supposed to mean?

 

[AV1611VET]

WARNING: PET THEORY COMING UP --- BE PREPARED TO FACEPALM

PARENTS, YOU MAY WANT TO HAVE YOUR CHILDREN LEAVE THE ROOM

THIS IS A PET THEORY --- NOT A LIE, NOT DECEPTION --- BUT A PET THEORY

In relation to questions about, "Why do we find this here and that there?"

White Cliffs here --- Blue Angel Shale there --- Oil Reserves here --- Pockets of [whatever] there:

It is possible that God, in His foreknowledge and future [dispensational] planning --- put that stuff there in the order that they are currently in because we are going to be needing that stuff during the Millennial Reign for whatever reason.

• Atheistic Explanation: they formed there over massively-long periods of time.
• Dispensational Explanation: they were put there for future use.

THIS CONCLUDES MY PET THEORY ON THE GEOLOGY OF THE EARTH

YOU MAY NOW ALLOW YOUR CHILDREN BACK INTO THE ROOM

THIS IS A PET THEORY --- NOT A LIE, NOT DECEPTION --- BUT A PET THEORY

 

[juvenissun]

Ok... now I'm REALLY confused.

-You believe the bible is literal... expect in Genesis 1 where the word "day" is used... in which case, it's not literal? If it was meant to be taken literally, why use the specific term "day"?

This is related to the argument on what does the "literal" mean. There are several extensive discussions in the Origin Theology forum. Basically, a literal reading of anything still needs "interpretation". For example, the literal meaning of "water" could have several interpretations include things like soup. (I don't want to continue on this issue).

-You trust radiometric dating (even if not fully)... but you still think the earth was flat enough to be covered in water as early as 5,000 years ago... while radiometric dating shows the highest mountain ranges as being FAR older than that.

I'm also still waiting to hear why you think the flood DID occur... rather that your basis for thinking if it COULD have occurred.

This is what I mean: one question left. I will get to this a little later.

Is this where we get into the whole conversation over how "guns don't kill people... people kill people"?

No. I don't say that. People use gun to kill. That is what is about. Without gun or sword, people use stone or stick to kill. Scale back the medical tech, a skin wound then is as fatal as a gun wound now. So, the medical tech advanced, but the seriousness of wound also intensified. Technology is NOT the solution.

 

[juvenissun]

How is that a problem?

The plant is made on day 3. That is not a problem in faith. But it demands some explanations in science. And I am working on that. Not sure why, just feel a burden to do so. You may call it unfortunate.

 

[Chalnoth]

No. I don't say that. People use gun to kill. That is what is about. Without gun or sword, people use stone or stick to kill. Scale back the medical tech, a skin wound then is as fatal as a gun wound now. So, the medical tech advanced, but the seriousness of wound also intensified. Technology is NOT the solution.

Well, except that a lot of gun wounds are also not fatal these days. The primary issue here, however, is that death from accidental injuries and diseases has been drastically reduced.

 

[juvenissun]

It is possible that God, in His foreknowledge and future [dispensational] planning --- put that stuff there in the order that they are currently in because we are going to be needing that stuff during the Millennial Reign for whatever reason.

I like it. It explains that if we are saved, why should we still try to learn what we are learning today?

 

[juvenissun]

Well, except that a lot of gun wounds are also not fatal these days. The primary issue here, however, is that death from accidental injuries and diseases has been drastically reduced.

I am not sure. We may review the high death toll of the flu in 20's and foresees the possible bird's flu to come.

The key is: more population, more death, even the proportion could be similar. But the death is not evaluate by ratio of population, but by the number of individuals. 10,000 death is more significant then than now. Is life getting cheaper due to population increase?

 

[ranmaonehalf]

This one takes us back to the theme of OP.

As I am enjoying the achievement of science, I don't think science is really doing any good to human being. We are no better off than people lived 1000 years ago from any point of view. If I were allowed to chose, I prefer the life 1000 years ago. I think science is leading us to destruction.

yep so how about you move back to the time of the black death. Good time for you. Plenty of religion. No central heating, no fridge, no net, TV etc....
No modern medicine 1000 years ago no glasses no tooth brushes, dental medical etc...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Death

of course there was some science going on but it sounds like you might reject those too.

 

[Chalnoth]

I am not sure. We may review the high death toll of the flu in 20's and foresees the possible bird's flu to come.

The projected deaths from that are a fraction of the deaths from similar epidemics in centuries past. Take the Black Plague, which is estimated to have killed anywhere from 30% to 60% of the population of Europe.

The key is: more population, more death, even the proportion could be similar. But the death is not evaluate by ratio of population, but by the number of individuals. 10,000 death is more significant then than now. Is life getting cheaper due to population increase?

So, you just discount the people that live well, and count only those that die horribly? Why?

The fact remains that we have more people alive today that life wholesome lives almost free of worry than were alive in total more than a couple hundred years ago.

 

[Hespera]

What is your problem with the Mediterranean flood again? Is it that how do we know it happened?

We know it happened because we found the salt layer at the bottom. But the salt layer is NOT made by the flood, but was made before the flood. A local or global flood will not make a salt layer anywhere.

Remember it. You will beat your classmates on this issue because you learned it here.

>>>>>>>>>>>>OK, let's see one of such evidence of a big local flood (e.g. Mediterranean) 10,000 years old. What is it? Would it be a layer of mud on land across the Mediterranean region? I would say it again, there is no such thing exist. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<





This is what you said earlier. It appears to say that there is no evidence for the Med flooding as a "local" event.

Of course, the way you write, nobody can tell for sure what you meant, and you can easily say later that it meant whatever is convenient.

Evaporite is only one of the ways to know that the Mediterranean flooded as the sea level rose.

Of course, if you were anything even faintly resembling a geologist or even had common sense you would understand that the salt layer is a result of the sea drying up, not the product of a flood And you would not think you have somehow scored a point with the obvious.

Well, i have heard it said that is no limit that can be placed on people's capacity for self-deception. you beliefs require it of you and you are up to the task.

Oh.. this isnt my problem. YOU have a problem accepting it that you can be wrong. You might like to try to see what it is in you that causes that. Is it that if one little chink appears in your rigid belief structure, the whole thing will be threated with collapse?

My only interst in pursuing the deal about local flooding was to see if you had the capacity to recognize when you got something wrong. its not worth more of my attention.

 

[thaumaturgy]

OK, rather than cater to your usual would be elitist pretensions, let's put it this way

It is not elitist if I know more geology than you do. It is not elitist if you accuse me of using the term "uniform" when in fact I did not. I even pointed out that I would be surprised if such a marker bed was uniform.

If you are unable to acquiesce to your ignorance of the topic at hand and you accidentally misrepresented my point but will not admit to the obvious mistake that all can read for themselves, well then I have nothing more to say to you about this. I prefer to talk to honest people.

Now, if you meant to say something you misspelled, like &quot;subaerial&quot; do let us know! O busted one.

Oh my. I made a misspelling! Yikes!

Matt 7:3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

Since we are being nit-picky at times like this I love to remind everyone of your "math skills":

That would only apply in the present universe, one would assume that the SN originated in the former state, or at least the changing universe process.

OK. So, W is the will of God. X is one star, and Y is another. And FL is the former light speed.

X x FL divided by W = W FL
Y x FL divided by W = W FL
W FL x W = W FL
If W = Y FL, and W = X FL, and X does not = Y then either speed is W. (even if different)

Enjoy your "brilliance" while you can. For every "misspelling" you find in my posts, I'll keep reminding people of how "perfect" you are.

In case you forgot how you bollocksed that up here's where you went wrong and how I corrected you:

X*F[sub]L[/sub] / W does not equal W*F[sub]L[/sub]

It equals X*F[sub]L[/sub] / W

W*F[sub]L[/sub] x W = W[sup]2[/sup] F[sub]L[/sub]

So the Will of God is now a squared term, so you have squared the will of God. Does that have any "actual meaning"?

IN ADDITION:
"Will of God" is not a quantity. It is a thing.
Y and X are "stars", again, things, not quantities.

If you are trying to make a symbolic logic syllogism you will need to use different types of symbols.

This appears to be neither math nor logic.



At what point was W=Y*F[sub]L[/sub] and W=X*F[sub]L[/sub]established? If that is the case then:

X*F[sub]L[/sub] / W
and
W=X*F[sub]L[/sub]

Then you have effectively set up the equation:

X*F[sub]L[/sub] / X*F[sub]L[/sub] = 1.

I am unsure how meaningful it is to state that X*F[sub]L[/sub] = X*F[sub]L[/sub] But there you go.

So are you claiming the Will of God is a tautology? Or are you just saying "a thing is what it is"?

 

[thaumaturgy]

WARNING: PET THEORY COMING UP --- BE PREPARED TO FACEPALM

PARENTS, YOU MAY WANT TO HAVE YOUR CHILDREN LEAVE THE ROOM

THIS IS A PET THEORY --- NOT A LIE, NOT DECEPTION --- BUT A PET THEORY

In relation to questions about, "Why do we find this here and that there?"

White Cliffs here --- Blue Angel Shale there --- Oil Reserves here --- Pockets of [whatever] there:

It is possible that God, in His foreknowledge and future [dispensational] planning --- put that stuff there in the order that they are currently in because we are going to be needing that stuff during the Millennial Reign for whatever reason.

• Atheistic Explanation: they formed there over massively-long periods of time.
• Dispensational Explanation: they were put there for future use.

THIS CONCLUDES MY PET THEORY ON THE GEOLOGY OF THE EARTH

YOU MAY NOW ALLOW YOUR CHILDREN BACK INTO THE ROOM

THIS IS A PET THEORY --- NOT A LIE, NOT DECEPTION --- BUT A PET THEORY

------------------------------------------------

WARNING: PET THEORY COMING UP --- BE PREPARED TO FACEPALM

PARENTS, YOU MAY WANT TO HAVE YOUR CHILDREN LEAVE THE ROOM

THIS IS A PET THEORY --- JUST A PET THEORY
I think the Independent Baptists arose from a group of failed electricians in the 1930's. They were so despondent about being failed electricians that they decided to draft a book called the "King James Version" of the Bible in 1933. They then proceeded to take over a small town in Texas where they set up a magical brian-control ray and zapped everyone there, causing all the inhabitants of the town to believe that the KJV actually dated to 1611 and was the authoritative english translation of the Bible, when in fact it was actually written in GERMAN.

In 1973 the "Independent Baptists" used their magical raygun to convince all the people of the U.S. that they had been involved in a war in a small southeast Asian country called Vietnam, when in fact they had not. The previous decade had been spent in total peace for the U.S. By doing this the Independent Baptists had re-written american history.

We are still unsure why this was done, but it is likely that they have some greater plan down the road for us all.
THIS CONCLUDES MY PET THEORY ON THE HISTORY OF THE INDEPENDENT BAPTISTS

YOU MAY NOW ALLOW YOUR CHILDREN BACK INTO THE ROOM

THIS IS A PET THEORY --- JUST A PET THEORY

 

[Hespera]

It is not elitist if I know more geology than you do. It is not elitist if you accuse me of using the term "uniform" when in fact I did not. I even pointed out that I would be surprised if such a marker bed was uniform.

If you are unable to acquiesce to your ignorance of the topic at hand and you accidentally misrepresented my point but will not admit to the obvious mistake that all can read for themselves, well then I have nothing more to say to you about this. I prefer to talk to honest people.



Oh my. I made a misspelling! Yikes!

Matt 7:3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

Since we are being nit-picky at times like this I love to remind everyone of your "math skills":



Enjoy your "brilliance" while you can. For every "misspelling" you find in my posts, I'll keep reminding people of how "perfect" you are.

In case you forgot how you bollocksed that up here's where you went wrong and how I corrected you:

The thing that Av, dad and juv all have in common is a complete inability to ever accept that they are wrong about anything. In China they probably would be / have been hard core Maoists, because the little red book contains the unarguable answer to everything. As it is they are "christians" and use the bible for their personal little arsenal of ignorance.

 

[WilliamduBois]

It also shows why they're not taken seriously: making something up does not deserve to be taken seriously, if there is no evidence to back it up. Not even if it "explains" what we see.

 

[thaumaturgy]

The thing that Av, dad and juv all have in common is a complete inability to ever accept that they are wrong about anything. In China they probably would be / have been hard core Maoists, because the little red book contains the unarguable answer to everything. As it is they are "christians" and use the bible for their personal little arsenal of ignorance.

What I find most amazing is that these folks are ostensibly Christian. Now, since I left Christianity I don't really have a say in how it is conducted or what makes for a Christian, but the one thing I feel I was impacted by in my decades as a Christian was the importance of accepting responsibility for your own actions and potential errors. The path to salvation was the acceptance of Grace, the first step was the acquiescence that salvation was needed but not earned. In order to deserve mercy one must first agree that one is capable of error.

On numerous occasions I've agreed that Dad or Juvenissun or even AV have a valid point! I've done it repeatedly. But I don't see it reciprocated much at all.

It is a very lonely thing to "talk" to these people since they brook no error on their part and their agressive attitude toward others really is off-putting.

If AV really wants to know what gets my dander up and why I continue to argue against these folks; he should know it has nothing to do with their religion per se (unless that religion tries to trample on others or on science), but rather their pride-of-ignorance. For me it's like a big red flag for a bull.

I will confess to weakness here. I despise their attitudes. Most of my friends are Christian and I have a great deal of respect for my friends. So it has nothing whatsoever to do with their "faith", but it does have to do with their attitude toward other people.

I will also confess that I've said many intemperate things to all three of them. But I didn't start out that way. Like I said, it's the big red flag. Poke me enough and wave that red flag enough and I'll charge.

Interestingly enough I'm not like this in real life. I'm usually far more obsequious and self-effacing in conflict. But that is part of the "anonymity" of the Internet discussion forum I suppose.

But you'll also note that at the bottom of most of my posts is the "Editted by..." line usually because I obsess over what I've written in a gross attempt to make sure I've not made too many errors. And I'll even own up to my errors.

For me the height of honesty comes in the assessment that I don't think anyone should believe a word I say without checking it out. That's why I always attempt to put in caveats and references or citations for most of my claims. I could be in error. I could be grossly in error.

But by the same token, I despise the attitude of those who think they can never be in error. THOSE are the last people I will ever trust.

 

[AV1611VET]

For me the height of honesty comes in the assessment that I don't think anyone should believe a word I say without checking it out. That's why I always attempt to put in caveats and references or citations for most of my claims. I could be in error. I could be grossly in error.

And this is my stance as well --- and the stance of my pastor, who has two doctorates. By all means, check this stuff out for yourselves and draw your own conclusions.

But by the same token, I despise the attitude of those who think they can never be in error. THOSE are the last people I will ever trust.

Even though I clearly said it was a PET THEORY. Your sarcastic post right after that, as well as what others said, just serve to reinforce my point that it's not what we say, it's who we are. I'm pretty sure that had I said the same thing, but w/o the disclaimer first, I would have still gotten the same replies.

Here's what I've found over the years here:

• Don't quote the Bible --- or you're not thinking for yourself.
• Don't quote Basic Doctrine --- or you're brainwashed.
• Don't quote Pet Theories --- or you're some kind of ideaologist, if not a down-right liar.
• In the meantime, answer all questions to the complete satisfaction of the questioner, whether the questions are covered in Scripture, or not.

As Paul puts it in his dichtomous passage, approve yourselves as the ministers of God, even...

By honour and dishonour, by evil report and good report: as deceivers, and yet true;

 

[thaumaturgy]

Even though I clearly said it was a PET THEORY. Your sarcastic post

Sarcastic? Sorry, why would you say that?

I hope you aren't being hypocritical here. It is my pet theory about where your religion comes from. It doesn't affect you at all, it shouldn't matter to you that I think about your religion.

Just as you would like us to allow you to have your "pet theory" about science, that's fine and dandy for you, but you don't seem to want to allow me to have my pet theory.

Your bestest buddy Jesus wasn't much fond of hypocrites.

right after that, as well as what others said, just serve to reinforce my point that it's not what we say, it's who we are.

So you consider it part and parcel of your Christian faith to be obnoxious and proud of your own ignorance of others' field of expertise all the while throwing this in their faces and critiquing their field of which you are ignorant? That's fine. I suppose then, that version of "Christianity" based on treating others as lesser beings is something I dislike.

Sorry, I misunderstood you. I thought you were a "Christian" christian, not "that type of Christian". My bad.

I'm pretty sure that had I said the same thing, but w/o the disclaimer first, I would have still gotten the same replies.

Are you incapable of understanding what I wrote? I hope you actually thought about what I wrote. I put in all the disclaimers and everything. Why don't you treat my post with the respect you want yours treated with? I didn't say anything about your post. I merely posted my pet theory on where Independent Baptists come from. Sheesh. What's wrong with that?

Here's what I've found over the years here:

• Don't quote the Bible --- or you're not thinking for yourself.

You can quote the BIble and still not think for yourself. Or you can quote the bible and show you actually are thinking. Some prefer the first to the second.

• Don't quote Basic Doctrine --- or you're brainwashed.

That's because you are a member of minority sect within the larger Christian community.

If you think this is "basic doctrine" for all Christians you have a very narrow understanding of the overall history and depth of the "Faith".

• Don't quote Pet Theories --- or you're some kind of ideaologist, if not a down-right liar.

WHO SAID YOU WERE A LIAR?

I didn't. If you think I did you better go back and re-read what I wrote. I don't like people intentionally misrepresenting what I have written. That's called "false witness". And since I "know" you are "That kind of Christian", well....

 

[AV1611VET]

WHO SAID YOU WERE A LIAR?

I didn't.

Did I say you did?

Let me repeat --- with emphasis, this time:

Here's what I've found over the years here:

This means that what follows is an aggregation of accusations from a plethora of persons.

Don't flatter yourself into thinking I just had you in mind.

This pet theory isn't the only pet theory I've ever posted before.

[Right, MrGoodBytes?]

 

[thaumaturgy]

Did I say you did?

Let me repeat --- with emphasis, this time:This means that what follows is an aggregation of accusations from a plethora of persons.

Don't flatter yourself into thinking I just had you in mind.

This pet theory isn't the only pet theory I've ever posted before.

[Right, MrGoodBytes?]

Oh well, my bad then. My sincerest apologies. I don't want to misrepresent what you said.

I have more pet theories if you like. Pet Theories about what Independent Baptists really believe. Any time you want to trade pet theories, we can do so.