Absurdities of so called science

[dad]

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.

So, you missed the "would be" elitist part. You know squat, actually, and the fact you think you do know is evidence of that. The proof is in the failure to post a point in English, that we can have a look at. What exactly are you claiming? Games aside...?

Oh my. I made a misspelling! Yikes!

Well, actually, if you want to toss out big words, as if you have a monopoly on wisdom, you should try to get it right.

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":

I disagree. Present E does not equal eternal Mass times the speed of present light squared. really. Your math is baby math, remember?? Your so called geology is foolish unfounded fables as well. Glad you think you are clever. Why are you so afraid to debate? Can't you put a cohesive idea on the table, to be looked at?

 

[dad]

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.

I think I may have the answer to the problem. But, first, tell me WHY you think it is a problem for science?

 

[dad]

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.

Yes, I would like to!! IF and when you provide such evidence, BE CERTAIN I will attack it full force. Meanwhile, try to come to grips with the glaring reality that there IS no evidence of a same state past anywhere. Certainly not in science. That is why you will not give us any. Really. I double dare you. You have a lost case.

 

[MoonLancer]

Yes, I would like to!!

no one is stoping you. go ahead.

IF and when you provide such evidence, BE CERTAIN I will attack it full force.

Its good to know that you reject evidence even before its presented. how noble and educated of you.

 

[juvenissun]

If the Bible is never wrong, what is the point of your "search" for scientific evidence?

No particular point. Just a personal preference. Are you saying I should not do that?

 

[WilliamduBois]

No particular point. Just a personal preference. Are you saying I should not do that?

What if you come across evidence that does contradict (a literal reading of) the bible?

 

[Hespera]

No particular point. Just a personal preference. Are you saying I should not do that?

Id say it is a good thing you are trying to do, up to a point.

I think you are going about it way wrong. A successful search requires intellectual honesty. I dont think you have that figured out yet. Im not saying that to be nasty, its just how it looks to me.

A search for a predetermined "truth" is a search that even faintly resembles science. Changing the meaning of words in your mind to make them fit isnt a good approach either.

As long as you do things that way you dont have a chance.

 

[juvenissun]

What if you come across evidence that does contradict (a literal reading of) the bible?

You should say the evidence "apparently" contradicts the Bible. If so, I will try to solve the problem. I do have a few such cases. For example, birds are made before land animals. I have no idea how to deal with this one. But, give me a chance, I will.

 

[juvenissun]

IOriginally Posted by juvenissun

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.

I think I may have the answer to the problem. But, first, tell me WHY you think it is a problem for science?

Good. It is a problem because the common sense (science) said that the growth of plant needs sunlight. But the sun is made after the plant (on earth).

 

[WilliamduBois]

So in essence, you have drawn the conclusion beforehand anyway, so you just do this because you're bored. Or because you're afraid that you might be wrong, so you'll just keep looking indefinitely because "it can't contradict the Bible".

Wow. You're making a mockery of science. Congratulations.

 

[AV1611VET]

You should say the evidence "apparently" contradicts the Bible. If so, I will try to solve the problem. I do have a few such cases. For example, birds are made before land animals. I have no idea how to deal with this one. But, give me a chance, I will.

Whales before man, too.

 

[juvenissun]

So in essence, you have drawn the conclusion beforehand anyway, so you just do this because you're bored. Or because you're afraid that you might be wrong, so you'll just keep looking indefinitely because "it can't contradict the Bible".

Yes, how many times I have to confirm that?

I am not afraid of being wrong. If I do, I won't try to do the research.
And, I am bored? You must be kidding.

The process I experienced is like this: Evidences apparently show a big contrast to the Bible at the beginning. The contrast becomes smaller and smaller as I dig into it. I may not solve the problem. But the problem always becomes less and less obvious. So far, I don't have experience which says otherwise.

The Bible says: if you ask for wisdom, you will get wisdom. It is true.

 

[WilliamduBois]

You are afraid of being wrong. That's why you start out with the conclusion you like instead of letting the evidence guide you.

The Bible may say what it will, what you're doing is not seeking knowledge. It's warping the truth to conform with your chosen holy novel.

 

[juvenissun]

Whales before man, too.

OK, let me start to think about it:

Birds fly. Fishes swim. So these things are created before land animals. What is wrong with "walking on land" on day 5? Hey, what is the origin of flying fish?
Insects fly too. But they are made later. What is the difference? Is there any insect which does not fly? Uh.. ants.
Birds are made before insects, then what would the birds eat? Uhh... seeds. Good. That is why plants are ahead of birds. Fishes eat seaweeds too.

hmm.... Hey, AV, do you know any one in ICR or in AiG talked about this problem? It is very interesting.

 

[AV1611VET]

OK, let me start to think about it:

Birds fly. Fishes swim. So these things are created before land animals. What is wrong with "walking on land" on day 5? Hey, what is the origin of flying fish?
Insects fly too. But they are made later. What is the difference? Is there any insect which does not fly? Uh.. ants.
Birds are made before insects, then what would the birds eat? Uhh... seeds. Good. That is why plants are ahead of birds. Fishes eat seaweeds too.

hmm.... Hey, AV, do you know any one in ICR or in AiG talked about this problem? It is very interesting.

No, I don't, Juvenissun --- I don't hang around those sites anyway --- they talk science, and believe me, science bores me to no end.

No offense, bro ---

 

[Hespera]

OK, let me start to think about it:

Birds fly. Fishes swim. So these things are created before land animals. What is wrong with "walking on land" on day 5? Hey, what is the origin of flying fish?
Insects fly too. But they are made later. What is the difference? Is there any insect which does not fly? Uh.. ants.
Birds are made before insects, then what would the birds eat? Uhh... seeds. Good. That is why plants are ahead of birds. Fishes eat seaweeds too.

hmm.... Hey, AV, do you know any one in ICR or in AiG talked about this problem? It is very interesting.

This is not a problem. Birds would not eat insects because then the poor little insect would die. They wont eat seeds coz then the poor little seed would die. The fish cant eat either, coz the little seaweeds would die.

They just didnt eat till Eve set a bad example. Then it was... EATING!! so THAT is what all these claws, poison, teeth, jaws, digestive systems are for!! Waterbuffalos, look out, here comes the tiger.

Now what sort of insane psycho god would use that as a reason punish all the innocent animals by making them live in fear, die horrible deaths, and tear eachother to bits or swallow eachother alive, i dont know. But I am pretty sure that sort of god could only exist in the diseased mind of human beings.

 

[juvenissun]

No, I don't, Juvenissun --- I don't hang around those sites anyway --- they talk science, and believe me, science bores me to no end.

No offense, bro ---

Interesting. I am always curious about how could science bore people. I do not understand.

 

[juvenissun]

This is not a problem. Birds would not eat insects because then the poor little insect would die. They wont eat seeds coz then the poor little seed would die. The fish cant eat either, coz the little seaweeds would die.

I think you are not unfamiliar with monks. They eat vegies. Do they kill the vegies as a consequence?

If you know one nearby, go and ask him. Then tell me your discovery.

 

[gaara4158]

Interesting. I am always curious about how could science bore people. I do not understand.

It's too complicated for some people. But that doesn't stop them from rejecting it.

 

[gaara4158]

I think you are not unfamiliar with monks. They eat vegies. Do they kill the vegies as a consequence?

If you know one nearby, go and ask him. Then tell me your discovery.

Yes, actually, the vegetables do die in the stomachs of the monks. A monk wouldn't tell you that because... monks don't talk. Why don't you go ask a mime where he buys his shoes tambien cabron.