Absurdities of so called science

[Nathan Poe]

Jester, I just noticed you are a Taoist, and I've always wanted to ask a Taoist this question:

What caused Hurricane Katrina?

Not a practicing Taoist, but I know a thing or two about Taoist philospohy, so I'd be willing to take a shot at it:

What caused Hurricane Katrina? The same thing that causes any other Hurricane -- wind, rain, and warm air in the right combination.

Might I ask: Why did you specify Hurricane Katrina?

 

[Nathan Poe]

No, actually, it was Christ. AD. Look it up.

Already looked it up -- Days of the week and months of the year have Pagan names. Easter and Christmas are Pagan holidays hijacked by the early church to lure converts.

What exactly are you looking up, dad?

The claims of godless so called science that the universe will burn out one day, and that it popped out of mommy speck o soup are extraordinary. The passing gas of the fables invented by present state religious so called science will pass. The air will be clear one day.

Not unless you do something besides blow smoke.

Those that invent imaginary worlds, based on assuming what they can't prove, have lost the ability to pretend to speak from any standpoint of knowledge ..i.e. science.

That would be you, dad -- you, like many other anti-intellectuals, resent knowledge, and yet you covet the respect it has earned over the years. Seeing what a lifetime of envy has done to you almost moves me to pity.

 

[consol]

Dad is living proof that too much religion is bad for you,
ones in built logic starts to fight against religion with disastrous consequences,
the mind doesn't know which way to turn, so it eventually turns in on itself,
the subject becomes confused, incoherent, rambles and eventually ends up as a gibbering idiot,
trying to fathom the unfathomable and attempting to fit square pegs into round holes must eventually take it's toll,
as a result, the subject becomes what is know the world over as a 'Religious Nut'.

 

[dad]

Dad is living proof that too much religion is bad for you,
ones in built logic starts to fight against religion with disastrous consequences,
the mind doesn't know which way to turn, so it eventually turns in on itself,
the subject becomes confused, incoherent, rambles and eventually ends up as a gibbering idiot,
trying to fathom the unfathomable and attempting to fit square pegs into round holes must eventually take it's toll,
as a result, the subject becomes what is know the world over as a 'Religious Nut'.

Except that there is nothing gibbering about the bible, or how it seems to indicate a different past and future! What is gibbering, is the gibberish that so called science gives out, as well as it's absurd conclusions which I see you glibly fail to address!

 

[dad]

Already looked it up -- Days of the week and months of the year have Pagan names. Easter and Christmas are Pagan holidays hijacked by the early church to lure converts.

Well, you must have missed Christmas is Christ's birthday celebration. Also what AD and BC were set up to mean, and still mean for the most part. (except in the pagan institutions where they take great pains to try to rename the call letters. what a scream)

That would be you, dad -- you, like many other anti-intellectuals, resent knowledge, and yet you covet the respect it has earned over the years. Seeing what a lifetime of envy has done to you almost moves me to pity.

Relax, I do not envy the blathering body of belief, that bullies kids in brainwashing barns, bankrolled by my bucks. The so called intellect that is merely anti Christ spirit is disguise, is only the object of my utter contempt, and no more envied than I envy the criminally insane.

 

[dad]

What are you talking about? Many of our tests, experiments, and theories are based on things that happened in the past.

One easy example would be our methods for determining the distances of galaxies in space. There are acutally multiple methods utilized, and some of those methods (not all) rely on measuring the light from those galaxies. This is light that we are just now seeing, but which actually originated billions of years ago from distant stars.

Can you show us these here! Put em on the table. Let's look at you claims up close. Maybe you actually believe what you say.. great. Let's see it.

If ever there was an example of consistent scientific predictions, this is it. A different state past would result in all sorts of errors in our calculations of distance when those calculations were matched up with the light measurements. Instead, we find that our theories are not only confirmed, but repeatedly and reliably confirmed!

Show us an example!!! really.

Let's see what you got.

 

[dad]

dad, it's not an assumption. If the speed of light was different in the past, the light traveling from billions of light years away would exhibit different properties than we predict.

Excellent, so I guess the debate is won, soon as you shoow us the details. Good work. Hope it's good. Let's see it!!!

But it doesn't. The evidence confirms the predictions and supports the theories.

It behaves exactly like we expect it to behave.... but it's billions of years old!

You expect light to behave a certain way? What, to pretend it is a wave, then pull a fast one going through a slit? Did you happen to expect it before you saw it happen!!? That is the question!

I also expect present light in this state to behave as it does. Whoopee do!

You can shout "different state past" till you're blue in the face (and I don't doubt for a second that you haven't).... it doesn't change the fact that EVERY bit of solid evidence supports the assertions of tried-and-true scientific theories.

Great, show it to us!!!

Lurkers, don't drink too much you endanger your computer chair, when we see the reply, I guess!

 

[AirPo]

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about anymore.

I do, actually, guess who that leaves?

I have to agree with dad here. Consider, who knows more about Harry Potter than J. K. Rowling?

 

[dad]

I have to agree with dad here. Consider, who knows more about Harry Potter than J. K. Rowling?

So you agree. OK

Of course the issue is not just a different state past, it is the ability or not, of science to substantiate either. Harry can't help.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Except that there is nothing gibbering about the bible, or how it seems to indicate a different past and future!

(emphasis added)

Interesting. I am glad that Dad is hedging here. It is the most rational approach. He, like a scientist, is making an hypothesis based on information he feels is available to him.

Unfortunately many of us disagree with the validity of said information and hence the conclusion drawn, but indeed, it all boils down to that for dad the Bible "...seems to indicate a different past and future".

 

[thaumaturgy]

So you agree. OK

Of course the issue is not just a different state past, it is the ability or not, of science to substantiate either. Harry can't help.

Geology and Astronomy seem to indicate a same state past.

So how is this any worse or better than your claims about the Bible seeming to indicate a different past?

 

[dad]

(emphasis added)

Interesting. I am glad that Dad is hedging here. It is the most rational approach. He, like a scientist, is making an hypothesis based on information he feels is available to him.

Unfortunately many of us disagree with the validity of said information and hence the conclusion drawn, but indeed, it all boils down to that for dad the Bible "...seems to indicate a different past and future".

Right, when it says that these heavens will be no more, and there will be NEW ones, that seems to indicate a different universe state. Don't let my modesty fool you.

 

[pgp_protector]

NO, they don't!!! Unless you don the blinding thick colored lenses of assuming a same state, and filtering all things through that contorted, unfocused, impairing, distorted, unnatural present only light!

I think Dad found a new avatar

 

[dad]

I think Dad found a new avatar

No, just a pic to illustrate how science looks at all things, and ends up with bizarre results. Best advice? Don't let the appearance of intelligence fool you!

Or, I might add, the appearance of age.

 

[Jester4kicks]

Can you show us these here! Put em on the table. Let's look at you claims up close. Maybe you actually believe what you say.. great. Let's see it.

Show us an example!!! really.

Let's see what you got.

Not that you're actually going to watch it... but just in case anyone else is interested on hearing more about why you are full of it....

(edit: Oh, and yes the purpose of this series of videos is to address another contradiction in creationism... however the first video in the series clearly explains exactly what I'm referring to)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bRvt0InhYk

 

[Nathan Poe]

I think Dad found a new avatar

To match an old hysteria.

 

[dad]

Not that you're actually going to watch it... but just in case anyone else is interested on hearing more about why you are full of it....

(edit: Oh, and yes the purpose of this series of videos is to address another contradiction in creationism... however the first video in the series clearly explains exactly what I'm referring to)

Absurd. You offer a strawman video! That video simply raises a strawman, -that light changed speeds, and goes from there. You apparently miss the enormity of the issue here. It is NOT that our universe light changed squat, but that it wasn't here! Our light came to exist as the new state did! Get it?

So, you need a present state universe, to start claiming that light was here as is, and changed.

 

[Jester4kicks]

Absurd. You offer a strawman video! That video simply raises a strawman, -that light changed speeds, and goes from there. You apparently miss the enormity of the issue here. It is NOT that our universe light changed squat, but that it wasn't here! Our light came to exist as the new state did! Get it?

So, you need a present state universe, to start claiming that light was here as is, and changed.

It's ok... I didn't expect much. At least you seemed to have watched the first 60 seconds.... too bad you didn't watch or grasp the rest of it.

Good to see you making new stuff up though. You've gone from different-state past to non-existent-state past.

 

[dad]

It's ok... I didn't expect much. At least you seemed to have watched the first 60 seconds.... too bad you didn't watch or grasp the rest of it.

Good to see you making new stuff up though. You've gone from different-state past to non-existent-state past.

I like to deal with one thing at a time, starting at the first error. There was a past, and light, of course. What was non existent is our state, and light, far as I can tell.

Therefore one cannot imagine a change IN our light.

If your little chicken man video is good, put the points on the table. I already cut off it's head at the first squawk as it stands!

 

[Jester4kicks]

I like to deal with one thing at a time, starting at the first error. There was a past, and light, of course. What was non existent is our state, and light, far as I can tell.

Therefore one cannot imagine a change IN our light.

If your little chicken man video is good, put the points on the table. I already cut off it's head at the first squawk as it stands!

Nah. I'm done trying to prove things to you. You've already proven (in the other thread) that you will absolutely ignore any bit of scientific evidence that contradicts your own position.

I have no interest in educating fools.