Scientific Noah's flood.

[mzungu]

Creation science is a contradiction in terms.

I agree.

That, my dear young lad ... ... is called a Veg-O-Matic; the kitchen appliance of choice in the mid 1960s, of which I use as a verb:






K-tel "Veg-O-Matic" commercial - YouTube

There is a better one called "KNIFE"

The Annoying Orange - YouTube

 

[AV1611VET]

I agree.

There is a better one called "KNIFE"

The Annoying Orange - YouTube

LOL ... look who's back!

 

[AV1611VET]

None of my business, mzungu, but how old is your boy now, and does he ever post here?

 

[SkyWriting]

Science cannot accept what you creationists call Creation Science simply because it is not science. Call it whatever you wish it will not make it science. Now we have yet to see anything scientific come out of creationism. Any takers?

All events that cannot be reproduced are outside the realm of science.
Any historical events loose their ability to be accurately recreated as
time passes unless they were accurately documented so that unbiased
critics get the same results later. Most historical events cannot be
recreated and most all biblical events are not reproducible including
the Flood and Creation and so are outside of investigation by science.

 

[RickG]

No, what makes a rock is simply multiple mineral grains. They can be the same mineral or different minerals. Apart from that, I agree with you.

I see what you mean and I agree with you, an example would be quartzite. In that respect it is an aggregate which is really the key.

I didn't say it would be a pure mineral, just that it would be made up entirely of muscovite or biotite. I'll stress that I've never seen a schist that is only muscovite or biotite, but it is theoretically possible. Again, I think Juve is wrong as well: a rock that is made up of grains of only one mineral is not given the same name as the mineral for a reason - it's considered to be very different.

Okay, I see what you mean there as well. I thought you might be referring to the layer of mica as schist. My misunderstanding.

Gee, it's lovely how you guys knee-jerk into thinking everyone who disagrees with you is a creationist. You've seen me before on these boards - take a look at my post history to refresh yourself on my position.

I agree, we do get knee-jerky occasionally, but no, I did not mistake you for a creationist, I just misunderstood what you were saying.

 

[RickG]

My advice to you is: Listen, not Talk.

Read my response to RocksInMyHead. I misunderstood what he was trying to convey. The point is a mineral can be a rock when it is an aggregate of the same mineral, i.e. containing bits and pieces from multiple specimens. That is quite different from what i was describing which was inclusions.

 

[juvenissun]

No, it doesn't depend on preference. The key is the "ordered crystal structure" component of the definition of a mineral. A rock made up of multiple mineral grains (even if they are the same mineral) does not have an ordered crystal structure.

True. But if your eyes are on each individual crystals in the rock, the whole piece can still be called a mineral. For example: a gold nugget can properly be called a mineral.

Otherwise, a mineral MUST be a single crystal. I am not ready to accept that definition.

 

[CabVet]

All events that cannot be reproduced are outside the realm of science.

This statement can only be made by someone that knows nothing about science.

 

[RickG]

Otherwise, a mineral MUST be a single crystal. I am not ready to accept that definition.

Or group of crystals.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

True. But if your eyes are on each individual crystals in the rock, the whole piece can still be called a mineral. For example: a gold nugget can properly be called a mineral.

Otherwise, a mineral MUST be a single crystal. I am not ready to accept that definition.

Native metals are a bit of a gray area, mainly because they don't exactly fit the definition of a rock either. I think they would be properly classified as mineraloids, at least in their non-crystalline structure (which is what we normally see).

I agree, we do get knee-jerky occasionally, but no, I did not mistake you for a creationist, I just misunderstood what you were saying.

I know you didn't; that part was directed at mzungu.

 

[Tiberius]

No ... using the Bible for scientific progress is like using Bill Gate's diary as a computer manual.

Then what did you mean when you said that if "creationists were in the majority in the scientific arena, we would be further along than we are now; possibly even having found a cure for cancer already"?

Would they be using religious or scientific sources for their studies?

 

[AV1611VET]

Then what did you mean when you said that if "creationists were in the majority in the scientific arena, we would be further along than we are now; possibly even having found a cure for cancer already"?

Would they be using religious or scientific sources for their studies?

Did you read the Bible verse I quoted?

2 Chronicles 7:14 If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.

 

[HitchSlap]

Did you read the Bible verse I quoted?

2 Chronicles 7:14 If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.

So, what would a "healed" land look like?

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Why are my beliefs being challenged, and not muzungu's?

Because your statement appears to be absurd and would benefit from clarification.

 

[Tiberius]

Did you read the Bible verse I quoted?

2 Chronicles 7:14 If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.

Yes I did.

And your argument is basically:

If we got rid of all the scientists and just had religious people praying to God instead of scientists studying and experimenting, then we'd probably have a cure for cancer by now.​

Well, given prayer's poor track record when it comes to providing things, I am pretty sure you are wrong. I mean, how many people pray for world peace? For a cure for cancer? And yet, what prayers does God (apparently) choose to answer? The quarterback who prays for his team to win. The student who prays for a passing grade. The driver who prays for a safe trip home.

When has God ever answered the prayers of a starving child in Africa for enough money to buy food each day?

When we look at what effect prayer has by itself, it is clear that it does nothing. How many children have died (of easily treatable diseases!) because their parents decided to pray instead of taking them to a doctor?

Prayer accomplishes nothing except to make the people praying feel better. A single hand put to work can accomplish more than a million hands clasped in prayer.

 

[Jamin4422]

Well, given prayer's poor track record when it comes to providing things,

Only if you do not know how to pray. Jesus clearly teaches we pray: "Thy will be done". If you pray MY WILL BE DONE. Then you may not get very good results. In other words you got to do your part if you want God to do His part of the Covenant. Clearly all things work out for the best for them that Love God and are called (follow) His plan and purpose for them and their lives. God stands behind His word to perform and to do what He says He will do.

 

[AV1611VET]

And your argument is basically:

If we got rid of all the scientists and just had religious people praying to God instead of scientists studying and experimenting, then we'd probably have a cure for cancer by now.​

It's stuff like this that is what makes it easy to ignore you.

 

[HitchSlap]

It's stuff like this that is what makes it easy to ignore you.

Silly things are silly.

 

[Tiberius]

It's stuff like this that is what makes it easy to ignore you.

Since I'm paraphrasing you, what does that say?

 

[Tiberius]

Only if you do not know how to pray. Jesus clearly teaches we pray: "Thy will be done". If you pray MY WILL BE DONE. Then you may not get very good results. In other words you got to do your part if you want God to do His part of the Covenant. Clearly all things work out for the best for them that Love God and are called (follow) His plan and purpose for them and their lives. God stands behind His word to perform and to do what He says He will do.

Then apparently Jesus' will involves quarterbacks winning their game, but not world peace or feeding starving children in Africa.