Share good examples of Christian Science

Aussie Pete said:

He has invited anyone to debate the issue with him. So far, one person has responded. Many others have tried to refute him. Obviously not the same thing.

Click to expand...

Why do you think a debate would solve the problem? This is not the 1800s. Debates only show who the better debater is, and which audience is more enthusiastic. I attended a cre-evo debate between Hovind and a woodpecker researcher. Hovind was animated and entertaining. The bird guy, not so much. Hovind got caught in lies, his claims were refuted in real time, and was more interested in preaching than debating the topic. The guy I sat next to was a creationist. Nice fellow. At the end he assured me that Hovind had won. I see you as that guy.

A couple years back, when Tour first went all-in on creationism, back when he admitted that he had no idea how life began, he claimed that nobody could explain macroevolution to him. Claimed none of his colleagues could do so. Nick Matke offered to explain it to him, but only if their meeting was recorded (you see, creationists have a history of not being so honest). Tour refused.

He's a charlatan.

Jim Tour is a genius, one of the most awarded and respected scientists on the planet.

Click to expand...

Really? WOW!!! Why didn't you say so!!! He is OBVIUSLY 100% correct on an issue that he has no track record of doing research on and has a religious reason to reject!

Argument from False Authority

He does not need to talk about OOL or evolution. He could get on with repairing severed spinal cords

Click to expand...

Is he a world's leading spinal cord surgeon, too???
Save your child-like fawning over Screaming Skull cry-baby Tour. He's just another creationist hack that thinks he knows more than he does.

tas8831 said:

That you cannot point to any single issue, and that you think that all that view this will be as ignorant and gullible as creationist-types, tells me that you didn't watch it.

Click to expand...

No. Just don’t feel a need to talk to you about it considering you have not watched it yourself yet had something derogatory to say about it.

BNR32FAN said:

I could just as easily make the same claim about you. I’ve already explain that I will seek explanations that support the scriptures not evidence that refutes them. That’s something that should be expected from a believer.

Click to expand...

So you are closed-minded and unwilling to 'test your faith.'

If believe that a 'believer' must only seek to embellish their faith, and in effect dismiss/ignore all else, you are not a 'believer', you are in a cult.

Aussie Pete said:

Professor Tour responded to Prof Dave's video. Jim Tour demolishes him.

Click to expand...

According to you. Your take on things pertaining to you hero are, shall we say, unreliable.
Tour is just another creationist hack.

tas8831 said:

That you cannot point to any single issue, and that you think that all that view this will be as ignorant and gullible as creationist-types, tells me that you didn't watch it.

Click to expand...

I cannot be bothered. I've not watched all of Jim Tour's OOL videos either. I have enough information to be able to make up my mind. When someone sees something alive come out of a solution of inanimate chemicals, I will admit that I'm wrong. This research has been going on all my life. In that time, computers have become a household item, jet transport is the norm, men have walked on the moon, A phone can fit in your pocket and go almost anywhere, cars are amazingly safe and efficient, solar panels make electricity from light, and that's just scratching the surface of what people have been able to achieve. But not life. We are close to creating fusion power plants, but not life. The tiniest subatomic particles have been detected, but we cannot create life. Not even close.

tas8831 said:

According to you. Your take on things pertaining to you hero are, shall we say, unreliable.
Tour is just another creationist hack.

Click to expand...

Whateve. I've long since stopped expecting a reasonable and rational response from self deceived evolutionists. There are a few who I can discuss these issues with reasonably. You are not one of them.

sjastro said:

You are not making any sense.
The wheel is the key to your hypothesis and since the indigenous Australians never possessed the wheel your hypothesis fails full stop.

Click to expand...

Only if your assuming that the Aborigines have existed for 300,000 years.

sjastro said:

I also notice how you refuse to address the issue about fires.
Your hypothesis makes a simple prediction, there should be no evidence of fires being older than 6000 years irrespective of whether humans were involved or not.
The oldest evidence of a wildfire comes from the fossils of charcoalified plants from the late Silurian era dated 420 million years ago.

Click to expand...

I have no way of validating that other than to take someone else’s word over God’s word. This wouldn’t be the first time that age predictions have been wrong. Look at how often carbon dating has been wrong. I know carbon dating isn’t used in this application but my point is just because the data seems to support a theory doesn’t make it fact.

HIM said:

No. Just don’t feel a need to talk to you about it considering you have not watched it yourself yet had something derogatory to say about it.

Click to expand...

So you've got nothing but a desire for a creationist to be correct.
I've seen Tour in action. I've read some of his essays. It is trite and hackneyed nonsense. Just because trite, hackneyed nonsense written/spoken by a guy with a doctorate does not mean it is NOT trite and hackneyed.
You folks are just so gullible. Sad.

Aussie Pete said:

I cannot be bothered.

Click to expand...

Of course you cannot.

I've not watched all of Jim Tour's OOL videos either. I have enough information to be able to make up my mind. When someone sees something alive come out of a solution of inanimate chemicals, I will admit that I'm wrong.

Click to expand...

OK - when I see an anthropomorphic tribal deity from the ancient middle east conjure a fully grown human male from dust, I will worship Jehovah.
Funny how you folks have your double standards.

This research has been going on all my life. In that time, computers have become a household item, jet transport is the norm, men have walked on the moon, A phone can fit in your pocket and go almost anywhere, cars are amazingly safe and efficient, solar panels make electricity from light, and that's just scratching the surface of what people have been able to achieve. But not life. We are close to creating fusion power plants, but not life. The tiniest subatomic particles have been detected, but we cannot create life. Not even close.

Click to expand...

Yup - and no ancient deities doing ANY of the magical stuff that is depicted in thousands of years old scrolls.

It is cool how you want to ignore research on a subject that you imply there is none being done on, yet also want to worship an angry non-biologist solely because he says things you want to hear.

Sad.

Aussie Pete said:

Whateve. I've long since stopped expecting a reasonable and rational response from self deceived evolutionists. There are a few who I can discuss these issues with reasonably. You are not one of them.

Click to expand...

Your projection is typical and pathetic.
Sad, really.

1rreducibly Complex said:

Above is Lee Strobel's creationism documentary entitled "The Case For a Creator".

I first saw this documentary maybe 5 years ago and remember it as good content for anyone interested in alternatives to evolutionary theory. It is a good watch for those interested in the scientific side of creationism in general.

Please watch and enjoy~

And share other examples of science that christians might be interested in or learn from.

Click to expand...

Post and runner, back at it.

If you can't discuss or support your claims, better not to make them.

tas8831 said:

OK - when I see an anthropomorphic tribal deity from the ancient middle east conjure a fully frown man from dust, I will worship Jehovah.
Funny how you folks have your double standards.

Click to expand...

I've long said that if creationists held the same standard for their religious beliefs that they allegedly hold for science, they'd all be atheists.

sjastro said:

In anticipation of the expected excuse the dating is wrong when humans were involved in the making of hearths up to 50000 years ago, two independent dating methods can be employed.
Fires that cause rocks to heat up can be dated using luminescence dating and charcoal using carbon-14.
Where both methods are available the dates are generally consistent with some exceptions which can be explained.

Click to expand...

The problem with both of these dating methods is that it’s assumed that the object has acquired a constant amount of radiation or C14. With TL they have to assume that the radiation was constant and consistent with the levels the object is receiving today in order to determine the annual rate of exposure. If the levels have changed they have no way of knowing it and it radically affects the dating formula. The same exact problem has been happening with carbon dating except in the case of carbon dating we already know for a fact that the C14 levels have been changing since C14 has been increasing in our atmosphere since they first discovered it. It’s been predicted that C14 levels should’ve reached a climax roughly 30,000 after the earth was formed and yet the levels are still increasing which either means their calculations were wrong or the earth is less than 30,000 years old. Either way they’re wrong.

BNR32FAN said:

The problem with both of these dating methods is that it’s assumed that the object has acquired a constant amount of radiation or C14.

Click to expand...

Wrong!

With C-14, the radiodates can be compared with tree ring dates, and this allows researchers to calibrate for the different amounts of C-14 in the atmosphere at points in time in the past.

It is not assumed constant.

(Regardless, these effects are not huge, so even if scientists made the assumption that C-14 is constant (and they aren't) it's not going to compress 30,000 years into six thousand or whatever.)

tas8831 said:

So you've got nothing but a desire for a creationist to be correct.
I've seen Tour in action. I've read some of his essays. It is trite and hackneyed nonsense. Just because trite, hackneyed nonsense written/spoken by a guy with a doctorate does not mean it is NOT trite and hackneyed.
You folks are just so gullible. Sad.

Click to expand...

No educated.

HIM said:

No educated.

Click to expand...

If you are educated sufficiently to find Tour's scientific claims impressive and not flawed, then surely you can pick one and explain it?

BNR32FAN said:

Not if your a believer. A believer will reject everything that is refuted by God’s word because he believes God’s word over all else. Science is not the authority on truth, God is. Science has been proven wrong time after time. God never has and never will be proven wrong.

Click to expand...

As a believer are you capable of being wrong in your understanding of God's word? Is it remotely possible that God is not wrong, but you are?

essentialsaltes said:

Wrong!

With C-14, the radiodates can be compared with tree ring dates, and this allows researchers to calibrate for the different amounts of C-14 in the atmosphere at points in time in the past.

It is not assumed constant.

Click to expand...

Ahh yes, use a more inaccurate method to validate another inaccurate method. Tree rings don’t grow according to each year they grow according to weather conditions. So we have to assume the weather has been constant if we are to assume these rings to be accurate. So all this boils down to is unreliable evidence based on assumptions we can’t confirm, not proof.

essentialsaltes said:

(Regardless, these effects are not huge, so even if scientists made the assumption that C-14 is constant (and they aren't) it's not going to compress 30,000 years into six thousand or whatever.)

Click to expand...

you can accurately say that unless you know how much C14 was in the atmosphere 30,000 years ago, if any, or how much was in the atmosphere when God created the earth.

Belk said:

As a believer are you capable of being wrong in your understanding of God's word? Is it remotely possible that God is not wrong, but you are?

Click to expand...

It’s not hard to understand that six days means 6 days or that this particular person lived x amount of years.