why is it that you have a problem with the theory of evolution? why not the theory of gravity, or the theory of relativity, or the atomic theory, or the theory of quantum wave mechanics? why just evolution?
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
a question for creationists...
- Thread starter gamespotter10
- Start date
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,101
- 52,639
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
The Bible, as far as I know, does not pwn gravity like It pwns evolution.
Yes --- gravity is pwned once in awhile --- but only insofar as it is overridden by miracles.
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,101
- 52,639
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
From www.av1net.dictionary.com
pwn verb, as in "to pwn", means to disagree with overwhelming evidence because of a book written by some bronze age nomads. see also idolatory and TrueChristian
Upvote
0
CACTUSJACKmankin
Scientist
i was wondering why you were using a word like that in a discussion like this. somehow you dont seem like the world of warcraft type to me. pwn comes from online games and refers to one player's overwhelming win over the other.
Upvote
0
It generally refers to defeat mixed in with a good amount of humiliation.
I just think it's comical how you attempt to use gamer slang in claiming Biblical victory over the theory of evolution. I have no idea how mind you, and I don't think you do either. Unless you're the author of the checkmate video, which would explain everything.
Upvote
0
to pwn means, in the internet gaming subculture, to swiftly ,soundly, and decisively defeat your opponent
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,101
- 52,639
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
Merlin
Paradigm Buster
- Sep 29, 2005
- 3,873
- 845
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Pentecostal
- Marital Status
- Private
Personally, I have some problems with each, whether Quantum Electrodynamics, string theory, etc.
There was once a time it was thought all of optics was known. Nothing further could be learned Oops.
Upvote
0
thaumaturgy
Well-Known Member
Please, tell us what your main complaint about Quantum electrodynamics is.
And what is the most amazing "unknown" about optics that you have recently heard about?
Upvote
0
Merlin
Paradigm Buster
- Sep 29, 2005
- 3,873
- 845
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Pentecostal
- Marital Status
- Private
I don't like renormalisation... dividing infinities
Yes, I know why. Yes, I know how incredibly accurate the answers are when used.
I still don't like it.
I look forward to the day when there is a better method.
I also don't like the whole idea of virtual particles popping in and out of existance, just because the math allows for it.
at any rate,I was responding to the OP question of "why is it that you have a problem with the theory of evolution? why not the theory of gravity, or the theory of relativity, or the atomic theory, or the theory of quantum wave mechanics? why just evolution?"
I have problems with science beyond evolution and was merely giving examples.
Personally, I don't like Quarks either.
Scientific heresy, I know
Upvote
0
CACTUSJACKmankin
Scientist
i dont like the idea that the sun will grow and eventually incinerate the solar system but reality doesnt care about making us feel good. Reality is reality regardless of how it makes us feel. you acknowlege that the math behind quantum mechanics is valid, you just have philosophical problems with its implications. I would submit that no science should provide anybody with philosophical implications because reality is reality nonetheless.
Upvote
0
thaumaturgy
Well-Known Member
Understandable. Certainly Feynman was uncomfortable with that.
Wish I did.
Well, certainly, it is nice to hear things other than evolution that you argue against. Most creationists and the like tend to argue against evolution predicated not on any solid scientific stance but rather a dislike of what they think evolution says about them or their god.
Because, unlike renormalization in QED the fundamentals of evolution are pretty hard to argue against. It's a pretty solid model that explains almost all of the variability in the data using the minimum number of factors, all of which are verifiable and proven to do what they need to do (genetic drift, genetic changes, passive filter of natural selection, etc.)
Creationists and YEC tend to focus on these topics precisely because they think they can have a say on it without doing much if any actual learning before pontificating.
Now, granted, I have yet to see you actually discuss a scientific issue on this board but I'm sure I've not seen all your posts. I've seen you make claims of scientific knowledge which you will not carry further, but I am equally sure that my experience is not everything you have.
It would be nice if you would actually discuss the science of something to some greater depth than merely saying you are capable of it.
I think every scientist on this board would welcome an actual scientific discussion.
Upvote
0
Merlin
Paradigm Buster
- Sep 29, 2005
- 3,873
- 845
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Pentecostal
- Marital Status
- Private
We're not discussing reality, but rather useful models of reality.
I don't like some of the models.
As Feynman himself was known to have said:
"The shell game that we play ... is technically called 'renormalization'. But no matter how clever the word, it is still what I would call a dippy process! Having to resort to such hocus-pocus has prevented us from proving that the theory of quantum electrodynamics is mathematically self-consistent. It's surprising that the theory still hasn't been proved self-consistent one way or the other by now; I suspect that renormalization is not mathematically legitimate."
Upvote
0
LittleNipper
Contributor
- Mar 9, 2005
- 9,011
- 174
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Well, it the case of the former, it attempts to provide a reason for species without GOD. In the case of the later, they only try to explain how they work. They do not attack the Creator. Evolution attacks both creation and the Creator, as unnecessary.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
- Locked
