Absurdities of so called science

[dad]

So, maybe we can get a list of the utterly preposterous conclusions that so called science (that is, the application of present science and laws to the far past) has come up with!!!!

1)

2)


3)


4)


5)


6)




7)


...


I would vote for the preposterous claim that all that is our universe was one day, long ago, in the imaginary past, all in a speck o soup. That would be number 1 to me.

Of course the huddled in a rock crack, or thermal vent, etc. little magically appearing so called first lifeform has to be number 2!


What else? Claiming life spans were always similar to today? Or claiming all history is valid, except where it pertains to the One that set the calendar!? Or.....?????


We might as well summarize the ignorant, and unsupported wild beliefs that are so called science!!!



Merry Christmas!

 

[Danyc]

PLEASE, PLEASE< PLEASE, do NOT REPLY TO THIS THREAD


Do you guys remember what happened last time Dad started on one of his rants about science? Jeezus

Please, for the love of whatever deity you believe in, do not appease him, do not prod him, please do not post


PLEASE
For once, just DON'T START ANOTHER ONE


OHH GODD PLEEEAAASSSEEEE

 

[Sophophile]

So, maybe we can get a list of the utterly preposterous conclusions that so called science (that is, the application of present science and laws to the far past) has come up with!!!!

I would vote for the preposterous claim that all that is our universe was one day, long ago, in the imaginary past, all in a speck o soup. That would be number 1 to me.

Hi dad. Merry Christmas.

The claim the universe is old, and was once small, is not preposterous i.e. "completely contrary to nature, reason, or common sense". We can observe the universe is old and is expanding. Therefore, it is common sense that the universe was smaller in the past. You may disagree with this conclusion, but it is a misleading characterisation to call it preposterous.

Of course the huddled in a rock crack, or thermal vent, etc. little magically appearing so called first lifeform has to be number 2!

Many scientists do not accept this, so this is not a conclusion of science, and it should not be on your list. This is an hypothesis that has not been properly tested.

What else? Claiming life spans were always similar to today?

Again, this is not preposterous. Similar plants and animals are known to have similar life spans. It is reasonable to conclude that fossil organisms similar to ones alive today also had similar life spans. It is therefore misleading to characterise this as "preposterous".

Or claiming all history is valid, except where it pertains to the One that set the calendar!? Or.....?????

Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean by "all history is valid", but I have never heard anybody claim our understanding of history is perfect in every detail.

 

[Athrond]

Merry Christmas Dad. Or "God Jul!" as I prefer

I agree that it is preposterous that the universe was once a speck of soup, allthough I appreciate the "Discworldly" sound of it!

Also you are quite right that life magically appearing is absurd to the extreeme. I mean, Wuh??

I find it od that you so generally discredit science, when you obviously are sitting infront of a mashine that is a fine example of it working perfectly, advanced semiconductors are a result of scienctific study you know. Maybe you should be a little more spesific next time?

Athrond

 

[AV1611VET]

I would vote for the preposterous claim that all that is our universe was one day, long ago, in the imaginary past, all in a speck o soup. That would be number 1 to me.

I always like the ones who believe that the universe was once the size of a pixel, yet all those animals couldn't fit on the Ark.

That's always good for a laugh.

Merry Christmas!

And a MERRY CHRISTMAS to you too, sir!

Jesus is the Reason for the Season!

 

[dad]

Hi dad. Merry Christmas.

The claim the universe is old, and was once small, is not preposterous i.e. "completely contrary to nature, reason, or common sense". We can observe the universe is old and is expanding. Therefore, it is common sense that the universe was smaller in the past. You may disagree with this conclusion, but it is a misleading characterisation to call it preposterous.

Of course it is utterly completely preposterous! It is the biggest slap in the intelligence face of mankind that the dark insirationmeisters ever piped up to the surface!!

Let's see you stuff so much as the mere sun, moon and planets in a tea cup!! That shoulld be easy, they comprise probably less than a fraction of a billionioneth of a percent of the mass of the known universe!!!

And you claim it all fit on the head of a pin, with a straight face, no less!!!

Many scientists do not accept this, so this is not a conclusion of science, and it should not be on your list. This is an hypothesis that has not been properly tested.

It has been the BEST they could cook up for years now, and MOST accepted!!! Fess up!! Oh, I would reccomend we add the majority of the unniverse that is missing in action, and labeled dark stuff as well!!!! What a scream!

Again, this is not preposterous. Similar plants and animals are known to have similar life spans. It is reasonable to conclude that fossil organisms similar to ones alive today also had similar life spans. It is therefore misleading to characterise this as "preposterous".

Can you phrase the question in a way, that your position, and claim of science is recognizable??

Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean by "all history is valid", but I have never heard anybody claim our understanding of history is perfect in every detail.

Great, especially the dawn of history. I like it when people admit ignorance, it is a sign of actual intelligence!!

merry Christmas.

 

[juvenissun]

So, maybe we can get a list of the utterly preposterous conclusions that so called science (that is, the application of present science and laws to the far past) has come up with!!!!

1)

Merry Christmas, DAD. Good thread.

I studied science in all my life (since age 6). But I regrettably say that at the end, I find everything, truly everything, science has taught me is arguable. Even things as simple as 1 + 1 = 2, or the earth is self-rotating, or, recently learned, what is music.

Science only makes us know that we do not know anything. Can you imagine that we can make scientific argument on music, so that music becomes nothing but just "sound", and no more?

 

[Split Rock]

Merry Christmas, DAD. Good thread.

I studied science in all my life (since age 6). But I regrettably say that at the end, I find everything, truly everything, science has taught me is arguable. Even things as simple as 1 + 1 = 2, or the earth is self-rotating, or, recently learned, what is music.

Science only makes us know that we do not know anything. Can you imagine that we can make scientific argument on music, so that music becomes nothing but just "sound", and no more?

Yes. Look around you. Science has produced nothing useful.

 

[Washington]

Now there's a pair to draw to!
​

​

 

[juvenissun]

Yes. Look around you. Science has produced nothing useful.

Good point. I am not sure how to argue with that. Engineering is far behind science. I am not sure what is the meaning on the advance of engineering. Engineers dig hole on the ground for a foundation. They don't really care if the rock is sandstone of limestone as long as it is rock. NASA has scientists and engineers. Engineers listen to scientists. But scientists are not sure about anything.

 

[Washington]

Engineers dig hole on the ground for a foundation. They don't really care if the rock is sandstone of limestone as long as it is rock.

Actually, they really do care. It's darn important what kind of substrate they're erecting a structure on.

NASA has scientists and engineers. Engineers listen to scientists. But scientists are not sure about anything.

Obviously you're just talking of the top of your head. My condolences.

 

[Sophophile]

Of course it is utterly completely preposterous! It is the biggest slap in the intelligence face of mankind that the dark insirationmeisters ever piped up to the surface!!

Let's see you stuff so much as the mere sun, moon and planets in a tea cup!! That shoulld be easy, they comprise probably less than a fraction of a billionioneth of a percent of the mass of the known universe!!!

And you claim it all fit on the head of a pin, with a straight face, no less!!!

Dad, I already explained to you that this is not preposterous because we can see with our own eyes that the universe is in the process of expanding; therefore, it is a reasonable conclusion that it was smaller in the past. It may not be the correct conclusion, but it is certainly not "preposterous". However, you persist in your misleading characterisation, which is a form of false witness - see Proverbs 14:5.

[Regarding abiogenesis] It has been the BEST they could cook up for years now, and MOST accepted!!! Fess up!!

I already explained to you that this is not an accepted conclusion of science. Wikipedia agrees with me: "There is no truly 'standard model' of the origin of life ... [there is] a wide array of disparate discoveries and conjectures". Discoveries and conjectures are not conclusions. It is misleading of you to pretend that science claims to have a conclusion about the origin of life.

Oh, I would reccomend we add the majority of the unniverse that is missing in action, and labeled dark stuff as well!!!! What a scream!

Dark matter is neither a conclusion of science nor preposterous. Ideas about dark matter are hypotheses that have not been properly tested. It is not a preposterous idea because there is all sorts of evidence (e.g. galactic rotation rates) that strongly suggest there is more matter in the universe than we can see. Therefore, it is misleading of you to call this idea a preposterous conclusion.

Similar plants and animals are known to have similar life spans. It is reasonable to conclude that fossil organisms similar to ones alive today also had similar life spans. It is therefore misleading to characterise this as "preposterous".

Can you phrase the question in a way, that your position, and claim of science is recognizable??

My comment was not a question, dad. It was a statement of fact: It is reasonable to conclude that lifeforms of the past had similar life spans to lifeforms of today. This is because we can see, in fossils, that lifeforms of the past had similar bodies to lifeforms of today. Therefore, your effort to paint this conclusion as "preposterous" is misleading.

I have never heard anybody claim our understanding of history is perfect in every detail.

Great, especially the dawn of history. I like it when people admit ignorance, it is a sign of actual intelligence!!

merry Christmas.

I'm glad you agree that this was a bad example of a "preposterous conclusion of science"; it was misleading of you to pretend that it was in your original post, and you should not have done it.

Are you prepared to concede that your other examples also are either not "conclusions of science" or are not preposterous, as I have explained?

Merry Christmas.

S.

 

[Danyc]

I warned you guys...and on Christmas, too!

Sophophile, as you're new...do not expect Dad to be brought to reason by anything you say. He's an idiot. Have no hope.

 

[Split Rock]

Yes. Look around you. Science has produced nothing useful.

Good point. I am not sure how to argue with that. Engineering is far behind science. I am not sure what is the meaning on the advance of engineering. Engineers dig hole on the ground for a foundation. They don't really care if the rock is sandstone of limestone as long as it is rock. NASA has scientists and engineers. Engineers listen to scientists. But scientists are not sure about anything.

Sarcasm is just lost on you... isn't it?

Technically, scientists are not absolutely sure of anything, but we are tentatively sure of a lot. Creationists, on the other hand, are absolutely sure of certain specific principles (which I refer to as "Dogma"), which they cannot question. For many Creationists here, this includes Special Creation of Man, No Death Before the Fall, a Global Flood responsible for most geology we see today, etc. Problem is, if they are wrong about any of these, they can never tell.

 

[AV1611VET]

Technically, scientists are not absolutely sure of anything, but we are tentatively sure of a lot.

Creationists, on the other hand, are absolutely sure of certain specific principles (which I refer to as "Dogma"), which they cannot question.

We may question all we want --- all the top answers are given ahead of time --- (remember: God is omniscient) --- in writing.

For many Creationists here, this includes Special Creation of Man, No Death Before the Fall, a Global Flood responsible for most geology we see today, etc.

Yup.

Problem is, if they are wrong about any of these, they can never tell.

Ditto for science.

 

[juvenissun]

Sarcasm is just lost on you... isn't it?

Technically, scientists are not absolutely sure of anything, but we are tentatively sure of a lot. Creationists, on the other hand, are absolutely sure of certain specific principles (which I refer to as "Dogma"), which they cannot question. For many Creationists here, this includes Special Creation of Man, No Death Before the Fall, a Global Flood responsible for most geology we see today, etc. Problem is, if they are wrong about any of these, they can never tell.

You never believe, so you do not understand what is faith. Christians, by definition, do not question their faith.

You need to tell faith from science. That is why there is such thing called creation science. It is entirely logical.

 

[Split Rock]

Ditto for science.

Wrong. We can test our theories and potentially falsify them. Can you do this with "No Death Before the Fall?"

You never believe, so you do not understand what is faith. Christians, by definition, do not question their faith.

You need to tell faith from science. That is why there is such thing called creation science. It is entirely logical.

Thank you for noting the difference between Science and Faith.

 

[AV1611VET]

Wrong. We can test our theories and potentially falsify them.

You falsify them by running them through pre-programmed software to see if they survive.

Have you ever falsified a theory, only to have to come back later and reinstate it?

Can you do this with "No Death Before the Fall?"

Actually, I have done that very thing --- giving in to death of plants before the Fall --- but certainly no death of animals or people.

Evidently the plants were made to die:

And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

 

[dad]

I always like the ones who believe that the universe was once the size of a pixel, yet all those animals couldn't fit on the Ark.

That's always good for a laugh.And a MERRY CHRISTMAS to you too, sir!

Jesus is the Reason for the Season!

Thank you. God bless. I had a pretty good Christmas. I tried to get away from the Wal Mart Christmas this year. Gave little overnight trips, musical instruments, and passes to stuff, etc. Hope you and yours were happy.

Yes, I see no problem with animals on the ark at all. I accept hyper evolution back then, so we don't really need too many animals on there. But, if I had to, I think one would have an easier job of it, stuffing millions of animals on an ocean ship, rather than trillions of stars and galaxies, and suns, and planets all into something so small, it would be invisible to the naked eye!! Guess, we can keep the creator speck as a definite item in the list.

 

[dad]

Merry Christmas Dad. Or "God Jul!" as I prefer

I agree that it is preposterous that the universe was once a speck of soup, allthough I appreciate the "Discworldly" sound of it!

Also you are quite right that life magically appearing is absurd to the extreeme. I mean, Wuh??

I find it od that you so generally discredit science, when you obviously are sitting infront of a mashine that is a fine example of it working perfectly, advanced semiconductors are a result of scienctific study you know. Maybe you should be a little more spesific next time?

Athrond

OK. So we have another vote here for placing the creator speck, and magical first lifeform on the silly list of of the godless dreamers. So let it be written, so let it be done.

About computers, they work fine in the here and now, and don't really apply to Eden. Nor the flood. Nor even early Egypt, and Sumeria, and post flood folks. Long as we keep it where it belongs, computers are fine. No doubt, the processing power of heaven is so far far far beyond today's computers, that they would make our technology look like natives sending smoke signals in comparison.