Absurdities of so called science

Hespera · Jan 3, 2009

thaumaturgy said:
I doubt that Juvenissun speaks English as his first language. His english syntax is attrocious, but then my German syntax and my Norwegian syntax and my Spanish syntax would be equally attrocious.

But, if Juvenissun thinks that he is squeezing the "most amount of meanings into the least amount of words", he is sadly missing the mark. Usually his syntax and hideous grammar hide "meaning" so effectively that it can take up to several readings of his posts to try to figure out what he means.

I should expect a scientist to understand the importance of grammar in expressing actual information. If I were to simply say "Pi is 1.43.5...1" and expect you to realize that I am actually saying that Pi does contain the numbers "3" "." "1","4","1" and "5" and "..." and that really I mean "Pi=3.1415..." well, there's somewhat of a disconnect.

"Who cares about grammar today?" Well, I do. But then I'm actually quite interested in using language to get across very specific and informative points. I obsess over much of the wording of my posts (cf the earlier exchange with Dad in which he failed to understand the specific terms I used and he interpretted a point not clearly outlined in my post). So grammar and technical meaning are very important to scientists. Especially on a discussion forum.

Thau, I am wishing i could find something to disagree about with you. Then I could get a good argument going.

Trying to talk to Juv is disappointing, when I do get it figured out what he is saying it is still gibberish.

You try to talk trig, he is talking intro to mixed numbers and fractions with no idea that there are people who have grade school math figured out.

And you know, when he is challenged he just hides. If i proved you said something that was flat wrong, heck, you'd admit it and learn. Juv just hides. Not very manly, but trying to insult girls isnt either; what do you expect.

"Dad" seems like one of the wild -eyed people you see on the street corner shouting about the End. Nobody on earth could carry on a sensible conversation with him.

Well Univ is back in business on Monday, I'm still on crutches but i can get back to being busy. Not much time for following a forum or arguing with the uneducated.

I realy would like to see someone bring up some seroius minded realistic objection to any aspect of geology or evoltuion / paleontology. i was hoping for some good debate here, but I guess its not going to happen.

AV1611VET · Jan 3, 2009

Here's an excellent example of my point that all you guys understand is GOD DID IT --- nothing --- and I mean NOTHING else is comprehensible:

Hespera said:
Thau, I am wishing i could find something to disagree about with you. Then I could get a good argument going.

Trying to talk to Juv is disappointing, when I do get it figured out what he is saying it is still gibberish.

You try to talk trig, he is talking intro to mixed numbers and fractions with no idea that there are people who have grade school math figured out.

And you know, when he is challenged he just hides. If i proved you said something that was flat wrong, heck, you'd admit it and learn. Juv just hides. Not very manly, but trying to insult girls isnt either; what do you expect.

"Dad" seems like one of the wild -eyed people you see on the street corner shouting about the End. Nobody on earth could carry on a sensible conversation with him.

Well Univ is back in business on Monday, I'm still on crutches but i can get back to being busy. Not much time for following a forum or arguing with the uneducated.

I realy would like to see someone bring up some seroius minded realistic objection to any aspect of geology or evoltuion / paleontology. i was hoping for some good debate here, but I guess its not going to happen.

Now --- let's see someone get irked at this, so it'll prove my other post that if all we are are "freaks in a freak show", then why do we upset you so, and why do you spend so much time with us?

QV please --- 105.

juvenissun · Jan 3, 2009

WilliamduBois said:
It's not just grammar that you apparantly do not care about...

And you don't need to be a linguist to at least make your posts somewhat coherent. This post of yours shows you can. Why not all the time?

Thanks for the encouragement. I will try. At least be logical.

juvenissun · Jan 3, 2009

Hespera said:
Well Univ is back in business on Monday, I'm still on crutches but i can get back to being busy. Not much time for following a forum or arguing with the uneducated.

Hey, study hard. I expect to see some progress in the next May.
Warning: DO NOT PLEDGE.

Hespera · Jan 3, 2009

juvenissun said:
Thanks for the encouragement. I will try. At least be logical.

Grammar is the logic of the language. You MIGHT be interesting if you made any sense. It is like this: " no grammar, no logic".

Take this example, your last sentence.

"At least be logical" means you are directing someone else to be logical.

If you are talking about yourself,you should say. "I will at least try to be logical".

Still hiding, btw, from admitting that you were wrong about Mediterranean flooding?

thaumaturgy · Jan 3, 2009

Hespera · Jan 3, 2009

thaumaturgy said:
When those of us who are geologists discuss things in relation to what Juvenissun has said we are usually going on about his geology stuff. Or his science stuff. I don't know what "deeper" information you are getting from Juvenissun. I don't see it. I've asked him on more than one occasion to clarify his point or be less "opaque". He remains veiled and opaque. I don't see that as a valid response for a Christian, but that is not my problem. I'm in no position to "judge" the acts of a "Christian" in regards to how they "live their faith".

I can, however, judge a scientist and so-called "educator".

Juvenissun has, on numerous occasions indicated he is an educator and a geologist. But he almost never gets involved in detailed discussions. He's made his share of bad geologic comments (see his earlier discussion on the definition of the word "mountain"), but occasionally he has made a valid geologic point. He seldom will actually bother to support or reference his claims, and often times his discussions end up going like these gems (I've highlighted the important bits for you):

I've been around these boards for quite some time, and I can tell you from personal experience in discussions with Juvenissun, that on those few occasions when a valid geologic concept fell out of one of his posts it was almost always because he made some vaguely worded comment, refused to back it up with detail or even a reference and it was left to others to do the legwork. Most of the time, however, Juvenissun simply failed or refused to educate anyone on his points.

That, simply put, isn't how a scientist or an educator works. BELIEVE ME BECAUSE I'VE BEEN BOTH. I've taught geology at 3 universities and I've taught chemistry at one community college and chem lab at another college.

I learned the hard way what makes a good educator. And my career has been in the pursuit of science.

I'll be frank and open and honest: I don't like Juvenissun's style of "education" and his opacity. I find it hard to deal with since I know what a scientist and an educator does. Opacity and Obfuscation are not in the charter.

(There's sometimes a place for an educator to make his students work, but Juvenissun is not my superior in most aspects of geology so far discussed. And, I'd venture, he isn't the superior of many of the geology students I've seen on these boards. So he needs to take his own advice and "humble himself" a bit before coming on here and treating others as if they are somehow his "students". Every educator learns that until you show yourself to be the master, you are nothing more than some blowhard standing at the front of the room talking loudly. And every educator who refuses to learn something from the students will fail. I learned these two important lessons in my years teaching.)

It doesnt take all that much to be able to smoke out a fraud and a humbug.

I talked to a guy on line the other day, he said he was a doctor. Ok... i think.. so I asked him, What is a calcaneous? He got mad and started insulting me. (kinda like someone on here that i called out)

For some reason you get people who are wannabes, and they pretend they have knowledge, experience, etc that they dont. Guys who pretend they have been to Iraq, for example. They only try that on girls, that they sure have no military experience. There is always going to be a guy who will call them out and make a fool of them, if they try it in public.

There might be someone so cluless that he'd try to keep up the pretense in front of people who really did go to Iraq. There's a couple of that kind of clueless on here.

Of course, on line like this, you can challenge people, and they just hide.
Gutless gutless gutless frauds that they are.

A poster you mentioned obviously doesnt know anything about geology. Maybe he thinks that pretening to be one lends credence to his talk.
Maybe. Of course, all it really does is the opposite.

MoonLancer · Jan 3, 2009

AV1611VET said:
Here's an excellent example of my point that all you guys understand is GOD DID IT --- nothing --- and I mean NOTHING else is comprehensible:

Now --- let's see someone get irked at this, so it'll prove my other post that if all we are are "freaks in a freak show", then why do we upset you so, and why do you spend so much time with us?

QV please --- 105.

don't you know that its hard not to look at a freak? don't get me wrong, I like most freaks. but some are products of their own choices so i don't have much sympathy or respect.

AV1611VET · Jan 3, 2009

MoonLancer said:
... so i don't have much sympathy or respect.

Just anger, attention, and ad hominems --- right?

You guys that call us idiots, then keep on asking us questions and making your silly remarks remind me of those who go to the zoo to prod the animals for entertainment --- then get mad when someone shoos them off.

juvenissun · Jan 3, 2009

Jester4kicks said:
Help me out here... if you take the bible literally... doesn't that mean the whole of existence came into being within 6 days?

So then how do you explain the following:
-Big Bang Theory puts the age of the universe at around 13.73 Billion years ago.
-The formation of our own solar system occured around 4.6 Billion years ago.
-Radiometric dating of terrestrial and lunar samples and meteorites puts the age of the Earth at around 4.54 Billion years ago.
-Depending on how far back you are willing to accept the timeline, life on Earth began as much as 3.8 Billion years ago.
-Mammals appeared roughly 200 Million years ago
-Humans didn't resemble their current forms until about 200,000 years ago.

Now here's what I don't get... all of these findings are not based on a single piece of research. This wasn't just a few guys that got together and decided to arrange this data in such a way as to deceive everyone. So, as I see it... if you believe in god AND think the bible is the literal truth... you must either believe:

1) Every single piece of this data is wrong, or
2) God intentionally and specifically designed the whole of creation to be deceiving.

I don't think either option is particularly good. So how do you justify it?

Click to expand...

There is no way for me to address all your questions. So, I only take the last one:

I said I know how is the radiometric dating done. I would say it is a very precise work. However, I also said that I don't think the results of all dating are accurate. In other words, I only treat the dates as relative and proportional values, but not as real values. This way of recognition does not affect my secular science research at all. I still send samples to get dates. And I always have a peaceful mind in interpreting and using these dates.

So how much real time is represented by, say, 300 million years, which is given by radiometric dating? I do not know. I think it is 100 m.y. older than 200 m.y.. But I do not know how long is the 100 m.y. difference in reality. Sounds strange, but I do think I have good reason to see it this way.

How do I treat the creation "days"? I don't know either. But I don't like to think it is a 24-hr period of time as we know it. The meaning of "day" in the creation process is not defined. However, I do take the sequence (day 1, day 2 etc.) seriously. I think the sequence is real and is very critical.

This is all about the real nature of time, which no one really knows today.

So my response to your comments: 1) all data are acceptable and are functional; And 2) God will show me what time REALLY is when I see Him in face. (side point: I do think there is still time in Heaven)

What "huge global problem" are you referring to? I'm sorry, but you're kinda sounding like someone who is just ranting against technology in general.... ironic since you are doing so on a computer, across distances and on a medium that would not be possible if it weren't for technology.

Click to expand...

Do we have all kinds of global problems today? We do have many, right? For example, over population, water shortage, global epidemics, terrorism, nuclear proliferation, ID theft, etc. etc. I am sure to say that all these global-scale problems appeared because we developed the modern technology. Without the technology, we still have problems, but no global problem.

I am not against technology. It is God's gift and I am all for it. But I also recognize that the advance of technology does not create a better society, but make the society a more dangerous place.

-------

One question left to reply.

Chalnoth · Jan 3, 2009

juvenissun said:
I said I know how is the radiometric dating done. I would say it is a very precise work. However, I also said that I don't think the results of all dating are accurate. In other words, I only treat the dates as relative and proportional values, but not as real values. This way of recognition does not affect my secular science research at all. I still send samples to get dates. And I always have a peaceful mind in interpreting and using these dates.

So how much real time is represented by, say, 300 million years, which is given by radiometric dating? I do not know. I think it is 100 m.y. older than 200 m.y.. But I do not know how long is the 100 m.y. difference in reality. Sounds strange, but I do think I have good reason to see it this way.

And what, pray tell, could allow these dates to change significantly?

juvenissun said:
How do I treat the creation "days"? I don't know either. But I don't like to think it is a 24-hr period of time as we know it. The meaning of "day" in the creation process is not defined. However, I do take the sequence (day 1, day 2 etc.) seriously. I think the sequence is real and is very critical.

Then why is it out of order? Why do birds come a day before land animals?

thaumaturgy · Jan 3, 2009

juvenissun said:
I said I know how is the radiometric dating done. I would say it is a very precise work. However, I also said that I don't think the results of all dating are accurate. In other words, I only treat the dates as relative and proportional values, but not as real values. This way of recognition does not affect my secular science research at all. I still send samples to get dates. And I always have a peaceful mind in interpreting and using these dates.

I would be very interested to know what kind of samples you send off to be dated. What materials and what isotopes you rely on.

Would you care to describe the process by which the isotopes are isolated for measurement?

This would be very interesting information.

juvenissun · Jan 3, 2009

Hespera said:
Still hiding, btw, from admitting that you were wrong about Mediterranean flooding?

What is your problem with the Mediterranean flood again? Is it that how do we know it happened?

We know it happened because we found the salt layer at the bottom. But the salt layer is NOT made by the flood, but was made before the flood. A local or global flood will not make a salt layer anywhere.

Remember it. You will beat your classmates on this issue because you learned it here.

thaumaturgy · Jan 3, 2009

Hespera said:
Well Univ is back in business on Monday, I'm still on crutches but i can get back to being busy. Not much time for following a forum or arguing with the uneducated.

I realy would like to see someone bring up some seroius minded realistic objection to any aspect of geology or evoltuion / paleontology. i was hoping for some good debate here, but I guess its not going to happen.

Sometimes there's some good science back and forth. Not with everyone, but sometimes there's some really good stuff that gets passed along.

Hope your next semester goes well!

juvenissun · Jan 3, 2009

Chalnoth said:
And what, pray tell, could allow these dates to change significantly?

Then why is it out of order? Why do birds come a day before land animals?

I am not sure what are you asking on the first one. What dates change?

I do not know. I don't have time for that problem yet. I am thinking about the problem of plant, which is made on day 3.

thaumaturgy · Jan 3, 2009

juvenissun said:
I do not know. I don't have time for that problem yet. I am thinking about the problem of plant, which is made on day 3.

This is a very important issue when regarding Genesis as literally true. Even if the Days are not 24 hour days, in many cases the order is not what is found in the rocks, as geologists know.

Seed Bearing Plants, fruit bearing trees occur on "day 3", But water-creatures occur on "day 5". Most land plants that I'm aware of (especially trees and grasses) show up significantly after many water life forms as seen in the geologic record.

Birds show up on "Day 5" but land animals show up on "Day 6", which is not what we see in the Geologic Record.

While God made "light" on day 1, he establishes the "Sun" the day after he established the land plants. Obviously a difficulty since many land-plants (like fruit-bearing trees and grasses) are photosynthetic.

I would wonder why the order would not match the data clearly preserved in the rocks for much of this. Of course if it were an allegory written by people who had no real idea of what happened when, but wanted to come up with a story to help them "understand" the world around them, that'd be different. Not unlike the various creation myths all over the world.

Chalnoth · Jan 3, 2009

juvenissun said:
I am not sure what are you asking on the first one. What dates change?

You were talking about radiometric dates, how you don't consider them to be "real" in some sense. So, if they aren't real, then how is it that they could be different from the measured dates (to within experimental errors).

juvenissun said:
I do not know. I don't have time for that problem yet. I am thinking about the problem of plant, which is made on day 3.

Okay.

dad · Jan 4, 2009

thaumaturgy said:
Oh my. Did I say that?

No, I said no such thing.

Any geologist could tell you what I said doesn't require a uniform layer at all!

I don't know where you got that idea. What I said was:

That has nothing whatsoever to do with some "uniform" layer. In fact, I'd be surprised if it wasn't represented by numerous dramatically different types of rocks!

But I guess my use of rather specific technical language went right over your head, Dad. You cannot be expected to be a geologist.

But do, in the future, be careful not to misinterpret what others say based on your personal ignorance of the topic at hand.

Please, re-read my post. You might wish to take a geology class or try to learn what the other side is saying before you "comment" and reveal exactly how ill equipped you are for this discussion.

Or next time come to me with a better understanding of what I actually said before you call it "absurd".

OK, rather than cater to your usual would be elitist pretensions, let's put it this way. It amounts to the same thing, you need a same state past, and all your hand waving can't change that. Really. If you want to bring your talk down to a level that is comprehensible by those not of the cloth and religion of geology dreams 101, now is your chance. I like to deal in simple, comprehensible concepts. Now, if you meant to say something you misspelled, like "subaerial" do let us know! O busted one.

dad · Jan 4, 2009

Split Rock said:
Show us the lines from scripture that supports your assertion that ANY of this occurred during Noah's Flood. Otherwise you are just inserting your own speculation into the scriptural account. More Blasphemy.

The split was long after the flood. Try to focus. And the differences in the realities of the post and pre split are stark. Clear, and present.

Also, who claimed that the glocal flood markers had to be uniform? They just have to be present globally during the same time period.

[/quote] And undisturbed enough to be recognizable. If things got jumbles with continental separation, and law changes, etc, afetr the flood, that changes what we should look for. The changes reached down far below the surface, and affected layers that were even pre flood, in many cases, as in mountain building. Be specific, got any real question?

dad · Jan 4, 2009

juvenissun said:
I do not know. I don't have time for that problem yet. I am thinking about the problem of plant, which is made on day 3.

How is that a problem?

Absurdities of so called science

Junior Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

... and God saw that it was good.

... and God saw that it was good.

Junior Member

Well-Known Member

Junior Member

The Moon is a reflection of the MorningStar

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

... and God saw that it was good.

Senior Contributor

Well-Known Member

... and God saw that it was good.

Well-Known Member

... and God saw that it was good.

Well-Known Member

Senior Contributor

Undefeated!

Undefeated!

Undefeated!

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency