Absurdities of so called science

[Split Rock]

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

Why would you claim this? Common Descent, for example, could be falisifed by finding a rabbit fossil in the Cambrian, a true chimera, a human gene that is more similar to a lizard than to a chimp, etc., etc.

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

I don't believe so, but "creation scientists" have done this with Flood Geology.

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:

I don't follow this. How would you potentially falsify "No Death Before the Fall?"

 

[MoonLancer]

Evidently the plants were made to die:

If god is knowledgeable enough to know the fall will happen, then so is all life.

 

[ranmaonehalf]

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!

im sure you could put all the animlas on the ark. just theyd be dead.
of course there was no life in that pixel either.

 

[dad]

Merry Christmas, DAD. Good thread.

Hey, the best defense is a good offence, and the godless evos are sitting ducks. Why not have some fun??!!

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.

Right. I think that we need God in music, history, science, and etc, or we miss the boat.

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?

They can only deal with the physical noise, not the spiritual inspiration! That means they miss the real meaning, and fulness of it. Music is not an autopsy.

 

[dad]

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.

Well, actually, all you see is red. One might interpret the affected light as how it came to exist in this state, rather than fast moving. It depends on the starting assumptions. Now, if you want to support your claim with details, why, I say go ahead. I just happen to know you can't. Call me a step ahead if you like.

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.

It is the MOST widely accepted theory in science to this day! As much as some are starting to bail, and back peddle, seeing the writing on the wall, that is still how it is. Be honest.

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.

False!! the effects on things are only explained in the framework of present laws, and a present universe. If it was something else that affected rotations and whatnot, like either creation, and/or the universe state change, then all bets are off. Since science cannot say, you are stabing in the dark, in declaring darkk stuff the majority of the universe!!! That equals nothing more than saying, 'there was never anything else but the present laws and state'/ That is based on nothing at all, and the huge cunning house of cards built on that foundation, is only as good as the belief in a present state in the past. In other words, worthless in the extreme!!!

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.

Preposterous, weak, and childish godless logic. Looking similar does not mean a similar lifespan, what you kidding???? get serious.

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

I am prepared to conceed that you are rowing upstream! Dreaming in the dark. Desperate as a housewife in the US.

Merry Christmas.

Happy Boxing day. Now get up before the count of ten, will you. There is more fun to be had.

 

[dad]

im sure you could put all the animlas on the ark. just theyd be dead.
of course there was no life in that pixel either.

Ridiculous misconception. There was plenty of room for the kinds. The evolving came after.

 

[dad]

If god is knowledgeable enough to know the fall will happen, then so is all life.

Your point, then, is that all life is as knowledable as God. OK. Ok upon what do you base this claim??

 

[Washington]

Ridiculous misconception. There was plenty of room for the kinds. The evolving came after.

Ah, so you do believe in evolution. Good for you. By the way, exactly what is a "kind"?

 

[dad]

Ah, so you do believe in evolution. Good for you. By the way, exactly what is a "kind"?

Yes, hyper evolution. ..As a created trait, in the former state. We don't know the kinds, but I can take an educated guess at several of them. Whales, wolves, oxen, sheep, lion, and asp.

 

[Danyc]

Did Dad ever give the bible verses where his stupid state change was mentioned?

I remember asking for them numerous times in other threads.

 

[AV1611VET]

Did Dad ever give the bible verses where his stupid state change was mentioned?

What's a "stupid state change"? Is that like something that changes, that you guys can't scientifically explain?

 

[Washington]

Yes, hyper evolution. ..As a created trait, in the former state. We don't know the kinds, but I can take an educated guess at several of them. Whales, wolves, oxen, sheep, lion, and asp.

Considering there is an estimated 2 to 10 million species in the world, that is one very, VERY hyper evolution. To say nothing of an incredibly rapid dispersal to the far corners of the world.
The platypus, a fresh water mammal, for instance, would have to have made a bee-line waddle 6,500 miles across Eurasia to Australia---mountainous terrain and all---at .4 - 2.0 MPH, taking time sleep and every day eat at least 20% of its body weight (usually freshwater invertebrates like shrimp, worms, crayfish, small mussels and aquatic insects). Then slowly swim across 900 miles of shark infested open salt water, and all without a single meal.
Nah, you're going to have to invoke your magic god-wand for this one.

 

[[serious]]

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 think that list is pretty complete. I vote we let it stand as is.

 

[Danyc]

What's a "stupid state change"? Is that like something that changes, that you guys can't scientifically explain?

Surely you've heard of dad's present and former state nonsense?

 

[Garyzenuf]

Surely you've heard of dad's present and former state nonsense?

What did we ever do to you that you had to bring that up.

*

 

[USincognito]

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

Why don't people take good advice like this?

 

[juvenissun]

Why don't people take good advice like this?

Because he is smart and every else is stupid. So, let the fools talk.

 

[savedbyjesus]

Why would you claim this? Common Descent, for example, could be falisifed by finding a rabbit fossil in the Cambrian, a true chimera, a human gene that is more similar to a lizard than to a chimp, etc., etc.

Classic circular reasoning! Take some thing we have observed i.e. no rabbit fossils found in a rock layer which with have termed Cambrian and then say common decent could be falsified if we found no rabbit fossils in the Cambrian layer. Wow we find no rabbit fossils in the Cambrian layer so common decent is true!

Great emprical work I say

Will you accept Jesus as your God and saviour?


Regards,

Paul

 

[Jester4kicks]

Wow.... sorry AV, but Dad has officially taken your spot at the top of the "face-palm" totem pole.

 

[Jester4kicks]

Classic circular reasoning! Take some thing we have observed i.e. no rabbit fossils found in a rock layer which with have termed Cambrian and then say common decent could be falsified if we found no rabbit fossils in the Cambrian layer. Wow we find no rabbit fossils in the Cambrian layer so common decent is true!

Um... you realize that he said things like a rabbit fossil in the pre-cambrian would DISPROVE our current theories on common decent? That's not circular-reasoning... that's logic.

-Theory A is built upon, amongst other things, observation A.
-Observation A is proven to be absolutely wrong by Observation B.
-Theory A is no longer valid.

Now THIS is circular reasoning: