Absurdities of so called science

[dad]

So I guess Edison never invented the light bulb, he simply tweaked it. I guess Bell never created the telephone, he just tweaked it. All of the inventions we have today were never created! They were just tweaked!

Edison never created the universe, or world that he worked in. Nor the laws that presently govern us here. Nor did he invent sand, or glass, nor create them. Nor did he create his education, and helpers. Nor did he get it right the first time, it was trial and error, tinkering the nights away.
Bell never created copper, or wire, or sound, or waves. These men merely did the mess around, and tinkered until they hit on a way that jived somewhat with the created things, in the state they were in, working with, and under the laws in place!

They no more invented light and sound, or the way it works in this state, that a rat in a maze invented the bit of cheese it eats. They just found the way, within the existing part of creation they were in, to tweak and stumble, and grope, and feel, and find the way to the desired reward that was in the little world they knew. As I said, man, humble down. We are but dust.

 

[Hespera]

In the dept of absurd, why would anyone would think he has to explain it that "Einstenin never created the universe".

 

[thaumaturgy]

I actually have a grasp of what I am talking about. You, on the defeated other hand, obviously have no grasp of the new heavens, the eternal state, the state of the universe in the past, or anything that so called science deals in.

I'm so glad you ignored the majority of my post. You bring clear focus to what you find actual value in: yourself.

And that's really what your whole "faith" is, isn't it? It's faith that you are the center of the universe. Your religion is a religion of the self above all else.

EVERYONE else is ALWAYS wrong and you are ALWAYS right.

Thankfully the Christians I know all realize they are not God himself.

Proverbs 18:12 Before destruction the heart of man is haughty, and before honour is humility.

(I highly recommend you pick up the Bible once in a while.)

 

[thaumaturgy]

No, just made it up as I went along. Try it sometime. No pinko guns at my head, forcing me to grab at truisms. It is volunteer work.

And if anyone would know hooliganism in the pursuit of getting ones ideas across it would, indeed, be Dad.

 

[thaumaturgy]

No problem, long as man did not use created material to begin with, tweaking, and mixing, and conjuring, and radiating, and etc. Then you have a point. Meanwhile, you have the usual suspects. Squat, Zilch, and Nothing, Nada, and Zero.

Actually you are correct. Man didn't make the protons, neutrons, etc. Point withdrawn.

(NOTE TO DAD: This is something called "honesty" in the debate. When one is wrong it often lends credence to their other points when they admit their error on occasion. I don't expect this concept to resonate with your kind of "christian", but for us atheists, honesty and actual self-assessment actually have some value).

 

[Hespera]

Intellectual dishonest, sophism etc is the basic stock in trade. its too bad, it would be fun to talk or debate someone who didnt think they win just by saying they win.
or make things up. or twist words. play gotcha. or be condescending and insulting.

I use to like to talk to missionaries, they were good for english practice. and they were polite and had interesting ideas. if they had come across like a couple of the people in this forum they sure would drive away any possible converts.

 

[dad]

In the dept of absurd, why would anyone would think he has to explain it that "Einstenin never created the universe".

If some people wanted to give the guy credit for creating the universe, or even the principles of relativity within this state universe, one might have to explain that he never created squat!
Even the concepts that apply, apparently, to most of the universe we know, were merely there for him to find out about as best he could.

I looked up your name and found out it refers to spirits.

http://www.godchecker.com/pantheon/greek-mythology.php?deity=HESPERA

Do you believe in the spiritual, by the way?

 

[dad]

Actually you are correct. Man didn't make the protons, neutrons, etc. Point withdrawn.

(NOTE TO DAD: This is something called "honesty" in the debate. When one is wrong it often lends credence to their other points when they admit their error on occasion. I don't expect this concept to resonate with your kind of "christian", but for us atheists, honesty and actual self-assessment actually have some value).

Yes, admitting you are wrong is a good thing.

 

[Hespera]

well dad, we all do understand the difference between creating something and discovering it. i just thought you were way way overexplaining something that didnt need to be said.

as for the name, it does refer to a sort of spirit yes. as to whether i believe in "the spiritual"...what do you mean by "the spiritual".

 

[dad]

Intellectual dishonest, sophism etc is the basic stock in trade. its too bad, it would be fun to talk or debate someone who didnt think they win just by saying they win.
or make things up. or twist words. play gotcha. or be condescending and insulting.

I use to like to talk to missionaries, they were good for english practice. and they were polite and had interesting ideas. if they had come across like a couple of the people in this forum they sure would drive away any possible converts.

They were no on a science forum, looking at the claims, godless claims that are shoved down the throats of kids, and just about everyone else. I have also encountered a few missioaries in my time. My experiencce was that I do not reall one believing in anything but creation by God, by the way. I would think, that one might need some belief, to motivate one to work for God..no?
Of course they would probably no more discuss the evolution debate, or know much abouut it, than the averahge politician, so they do need to be nice, yes.

As a matter of fact, I would like to be nicer, even on a debate forum. Of course, you may not realize it, but that door swings both ways, mostly the other way, and normally, if I get a lil ornery, it is out of defense.

Nothing personal, I just try to attack ideas.

 

[dad]

well dad, we all do understand the difference between creating something and discovering it. i just thought you were way way overexplaining something that didnt need to be said.

While I do assume that there is more intelligence, for the most part, than reaches the actual posts, sometimes I answer at face value. And let the poster clear it up, if they think they need to. Although sometimes I start to wonder..

as for the name, it does refer to a sort of spirit yes. as to whether i believe in "the spiritual"...what do you mean by "the spiritual".

By spiritual, I mean spirits, basically. Non physical beings, and a place non physical only for them to live.

 

[atomweaver]

I beat you to that by one post (#590), bro --- great minds think alike, eh?

Yes, the people of the book have one leg up. Not only does science merely just tweak created things, they do it with laws that God set in place! They do it on a created earth! They do it with created intelligence! (gone wild). Etc.

Wow, you two are acting all chummy (I feel the love ). Did one of you abandon their position in preference to the other while I was gone?

So tell me you two, which one of the following is the correct interpretation of Genesis 1;

• The Earth is ~6000 years old with 4.5 billion years of embedded age, with a demarcation between real and embedded that is not detectable to science.
• The Earth is ~6000 years old, and everything pre-Fall is unknowable by scientific methods.

 

[AV1611VET]

So tell me you two, which one of the following is the correct interpretation of Genesis 1;

• The Earth is ~6000 years old with 4.5 billion years of embedded age, with a demarcation between real and embedded that is not detectable to science.
• The Earth is ~6000 years old, and everything pre-Fall is unknowable by scientific methods.

Be careful now --- we're talking Genesis 1 here --- let's not conflate existential age with physical age.

At the end of Genesis 1 --- the earth is:

• existentially 6 days old
• physically 4.5 billion years old

 

[atomweaver]

Be careful now --- we're talking Genesis 1 here --- let's not conflate existential age with physical age.

At the end of Genesis 1 --- the earth is:

• existentially 6 days old
• physically 4.5 billion years old

OK. Dad, do you agree?

 

[AV1611VET]

OK. Dad, do you agree?

LOL --- what is this? Are you trying to pit me against Dad?

I assume Dad would disagree, but I cannot speak for him.

And if he does, what's your point?

The thing you're overlooking, Tom, is that Dad and I can even vehemently disagree on some things; but should the conversation shift to Jesus Christ and Him crucified, all disagreement ceases.

Read Acts 15 --- it starts with dissension and ends with dissension --- note particularly ---

36 And some days after Paul said unto Barnabas, Let us go again and visit our brethren in every city where we have preached the word of the Lord, and see how they do.
37 And Barnabas determined to take with them John, whose surname was Mark.
38 But Paul thought not good to take him with them, who departed from them from Pamphylia, and went not with them to the work.
39 And the contention was so sharp between them, that they departed asunder one from the other: and so Barnabas took Mark, and sailed unto Cyprus;
40 And Paul chose Silas, and departed, being recommended by the brethren unto the grace of God.
41 And he went through Syria and Cilicia, confirming the churches.

So, nice try, Tom, but our variances have nothing to do with any point you're trying to make here.

 

[Danyc]

I'd like to watch AV and Dad "debate".

That would be entertaining

 

[dad]

OK. Dad, do you agree?

I understand the position. Just as I understand the position of some, that the creation week was mostly a recreation week, so to speak. But I think you know my position on the different state.

In all cases, it leaves God as a creator, and Jesus as His son, and the bible, for the most part, as true. The fine tuning as to why it appears to be at odds with science is the only issue.

 

[ragarth]

I'd like to watch AV and Dad "debate".

I think that'd be really cool. This forum is filled with people debating the big topics of evolution and creationism, big bang vs creationism, atheist vs christian, etc. I never see the finer details within creationism and biblical literalism debated. I would certainly enjoy reading AV and dad debate

 

[atomweaver]

LOL --- what is this? Are you trying to pit me against Dad?

"pit", LOL, No. I just thought I had stumbled across two Creationists actually agreeing on Creation. I know, hilarious, right? Silly old me...

I assume Dad would disagree, but I cannot speak for him.

It appears you were right.

And if he does, what's your point?

The thing you're overlooking, Tom, is that Dad and I can even vehemently disagree on some things; but should the conversation shift to Jesus Christ and Him crucified, all disagreement ceases.

Well, sure but in this forum, We're discussing evolution and Creationism, not Christ and the Crucifixion. Its incredibly telling that you both lecture on about the ignorance and short-sightedness of science, all the while holding to mutually exclusive positions on the age of the Earth with respect to Genesis (worse, you disagree on whether such a fact is even knowable), and yet remain the best of buddies, perhaps only because you both have the same compulsive net-addiction of arguing with atheists.

Read Acts 15 --- it starts with dissension and ends with dissension --- note particularly ---So, nice try, Tom, but our variances have nothing to do with any point you're trying to make here.

But they do... The 'variances' are so gross and wide-ranging, you are foolish to ignore them, as they undermine the credibility of each individual Creationist. Reading through even just the threads on page one, you get no fewer than six different Creationist opinions on the age of the Earth, and yet only one from science.
Taken as a whole, the Creationist positions leave a person with the impression that actual answers aren't at all significant. What's important to a Creationist is that the answer be preceded with the magic words "Praise Jesus!!!" and be concluded with the other magic words "God did it, Amen." Make up any old story to put in between, and its just fine with you lot. Sorry, but that's no Higher Standard. In fact, that's no standard, at all.

 

[AV1611VET]

Well, sure but in this forum, We're discussing evolution and Creationism, not Christ and the Crucifixion. Its incredibly telling that you both lecture on about the ignorance and short-sightedness of science, all the while holding to mutually exclusive positions on the age of the Earth with respect to Genesis (worse, you disagree on whether such a fact is even knowable), and yet remain the best of buddies, perhaps only because you both have the same compulsive net-addiction of arguing with atheists.

You do realize that the Bible says nothing about the age of the earth when it was created --- do you not?

It would be one thing if the Bible stated the age, then Dad and I's disagreements would mean something --- but again --- the Bible does not state the age of the earth.

That's how it works, Tom --- we'll always have our disagreements, but it'll all work out in the end.