Absurdities of so called science

[Freodin]

What's your hang-up, anyway?

We don't tell you there are 25 elements in the Periodic Table one year, then change it to 35 the next, then discover 15 the next, etc.

We don't teach phlogiston one year, then find out it's junk science the next.

We don't call Pluto a planet one year, then a Dwarf Planet the next.

In short --- we don't change with the weather.

We may not agree with each other, but do you scientists?

We claim scientists are gifts from God - do you claim Christians are gifts to science?

Say, AV, have you ever really thought about what you type?

 

[MrGoodBytes]

Unlike science, where even the thought of "any" truth is completely out of the question...no waiting.

Where did you get this from? Truth is the ultimate goal in all science. You are confusing the claim "we probably can never know the absolute truth, and we should not act like we do already" with "there is no absolute truth".

 

[Lord Emsworth]

I don't see what the issue is with the items AV listed anyway. Sure, at a superficial glance there may be difficulties or apparant contradiction. But any actual contradictions or errors they are not.

We don't tell you there are 25 elements in the Periodic Table one year, then change it to 35 the next, then discover 15 the next, etc.​

This can easily be resolved by tossing out unfounded uniformitarianistic assuptions. It is just the case that one year there were 25 elements. That changed the next year. Now there were 20 more elements for a total of 35 elements (according to the mathematics of the year.)

We don't teach phlogiston one year, then find out it's junk science the next.​

More unfounded uniformitarianistic assumptions. Phlogiston was real the year it was taught. The next year, teaching it would've been junk science.

We don't call Pluto a planet one year, then a Dwarf Planet the next.​

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics states that things decay from a state of total order towards a state of disorder. Pluto going from planet to Dwarf Planet is just part of that process.


There are no contradictions in Science on any of these points, or any other that I have been show by Science skeptics. And the more I look into Science the more amazed I am with its marvels. How can so many different Scientists, at so many different times, on so many different continents all do Science and never contradict each other. Truly, it must be absolute Truth that we are looking at.

 

[AV1611VET]

Not sure why I would trust my sense in trying to empirically verify your writings.

Suppose you were the enemy in this passage ---

15 And when the servant of the man of God was risen early, and gone forth, behold, an host compassed the city both with horses and chariots. And his servant said unto him, Alas, my master! how shall we do?
16 And he answered, Fear not: for they that be with us are more than they that be with them.
17 And Elisha prayed, and said, LORD, I pray thee, open his eyes, that he may see. And the LORD opened the eyes of the young man; and he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha.

Would, "Go get Elisha and Gehazi and bring them to me." be your last commandment ever spoken?

(I need to make this into a challenge.)

 

[AV1611VET]

You are confusing the claim "we probably can never know the absolute truth, and we should not act like we do already" with "there is no absolute truth".

Good point --- I'll adjust my thinking accordingly.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Suppose you were the enemy in this passage ---Would, "Go get Elisha and Gehazi and bring them to me." be your last commandment ever spoken?

(I need to make this into a challenge.)

Hrmph, I hit the quote button and "this passage" is gone. Accident? I think not.

And anyway, reliance on empirical thingamajigs to evaluate Scripture ... nah, leave that to the amateurs. I read supernatural literature the supernatural way. And I do my exegeses the supernatural way as well. To my dismay I had to realize that your inbox for supernatural messages is full, so I could not submit my answer to your question to you. Clear out the inbox first, and I'll try again. I'd rather not rely on things like reading and writing for that, too much unreliable empiri-stuff involved.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Suppose you were the enemy in this passage ---Would, "Go get Elisha and Gehazi and bring them to me." be your last commandment ever spoken?

(I need to make this into a challenge.)

Suppose you were the enemy in this passage?

He can do all these things, yet he is not free. Nay; he is even more prisoner than the slave of the galley, than the madman in his cell. He cannot go where he lists; he who is not of nature has yet to obey some of nature's laws—why we know not. He may not enter anywhere at the first, unless there be some one of the household who bid him to come; though afterwards he can come as he please. His power ceases, as does that of all evil things, at the coming of the day. Only at certain times can he have limited freedom. If he be not at the place whither he is bound, he can only change himself at noon or at exact sunrise or sunset. These things we are told, and in this record of ours we have proof by inference. Thus, whereas he can do as he will within his limit, when he have his earth-home, his coffin-home, his hell-home, the place unhallowed, as we saw when he went to the grave of the suicide at Whitby; still at other time he can only change when the time come. It is said, too, that he can only pass running water at the slack or the flood of the tide. Then there are things which so afflict him that he has no power, as the garlic that we know of; and as for things sacred, as this symbol, my crucifix, that was amongst us even now when we resolve, to them he is nothing, but in their presence he take his place far off and silent with respect. There are others, too, which I shall tell you of, lest in our seeking we may need them. The branch of wild rose on his coffin keep him that he move not from it; a sacred bullet fired into the coffin kill him so that he be true dead; and as for the stake through him, we know already of its peace; or the cut-off head that giveth rest. We have seen it with our eyes.

How would you strike fear into the hearts of foolish mortals?

(I should make this into a challenge)

 

[atomweaver]

What's your hang-up, anyway?

Looks like dad took my cautions against net addiction to heart. Are you going to pick up his arguments for him in his place?

We don't tell you there are 25 elements in the Periodic Table one year, then change it to 35 the next, then discover 15 the next, etc.

Science changes over time in an incredibly predictable manner; better data => better answer. A change is always preceded by an increase in knowledge; the Periodic table grew, not capriciously, but in response to new elements being discovered.
More data => better answer

We don't teach phlogiston one year, then find out it's junk science the next.

The rejection of Phlogiston theory didn't happen with a change in weather, but rather was preceded by experiments of burning metals and measuring an increase in their mass, and also by the discovery of oxygen, both of which helped to falsify the theory.
more data => better answer

We don't call Pluto a planet one year, then a Dwarf Planet the next.

Pluto's status change wasn't made just for kicks, but was instead preceded by the discovery of dozens of similar astronomical objects in its vicinity, and a debate of the consequences of those discoveries on previous notions of what constituted a planet.

more data => better answer

In short --- we don't change with the weather.

Science doesn't change "with the weather", it improves with the facts. That means the best answer to a given question will sometimes change over time. Compare that to Creationists, who disagree on simple Biblical matters always and forever. I'd rather be a bit more right tomorrow, than always wrong forever.

There's a huge difference between capricious change, and predictable change. Trying to label the changes in science as capricious is as foolish as it would be in the following examples;
You've changed since yesterday; you are a day older, you inconstant old crank!!! Where do you get off changing with the weather like that?
My (precious last few) bottles of Warre's '94 port have changed since the last time I opened one... the nerve of them, developing that heady aroma, body, and complexity.
I turned around, and my wife added another chapter to the book she is writing. Just who does she think she is, changing it like that?

The above are examples of just how foolish you sound AVVET, when you try to denigrate science on the basis of the fact that it can change over time...

We may not agree with each other, but do you scientists?

Yes, we do. Ask a scientific question here, and you get remarkably similar answers from most of the scientifically inclined posters.

Here's the issue; Creationists never agree with each other on scientific matters. Not now, not then, not in the past, the present, or the future; by your own words, you will be in disagreement (chaotic and discordant) until God sorts it out for you. If you want to have that be your personal legacy, I've got no problem with it. The problem I have is with your continued attempts to pull science in to your chaotic, discordant sub-cult of Christianity. No, thank you.

 

[AV1611VET]

Here's the issue; Creationists never agree with each other on scientific matters. Not now, not then, not in the past, the present, or the future; by your own words, you will be in disagreement (chaotic and discordant) until God sorts it out for you. If you want to have that be your personal legacy, I've got no problem with it. The problem I have is with your continued attempts to pull science in to your chaotic, discordant sub-cult of Christianity. No, thank you.

That's fine --- but when you "scientists" say there was no global flood, in contrast to what the Bible says, we Christians, in my opinion, have an obligation to speak up.

And in light of such points as this: 1 --- I can't see why you guys say 90% of the stuff you do.

Before you say there was no global flood, keep this bit of advice in mind: more data => better answer.

 

[Hespera]

>>>>>>>>>>>>>Yes, we do. Ask a scientific question here, and you get remarkably similar answers from most of the scientifically inclined posters.

Here's the issue; Creationists never agree with each other on scientific matters.<<<<<


I think the place where scientists will be most in agreement is in matters of procedure and standards. Methods and standards have been worked out in the marketplace of ideas.

The scientist's reputation is on the line all the time.

Sloppy work, lack of due diligence, insufficient evidence etc are not acceptable, and in the long run nobody can get away with it..

 

[BananaSlug]

That's fine --- but when you "scientists" say there was no global flood, in contrast to what the Bible says, we Christians, in my opinion, have an obligation to speak up.

So far there is absolutely no evidence for a global flood but some evidence for a huge localized flood around the Black Sea.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_deluge_theory <BTW, "theory" should be replaced with "hypothesis.

And in light of such points as this: 1 --- I can't see why you guys say 90% of the stuff you do.

Just because a large part of the universe is unknown to us now does not mean it will always be. You're creating a "God of the Gaps."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_Gaps


"God of the gaps" is sometimes used to describe the retreat of religious explanations of physical phenomena in the face of increasingly comprehensive scientific explanations. An example of the line of reasoning starts with the position that early religious descriptions of objects and events (such as the Sun, Moon, and stars; thunder and lightning) placed these in the realm of things created or controlled by a god or gods. As science found explanations for observations in the realms of astronomy, meteorology, geology, cosmology and biology, the 'need' for a god to explain phenomena was progressively reduced, occupying smaller and smaller 'gaps' in knowledge. This line of reasoning commonly holds that since the domain of natural phenomena previously explained by God is shrinking, theistic or divine explanations for any natural phenomenon become less plausible.

The term goes back to Henry Drummond, a 19th century evangelical lecturer, from his Lowell Lectures on the Ascent of Man. He chastises those Christians who point to the things that science can not yet explain — "gaps which they will fill up with God" — and urges them to embrace all nature as God's, as the work of "... an immanent God, which is the God of Evolution, is infinitely grander than the occasional wonder-worker, who is the God of an old theology."

Try researching information about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Collins_(geneticist).

Before you say there was no global flood, keep this bit of advice in mind: more data => better answer.

Though we may eventually find evidence for a global catastrophic flood in the future, for the past 200 years or so we have failed to find any.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Just because a large part of the universe is unknown to us now does not mean it will always be. You're creating a "God of the Gaps."

Of course he is -- He can't promote himself by stressing the things he knows, so instead he does an about-face and promotes himself based on things that are not (yet) known.

Enshrining ignorance is a cornerstone of Fundie Pride.

 

[dad]

That, right there, is the crux of where Dad's argument falls flat on its face.

What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, unless you're Dad at which point everyone who disagrees with him is wrong and he is right, and on those occasions where his own point disagrees with him, it's wrong and he's still right!

(This is why I like to refer to his use of this extreme of "Empiricism" as an epistemological atomic bomb. He can't use it without it destroying his own position as well. And yet he pushes the button over and over and over again.)

Dreaming again, I see. My position is anything but destroyed by your dreams and baseless rhetoric.

 

[ragarth]

If I may ask, why did you choose the name dad?

 

[dad]

So then, all your harsh words on the stupidity of presuming one can know about the different state are all reserved for scientists, alone. Got it. You know the conclusion that this leaves lurkers with, right? You don't or won't defend your notions from other Creationists, because those notions are actually completely unimportant to you.

So called science believers. Some scientists don't swallow the poison pill of anti bible fables called science, falsely. Of course the people pushing a claim as part of science must have their positional feet held to the fire!

Those that merely believe a holy book a certain way are another story. Get it?

You don't bother with AVVET, because he puts the magic words you so love to hear before and after whatever he says, it gives him immunity to your criticism.

I have sought to find where science went wrong, and think I am on the right track. I need not correct bible believers, that is fine tuning. The war on God, and His truth is the enemy. That is the dragon I like to stick ny foot on the neck of, after I killed it dead.

(Bold emphasis mine.) Wow, and that's OK with you? You hold fellow Creationists to a lower standard with respect to the Bible than atheistic scientists, then. If any atheist here steps one whit out of line with your interpretation of the Bible, its "get over it" this and "fishbowl science" that... Never thought I'd see the day where you'd capitulate so with respect to the Bible. Those magic words have quite the effect on you, dad.

AV must find his own answers. At least he tries to use the bible. And as an added bonus he doubts science.

And again? "appears to be"; another softening of your position. You too, weaken your position on scientific matters, so long as whatever is said is preceded by "Praise Jesus" and concluded with "God
did it, Amen!".

If one really believes in Jesus, and the word, even if they get it wrong on some things, it is no biggie. We have eternity to learn.
The day they lace all documentaries with AVi's views, and force it taught in school would be the day, I try to fine tune.

 

[dad]

If I may ask, why did you choose the name dad?

I don't like typing out long words every time I sign in, mainly.

 

[Hespera]

I am so glad that i come to a country with the Second Amendment. That assures that this

"The day they lace all documentaries with AVi's views, and force it taught in school would be the day, I try to fine tune."

will never come true.

 

[Chalnoth]

I am so glad that i come to a country with the Second Amendment. That assures that this

"The day they lace all documentaries with AVi's views, and force it taught in school would be the day, I try to fine tune."

will never come true.

Perhaps you meant the first amendment? Or am I to understand you intend on getting the National Guard to fight them off?

 

[Danyc]

Dad, I and a few others in here are theistic evolutionists. We believe, and also accept that we evolved.

Why do you not give us the save waiver that AV receives?

You do not argue against AV, you are content if he is using the Bible.

Many Christians are easily able to understand that reality does not contradict their faith. You know how we see Genesis as written. It does not read like a literal depiction of events. It is written almost as poetry. We believe this points to a non-literal interpretation, as opposed to your literal interpretation.

Theistic evolutionists use the Bible. Why do we not receive what AV receives?
None of us argue against God. None of us argue against Jesus. None of us argue against any tenet of Christianity; and no, the earth being young is no such tenet. It is not important in the main point, that Jesus died for the sins of mankind.

For some reason you seem to believe that even theistic evolutionists are against God and Christianity. We are Christians. Francis Collins. Ken Miller. Both fantastic scientists, one a biologist and one a geneticist, and each deal every day with the evidence for evolution in Gods Creation.

And before you reply, please no !!!!'s or ??!?!?!'s this time.

 

[Hespera]

The second amendment has nothing to do with the national guard. It has to do with my right to own a .38 revolver... which i do...and to protect myself with it, which i will if i ever need to.

It also has to do with the right of the people to defend themselves against outrages committed by the government against such rights as we are endowed with by our creator.

If you are an American Citizen as i now proudly can call myself you should be aware that the supreme court recently ruled that the second amendment is an INDIVIDUAL right. Just like free speech, and the rest of the rights we enjoy here.