Absurdities of so called science

[Hespera]

AV, is that really all it is? As I said before, I'm pretty confident that you actually have a sound understanding of current scientific theories, and you simply choose to follow the bible instead.

Are all of your more "colorful" posts just an attempt to make people understand why you made that decision? That's certainly what it sounds like from that post.

Hard to imagine that a creator would want his people to be willfully ignorant and say any kind of stupid things that come to mind.

 

[AV1611VET]

AV, is that really all it is? As I said before, I'm pretty confident that you actually have a sound understanding of current scientific theories, and you simply choose to follow the bible instead.

Are all of your more "colorful" posts just an attempt to make people understand why you made that decision? That's certainly what it sounds like from that post.

All you guys want to do, Jester, is talk science --- and I'm not gonna do it --- period --- (I couldn't, if I tried).

Welcome to the world of faith.

 

[AV1611VET]

Hard to imagine that a creator would want his people to be willfully ignorant and say any kind of stupid things that come to mind.

I've seen what science does to you guys' hearts concerning all things sacred --- and I do mean ALL --- and I promise you --- your [plural] interpretation of science can go back where it came from.

 

[Hespera]

I've seen what science does to you guys' hearts concerning all things sacred --- and I do mean ALL --- and I promise you --- your [plural] interpretation of science can go back where it came from.

I dont know why you'd post that as a response to me when it is that totally off topic but since you mention it..

An appreciation for, understanding of things as they really are, comes way way closer to showing an appreciation for the world around us than does burrowing around in a musty book for people;s old myths about what it all means.

Please recuse yourself from all future viewing of photos taken by the Hubble space telescope, and return to the dark ages.

What you think of as being sacred, i dont know but i tend to think of what we can do to be rational and to see / understand what is around us... to use the ability we have... that would be a sort of 'sacred ' duty.

 

[Jester4kicks]

All you guys want to do, Jester, is talk science --- and I'm not gonna do it --- period --- (I couldn't, if I tried).

Welcome to the world of faith.

I'm not sure how that was supposed to actually answer my question....

I've seen what science does to you guys' hearts concerning all things sacred --- and I do mean ALL --- and I promise you --- your [plural] interpretation of science can go back where it came from.

Such as?

 

[gaara4158]

All you guys want to do, Jester, is talk science --- and I'm not gonna do it --- period --- (I couldn't, if I tried).

Welcome to the world of faith.

Well, surprise surprise... we're in a subforum of the Physical & Life Sciences forum. If you can't talk science, then leave. There's a Christians-Only section where nobody every tries to talk science, and all they argue over is faith. It's a magical world I think you'd very much enjoy, AV.

 

[USincognito]

I dont know why you'd post that as a response to me when it is that totally off topic...

You'll notice that's pattern after a while.

 

[dad]

I see... so we're resorting to "because I said so". Good to know.

No, when someone asks you to put it on the table, rather than keep it inside your head, that is not saying anything is because I said so.

Huh? Beggars and moonbeams? AV, THIS is why Dad took your position at the top of the whack-job totem pole.

Sound of music parody. If wishes were horses, then beggars would ride. In other words, if you want to deal in fact, do not ride same state dreams into the far past, and far reaches of the universe of creation. Because that is like riding moonbeams.

No, you said there were two moons, and one vanished. That idea is not even remotely suggested in ANYTHING you cited. As for the idea that you might be referring to the half of the debris that didn't form into the moon, nobody said it just vanished. It's entirely probable that it either fell back to earth, or that it spun off into space.

Ha. Spun off into space!? Nice one. Lost in space. get serious, where is it??

I have heard so many theories, I actually can't remember where the two moon thing came from. Either way, the origin of the moon, and big whack is an absurdity of so called science!!!

"
http://atropos.as.arizona.edu/aiz/teaching/a204/moon/Astron98.26.9.40.txt

The earth grew like a giant, but the moon stayed the same???? Give us a break. Your fantasies are really pathetic.

Who said it disappeared?

Who said it is still here??

Fortunately, for all our sakes, the existence of dark matter, or lack thereof, has absolutely nothing to do with your opinion.

No, or any other reality! It is a hand waving away of the vast vast majority of this universe.

Science doesn't say anything about tooth fairies or invisible dark unicorns.

Great, so why do you?

Google "Radiometric Dating". I have absolutely no desire to hold your hand through it. It has nothing to do with belief, religion, or faith.

It is the present state of decay. It works a certain way. There is no need to walk us through it, UNLESS you prove the past universe state was the same. Which you can't do. Which is the point! Focus.

 

[dad]

If I may ask the question: why do you "accept" hyper evolution? Where did you get that notion? What kind of reasoning led you to that idea?

Well, why does science accept any evolution? The observations of things like mice on an island that evolve a bit, or the fossil record, etc. The indications seem to be that a lot of adapting went on. The question is where did it start, and stop?

The ark could not contain millions of species as we now have. The logical conclusion is that a lot of evolving went down. It had to. Considering the timeframe of the bible, in the way of when people lived, it had to happen a lot faster than present rates. This is impossible in a present universe, with present laws. When we also look at the other differences of the past, we see a similar story. Something had to have been drastically different. ..If the bible is actually true. So far, I have no reasonn to doubt that the past universe was not different.

 

[dad]

I've seen what science does to you guys' hearts concerning all things sacred --- and I do mean ALL --- and I promise you --- your [plural] interpretation of science can go back where it came from.

Interesting observation. I concur with your analysis. Your deductions seem to be based on real data. The universal doubts of the educated folks point to a common source. By their fruits shall we know them.

 

[dad]

Well, surprise surprise... we're in a subforum of the Physical & Life Sciences forum. If you can't talk science, then leave. There's a Christians-Only section where nobody every tries to talk science, and all they argue over is faith. It's a magical world I think you'd very much enjoy, AV.

You may talk science.

In fact, you may defend the points of absurdity of so called science if you think you are up to the task. Really. Get to it, man.

 

[Freodin]

Sure --- let's bring it down to a formula:

Current Taxa - 4500 years = Hyperevolution

This is still answering the wrong question.

I wanted to know which line of reasoning you used to arrive at that idea.

Let me give you a possible answer, so that you get what I am aiming at.


- There are a lot of different animal species now.
- They wouldn´t all have fit on Noah´s ark.
- But animals change over time.
- So a possible solution is that every animal species alive now derived from animals on the ark.
- But we don´t see them change that fast now.
- So they must have changed a lot faster in previous times.

--> hyperevolution

That is a possible line of reasoning to arrive at "hyperevolution". Is that about the way you accepted that idea? Or something similar? Or something completely different?

 

[OphidiaPhile]

You may talk science.

In fact, you may defend the points of absurdity of so called science if you think you are up to the task. Really. Get to it, man.

You have absolutely no basis for even having an opinion about any science since it is obvious you are woefully uninformed and have no desire to be anything else.

 

[dad]

You have absolutely no basis for even having an opinion about any science since it is obvious you are woefully uninformed and have no desire to be anything else.

You confuse uninformed, with disgusted at the information absence that exists in science. There is no info on the singularity that supposedly spawned the universe from a pin head or less sized soup. Nor on the other listed absurdities of so called science! Can you give us a photo of the mysterious planet that impacted earth, just so, to create the moon? NO!!!! That is a mere computer simulation. A desperate attempt at same state past explanations for creation, that omit the creator!!! Cheap nonsense. Trash. Lies. Fairy tales. Godless dreams. Not science.

 

[OphidiaPhile]

You confuse uninformed, with disgusted at the information absence that exists in science. There is no info on the singularity that supposedly spawned the universe from a pin head or less sized soup. Nor on the other listed absurdities of so called science! Can you give us a photo of the mysterious planet that impacted earth, just so, to create the moon? NO!!!! That is a mere computer simulation. A desperate attempt at same state past explanations for creation, that omit the creator!!! Cheap nonsense. Trash. Lies. Fairy tales. Godless dreams. Not science.

You have got to joking, information absence, you do not want to go down that road since you have zero information that backs up any part of your creationist nonsense and science starts with a hypothesis and then goes through being peer reviewed with actual data that results in elevation to the level of theory, creationism is not even a valid hypothesis.

 

[dad]

You have got to joking, information absence, you do not want to go down that road since you have zero information that backs up any part of your creationist nonsense and science starts with a hypothesis and then goes through being peer reviewed with actual data that results in elevation to the level of theory, creationism is not even a valid hypothesis.

Yes, I do!!! The road of info on science is what this is about. The road ends in a pin head soup, for the universe! In a fabricated computer model planet smashing earth just right, to create the moon! In all trees and animals and sea life coming from some magically appearing wonder freak of a bacteria like dream creature huddled in a crevecice of the imagination!!!

No peers in this world can review an unknown creation state past. If YOU claim they can, you better show us!! If not, just join us in a real sincere laugh at the wisdom of man!!!! Humble down, and enjoy the obvious.

 

[OphidiaPhile]

Yes, I do!!! The road of info on science is what this is about. The road ends in a pin head soup, for the universe! In a fabricated computer model planet smashing earth just right, to create the moon! In all trees and animals and sea life coming from some magically appearing wonder freak of a bacteria like dream creature huddled in a crevecice of the imagination!!!

No peers in this world can review an unknown creation state past. If YOU claim they can, you better show us!! If not, just join us in a real sincere laugh at the wisdom of man!!!! Humble down, and enjoy the obvious.

And one again you say absolutely nothing that remotely resembles thought, logic or reasoning, and I happen to be a scientist unfortunately I am not a cosmologist or theoretical physicist but instead I am a geneticist so I would be more than happy to destroy any of your myths involving genetics.


And yes peers can review any past cosmological event since you do not need to have a planetary body to fashion the model of what may have happened and yes many planetary bodies have been formed from the collisions of other planetary bodies but I surmise you do not actually seek to understand science or anything of the scientific method but instead only endeavor to boost your own ego by deriding those that actually have the knowledge you so readily mock.

 

[Hespera]

Yes, I do!!! The road of info on science is what this is about. The road ends in a pin head soup, for the universe! In a fabricated computer model planet smashing earth just right, to create the moon! In all trees and animals and sea life coming from some magically appearing wonder freak of a bacteria like dream creature huddled in a crevecice of the imagination!!!

No peers in this world can review an unknown creation state past. If YOU claim they can, you better show us!! If not, just join us in a real sincere laugh at the wisdom of man!!!! Humble down, and enjoy the obvious.

You seem rather excitable. It does not improve your presentation.
Lets try a simple scientific experiment. Can you write a paragraph or even a single sentence without any adjectives? Or metaphors, mixed or otherwise?

It is true that science nor anything else can explain the origin of the universe. Science can tho do a very nice job of understanding and explaining what came after that. Religion on the other hand has nothing at all to contribute to an understanding.

What you said about "road of info" may be revealing about your whole attitude. lets see if i get how it works.

Descartes came up with "I t hink therefore i am' as the starting point for his philosophical constructs about life truth, meaning etc. If that could be falsified then his whole scheme was out the window.

Now, you seem to think that if nobody at this time can prove (or falsify) the big bang theory, then all of science collapses. is that what you think?


Because if it is you are totally mistaken. You can now go on to other concerns.

"In the beginning, god made the heaven and the earrh". That cant be -or hasnt been- falsified or proven either.... but for you, for Christains, if it could be falsified, then everything does collapse. The idea that all of your construct about the nature of reality could be threatened with collapse is very disturbing i guess. This all the overblown metaphors in your writing.


Science cant "prove" that the universe originated with the big bang. That has nothing to do though, with the validity of "science' in general.

 

[Hespera]

Yes, I do!!! The road of info on science is what this is about. The road ends in a pin head soup, for the universe! In a fabricated computer model planet smashing earth just right, to create the moon! In all trees and animals and sea life coming from some magically appearing wonder freak of a bacteria like dream creature huddled in a crevecice of the imagination!!!

No peers in this world can review an unknown creation state past. If YOU claim they can, you better show us!! If not, just join us in a real sincere laugh at the wisdom of man!!!! Humble down, and enjoy the obvious.

You seem rather excitable. It does not improve your presentation.
Lets try a simple scientific experiment. Can you write a paragraph or even a single sentence without any adjectives? Or metaphors, mixed or otherwise?

It is true that science nor anything else can explain the origin of the universe. Science can tho do a very nice job of understanding and explaining what came after that. Religion on the other hand has nothing at all to contribute to an understanding.

What you said about "road of info" may be revealing about your whole attitude. lets see if i get how it works.

Descartes came up with "I t hink therefore i am' as the starting point for his philosophical constructs about life truth, meaning etc. If that could be falsified then his whole scheme was out the window.

Now, you seem to think that if nobody at this time can prove (or falsify) the big bang theory, then all of science collapses. is that what you think?


Because if it is you are totally mistaken. You can now go on to other concerns.

"In the beginning, god made the heaven and the earrh". That cant be -or hasnt been- falsified or proven either.... but for you, for Christains, if it could be falsified, then everything does collapse. The idea that all of your construct about the nature of reality could be threatened with collapse is very disturbing i guess. This all the overblown metaphors in your writing.


Science cant "prove" that the universe originated with the big bang. That has nothing to do though, with the validity of "science' in general.

 

[dad]

Sure --- let's bring it down to a formula:

Current Taxa - 4500 years = Hyperevolution

Bingo. How they fume, in not being able to limit evolving to the current processes de jour. Yet they need to to maintain semblance of a case.But they can't. Ever. That means that this formula is true after all. What God says = true after all.

Evos, study these formulas. And comment intelligently on them if you can. Looks like you couldn't do it this year, maybe nexrt? Happy New Year! They figure about 2009 years since the advent of the Man. How cool is that?