Absurdities of so called science

dad · Feb 2, 2009

Danyc said:
Yup, that's basically it.

Thank you.

And being immodest is better than being falsely modest?

I'm pretty sure they're the same thing.

Well, I would think that first, one ought to have something to be either about. I am not too worried about it.

Especially if one is in the realm of science. Just look at what is probably the biggest so called mystery of science!!!

"
Andrea Schweitzer has found evidence that "it" does exist. But neither she, nor anyone else, knows exactly what "it" is.
It is one of the universe's darkest secrets. Devoid of the light of scientific knowledge, it is called, for lack of a better term, "dark matter."
How can something that makes up an estimated 90% of the universe not yet have been discovered?
It's because dark matter apparently does not receive, reflect, transmit or radiate light or anything else that can be detected."

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P2-6441419.html

!!! An absurdity of science.

The relatives of humans, you mean. But then, we are also the relatives of the eagle, the lion, the tiger, the whale, the own, the peacock, the viper...

Just like you to bring up a cockroach. But then, all animals are beautiful in their own ways. I wouldn't expect you to understand this.

Well, do you send Christmas cards to all the rat relatives? Speak for yourself, you do not speak for many of us here. Neither can you prove it. The created trait of evolving, at the rapid rates of the created state does not lead to the pond, but to Eden. I think you bailed too early.

consol · Feb 2, 2009

Dad, the Romans were great at doing exactly what you are doing,
if they didn't understand or had a problem with something they devised a God to account for it,
in that way they didn't need to understand or think about the problem,
they just let a God take care of it, problem solved,
you differ in only one aspect, the Romans used hundreds of Gods, you only use the one.

Danyc · Feb 2, 2009

dad said:
Thank you.

De nada.

dad said:
Well, I would think that first, one ought to have something to be either about. I am not too worried about it.

Especially if one is in the realm of science. Just look at what is probably the biggest so called mystery of science!!!

"
Andrea Schweitzer has found evidence that "it" does exist. But neither she, nor anyone else, knows exactly what "it" is.
It is one of the universe's darkest secrets. Devoid of the light of scientific knowledge, it is called, for lack of a better term, "dark matter."
How can something that makes up an estimated 90% of the universe not yet have been discovered?
It's because dark matter apparently does not receive, reflect, transmit or radiate light or anything else that can be detected."

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P2-6441419.html

!!! An absurdity of science.

Not really-- this has already been explained to you by other posters on this forum. It doesn't matter that we can't see it. Its existence is implied by its effects on the visible matter around it. Simply because we do not know about it fully right now, doesn't mean we won't. There are numerous points in the history of science where you might have said the same thing-- Darwin, for one, was onto something. But he wasn't exactly sure until he had finished his research and formulated his theory. Do you think Newton just came up with all of his stuff in 5 minutes? There was trial and error and misunderstandings involved. That's how science works. Progress.

dad said:
Well, do you send Christmas cards to all the rat relatives? Speak for yourself, you do not speak for many of us here. Neither can you prove it. The created trait of evolving, at the rapid rates of the created state does not lead to the pond, but to Eden. I think you bailed too early.

I don't need to prove it-- its been proven beyond all reasonable doubt for over a hundred years, has been rigorously tested and undergone numerous accounts of peer-review. It is one of the strongest supported theories in science-- and incredibly, its first and fiercest criticizers were scientists themselves.

Hespera · Feb 2, 2009

Danyc said:
De nada.

Not really-- this has already been explained to you by other posters on this forum. It doesn't matter that we can't see it. Its existence is implied by its effects on the visible matter around it. Simply because we do not know about it fully right now, doesn't mean we won't. There are numerous points in the history of science where you might have said the same thing-- Darwin, for one, was onto something. But he wasn't exactly sure until he had finished his research and formulated his theory. Do you think Newton just came up with all of his stuff in 5 minutes? There was trial and error and misunderstandings involved. That's how science works. Progress.

I don't need to prove it-- its been proven beyond all reasonable doubt for over a hundred years, has been rigorously tested and undergone numerous accounts of peer-review. It is one of the strongest supported theories in science-- and incredibly, its first and fiercest criticizers were scientists themselves.

Not that I look at his posts anymore but I suppose he is as usual putting a lot of adjectives out and not one piece of hard data. i keep asking... anyone, someone.. for it and i keep getting the same response.... nothing. Its kind of funny, all the ways they have of getting around, to their satisfaction, the fact that there is still not one little piece of data that would falsify any aspect of evolution or historical geology. If it were all nonsense it should be so easy!

Any of the claims should be falsifiable, if it is all false. But.... silence. No data.

I wonder if there is a yec theory for why the data is so elusive. I mean, other than the one someone offered about how god hid the evidence.

dad · Feb 2, 2009

consol said:
Dad, the Romans were great at doing exactly what you are doing,
if they didn't understand or had a problem with something they devised a God to account for it,
in that way they didn't need to understand or think about the problem,
they just let a God take care of it, problem solved,
you differ in only one aspect, the Romans used hundreds of Gods, you only use the one.

Ans so called science has one foundation. We all need something to lean on. I wouldn't knock those that felt they knew spirits of old, maybe a lot of them did.

I would knock the hand wavers, and faith in a state that they base all upon, but which has no soundness, proof, or rhyme or reason!

dad · Feb 2, 2009

Danyc said:
De nada.

Thanks again.

Not really-- this has already been explained to you by other posters on this forum. It doesn't matter that we can't see it. Its existence is implied by its effects on the visible matter around it.

I have explained to posters, that the effects need not be from a same state past at all, they are merely explained ONLY using that belief syatem. That is why there are so many absurdities of so called science!!! Thanks for that.

Simply because we do not know about it fully right now, doesn't mean we won't.

Nonsense, that ignores that it was simply made up, as a same state way to explain what we see, and why most of the universe does NOT fit with that truly silly, godless model, unless we wave away over 90% of it as some utterly unseen, unknown pixie dark stuff!! The depths of absurdity.

There are numerous points in the history of science where you might have said the same thing-- Darwin, for one, was onto something. But he wasn't exactly sure until he had finished his research and formulated his theory.

His theory is utter rubbish!! The only saving grace is the fact that he saw the created trait of evolving was how it happened, even though he invented a make believe godless world, and pathetic pond, to give the creation glory to!!!

Do you think Newton just came up with all of his stuff in 5 minutes? There was trial and error and misunderstandings involved. That's how science works. Progress.

How science works is not a topic of this thread. only how so called science doesn't work!!! Focus.

I don't need to prove it-- its been proven beyond all reasonable doubt for over a hundred years, has been rigorously tested and undergone numerous accounts of peer-review.

Nothing has been done of the sort, ever, if you mean taking the created evolving trait of the different past all the way to the imaginary pond. Really, and truly. I kid you not. Look into it. Alkl that has been done is assume a same state past, and the present slow evolving rates, and such, and extrpolate back to the la la land of dreams.

It is one of the strongest supported theories in science-- and incredibly, its first and fiercest criticizers were scientists themselves.

It has precisely, literally ZERO support, and is anything but science! Unless you mean the fact that some evolving did go on, which of course it did, in spades! But that was Eden's creatures, pal. And nothing so called science has, or ever will have can challenge that, I assure you. That's just how it is, and why you will not be able to contradict it here. Lurkers, watch, and behold.

Nathan Poe · Feb 2, 2009

dad said:
Ans so called science has one foundation. We all need something to lean on.

Refresh our memories -- and prove you're not blathering -- what is it scientists lean on, and what you lean on?

I wouldn't knock those that felt they knew spirits of old, maybe a lot of them did.

What about the pixies, dad? Do those that felt they knew the pixies really do?

I would knock the hand wavers, and faith in a state that they base all upon, but which has no soundness, proof, or rhyme or reason!

That would be yourself, dad.

Go ahead and laugh at yourself -- everyone else is.

dad · Feb 2, 2009

Nathan Poe said:
Refresh our memories -- and prove you're not blathering -- what is it scientists lean on, and what you lean on?

They lean on beliefs, as do I. Simple. In the case of so called science, that claims to deal with the far far past, they lean on a foundational belief that the present is the key to the past..

What about the pixies, dad? Do those that felt they knew the pixies really do?

I don't much care, unless they call it science.

consol · Feb 3, 2009

dad said:
Ans so called science has one foundation. We all need something to lean on. I wouldn't knock those that felt they knew spirits of old, maybe a lot of them did.

'felt' they knew, 'felt' being the operative word,
you hit the nail right on the head, because you know religion is nothing more than a feeling.

dad said:
I would knock the hand wavers, and faith in a state that they base all upon, but which has no soundness, proof, or rhyme or reason!

This sounds very much like every religion in the world.

AV1611VET · Feb 3, 2009

consol said:
'felt' they knew, 'felt' being the operative word,
you hit the nail right on the head, because you know religion is nothing more than a feeling.

This sounds very much like every religion in the world.

Tell that to Naaman.

He thought his divine healing would come via some existential feeling or pyrotechnics, and was incensed at the fact that he was told to go wash in the "muddy" Jordan River seven times.

2 Kings 5:10-12 said:
10 And Elisha sent a messenger unto him, saying, Go and wash in Jordan seven times, and thy flesh shall come again to thee, and thou shalt be clean.
11 But Naaman was wroth, and went away, and said, Behold, I thought, He will surely come out to me, and stand, and call on the name of the LORD his God, and strike his hand over the place, and recover the leper.
12 Are not Abana and Pharpar, rivers of Damascus, better than all the waters of Israel? may I not wash in them, and be clean? So he turned and went away in a rage.

He got a wake-up call when he acquiesced and went --- total healing.

Your alarm clock's ringing, Consol.

NailsII · Feb 3, 2009

dad said:
Well, do you send Christmas cards to all the rat relatives? Speak for yourself, you do not speak for many of us here. Neither can you prove it. The created trait of evolving, at the rapid rates of the created state does not lead to the pond, but to Eden. I think you bailed too early.

Whichever way you look at it dad, all humans are related by either a far-distant common ancestor who was possibly an Australopithicus, Homo erectus or even Noah.
So you and I are related, and I don't remember you ever sending me a Christmas card....

AV1611VET said:
Tell that to Naaman.

He thought his divine healing would come via some existential feeling or pyrotechnics, and was incensed at the fact that he was told to go wash in the "muddy" Jordan River seven times.He got a wake-up call when he acquiesced and went --- total healing.

Your alarm clock's ringing, Consol.

Just because it is written in a hly book does not mean it is true.
Do you believe that Mohammed rode on a horse through the sky (which left its hoof-print on a roof) and then he assended to heaven?

AV1611VET · Feb 3, 2009

NailsII said:
Just because it is written in a hly book does not mean it is true.

That's correct ---

Genesis 3:4 said:
And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

...

NailsII said:
Do you believe that Mohammed rode on a horse through the sky (which left its hoof-print on a roof) and then he assended to heaven?

No --- I call Mohammad what the early Christians who knew their Bibles called him --- a false prophet.

NailsII · Feb 3, 2009

AV1611VET said:
That's correct

Something else we agreee on!!

AV1611VET said:
No --- I call Mohammad what the early Christians who knew their Bibles called him --- a false prophet.

But if he was a false prophet he couldn't fly on a horse or ascend to heaven - do you think they just made it up to make him look superhuman?
Could he have done this even if he was a prophet?

Let's look at the major differences here - Jesus was supposd to be the son of the Big Guy so He could do anything - Mo was just a regular guy with an alleged hotline to Allah.

Biblical prophets have done many wonderful things, but I don't recall flying being one of them - maybe this was just to out-do all the previous prophets?

AV1611VET · Feb 3, 2009

NailsII said:
But if he was a false prophet he couldn't fly on a horse or ascend to heaven - do you think they just made it up to make him look superhuman?

Yes.

NailsII said:
Could he have done this even if he was a prophet?

Not w/o the Spirit of God.

NailsII said:
Let's look at the major differences here - Jesus was supposd to be the son of the Big Guy so He could do anything - Mo was just a regular guy with an alleged hotline to Allah.

Your word preferences aside, Jesus is God, and Mohammad was a false prophet.

NailsII said:
Biblical prophets have done many wonderful things, but I don't recall flying being one of them - maybe this was just to out-do all the previous prophets?

Ever heard of Samson, who probably weighed all of 150 pounds (if that much)? Or the man who outran Ahab's (?) chariot? Or Elisha, who raised the widow's son?

Nathan Poe · Feb 3, 2009

AV1611VET said:
Yes.

Do you think it's possible that "miraculous" stories about other religious figures were made up to make them look superhuman -- or even divine?

Not w/o the Spirit of God.

And what's the current litmus test for the Spirit of God?

Your word preferences aside, Jesus is God, and Mohammad was a false prophet.

A few minor correction on that sentence, and you'd make a passable Muslim.

Ever heard of Samson, who probably weighed all of 150 pounds (if that much)?

Chapter and Verse for his weigh-in?

Or the man who outran Ahab's (?) chariot?

Do you think it's possible that "miraculous" stories about other religious figures were made up to make them look superhuman -- or even divine?

Or Elisha, who raised the widow's son?

Do you think it's possible that "miraculous" stories about other religious figures were made up to make them look superhuman -- or even divine?

AV1611VET · Feb 3, 2009

Nathan Poe said:
And what's the current litmus test for the Spirit of God?

This:

1 Corinthians 12:3 said:
Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.

In the older dispensations, it depended on what God wanted that person to do. (If you have a Scofield Reference Bible, he has excellent notes on the progressive revelation of the Holy Spirit.)

Nathan Poe said:
A few minor correction on that sentence, and you'd make a passable Muslim.

That is correct --- that's why we need the proper Documentation to accompany anything we say.

Nathan Poe said:
Chapter and Verse for his weigh-in?

As my pastor likes to point out, what would be the big deal if Samson did what he did if he was built like a Sherman tank? But the fact that even the Philistines didn't know where his great strength came from, and had to hire Delilah to find out, was a good indication that he was all of about 150 pounds wet.

Judges 16:5 said:
And the lords of the Philistines came up unto her, and said unto her, Entice him, and see wherein his great strength lieth, and by what means we may prevail against him, that we may bind him to afflict him: and we will give thee every one of us eleven hundred pieces of silver.

Nathan Poe · Feb 3, 2009

AV1611VET said:
This:In the older dispensations, it depended on what God wanted that person to do. (If you have a Scofield Reference Bible, he has excellent notes on the progressive revelation of the Holy Spirit.)

No reason to believe Mohammed didn't fit the bill, is there?

That is correct --- that's why we need the proper Documentation to accompany anything we say.

So, when will you start providing proper documentation?

As my pastor likes to point out, what would be the big deal if Samson did what he did if he was built like a Sherman tank?

So, either you or your pastor is concocting this just to make an alleged miracle seem more miraculous -- afraid it wouldn't be all that impressive on its own, AV?

But the fact that even the Philistines didn't know where his great strength came from, and had to hire Delilah to find out, was a good indication that he was all of about 150 pounds wet.

A number you've just completely pulled out of the air in a vain attempt to insert your own ideas into the Bible.

dad · Feb 3, 2009

NailsII said:
Whichever way you look at it dad, all humans are related by either a far-distant common ancestor who was possibly an Australopithicus, Homo erectus or even Noah.

False!!! Which is the point. Prove it, I stand ready to bust you, and I kid you not, you are mistaken.

So you and I are related, and I don't remember you ever sending me a Christmas card....

Click to expand...

Man is related, yes. But I can't afford 6 billioncards tis year. tough times.

Just because it is written in a hly book does not mean it is true.
Do you believe that Mohammed rode on a horse through the sky (which left its hoof-print on a roof) and then he assended to heaven?

Click to expand...

Maybe. Who cares? That is about exciting as a witch making out with evil spirits, or someone India way climbing a rope. So???

Click to expand...

dad · Feb 3, 2009

consol said:
'felt' they knew, 'felt' being the operative word,
you hit the nail right on the head, because you know religion is nothing more than a feeling.

Well, if you have hard evidence that soft spirits did not exist in Egypt, or Sumer or elsewhere, now is the time to present it!!! Ha ha ha ha ha !!

This sounds very much like every religion in the world.

Thank you. That is why I listed so called science as such.

AV1611VET · Feb 4, 2009

Nathan Poe said:
No reason to believe Mohammed didn't fit the bill, is there?

We've been over this before (116 ), haven't we?

You even responded (130 ).

Absurdities of so called science

Undefeated!

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

Junior Member

Undefeated!

Undefeated!

Well-Known Member

Undefeated!

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Life-long student of biological science

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Life-long student of biological science

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

Undefeated!

Undefeated!

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency