Absurdities of so called science

dad · Feb 13, 2009

Nathan Poe said:
I don't have a horn -- that sound you're hearing is your own echo.

Not at all. Go back and focus this time.

I'm in no hurry, dad -- where is He in the magic book?

In the beginning...God....

Need more?

Because according to Christian theology, God is perfect -- He doesn't make mistakes.

So, if you have a mistake God made, do tell....

Therefore, even a single mistake in the Bible would mean God didn't write it.

Got one? No? Funny, that. Careful, I already did cud, and on all fours, and likely anything else you can conjure up. Really.

How many Biblical mistakes would you like me to show you?

None. How many can you show me?

There's only one God, dad, and although you and the Bible got it all wrong, I've got it right -- He told me so.

Glad you have a hotline to God. Some actually do not believe in the spiritual. Hit them with your best shot.

Ask me your questions, and I'll pass them on to God for you, and give you His answers.

OK. Why are you a Poe? A backslider? A teacher of Christian youth? A devil's advocate?

Danyc · Feb 13, 2009

dad said:
Where you chose to define evolution as abiogenesis. No. Where evolving is just that, evolvinngg, I am right there. All over it.

Never did I choose to define evolution as abiogenesis. Creationists do that, not me, and not any honest, educated scientist. Evolution is not abiogenesis in any sense.

No, you're not "right there", nor are you "all over it".

Evolutionary theory most definitely does not speak of anything happening to the effect that you espouse. Life has been evolving ever since organisms could replicate-- i.e., billions of years.

dad said:
What is it you claim that I believe that was impossible? Focus.

Why don't you focus? If you had been, you'd know what I'm talking about. We've had these discussions before. You're silly little beliefs that life somehow evolved extra-fast to fit within such a short timespan, or you're ridiculous after-the-fact reconciliations with the fact that life does evolve, desperately trying to get it to fit into your tiny little world-view...it's pitiful. Why don't you just accept reality for what it is? The earth is old and evolution happened, and is happening. It does no damage to your faith. It does none to mine and it does none to thousands of other people's. Its only you who has a problem.

dad said:
Does what??? Makes things evolve as they now are observed to do? Or...???? Be clear, Danyc.

Ask a clear question, and I'll answer it.

dad said:
That way you can clearly be defeated.

You're funny.

truthiness · Feb 13, 2009

truthiness said:
Wait just a minute, God has a uber-sapphire-hovercraft/flying command center, with a throne...which was in orbit?

dad said:
Yes. Look at Eze. Then, look at Gen 1. The spirit of God moved, or hovered.

Wait....WAIT WAIT one second. Perhaps you found this image on Google image search or Wikipedia. SAPPHIRE HOVERCRAFT FLYING COMMAND CENTER WITH A THRONE IN ORBIT...tossin seeds down to earth. How can this be so easily dismissed by so many people? Or are all of you gentlemen/women and scholars so used to ridiculous statements by this man that this doesn't even phase you?

Danyc · Feb 13, 2009

truthiness said:
Or are all of you gentlemen/women and scholars so used to ridiculous statements by this man that this doesn't even phase you?

yes

Hespera · Feb 14, 2009

DANYC

Originally Posted by truthiness

Or are all of you gentlemen/women and scholars so used to ridiculous statements by this man that this doesn't even phase you?

yes QUOTE/////

Cant phase now that it is on ignore.

I would though, like to see how it would play out if as a testifying detective or expert in a court case, he were to explain evidence that was based on the type or "weird science" that uses special physical laws known only to him.

Nathan Poe · Feb 14, 2009

dad said:
Not at all. Go back and focus this time.

In the beginning...God....

Need more?

Ah, so God wrote the Bible because He's a character in it.

So, if you have a mistake God made, do tell....

Got one? No? Funny, that. Careful, I already did cud, and on all fours, and likely anything else you can conjure up. Really.

None. How many can you show me?

I'll give you an easy one: Mark 2:23-26

You'd think that Jesus, being God incarnate, would know His own Scriptures.

Glad you have a hotline to God. Some actually do not believe in the spiritual. Hit them with your best shot.

That's why I'm starting with you, dad.

OK. Why are you a Poe? A backslider? A teacher of Christian youth? A devil's advocate?

All of the above, as it happens, dad. If you could think outside your Bible-shaped box, you'd understand that.

dad · Feb 14, 2009

Danyc said:
Never did I choose to define evolution as abiogenesis. Creationists do that, not me, and not any honest, educated scientist. Evolution is not abiogenesis in any sense.

Then, you merely accept a created trait, and have no way to the pond.

No, you're not "right there", nor are you "all over it".

Evolutionary theory most definitely does not speak of anything happening to the effect that you espouse. Life has been evolving ever since organisms could replicate-- i.e., billions of years.

Dreams, pal. Really. Life has only been evolving since it was created, if you can prove otherwise, do so. Otherwise, hahahahaha.

Why don't you focus? If you had been, you'd know what I'm talking about. We've had these discussions before. You're silly little beliefs that life somehow evolved extra-fast to fit within such a short timespan, or you're ridiculous after-the-fact reconciliations with the fact that life does evolve, desperately trying to get it to fit into your tiny little world-view...it's pitiful.

Utter misrepresenting balderdash. Nothing evolved fast from the pond. Or any imagined first lifeforms. If the state of the universe and realities on the ground here on earth were different, so could the evolution rates, life spans, plant growth, rates, etc. Therefore only one question remains. What was the state of the universe in the far past? The answer is science does not know, and your opinions are of no importance, unless based on something.

Why don't you just accept reality for what it is? The earth is old and evolution happened, and is happening. It does no damage to your faith. It does none to mine and it does none to thousands of other people's. Its only you who has a problem.

Nothing in this world says that the universe is old, except same state past hand waving, and core belief based nonsense.
This you must face, or prove your claimed state of the past. No way round it.

dad · Feb 14, 2009

Nathan Poe said:
Ah, so God wrote the Bible because He's a character in it.

No. Why? Is that what you think?

I'll give you an easy one: Mark 2:23-26

You'd think that Jesus, being God incarnate, would know His own Scriptures.

So men could not eat the growing fruits in a field in that land, if they were hungry, long as they took none with them away? OK. Anyhow, what scripture is it you think He did not know??

Danyc · Feb 15, 2009

dad said:
Then, you merely accept a created trait, and have no way to the pond.

Wrong again-- numerous dating methods have been used to tell us the age of the earth. Its not my problem that the only argument you have against this is that thousands of scientists somehow missed a "glaring flaw" in the way they date things. Sorry, doesn't fly.

dad said:
Dreams, pal. Really. Life has only been evolving since it was created, if you can prove otherwise, do so. Otherwise, hahahahaha.

"If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."
~Bertrand Russel

dad said:
Utter misrepresenting balderdash. Nothing evolved fast from the pond. Or any imagined first lifeforms. If the state of the universe and realities on the ground here on earth were different, so could the evolution rates, life spans, plant growth, rates, etc.

If.

If.

Now show it to be so. Burden of Proof, invisible pink unicorn, etc.

dad said:
Nothing in this world says that the universe is old, except same state past hand waving, and core belief based nonsense.

dad said:
This you must face, or prove your claimed state of the past. No way round it.

The burden of proof does not rest on me-- the burden of proof rests on you, the one making the new claim. The burden of proof rested on Galileo, it rested on Darwin, and it rests on you. Now do as these men of science did and prove yourself.

dad · Feb 15, 2009

Danyc said:
Wrong again-- numerous dating methods have been used to tell us the age of the earth.

All based on the same mistaken notion, however, which moots the point. If you take away the unproven same state foundation, they all wither like grass in the noon day sun. Noo matter if there is many bails of the stuff, it is still hay.

Its not my problem that the only argument you have against this is that thousands of scientists somehow missed a "glaring flaw" in the way they date things. Sorry, doesn't fly.

That depends if it is true. If so, it flies to eternity and beyond, leaving so called science in the dungheap.

The burden of proof does not rest on me-- the burden of proof rests on you, the one making the new claim. The burden of proof rested on Galileo, it rested on Darwin, and it rests on you. Now do as these men of science did and prove yourself.

They used science, and worked within those limits. What I do is point out that those limits are shackles, and restraints, that lock one out of the doors of the future and past realities.

suzybeezy · Feb 15, 2009

MOD HAT ON

Thread has been reopened after a thread clean up. Please try to stay on topic and avoid making posts that contain flaming remarks.

MOD HAT OFF

dad · Feb 23, 2009

OK. So the thread needed some housekeeping. Looks like there isn't much left here, about 100 posts, and I think it reaches the max. Make em good. Make em topical. Make em clean.

To recap, we have been exploring some of the true absudities of the claims of science. Such as

1) The universe was literally small enough to fit on the head of a pin!! The whole visible universe, no less, all that Hubble sees!! Not only that, the laws of physics break down before it gets that size, in their head, so they aew depending on something else in the end anyhow!

2) All life started with one magically appearing little wonder, that was either in a rock crack, vent, pond, or whatever else they latest fable meisters want to say! All plant and animal life on all of earth, no less.

3) The moon came about because there was a cosmic crash, and half the material vanished, or got sucked into the inner earth, etc!!, Maybe the dark stuff ate it!?

4) MOST, over 90% of the universe is mysterious 'dark' energy, or matter. In other words, they dreamed it up, and it cannot stand outside a same state past model. In other words, unless we can carry present gravitation, and laws back to the time things were formed, we have no case.

5) The water for the oceans of earth! .... little ice meteors or some such, for billions of years, and presto!? Good thing they managed to dodge the gravity of Jupiter, and etc.

6) They cannot come up with a theory of everything. So they are left with gaps between relativity, and the Quantum realities. It just doesn't fit. They must be missing something.

Gracchus · Feb 23, 2009

dad said:
To recap, we have been exploring some of the true absudities of the claims of science. Such as

The universe was literally small enough to fit on the head of a pin!! The whole visible universe, no less, all that Hubble sees!! Not only that, the laws of physics break down before it gets that size, in their head, so they aew depending on something else in the end anyhow!

They are not "depending" on anything. In science, "I don’t know.", is a perfectly good temporary answer.

2) All life started with one magically appearing little wonder, that was either in a rock crack, vent, pond, or whatever else they latest fable meisters want to say! All plant and animal life on all of earth, no less.

Science makes no claims about magic. I realize you don’t know enough about science to differentiate it from magic.
And creationism supposes that life started by thousands or millions of magically appearing species from aardvarks to zinnias.

3) The moon came about because there was a cosmic crash, and half the material vanished, or got sucked into the inner earth, etc!!, Maybe the dark stuff ate it!?

Citation?

4) MOST, over 90% of the universe is mysterious 'dark' energy, or matter. In other words, they dreamed it up, and it cannot stand outside a same state past model. In other words, unless we can carry present gravitation, and laws back to the time things were formed, we have no case.

Please present your evidence or argument for your assertions.

5) The water for the oceans of earth! .... little ice meteors or some such, for billions of years, and presto!? Good thing they managed to dodge the gravity of Jupiter, and etc.

"Little drops of water,
little grains of sand,
make the mighty ocean
and the beauteous land."
--- Oremus Hymnal: Little Drops of Water
http://www.oremus.org/hymnal/l/l174.html

Even if comets were confined to the plain of the ecliptic, which they ar not, Jupiter is a very small target. Most comets don’t get anywhere near Jupiter, much less within capture distance.

Haley's comet, for instance has been missing Jupiter every seventy-six years or so, for a very long time.

6) They cannot come up with a theory of everything. So they are left with gaps between relativity, and the Quantum realities. It just doesn't fit. They must be missing something.

No one claims scientists aren’t missing something. Indeed, if there weren’t a lot of unknowns, there would be no reason for science. There would, in fact, be no reason for reason. Which is apparently why some folks, who would hold God to their own level of understanding, grab him by the scruff of the neck and kick his keister should he dare to disagree with them, have no need of reason.

dad · Feb 23, 2009

Gracchus said:
They are not "depending" on anything. In science, "I dont know.", is a perfectly good temporary answer.

And it should be perfect for teaching about creation in school, as to what science knows. Thanks for that, I agree.

Science makes no claims about magic. I realize you dont know enough about science to differentiate it from magic.
And creationism supposes that life started by thousands or millions of magically appearing species from aardvarks to zinnias.

Call the magic speck that held the whole universe, and thhe tiny wunder bug that spawned all plant and animal life on earth whatever you like. I call it imagination.

Citation?

Please present your evidence or argument for your assertions.

" Theia is thought to have struck the Earth at an oblique angle. Theia's iron core sank into the young Earth's core, as most of Theia's mantle and a significant portion of the Earth's mantle and crust were ejected into orbit around the Earth. This material quickly coalesced into the Moon (possibly within less than a month, but in no more than a century). Estimates based on computer simulations of such an event suggest that some two percent of the original mass of Theia ended up as an orbiting ring of debris, and about half of this matter coalesced into the Moon."

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

And last I heard, this slop was the leading theory about where the moon came from!

"Little drops of water,
little grains of sand,
make the mighty ocean
and the beauteous land."
--- Oremus Hymnal: Little Drops of Water
http://www.oremus.org/hymnal/l/l174.html

So a poem supports that the world of water we live in was wafted in from space. How nice. I suppose you could have a little boy in space with a spoon, dropping it down as well!! Yes, just took a while. Too bad it is a fable.

Even if comets were confined to the plain of the ecliptic, which they ar not, Jupiter is a very small target. Most comets dont get anywhere near Jupiter, much less within capture distance.

So most comets hit the earth, and deliver water? Look up tonight, a little green one is whizzing by. Hope you are not depending on it for a glass of water!! I kid you not.

Haley's comet, for instance has been missing Jupiter every seventy-six years or so, for a very long time.

Funny, it missed us as well,!!!

No one claims scientists arent missing something.

Great. I think they miss the forest, for the trees.

Indeed, if there werent a lot of unknowns, there would be no reason for science.

So, it is to pretend it knows the unknown?? I doubt that. I think it is supposed to know. In fact, it is in schools pretending it does, get it the heaven out.

There would, in fact, be no reason for reason. Which is apparently why some folks, who would hold God to their own level of understanding, grab him by the scruff of the neck and kick his keister should he dare to disagree with them, have no need of reason.

How nice. This has what to do with what?

Gracchus · Feb 24, 2009

dad said:
Gracchus said:

They are not "depending" on anything. In science, "I don’t know.", is a perfectly good temporary answer.

Click to expand...

And it should be perfect for teaching about creation in school, as to what science knows. Thanks for that, I agree.

The point is, and creationists have a hard time getting it, that where scientists may hypothesize or leave the answer open, creationists claim certainty.

dad said:
Gracchus said:

Science makes no claims about magic. I realize you don’t know enough about science to differentiate it from magic.

Click to expand...

dad said:
Gracchus said:

And creationism supposes that life started by thousands or millions of magically appearing species from aardvarks to zinnias.

Click to expand...

Call the magic speck that held the whole universe, and thhe tiny wunder bug that spawned all plant and animal life on earth whatever you like. I call it imagination.

So you dismiss the evidence (Which is understandable since you obviously are incapable of understanding evidence!) and postulate an unevidenced magic sky-man who poofs every single thing into existence separately?

dad said:
" Theia is thought to have struck the Earth at an oblique angle. Theia's iron core sank into the young Earth's core, as most of Theia's mantle and a significant portion of the Earth's mantle and crust were ejected into orbit around the Earth. This material quickly coalesced into the Moon (possibly within less than a month, but in no more than a century). Estimates based on computer simulations of such an event suggest that some two percent of the original mass of Theia ended up as an orbiting ring of debris, and about half of this matter coalesced into the Moon."

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

And last I heard, this slop was the leading theory about where the moon came from!

And this is impossible because ... ?

Gracchus said:
"Little drops of water,
little grains of sand,
make the mighty ocean
and the beauteous land."

--- Oremus Hymnal: Little Drops of Water
http://www.oremus.org/hymnal/l/l174.html

dad said:
So a poem supports that the world of water we live in was wafted in from space. How nice. I suppose you could have a little boy in space with a spoon, dropping it down as well!! Yes, just took a while. Too bad it is a fable.

Don’t need the little boy, or the magic sky-man. We see water in interstellar clouds. We see it in comets that have coalesced from those clouds. Why is it so absurd to think that further coalescence would form planets containing water?

Gracchus said:
Even if comets were confined to the plain of the ecliptic, which they ar not, Jupiter is a very small target. Most comets don’t get anywhere near Jupiter, much less within capture distance.

dad said:
So most comets hit the earth, and deliver water? Look up tonight, a little green one is whizzing by. Hope you are not depending on it for a glass of water!! I kid you not.

No. Most miss the Earth, more than miss Jupiter. Still, the Oort cloud was much closer to the sun until the forming planets swept up those comets closer in. There are fewer comets now, in consequence, and those that enter the inner solar system are short lived.

Gracchus said:
Haley's comet, for instance has been missing Jupiter every seventy-six years or so, for a very long time.

dad said:
Funny, it missed us as well,!!!

Don’t worry, there will be others.

Gracchus said:
No one claims scientists aren’t missing something.

dad said:
Great. I think they miss the forest, for the trees.

Say, rather, that they realize that the forest is more than the trees, and that they don’t know everything about it, while creationists claim that everything that there is to know about forests is in a bronze-age book of myth and poetry.

Gracchus said:
Indeed, if there weren’t a lot of unknowns, there would be no reason for science.

dad said:
So, it is to pretend it knows the unknown??

No. Creationists do that. In fact, creationists don’t even know what is known, and claim to know what they do not.

dad said:
I doubt that. I think it is supposed to know.

It knows many things you do not. And it knows that many of the things you know are wrong. There is some reason to believe that science can never know everything.

dad said:
In fact, it is in schools pretending it does, get it the heaven out.

So you would have schools discard science entirely?

Gracchus said:
There would, in fact, be no reason for reason. Which is apparently why some folks, who would hold God to their own level of understanding, grab him by the scruff of the neck and kick his keister should he dare to disagree with them, have no need of reason.

dad said:
How nice. This has what to do with what?

Just that some creationists, (I won’t mention names,) demand that not only science, but God himself, had better agree with them or suffer creationist wrath.

dad · Feb 26, 2009

Gracchus said:
The point is, and creationists have a hard time getting it, that where scientists may hypothesize or leave the answer open, creationists claim certainty.

But not as science. That is the difference. The teachings in school, and on the tv, and documentaries, etc do not teach a first life form, and a same state universe as a maybe. They teach it as fact. The present is the key to the past for them. In fact, it seems to me, many teach it in a proud, and shrill voice, taking pleasure in emphasizing the aspects that oppose a biblical view.

So you dismiss the evidence (Which is understandable since you obviously are incapable of understanding evidence!) and postulate an unevidenced magic sky-man who poofs every single thing into existence separately?

Can you list any evidence I dismiss?? No idea what you are talking about. I simply point out how wron science has been in the way they look at the evidence. Science cannot say yay or nay about created kinds!

And this is impossible because ... ?

It is preposterous because it is a man made, same state attempt, godless attempt, at explain creation as self made. Self made in a present state no less! Absurd. It is a narrow minded, belief based, one sided, effort.

Don’t need the little boy, or the magic sky-man. We see water in interstellar clouds. We see it in comets that have coalesced from those clouds. Why is it so absurd to think that further coalescence would form planets containing water?

So what!!?? We also see the astronauts drink water up there, does that mean they dribbled it down for billions of imaginary years!? Absurd.

No. Most miss the Earth, more than miss Jupiter. Still, the Oort cloud was much closer to the sun until the forming planets swept up those comets closer in. There are fewer comets now, in consequence, and those that enter the inner solar system are short lived.

And how many fell befoore present gravity? If we look at the debris coming into our system only since science could observe, I think we might have some stats there. As for you Oort cloud forecast in the distant past, I suggest you provide evidence for your claim. And remember, no same state assumptive so called evidence UNLESS you can prove a same state first. Repeat..first. Once again, first, as in before.

Say, rather, that they realize that the forest is more than the trees, and that they don’t know everything about it, while creationists claim that everything that there is to know about forests is in a bronze-age book of myth and poetry.

[/quote] The scripture cannot be held to any age, it covers Eden. All ages, including the age to come! The gathering together of God's words may be dated, but that is irrelevant.

No. Creationists do that. In fact, creationists don’t even know what is known, and claim to know what they do not.

How would you know? He that thinks he knows something knows nothing, lest what he ought to know. And those that dismiss the word of God ought to know not too much.

It knows many things you do not. And it knows that many of the things you know are wrong. There is some reason to believe that science can never know everything.

It knows useless junk, that I have no interest in, or would look it up. It also talks a big talk, but swims with the fishes in the fishbowl. Not too scary, that knowledge.

So you would have schools discard science entirely?

As supposedly applies to creation, and the far past, yes! They know not whereof they speak.

Just that some creationists, (I won’t mention names,) demand that not only science, but God himself, had better agree with them or suffer creationist wrath.

Not me. I demand He agree wuth Himself, in His Own word. And you bet I demand that. Something fierce.

Gracchus · Feb 27, 2009

dad said:
But not as science. That is the difference. The teachings in school, and on the tv, and documentaries, etc do not teach a first life form, and a same state universe as a maybe. They teach it as fact. The present is the key to the past for them. In fact, it seems to me, many teach it in a proud, and shrill voice, taking pleasure in emphasizing the aspects that oppose a biblical view.

Can you list any evidence I dismiss??

All of it.
<staff edit>

I simply point out how wron science has been in the way they look at the evidence.

You mean that they consider the evidence. <staff edit>

Science cannot say yay or nay about created kinds!

Science can say nothing about the supernatural, or magic. The point is, that science can explain without recourse to either.
<staff edit>

It is preposterous because it is a man made, same state attempt, godless attempt, at explain creation as self made. Self made in a present state no less! Absurd. It is a narrow minded, belief based, one sided, effort.

Your holy book was obviously man made. The stars, the stones, the stuff of life, could not have been made by man. That is where the real word of god is written.

So what!!?? We also see the astronauts drink water up there, does that mean they dribbled it down for billions of imaginary years!? Absurd.

No. It means that they carried water into space.

And how many fell befoore present gravity? If we look at the debris coming into our system only since science could observe, I think we might have some stats there. As for you Oort cloud forecast in the distant past, I suggest you provide evidence for your claim. And remember, no same state assumptive so called evidence UNLESS you can prove a same state first. Repeat..first. Once again, first, as in before.

You mean no evidence at all unless it fits your <staff edit> universe, for which you can provide no evidence. Of course I cannot prove that the universe wasn't poofed into existence last Thursday with the the appearance of age and every memory falsely implanted, nor can I prove that there is no Flying Spaghetti Monster, invisible pink unicorn, or teapot in the asteroid belt.

The scripture cannot be held to any age, it covers Eden. All ages, including the age to come! The gathering together of God's words may be dated, but that is irrelevant.

I repeat: Your holy book bears all the earmarks of a human creation. The stars, the stones, and the stuff of life tell a different story.

How would you know? He that thinks he knows something knows nothing, lest what he ought to know. And those that dismiss the word of God ought to know not too much.

And if you are the most certain of what you know, are you not certainly wrong? It is you who dismiss the word of god in favor of the words of men.

It knows useless junk, ...

... like how your computer works?

... that I have no interest in, ...

But you post in this forum, and not in the Christians-only forums. <staff edit>

... or would look it up.

You never would. You dare not challenge the delusion in which you have invested so much of yourself.

It also talks a big talk, but swims with the fishes in the fishbowl.

You seem to be firing off metaphors at random. <staff edit>
<staff edit>

As supposedly applies to creation, and the far past, yes! They know not whereof they speak.

But you know? All those scientists are wrong, all those Christians who disagree with you (almost all of them) are wrong but you have to be right.
<staff edit>

Not me. I demand He agree wuth Himself, in His Own word.

You demand of God that he agree with you[\i].

His word is the reality written in a hand that cannot be forged, not some book of bronze-age myths that isn't even consistent in itself.

And you bet I demand that. Something fierce.

Click to expand...

In all kindness, I advise you to temper your ferocity <staff edit>

Hespera · Feb 27, 2009

Gracchus said:
Shall we take a poll as to whom is the proud, shrill voice in this forum?

All of it.

That is apparent.

You mean that they consider the evidence. You just make stuff up.

Science can say nothing about the supernatural, or magic. The point is, that science can explain without recourse to either. It doesn't need to posit a schizophrenic universe.

Your holy book was obviously man made. The stars, the stones, the stuff of life, could not have been made by man. That is where the real word of god is written.

No. It means that they carried water into space.

You mean no evidence at all unless it fits your schizoid universe, for which you can provide no evidence. Of course I cannot prove that the universe wasn't poofed into existence last Thursday with the the appearance of age and every memory falsely implanted, nor can I prove that there is no Flying Spaghetti Monster, invisible pink unicorn, or teapot in the asteroid belt.

I repeat: Your holy book bears all the earmarks of a human creation. The stars, the stones, and the stuff of life tell a different story.

And if you are the most certain of what you know, are you not certainly wrong? It is you who dismiss the word of god in favor of the words of men.

... like how your computer works?

But you post in this forum, and not in the Christians-only forums, where accusing people who disagree with you of godlessness would get you banned.
You never would. You dare not challenge the delusion in which you have invested so much of yourself.You seem to be firing off metaphors at random. If I didn't know better, I would think you were becoming hysterical.I think we all see that it positively terrifies you.

But you know? All those scientists are wrong, all those Christians who disagree with you (almost all of them) are wrong but you have to be right. God says that the Bible is not his word but the the faulty understanding of men, and you kick his keister. Truly, whom God would destroy, he first makes arrogant.

You demand of God that he agree with you.

His word is the reality written in a hand that cannot be forged, not some book of bronze-age myths that isn't even consistent in itself.
In all kindness, I advise you to temper your ferocity lest you find yourself restrained in a padded room.

If it werent for straw men to savage, he'd have no men at all!

I always think that if a person has real things to criticize, he would not need to make up or exaggerate anything.

I miss most of the posts as they are on ig but enough show up as part of a response. It's like standing in a typhoon! Such intensity.

I wonder where all of the ferocity comes from. A strong philosophy would not need it. It cant'be good for a person. I hope he can find a way back into a more realistic place in life.

Im afraid that the more people respond and argue, the deeper he gets trenched in. i dont think it is a kindness to get involved in that.

Danyc · Feb 27, 2009

"Conceit is God's Gift to little men."
--Bruce Barton

dad · Feb 27, 2009

Hespera said:
If it werent for straw men to savage, he'd have no men at all!

I always think that if a person has real things to criticize, he would not need to make up or exaggerate anything.

I miss most of the posts as they are on ig but enough show up as part of a response. It's like standing in a typhoon! Such intensity.

I wonder where all of the ferocity comes from. A strong philosophy would not need it. It cant'be good for a person. I hope he can find a way back into a more realistic place in life.

Im afraid that the more people respond and argue, the deeper he gets trenched in. i dont think it is a kindness to get involved in that.

I think in general, it is good advice for us to post in forums, where we have something to contribute. For example, in a thread about certain issues of science, we might try to address some. Just a thought.

Absurdities of so called science

Undefeated!

Senior Member

Discerning Individual

Senior Member

Junior Member

Well-Known Member

Undefeated!

Undefeated!

Senior Member

Undefeated!

Reports Manager

Undefeated!

Senior Veteran

Undefeated!

Senior Veteran

Undefeated!

Senior Veteran

Junior Member

Senior Member

Undefeated!

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency