Absurdities of so called science

MoonLancer · Jan 1, 2009

oh please dad. all of your arguments start with the presupposition that the bible is true. your like one of those kids that tries to fit all the parts of a puzzle the wrong way until the parts bend and break.

You also have a major flaw in the way you argue that the laws of the universe have changed to conform to the bible being true, but go into no detail how these changes occurred or why, or any evidence to show that they have, except to protect your reality of creationism from the reality evidence, and facts.

Hespera · Jan 1, 2009

dad said:
Sorry you seem to be new to the debate here. There is no need to falsify geology. Only to determine where it ceases to have support for what it dreams about in the unknown past. For example, can you prove that the present creep rate of the continents was in effect at the time of Noah?

Start with that. You have some surprises coming, at what you think you know.

False question. There was no "time of Noah".

Can you prove how fast trees grew at the time of the Great Raven?

Try something real.

"falsify geology" is nonsense. Where di you come up with that?

dad · Jan 1, 2009

MoonLancer said:
oh please dad. all of your arguments start with the presupposition that the bible is true. your like one of those kids that tries to fit all the parts of a puzzle the wrong way until the parts bend and break.

They don't bend or break. Fancy that. Get a good puzzle, man. One that works, and fits the evidence, and does noot rely on made up pond slime.

You also have a major flaw in the way you argue that the laws of the universe have changed to conform to the bible being true, but go into no detail how these changes occurred or why, or any evidence to show that they have, except to protect your reality of creationism from the reality evidence, and facts.

What details would you like? The laws did not change, the universe did! We have new laws here. No change IN the laws. Try to get your head around that.

dad · Jan 1, 2009

Hespera said:
False question. There was no "time of Noah".

Prove it!? A man in the well preserved sacred records of a nation that had preserving the records as a priority, need not be doubted without reason! Have some respect.

Can you prove how fast trees grew at the time of the Great Raven?

Try something real.

Who cares if it was trees that came from some magical burp of pond slime, or some magical Raven? If you grow any science, that addresses that or other issues, get back to us. Otherwise you will have to agree science does not know. Gotcha!

"falsify geology" is nonsense. Where di you come up with that?

I thought I said there was no need, unless it was those dreamland scenarios, that branch out from actual present geological realities, and are nothing but speculative belief based fables hiding under the dress of 'geollogy'?

The example given was the drift of the continents as measured presently. Focus, girl. Yoou're playing with the big boys now.

gaara4158 · Jan 1, 2009

dad said:
To use a sound arguement, against something, it must be sound to begin with. How sound is your personal argument? Or do you have one?? I can actually talk cosmology, geology, physics, evolution, genetics, etc. At least enough to grasp what their insane conclusions are based on. And I am prepared to take the bull by the horns, and have done so. What have you done? Whine? Congrats.. You remind me of some creationists back in the day when the godless same state past foundation believers seemed to have the upper hand. My sympathies for having a losing, and embarassing case!

What are you blabbing about? I see a lot of frustration and emotion there... may allah help you.

So far, all I've seen from your post is a list of strawman arguments presented and then destroyed viciously and passionately, followed either by your declaration of absolute victory or your characterizing the atheists as pathetic liars.

It can be tiresome to deal with such a deranged opponent, which is why sometimes, you may indeed get the last word.

I'll respond to an argument I see worth pursuing. Until then, I'll continue to analyze you.

AV1611VET · Jan 2, 2009

gaara4158 said:
Until then, I'll continue to analyze you.

Way to go, Dad --- your own personal analyst --- you can't beat that with a stick!

MoonLancer · Jan 2, 2009

dad said:
What details would you like? The laws did not change, the universe did! We have new laws here. No change IN the laws. Try to get your head around that.

semantic drivel? without evidence or workable hypothesis? yeah... fun stuff huh?

MoonLancer · Jan 2, 2009

AV1611VET said:
Way to go, Dad --- your own personal analyst --- you can't beat that with a stick!

actually if you assault your analyst, his report wont be pretty. back to the asylum with you!

juvenissun · Jan 2, 2009

Hespera said:
If juv has information about geology perhaps he has data on how a world wide flood could have left no sign of its passing.

If there were no sign, where would be the data?

juvenissun · Jan 2, 2009

MoonLancer said:
Then the heart of the argument has no logic? I agree. Their is no logic in assuming the scripture is the word of god.

I am glad we can both agree on this.

personally though i don't see how one can argue logically about faith considering faith is belief in something without evidence or in direct confrontation to it.

also, I have not seen a single argument for GOD that couldn't also be used for any other god or supernatural entity, like fairies.

If you mean Christian God, then you are very wrong. There are A LOT. Christian God is really unique in many many aspects.

For example, no other god could ever say: Eat my flesh, Drink my blood. Which is a ritual all Christians do once every month.

juvenissun · Jan 2, 2009

Chalnoth said:
Then why do you believe it?

The same reason as you believe in science. I read the Words (did not make much sense at the beginning), and I experienced the realities that echoed the Words. That is why it took me so much time to build up the faith. As "evidences" (many are non-scientific, but mostly logical) accumulated, I am out of reason to deny it as a conscientious scientist.

I challenge any one who could give me a reason of disbelief, which I have not considered intensively. If so, I would be very very happy and I will thank that person extremely.

Chalnoth · Jan 2, 2009

juvenissun said:
The same reason as you believe in science. I read the Words (did not make much sense at the beginning), and I experienced the realities that echoed the Words.

And you don't? How can you possibly doubt how good science is at discovering the truth when it has led to such dramatic improvements to human life? Things like computers, modern medicine, cars, air conditioning? How can anybody doubt that science is good at what it does when its fruits are all around us?

I suspect that people who do doubt the power of science are merely ignorant of it.

juvenissun said:
That is why it took me so much time to build up the faith. As "evidences" (many are non-scientific, but mostly logical) accumulated, I am out of reason to deny it as a conscientious scientist.

If it's non-scientific, it's also illogical.

juvenissun said:
I challenge any one who could give me a reason of disbelief, which I have not considered intensively. If so, I would be very very happy and I will thank that person extremely.

I sincerely doubt it. The reasons why Christianity is wrong are so numerous and foolproof that, well, if it were possible to convince you it would have probably been done by now.

Chalnoth · Jan 2, 2009

juvenissun said:
If there were no sign, where would be the data?

The data comes twofold:
1. Evidence of other floods, both recent and past, that show what a flood layer looks like.
2. Evidence of other things occurring instead of a flood.

consol · Jan 2, 2009

Having read the latest religious diatribe it makes me so very very sad,
I wish, I truly wish I was religious and had the ability to blank out and deny things that I didn't like,
my life would be so simple, lost in a dreamworld of love and peace, not seeing any part of real life,
waiting for my god to take me in his arms and love me to bits, it must be like being on drugs,
unfortunately for me I am unable to be religious, I wish I was, life would be so much easier,
dull but easier, instead I'm locked in my own little world all by myself, I wish I could conjure up a god.

Religion reminds me of the films where people are taken over be aliens,
the people who have been taken over keep telling the ones who haven't that it's wonderful,
and everything will be fine once they have been assimilated, then we can all be brain dead together,
sitting around smiling at each other, sound positively idyllic doesn't it?
not for me however.

Jester4kicks · Jan 2, 2009

juvenissun said:
If there were no sign, where would be the data?

Juv, I think he was trying to say that such a flood SHOULD have left evidence, and there is none to suggest that it actually happened.

He's asking how such a flood could have occurred without leaving that evidence.

Jester4kicks · Jan 2, 2009

juvenissun said:
If you mean Christian God, then you are very wrong. There are A LOT. Christian God is really unique in many many aspects.

For example, no other god could ever say: Eat my flesh, Drink my blood. Which is a ritual all Christians do once every month.

Um... I'll have to check some sources, but I'm pretty sure "god-eating" was never exclusive to christianity... nor was it original. I'm almost positive the Aztecs believed in it, and I'm fairly certain the Khonds in India practiced it, as well as the Mithraists in ancient Rome.

Anything other aspects of the christian god that you believe are unique?

Jester4kicks · Jan 2, 2009

juvenissun said:
The same reason as you believe in science. I read the Words (did not make much sense at the beginning), and I experienced the realities that echoed the Words. That is why it took me so much time to build up the faith. As "evidences" (many are non-scientific, but mostly logical) accumulated, I am out of reason to deny it as a conscientious scientist.

I challenge any one who could give me a reason of disbelief, which I have not considered intensively. If so, I would be very very happy and I will thank that person extremely.

Juv, I would never ask you to change your beliefs in this manner. I was free to find my own answers, and I personally think others need to find their own way as well.

What I would ask is that you be honest with yourself, and us, and not try to say that faith is based on evidence or logic. If your faith was based on evidence, it wouldn't be faith... that's simply by definition. Have your faith, have your beliefs... you're entitled to them. Just don't say that any of it is backed up by evidence, because it's not... and don't saying belief without evidence is logical, because it's not.

Hespera · Jan 2, 2009

juvenissun said:
If there were no sign, where would be the data?

You know, both you and Av claim to be scientists, which is something i find very very hard to believe.

Do you mean where is the data that there WAS a flood? There is no data for that. None. zip. nada.

If you mean data that there WASNT a flood.. its like you say "If there were no data about a horse in my room, where would be the data".

That hardly makes sense, but, as long as you dont see any horse, dont see any horse apples or smell anything, nobody else seems to see a horse....well, then the whole issue is pretty much moot. no horse.

No flood.

AV1611VET · Jan 2, 2009

Jester4kicks said:
What I would ask is that you be honest with yourself, and us, and not try to say that faith is based on evidence or logic. If your faith was based on evidence, it wouldn't be faith... that's simply by definition. Have your faith, have your beliefs... you're entitled to them. Just don't say that any of it is backed up by evidence, because it's not... and don't saying belief without evidence is logical, because it's not.

That's fair, Jester, but let me be equally honest.

Faith allows us to understand what those who don't exercise it cannot, viz.:

Hebrews 11:3 said:
Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

I've noticed in my almost three years here that those who chose not to walk by faith in Jesus Christ can only understand one thing: GOD DID IT. Even if they disagree, they [seem to] understand what we mean when we say that. I first started formulating that idea when someone repeatedly challenged me to fully-explain creatio ex nihilo --- right down to the mechanical level --- and even though I posted a Wikipedia article and explained that creatio ex nihilo is a bottom-line answer that is acceptable to others --- he (or she) still didn't get it. And I won't even go into Embedded Age, which, after almost three years of explaining, is still misunderstood.

Where the Bible came from, how It is preserved, who wrote what specific book --- forget it --- it is beyond their comprehension. Pure science (a.k.a. walking by sight) does that to a person.

According to the Bible, they are not able to comprehend what is/has been going on in the spiritual world.

1 Corinthians 2:14 said:
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

AV1611VET · Jan 2, 2009

Hespera said:
You know, both you and Av claim to be scientists...

Say what!!!!!?????

Oh, my --- oh, my --- please, please, please tell me you're talking about Avatar --- or someone else.

I'm AV --- he's Av?

Whoo !!!

Absurdities of so called science

The Moon is a reflection of the MorningStar

Junior Member

Undefeated!

Undefeated!

Gen Alpha Dad

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

The Moon is a reflection of the MorningStar

The Moon is a reflection of the MorningStar

... and God saw that it was good.

... and God saw that it was good.

... and God saw that it was good.

Senior Contributor

Senior Contributor

Well-Known Member

Warning - The following may cause you to think

Warning - The following may cause you to think

Warning - The following may cause you to think

Junior Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency