Absurdities of so called science

[AV1611VET]

Wow.... sorry AV, but Dad has officially taken your spot at the top of the "face-palm" totem pole.

Nuts ---

 

[Jester4kicks]

Nuts ---

Yeah, sorry, but I had to do it.

You clearly understand a variety of scientific principles, and simply choose to go by the bible instead.

Dad, on the other hand, clearly does not understand anything about science but still feebly tries to point out its "flaws".

 

[Hespera]

Classic circular reasoning! Take some thing we have observed i.e. no rabbit fossils found in a rock layer which with have termed Cambrian and then say common decent could be falsified if we found no rabbit fossils in the Cambrian layer. Wow we find no rabbit fossils in the Cambrian layer so common decent is true!

Great emprical work I say

Will you accept Jesus as your God and saviour?


Regards,

Paul

It would be circular reasoning if the way you describe it had any bearing on reality.. What we actually have here, is from you a classic ad hom against every single geologists, geophysicist, biologist, physicist, paleontologist etc.

That they are all simple minded incompetents who base everything on something as idiotic as circular reasoning.

Regardless of what you call it tho, cambrian, ordovician, etc.... they are still distinct zones. And if all animals and plants of the erath existed at the same time you would some time, some wh4re find a rabbit, a cow, a pig, something from modern times mixed iwth remains from say, the Permian.


your attempt at detecting circular logic MIGHT make sense if ALL of the fossils from each of the ages of the earth had been dug up.

Where do you come up with some idea that you know so much that you somehow know that all of the scientists in the world who work in the field are incompetant and stupid?


As for "accept Jesus", the more it seems that Christianity has to be bolstered by unreason, the more it looks like it has nothing to it. You are doing more harm than good.

 

[dad]

Did Dad ever give the bible verses where his stupid state change was mentioned?

I remember asking for them numerous times in other threads.

Yes, he did, many times, in the lovecreates link. The differences in the bible past are stark, and real.

But this thread is about the absurd actual claims of science.

Let's recap here, and I have a few more to add. Anyone else??

1) The universe was literally small enough to fit on the head of a pin!!
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!
3) The moon came about because there were two moons, one vanished!! Now I think I may have oversimplified it, but that is the actual gist, if I recall!!! Maybe the dark stuff ate it!?
4) MOST, over 90% of the universe is mysterious dark energy, or matter. Peek aboo! Hide and go seek, but never find it games!

......


Talk about the end of their speech resulting in madness!

12 The words of a wise man's mouth are gracious; but the lips of a fool will swallow up himself. 13 The beginning of the words of his mouth is foolishness: and the end of his talk is mischievous madness. 14 A fool also is full of words: a man cannot tell what shall be; and what shall be after him, who can tell him?

Heck, they swallowed the whole universe, and still had lots of room in their mouth!!! What a scream.

 

[dad]

Considering there is an estimated 2 to 10 million species in the world, that is one very, VERY hyper evolution. To say nothing of an incredibly rapid dispersal to the far corners of the world.
The platypus, a fresh water mammal, for instance, would have to have made a bee-line waddle 6,500 miles across Eurasia to Australia---mountainous terrain and all---at .4 - 2.0 MPH, taking time sleep and every day eat at least 20% of its body weight (usually freshwater invertebrates like shrimp, worms, crayfish, small mussels and aquatic insects). Then slowly swim across 900 miles of shark infested open salt water, and all without a single meal.
Nah, you're going to have to invoke your magic god-wand for this one.

Of course the ability to adapt and evolve was fast! God does it right, and He equipped us for the hostile planet, and all the changes it could cough up. As for suggesting that the Ppus had nothing to eat, I say it likely had a lot more! Some creatures adapted to both land and water. Algae, and plancton, and life could reproduce fast, it was a veritable smorgasbord!!

Remember we have OVER a century for all this evolving post flood before the split as well! Absolute piece o cake! Really.

 

[dad]

Why don't people take good advice like this?

Right, why not stick to ignoring most everything, and limiting the future, and past and God to the boring fishbowl, and pretending we are real clever! How drool.

 

[dad]

Um... you realize that he said things like a rabbit fossil in the pre-cambrian would DISPROVE our current theories on common decent? That's not circular-reasoning... that's logic.

No. That is like saying that we should find a woolly mammoth before the garden of Eden. The planet earth outside the garden of life would have been pretty barren, in comparison to the cradle of created life. The life outside Eden, I would huess was different, and not meant to be an eternal part of the pic. They had business in the as yet unihabitable parts of the earth. Trying to assign a role of creator to the creeping things is so stupid, it really isn't funny.

 

[dad]

Yeah, sorry, but I had to do it.

You clearly understand a variety of scientific principles, and simply choose to go by the bible instead.

Dad, on the other hand, clearly does not understand anything about science but still feebly tries to point out its "flaws".

Come on, big boy, let's see you put some science on the table, that leaves me in the dust here. What, all talk no action??? Lurkers, take note, he can't do it!!! These guys are a scream.

OK, so let's add another one here. Come on, creationists, got any more?

1) The universe was literally small enough to fit on the head of a pin!!
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!
3) The moon came about because there were two moons, one vanished!! Now I think I may have oversimplified it, but that is the actual gist, if I recall!!! Maybe the dark stuff ate it!?
4) MOST, over 90% of the universe is mysterious dark energy, or matter. Peek aboo! Hide and go seek, but never find it games!
5) The water for the oceans of earth! What, the spaghetti monster tossed little snowballs for billions of years, and presto!? That's about it, kids, just ask a scientist sometime!!

 

[Jester4kicks]

Yes, he did, many times, in the lovecreates link. The differences in the bible past are stark, and real.

But this thread is about the absurd actual claims of science.

Let's recap here, and I have a few more to add. Anyone else??

1) The universe was literally small enough to fit on the head of a pin!!

You're obviously aware that some think it was infinitely-small... yet you seem blissfully unaware that it was infinitely-dense. I would think you would be able to relate to that condition quite well.

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!

Nothing "magic" about it. Current hypotheses (note: NOT theories) in the field of abiogenesis offer several different methods by which life could have arisen on this planet through entirely natural causes.

3) The moon came about because there were two moons, one vanished!! Now I think I may have oversimplified it, but that is the actual gist, if I recall!!! Maybe the dark stuff ate it!?

Please explain where you came up with this silly idea. To my knowledge, the currently-accepted origin of the moon is the Giant Impact hypothesis. Basically, that a Mars-sized body collided with the Earth over 4.5 Billion years ago (when the Earth was still just forming). Some core elements remained in the earth, while the debris gradually combined over the next century or so to form the moon.

Again, nothing magical about it... no vanishing act required.

4) MOST, over 90% of the universe is mysterious dark energy, or matter. Peek aboo! Hide and go seek, but never find it games!

Acting like a 5th-grader doesn't exactly make it seem like you are interested in serious discussion.

As for dark matter, it's not "hide and seek". It a hypothesis which explains, amongst other things, gravitational fields without an apparent body to account for the field. So, technically, it's not the dark matter that's the mystery... it's the observable effects without an obvious cause that is the mystery.

No. That is like saying that we should find a woolly mammoth before the garden of Eden. The planet earth outside the garden of life would have been pretty barren, in comparison to the cradle of created life. The life outside Eden, I would huess was different, and not meant to be an eternal part of the pic. They had business in the as yet unihabitable parts of the earth. Trying to assign a role of creator to the creeping things is so stupid, it really isn't funny.

You seem to think that science actually cares about your little fairy-tale story for the origin of life.

Regardless... small problem... if you truly believe there was a literal garden of eden, then you must also believe that adam and eve stepped out of it no more than 6,000 years ago (or so).

Unfortunately, we've already found evidence of human cultures dating FAR further back than 6,000 years. Stone tools have been dated to upwards of 38,000 years old... while cave paintings and burial sites have been dated at over 10,000 years old.

 

[dad]

You're obviously aware that some think it was infinitely-small... yet you seem blissfully unaware that it was infinitely-dense. I would think you would be able to relate to that condition quite well.

You seem blissfully unaware that it didn't exist. It was only dense in your head. No where else.

Nothing "magic" about it. Current hypotheses (note: NOT theories) in the field of abiogenesis offer several different methods by which life could have arisen on this planet through entirely natural causes.

Woulda coulda shoulda Fantasy only goes so far. ...if there was a same state past, and no God isms. ...then beggars would ride moonbeams..etc



Try knowledge, and things that can be tested.

Please explain where you came up with this silly idea. To my knowledge, the currently-accepted origin of the moon is the Giant Impact hypothesis. Basically, that a Mars-sized body collided with the Earth over 4.5 Billion years ago (when the Earth was still just forming). Some core elements remained in the earth, while the debris gradually combined over the next century or so to form the moon.

[FONT=ARIAL, OPTIMA, HELVETICA]he idea in a nutshell:[/FONT]

At the time Earth formed 4.5 billion years ago, other smaller planetary bodies were also growing. One of these hit earth late in Earth's growth process, blowing out rocky debris. A fraction of that debris went into orbit around the Earth and aggregated into the moon.



[FONT=ARIAL, OPTIMA, HELVETICA]What were some earlier ideas?[/FONT]

1. One early theory was that the moon is a sister world that formed in orbit around Earth as the Earth formed. This theory failed because it could not explain why the moon lacks iron.
2. A second early idea was that the moon formed somewhere else in the solar system where there was little iron, and then was captured into orbit around Earth. This failed when lunar rocks showed the same isotope composition as the Earth.
3. A third early idea was that early Earth spun so fast that it spun off the moon. This idea would produce a moon similar to Earth's mantle, but it failed when analysis of the total angular momentum and energy involved indicated that the present Earth-moon system could not form in this way.

http://www.psi.edu/projects/moon/moon.html



Theia is thought to have struck the Earth at an oblique angle, destroying Theia and ejecting most of Theia's mantle and a significant portion of the Earth's mantle into space, while Theia's core sank into Earth's core."the original mass of Theia ended up as an orbiting ring of debris, about half of which coalesced into the Moon between one and 100 years after the impact.




http://www.answers.com/topic/giant-impact-theory

The other half is MIA!!! Told ya so.

Again, nothing magical about it... no vanishing act required.

Well, you need a magical planet smashing earth, sinking to the core, and disappearing. Quite an act. Magic would be too generous a term, that requires sleight of a REAL hand!!!!

As for dark matter, it's not "hide and seek". It a hypothesis which explains, amongst other things, gravitational fields without an apparent body to account for the field. So, technically, it's not the dark matter that's the mystery... it's the observable effects without an obvious cause that is the mystery.

Meaning what? That if there was no dark matter you would have a mystery? Well, I SAY YOU MAY NOT HAVE ANY. sO??

You seem to think that science actually cares about your little fairy-tale story for the origin of life.

You may think science can support your tooth fairy invisible dark unicorns, and specks, and granny bacterias. No. It actually can't. I mean that.

Regardless... small problem... if you truly believe there was a literal garden of eden, then you must also believe that adam and eve stepped out of it no more than 6,000 years ago (or so).

Right, and.... so..? Point??

Unfortunately, we've already found evidence of human cultures dating FAR further back than 6,000 years. Stone tools have been dated to upwards of 38,000 years old... while cave paintings and burial sites have been dated at over 10,000 years old.

Ha! Newsflash, NO they have certainly not! The so called dates are religion. Same state past belief based extrapolations, and guesses, and imagination. If you doubt it, then show us here and now the actual basis of the dating.

Lurkers, ' Behold, how the mighty are fallen'. ..And rejoice.

 

[Jester4kicks]

You seem blissfully unaware that it didn't exist. It was only dense in your head. No where else.

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

Woulda coulda shoulda Fantasy only goes so far. ...if there was a same state past, and no God isms. ...then beggars would ride moonbeams..etc

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

[FONT=ARIAL, OPTIMA, HELVETICA]he idea in a nutshell:[/FONT]

At the time Earth formed 4.5 billion years ago, other smaller planetary bodies were also growing. One of these hit earth late in Earth's growth process, blowing out rocky debris. A fraction of that debris went into orbit around the Earth and aggregated into the moon.

[FONT=ARIAL, OPTIMA, HELVETICA]What were some earlier ideas?[/FONT]

One early theory was that the moon is a sister world that formed in orbit around Earth as the Earth formed. This theory failed because it could not explain why the moon lacks iron.

A second early idea was that the moon formed somewhere else in the solar system where there was little iron, and then was captured into orbit around Earth. This failed when lunar rocks showed the same isotope composition as the Earth.

A third early idea was that early Earth spun so fast that it spun off the moon. This idea would produce a moon similar to Earth's mantle, but it failed when analysis of the total angular momentum and energy involved indicated that the present Earth-moon system could not form in this way.
http://www.psi.edu/projects/moon/moon.html

Theia is thought to have struck the Earth at an oblique angle, destroying Theia and ejecting most of Theia's mantle and a significant portion of the Earth's mantle into space, while Theia's core sank into Earth's core."the original mass of Theia ended up as an orbiting ring of debris, about half of which coalesced into the Moon between one and 100 years after the impact.

http://www.answers.com/topic/giant-impact-theory

The other half is MIA!!! Told ya so.

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.

Well, you need a magical planet smashing earth, sinking to the core, and disappearing. Quite an act. Magic would be too generous a term, that requires sleight of a REAL hand!!!!

Who said it disappeared?

Meaning what? That if there was no dark matter you would have a mystery? Well, I SAY YOU MAY NOT HAVE ANY. sO??

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

You may think science can support your tooth fairy invisible dark unicorns, and specks, and granny bacterias. No. It actually can't. I mean that.

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

Ha! Newsflash, NO they have certainly not! The so called dates are religion. Same state past belief based extrapolations, and guesses, and imagination. If you doubt it, then show us here and now the actual basis of the dating.

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

 

[consol]

So that's how it's done Dad, you rubbish everything you don't understand by writing rubbish,
then call on the others to believe you because you think the others are as thick as you,
well let's hope they're not.

 

[OphidiaPhile]

You never believe, so you do not understand what is faith. Christians, by definition, do not question their faith.

You need to tell faith from science. That is why there is such thing called creation science. It is entirely logical.

Creation science is an oxymoron as there is nothing scientific about creationism whatsoever in fact there is zero evidence for creationism and without evidence that is testable and peer reviewed you have nothing more than a hypothesis.

 

[Freodin]

Yes, I see no problem with animals on the ark at all. I accept hyper evolution back then, so we don't really need too many animals on there. But, if I had to, I think one would have an easier job of it, stuffing millions of animals on an ocean ship, rather than trillions of stars and galaxies, and suns, and planets all into something so small, it would be invisible to the naked eye!! Guess, we can keep the creator speck as a definite item in the list.

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?

 

[AV1611VET]

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?

I can't speak for DAD, but from my own personal experience, I came here not even understanding hyper-evolution --- but after seeing you guys make the point that what we see today couldn't possibly be real w/o hyper-evolution --- I'm [somewhat] inclined to go with it.

As I have pointed out before: God accelerated the growth of the plants that He put in the Garden of Eden, making them grow to full maturity in just one day (or less), and He could have easily done the same thing to the animals.

However, for the record, I'm still not sold on this hyper-evolution thing. I still say we can have today what we have w/o hyper-evolution --- but I can't prove it.

 

[consol]

I can't speak for DAD, but from my own personal experience, I came here not even understanding hyper-evolution --- but after seeing you guys make the point that what we see today couldn't possibly be real w/o hyper-evolution --- I'm [somewhat] inclined to go with it.

As I have pointed out before: God accelerated the growth of the plants that He put in the Garden of Eden, making them grow to full maturity in just one day (or less), and He could have easily done the same thing to the animals.

However, for the record, I'm still not sold on this hyper-evolution thing. I still say we can have today what we have w/o hyper-evolution --- but I can't prove it.

In other words you're open to anything that will help your religion make some sort of sense,
talk about living in a dream world, AV you're a real sap.

 

[AV1611VET]

In other words you're open to anything that will help your religion make some sort of sense...

I am open to anything that will make my relationship to Jesus Christ make sense to you guys, and do it in a way that will not contradict the Scriptures; and so far, all I can find that makes any sense to you guys is: GOD DID IT.

...talk about living in a dream world...

I am in the world, but no longer of the world.

They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.

---

AV you're a real sap.

Flattery will get you nowhere ---

 

[Freodin]

I can't speak for DAD, but from my own personal experience, I came here not even understanding hyper-evolution --- but after seeing you guys make the point that what we see today couldn't possibly be real w/o hyper-evolution --- I'm [somewhat] inclined to go with it.

As I have pointed out before: God accelerated the growth of the plants that He put in the Garden of Eden, making them grow to full maturity in just one day (or less), and He could have easily done the same thing to the animals.

However, for the record, I'm still not sold on this hyper-evolution thing. I still say we can have today what we have w/o hyper-evolution --- but I can't prove it.

Thank for for responding to my question, even if it wasn´t adressed to you. But I fear you didn´t answer it.

I´m not interested in your justification for accepting [somewhat] hyper-evolution, I would like to know how you arrived at that idea. Can you answer that question, please?

 

[Jester4kicks]

I am open to anything that will make my relationship to Jesus Christ make sense to you guys, and do it in a way that will not contradict the Scriptures; and so far, all I can find that makes any sense to you guys is: GOD DID IT.I am in the world, but no longer of the world.---Flattery will get you nowhere ---

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.

 

[AV1611VET]

Thank for for responding to my question, even if it wasn´t adressed to you. But I fear you didn´t answer it.

I´m not interested in your justification for accepting [somewhat] hyper-evolution, I would like to know how you arrived at that idea. Can you answer that question, please?

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

Current Taxa - 4500 years = Hyperevolution