Absurdities of so called science

[dad]

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

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

No, they can't, they tell stories, BASED on assuming no creation, and no God, and a present state universe from the getgo. (except when it suits their fancy, and they admit the laws of physics break down in their fantasy speck pre soup)

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

No, I am listing it as a prime example of the absurdities of following the beliefs of present based science into eternity and beyond, where they can have no clue what went on. They have simply constructed cunning fables based on a what if the universe were always as the present scenario. End of story. Really. Nothing else.

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

Right, but it isn't taught AS SCIENCE on public money now is it??!!! So why promote one fable???

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

Hey, if a witness in court claims under oath, that there is a demon under the gavel of the judge, and that the court room is in a bowl of soup, it does affect his credibility!!!

 

[dad]

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

Don't kid yourself. All you could do, is tell us a bit about how genes now work. And where's that? Hec, you can't even cure aids.

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

No, they can't review the state of the universe, merely apply the doctrine and belief system of assuming there was a present state at all times, and story telling from there. Tryy to learn your little place, and humbly admit your glaring ignorance of things eternal, and out of this state.

 

[dad]

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 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. Peek aboo! Hide and go seek, but never find it games!
5) The water for the oceans of earth! .... little snowballs for billions of years, and presto!? That's about it, kids, just ask a scientist sometime!!

Any more!?

 

[Hespera]

No, they can't, they tell stories, BASED on assuming no creation, and no God, and a present state universe from the getgo. (except when it suits their fancy, and they admit the laws of physics break down in their fantasy speck pre soup)
No, I am listing it as a prime example of the absurdities of following the beliefs of present based science into eternity and beyond, where they can have no clue what went on. They have simply constructed cunning fables based on a what if the universe were always as the present scenario. End of story. Really. Nothing else.

Right, but it isn't taught AS SCIENCE on public money now is it??!!! So why promote one fable???



Hey, if a witness in court claims under oath, that there is a demon under the gavel of the judge, and that the court room is in a bowl of soup, it does affect his credibility!!!

I thought about responding to you but you are too far gone.

 

[Jester4kicks]

I thought about responding to you but you are too far gone.

Agreed! My new year's resolution is to stop bothering with people like Dad.


I know... I know..... but who really thinks they'll accomplish any of their resolutions?

 

[juvenissun]

Now THIS is circular reasoning:

Whoever made this, and whoever quoted this, MUST fail logic 101.

The person simply could not make a complete logic statement.

 

[Chalnoth]

Whoever made this, and whoever quoted this, MUST fail logic 101.

The person simply could not make a complete logic statement.

You do realize that it's a criticism of the circular reasoning involved in stating the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, right?

 

[juvenissun]

You do realize that it's a criticism of the circular reasoning involved in stating the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, right?

Yes, those who made the circular reasoning argument MUST fail logic 101. There is no circular reasoning in it at all, and it is very obvious. Draw a circle and put some texts on it is not the way to show circular reasoning.

 

[Chalnoth]

Yes, those who made the circular reasoning argument MUST fail logic 101.

Speak for yourself there, buddy.

There is no circular reasoning in it at all, and it is very obvious. Draw a circle and put some texts on it is not the way to show circular reasoning.

It's very obvious to me that that picture is an accurate representation of the reasoning that claims that the Bible is God's Word, and is circular reasoning. So, why don't you spell out why this is not circular reasoning?

 

[Split Rock]

I thought about responding to you but you are too far gone.

Now you have learned your first "dad" lesson. Do not waste anymore of your time. Dad represents the ultimate evolutionary form of Creationism. Complete ad hoc rationalization. He cannot be argued with logically.

You are now a better (and happier) person.

 

[Split Rock]

Yes, those who made the circular reasoning argument MUST fail logic 101. There is no circular reasoning in it at all, and it is very obvious. Draw a circle and put some texts on it is not the way to show circular reasoning.

How about this:

The Bible is the word of god, because the bible tells us so. The bible must be believed because it is infallible. It is infallible because it is the word of god. The bible is the word of god, because the bible tells us so. The bible must be believed because it is infallible. It is infallible because it is the word of god. etc.

True or false. I can replace the word "bible" in the above paragraph with any book, and it would be just as "logical."

 

[Hespera]

How about this:

The Bible is the word of god, because the bible tells us so. The bible must be believed because it is infallible. It is infallible because it is the word of god. The bible is the word of god, because the bible tells us so. The bible must be believed because it is infallible. It is infallible because it is the word of god. etc.

True or false. I can replace the word "bible" in the above paragraph with any book, and it would be just as "logical."

if you argue with a fool you must be a fool so the person you are arguing with must be smarter than you, so he is arguing with a fool which makes him a fool.

 

[Chalnoth]

if you argue with a fool you must be a fool so the person you are arguing with must be smarter than you, so he is arguing with a fool which makes him a fool.

Ahhh!! An endless spiral of greater stupidity! Make it stop!

 

[Split Rock]

if you argue with a fool you must be a fool so the person you are arguing with must be smarter than you, so he is arguing with a fool which makes him a fool.

That reminds me of an old Star Trek episode. Kirk and Spock (along with Harry Mudd) are trying to make a cyborg (named Norman) go crazy.

Kirk: "Harry Mudd is a liar. Everything Harry tells you is a lie. Everything he tells you is a lie."
Mudd: " Listen very carefully, Norman. I am lying."
Norman: "You say you are lying... but you always lie... therefore you must be telling the truth... but you cannot tell the truth, because you always lie.... Therefore you must be telling the truth.. but you cannot be because you always lie...."

Soon smoke come out of his ears, and once again, James Kirk defeats the logical computer mind with his superior human abilities! Yeah!

 

[Hespera]

That reminds me of an old Star Trek episode. Kirk and Spock (along with Harry Mudd) are trying to make a cyborg (named Norman) go crazy.

Kirk: "Harry Mudd is a liar. Everything Harry tells you is a lie. Everything he tells you is a lie."
Mudd: " Listen very carefully, Norman. I am lying."
Norman: "You say you are lying... but you always lie... therefore you must be telling the truth... but you cannot tell the truth, because you always lie.... Therefore you must be telling the truth.. but you cannot be because you always lie...."

Soon smoke come out of his ears, and once again, James Kirk defeats the logical computer mind with his superior human abilities! Yeah!

Well I dont know that i want poor juv to blow a fuse but really, the guy does not have both oars in the water. I dunno what would happen to him if someone actually got thru to him that his construct of reality is as cracked as the liberty bell.

(did i leave out any metaphors i could have mixed?)

 

[juvenissun]

Speak for yourself there, buddy.


It's very obvious to me that that picture is an accurate representation of the reasoning that claims that the Bible is God's Word, and is circular reasoning. So, why don't you spell out why this is not circular reasoning?

I learned. I am not taking your bait again. If you don't see it. Too bad. It is 101 level stuff, so ask a TA.

 

[WilliamduBois]

I learned. I am not taking your bait again. If you don't see it. Too bad. It is 101 level stuff, so ask a TA.

Do you believe the Bible is the word of God? If so, how do you know?

 

[juvenissun]

How about this:

1. The Bible is the word of God, because the Bible tells us so.
2. The Bible must be believed because it is infallible.
3. It is infallible because it is the word of God.

Statement 1 and statement 2 are not related at all. That breaks the inference. Statement 3 is a false conclusion after 1 and 2.

This is not even 101 stuff. It belongs to kindergarten level.

 

[juvenissun]

Do you believe the Bible is the word of God? If so, how do you know?

Yes. But it took me more than 10 years to go from baptism to having a weak faith. And it took another 20 years to let the faith grow strong. Of course, I can answer you by saying: the Bible tells me so. But to say that only take 1 second.

To have a strong faith is how I know.

 

[Split Rock]

Statement 1 and statement 2 are not related at all. That breaks the inference. Statement 3 is a false conclusion after 1 and 2.

This is not even 101 stuff. It belongs to kindergarten level.

Statement 2 explains why we know the bible is reliable when the bible says it is the word of God. This is because the bible is infallible. Statement 3 explains why the bible is infallible.

Hey, if you think the logic is broken, then I agree with you! Why then do creationists is this argument all the time here?