Absurdities of so called science

[gaara4158]

"pit", LOL, No. I just thought I had stumbled across two Creationists actually agreeing on Creation. I know, hilarious, right? Silly old me...



It appears you were right.



Well, sure but in this forum, We're discussing evolution and Creationism, not Christ and the Crucifixion. Its incredibly telling that you both lecture on about the ignorance and short-sightedness of science, all the while holding to mutually exclusive positions on the age of the Earth with respect to Genesis (worse, you disagree on whether such a fact is even knowable), and yet remain the best of buddies, perhaps only because you both have the same compulsive net-addiction of arguing with atheists.



But they do... The 'variances' are so gross and wide-ranging, you are foolish to ignore them, as they undermine the credibility of each individual Creationist. Reading through even just the threads on page one, you get no fewer than six different Creationist opinions on the age of the Earth, and yet only one from science.
Taken as a whole, the Creationist positions leave a person with the impression that actual answers aren't at all significant. What's important to a Creationist is that the answer be preceded with the magic words "Praise Jesus!!!" and be concluded with the other magic words "God did it, Amen." Make up any old story to put in between, and its just fine with you lot. Sorry, but that's no Higher Standard. In fact, that's no standard, at all.

This.

 

[atomweaver]

I understand the position. Just as I understand the position of some, that the creation week was mostly a recreation week, so to speak. But I think you know my position on the different state.

So then, all your harsh words on the stupidity of presuming one can know about the different state are all reserved for scientists, alone. Got it. You know the conclusion that this leaves lurkers with, right? You don't or won't defend your notions from other Creationists, because those notions are actually completely unimportant to you.

You don't bother with AVVET, because he puts the magic words you so love to hear before and after whatever he says, it gives him immunity to your criticism.

In all cases, it leaves God as a creator, and Jesus as His son, and the bible, for the most part, as true.

(Bold emphasis mine.) Wow, and that's OK with you? You hold fellow Creationists to a lower standard with respect to the Bible than atheistic scientists, then. If any atheist here steps one whit out of line with your interpretation of the Bible, its "get over it" this and "fishbowl science" that... Never thought I'd see the day where you'd capitulate so with respect to the Bible. Those magic words have quite the effect on you, dad.

The fine tuning as to why it appears to be at odds with science is the only issue.

And again? "appears to be"; another softening of your position. You too, weaken your position on scientific matters, so long as whatever is said is preceded by "Praise Jesus" and concluded with "God
did it, Amen!".

 

[atomweaver]

That's how it works, Tom --- we'll always have our disagreements, but it'll all work out in the end.

That's where Creationism differs from science. In science, disagreements are resolved with facts. We don't wait for 'the end' for someone else to 'work [it] out'...

 

[AV1611VET]

And again? "appears to be"; another softening of your position. You too, weaken your position on scientific matters, so long as whatever is said is preceded by "Praise Jesus" and concluded with "God
did it, Amen!".

What's your hang-up, anyway?

We don't tell you there are 25 elements in the Periodic Table one year, then change it to 35 the next, then discover 15 the next, etc.

We don't teach phlogiston one year, then find out it's junk science the next.

We don't call Pluto a planet one year, then a Dwarf Planet the next.

In short --- we don't change with the weather.

We may not agree with each other, but do you scientists?

We claim scientists are gifts from God - do you claim Christians are gifts to science?

 

[AV1611VET]

That's where Creationism differs from science.

The Creation and science have nothing to do with each other --- nothing. How can they differ? Current scientific paradigms were not even in operation in Genesis 1.

In science, disagreements are resolved with facts.

Is that so?

Is that why Pluto was voted on --- and voted on by a minority --- and voted on by a minority with some scientists even voting against it?

 

[gaara4158]

In short --- we don't change with the weather.

By never changing, you risk being wrong forever.
Scientific knowledge is always changing, because we are always discovering new data. The wonderful thing about that is that we never have to stuff facts that don't match our theories into the closet or under the rug; we change the theories, not the facts.
Creationism does the exact opposite. No matter what data presents itself, you stand by the story the shepherds made up thousands of years ago. How one can take any pride in that is beyond me.

 

[gaara4158]

Is that so?

Is that why Pluto was voted on --- and voted on by a minority --- and voted on by a minority with some scientists even voting against it?

Rule #1: Always bring up Pluto when in a tough spot.
For the millionth time, AV, we realized that we didn't have a solid definition for "planet," so we solidified it and it turned out that Pluto didn't make the cut. Defitions, not facts, can be voted on.

 

[AV1611VET]

By never changing, you risk being wrong forever.
Scientific knowledge is always changing, because we are always discovering new data. The wonderful thing about that is that we never have to stuff facts that don't match our theories into the closet or under the rug; we change the theories, not the facts.
Creationism does the exact opposite. No matter what data presents itself, you stand by the story the shepherds made up thousands of years ago. How one can take any pride in that is beyond me.

We don't call it pride though --- we call it faith.

 

[AV1611VET]

Rule #1: Always bring up Pluto when in a tough spot.
For the millionth time, AV, we realized that we didn't have a solid definition for "planet," so we solidified it and it turned out that Pluto didn't make the cut. Defitions, not facts, can be voted on.

Please don't overlook my point --- they were voted against as well.

What other words in the dictionary have definitions by vote?

And again --- a little off-topic --- but let me make this excellent point again:

I find it a little too coincidental that every single "scientist" on this site (that I've talked to, anyway) seems to automatically agree with the vote --- hands down --- no questions asked --- no research done.

Shall I bring up my Mariana Trench thread again?

 

[Chalnoth]

We don't call it pride though --- we call it faith.

Changing the word you use is a PR move. It's not a move that actually changes the reality of the situation.

 

[AV1611VET]

Changing the word you use is a PR move. It's not a move that actually changes the reality of the situation.

Changing the word FAITH to PRIDE --- then stating that "it is beyond" me is indeed a move that changes the reality of the situation.

It's a wonder you guys don't go bald scratching your heads so much.

Which verse is the right one?

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.

Through pride 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.

 

[gaara4158]

Please don't overlook my point --- they were voted against as well.

Yeah... so?

What other words in the dictionary have definitions by vote?

Are you saying that words are objective now? Words are arbitrary and change over time. We saw fit that the definition of "planet" change because it was previously not specific enough. You'll probably never understand, but that's not our problem

I find it a little too coincidental that every single "scientist" on this site (that I've talked to, anyway) seems to automatically agree with the vote --- hands down --- no questions asked --- no research done.

You automatically assume that we're all scientists, all agree, and all accepted it without research. You're wrong on all these assumptions. I personally disagreed with them at first; I figured Pluto had been a part of our culture for too long and it would be crazy to take away its planet status now. Now that they have, however, I have to say their reasons make sense. You should stop sulking about it.

Shall I bring up my Mariana Trench thread again?

All you should do is take a quick glance at that thread, and you'll see us trying so hard to explain peer review, independent studies, and the scientific method to you, and you stubbornly refusing to hear any of it.

I guess we can only lead a horse to water...

 

[gaara4158]

We don't call it pride though --- we call it faith.

I figured you'd try to squirm out of that one using PR. The reality is, you have no case.

 

[gaara4158]

Changing the word FAITH to PRIDE --- then stating that "it is beyond" me is indeed a move that changes the reality of the situation.

It's a wonder you guys don't go bald scratching your heads so much.

Which verse is the right one?

Irony meter anyone?

 

[AV1611VET]

All you should do is take a quick glance at that thread, and you'll see us trying so hard to explain peer review, independent studies, and the scientific method to you, and you stubbornly refusing to hear any of it.

Show me Pluto's:

1. peer review
2. independent studies
3. scientific method

Don't tell me I shouldn't overlook those things, when others are out there voting on stuff.

If Pluto's peer review, independent studies, and scientific method are so convincing, why was it voted on?

And --- yet again --- let me point out that "scientists" here in this forum are taking it on faith that the vote was correct.

Tell me I'm wrong.

 

[AV1611VET]

I figured you'd try to squirm out of that one using PR. The reality is, you have no case.

I don't need to squirm, Gaara --- not when I can back it up with Documentation.

 

[gaara4158]

Don't tell me I shouldn't overlook those things, when others are out there voting on stuff.

If Pluto's peer review, independent studies, and scientific method are so convincing, why was it voted on?

If you researched it for yourself, you'd find that the issue is not Pluto. Scientists all agree on its mineral compound, its orbit, its rotation, etc. That's the result of peer review, independent studies, and the scientific method. The vote was not on facts, but on classification. I wouldn't expect you to notice the difference, because it's all science, which can take a hike -- right?

And --- yet again --- let me point out that "scientists" here in this forum are taking it on faith that the vote was correct.

There is no objective "correct" in definitions. It's all arbitrary.

So yeah. You're wrong.

 

[gaara4158]

I don't need to squirm, Gaara --- not when I can back it up with Documentation.

You can capitalize all the words you want; you've already admitted that there's no reason other than pure, unsupported faith to accept your POV.

 

[AV1611VET]

If you researched it for yourself, you'd find that the issue is not Pluto.

Why should I research it, when you guys don't even research it? (Except, of course, you claim you did.)

Scientists all agree on its mineral compound, its orbit, its rotation, etc.

Are you telling me that just before they voted, they sat down to make sure they all agreed on its mineral compound, it's orbit, its rotation, etc.?

That's the result of peer review, independent studies, and the scientific method.

Good for peer review. Are they looking for a YOOHOO! from outer space because something passed peer review?

The vote was not on facts, but on classification. I wouldn't expect you to notice the difference, because it's all science, which can take a hike -- right?

What I have noticed, is the seemingly 100% acknowledgment from the people on this site of something that was voted on by a small minority, even though the minority itself wasn't 100% in agreement.

Do you not see the point I'm making here, Gaara?

 

[BananaSlug]

So if a Christian came in here and said that evolution is compatible with the Bible and a belief in Jesus Christ would you tell him he's wrong? Apparently the differences between Dad's and AV's cosmology/creation doesn't matter when it comes to faith in Jesus. Would a theist evolutionist get the same respect? Would AV debate with a theistic evolutionist?