Absurdities of so called science

[MoonLancer]

Every single thing anyone believes is based on something, or should be. The problem with so called science, is that they have simply made stuff up, based on nothing but imagination.

Project much?

so hows the war on science going?

 

[dad]

Project much?

so hows the war on science going?

The actual knowledge of man is what science is about. The fables that are usually thought of as a part of science, is what I object to, when it is force fed to us.

So called science is at war with real science! I have no qualms with science, any more than a lemming that might be heading toward a cliff. It simply won't last long, if these heavens are temporary.

The science, and knowledge of the eternal realities to come is so far and above man's science of today, that it can only be termed foolishness, and that is a compliment!

WHAT CHRISTIANS WAR AGAINST IS SPIRITUAL WICKEDNESS IN HIGH PLACES, LIKE HIGH EDUCATION. Anything that opposes, and exalts it's little self against the science (knowledge) of GOD!!

 

[dad]

Sure they can. The fact that you can't accept any explanation that doesn't incorporate your little fairy tale simply prevents you from understanding anything outside of that fairy tale.

That is easy to say if one does not want to debate in a serious way. But I have outlined some absurdities of science here in the thread, and you do not address them. The explanations are clearly shown to be present based backwards extrapolations! Nothing else squashes up the whole universe to a speck!! Really. Nothing at all. We can all relax, seeing the basis of the fables!

Here is a bit of nitty gritty for you, now why not try to talk science here, and what is actually going on??

"Where did the universe's biggest black holes come from? One idea suggests the behemoths began as smaller "seed" black holes that gobbled up surrounding gas. But new computer simulations suggest these seeds were born with practically nothing around them to eat, deepening the puzzle over how the biggest black holes came to be. ...

How these supermassive black holes grew so big so fast has been a major puzzle.

...Let's just suppose this simulation result makes the formation of SBHs from such seeds very unlikely. Are there other reasonable possibilities?

Sure there are. One is that black holes don't exist at all, ..."

http://scienceandreason.blogspot.com/2008/06/mystery-deepens-over-origin-of-biggest.html


Did you really think I was kidding?!!!


How sweet it is!

 

[Split Rock]

What is really absurd is that this thread is still alive after 963 posts.

Please stop the insanity.

Thank you.

 

[Danyc]

For some reason, dad seems to believe that science is meant to be perfect and omniscient and right about everything.

 

[dad]

For some reason, dad seems to believe that science is meant to be perfect and omniscient and right about everything.

Not at all is that remotely close to a third cousin twice removed, and long separated from the truth. Science does not need to do anything but learn what it is it talks about, when it claims to overrule the word of God. SO called science, that merely dabbles in the dark art of dreaming up fables, of universes in a speck, and black holes with nothing to eat, and all plant and vegetable life being spawned from some crevice of imagination, etc.. really does need to be put in it's place.

Kids, be aware that that place is in the realm of myths. That ought to send a shock wave reverberating through the halls of not so hallowed so called higher education!

My earnest hope, is that is shakes it into powder, in time!

Let the truth go marching on.

 

[MoonLancer]

WHAT CHRISTIANS WAR AGAINST IS SPIRITUAL WICKEDNESS IN HIGH PLACES, LIKE HIGH EDUCATION.

LOL!!!! kill the doctors, and the inventors, and the dreamers and and the thinkers and all those that oppose god!!!

 

[Jester4kicks]

That is easy to say if one does not want to debate in a serious way.

Well of course it is. I learned from the master though.

But I have outlined some absurdities of science here in the thread, and you do not address them. The explanations are clearly shown to be present based backwards extrapolations! Nothing else squashes up the whole universe to a speck!! Really. Nothing at all. We can all relax, seeing the basis of the fables!

Here is a bit of nitty gritty for you, now why not try to talk science here, and what is actually going on??

Nope. Not going there with you anymore. You feign interest in actual debate until you are confronted with the reality of your statements. Once you can no longer make an intelligent remark based on the facts, you fall back on your "different state past" nonsense.

It's sad, and really not interesting anymore.

 

[thaumaturgy]

...

 

[thaumaturgy]

LOL!!!! kill the doctors, and the inventors, and the dreamers and and the thinkers and all those that oppose god!!!

Only the "Spiritually wicked" ones. Someone should set up an "Inquisition" to ensure spiritual cleanliness of science practitioners. Make sure they toe the line and do not wander into heresy!

 

[thaumaturgy]

...

 

[Danyc]

Not at all is that remotely close to a third cousin twice removed, and long separated from the truth. Science does not need to do anything but learn what it is it talks about, when it claims to overrule the word of God. SO called science, that merely dabbles in the dark art of dreaming up fables, of universes in a speck, and black holes with nothing to eat, and all plant and vegetable life being spawned from some crevice of imagination, etc.. really does need to be put in it's place.

Kids, be aware that that place is in the realm of myths. That ought to send a shock wave reverberating through the halls of not so hallowed so called higher education!

My earnest hope, is that is shakes it into powder, in time!

Let the truth go marching on.

You might be taken more seriously if you presented more than empty, emotionally charged words that sound nice but mean nothing.

Why don't you try and present facts for your argument in plain speech?

 

[adimus]

I believe that science has pretty much overwhelmingly proven evolution and the big bang. I also believe in the Bible. I think that God created and creates everything via natural process and evolution. I also don't think it is wise to search for scientific evidence of God's intervention in science. I believe this verse should be prescribed to the creationist movements:

Hebrews 11:3 By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.

The "hows" of creation is the realm of science. Science was not a part of Moses' world. Now the world is much different. Sure God is the creator. But how He did it is not explained in the Bible. And there is PLENTY of wiggle room in the creation accounts to conclude that they were not intended to be taken as literal and scientific. They are non literal lessons about God.

 

[Danyc]

Very well put, Adimus. However, be prepared have your faith questioned.

 

[Jester4kicks]

Very well put, Adimus. However, be prepared have your faith questioned.

Why? There's nothing to scientifically question about faith.

He's right about the "how's"... he just forgot to mention that religion has its own place with the "why's".

From what I can tell, the only thing in his post that was actually controversial was his statement about the bible not being literal... but I doubt anyone from the scientific community is going to yell at him over that.

 

[adimus]

Very well put, Adimus. However, be prepared have your faith questioned.

Seriously. I have not told anyone in my church about this or even my own wife yet.

I have been faithfully reading ICR's monthly issues since 1997. I have read a number of Creationists books. I watched Dr Dino's videos numerous times over the years enough to memorize them. I enjoyed that sort of thing in my spare time.

But a few months ago I actually took the time to hear out the other side. I talked to people on forums and read a few books. I read rebuttals from evolutionists.

It all really sort of started to get to me in a more serious way when I watched a debate between Hovind and Ross. That was a real eye opener. Both could not be right. And I know the Bible quite well. So I know that either the creation account in Gen are literal or they are not. There is no compromised medium to suit our science. When I saw that YEC was in blatant denial of a lot of hard science and that OEC was really being creative (no pun intended) with the words of scripture, I objectively gave evolution its fair chance. Turned out I was in for a real shock!

It took a while to really let it settle in my heart. Then I had to look into Genesis again for the first time. I had to allow for a radically different approach to it. I had to also allow that it contains a lot of reasons to be considered myth/allegory/non literal. That was hard to admit. I am extremely hesitant to confess this to anyone I know.

I feel cheated by the various YEC ministries and what they have indoctrinated many Christians with in the name of what is falsely called science. Who is anyone to declare one's views about science as foundational to the faith? There is a reason why this issue is not dealt with in any of the church creeds or in the New Testament.

 

[Danyc]

Why? There's nothing to scientifically question about faith.

He's right about the "how's"... he just forgot to mention that religion has its own place with the "why's".

From what I can tell, the only thing in his post that was actually controversial was his statement about the bible not being literal... but I doubt anyone from the scientific community is going to yell at him over that.

Not from the scientists here, from the Christians. Specifically the dads and the Inans.

 

[Danyc]

I understand the feeling, Adimus.

My family probably isn't as religious as yours, but my sister thought I was an atheist for a while because I disagreed with our vicar (as if he would know anything about it) concerning evolution. I have since made her understand, however, that evolution is not impossible to reconcile with faith. I hate this false dichotomy that gets pushed around so much, what with "atheistic evolution", it makes Theistic evolutionists' jobs so much harder. Especially when people you know start to doubt your faith because of it.


The whole thing is ridiculous.

 

[adimus]

I understand the feeling, Adimus.

My family probably isn't as religious as yours, but my sister thought I was an atheist for a while because I disagreed with our vicar (as if he would know anything about it) concerning evolution. I have since made her understand, however, that evolution is not impossible to reconcile with faith. I hate this false dichotomy that gets pushed around so much, what with "atheistic evolution", it makes Theistic evolutionists' jobs so much harder. Especially when people you know start to doubt your faith because of it.


The whole thing is ridiculous.

No kidding. If I could take Dawkins and Hovind back in time to the Roman arenas, I would be tempted to cheer on the gladiatorial combat! Kidding.

But seriously. I wish these polarized sides could grow up and get over their fundamentalism. Dawkins swears he is not a fundamentalist. But I question that one.

 

[dad]

LOL!!!! kill the doctors, and the inventors, and the dreamers and and the thinkers and all those that oppose god!!!

Not at all, firstly, we wrestle NOT against flesh and blood, just the lies. Secondly doctors, and inventors generally do not get involved in the fable aspects of science, dealing in the nether worlds of never never lands in the dreamscapes of the never was same state past.

Don't think it gives respectability to so called science, to try to ride on the coat tails of doctors, and smart men, working within the realms of actual science!