Absurdities of so called science

[dad]

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




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.

Strange, that denial leads some to seem to actually believe what they say. Lurkers, take note that the same state past has never been proved, and I have dealt with every issue ever raised trying to do so, easily. Not much harder than swatting flies, really, dealing with the little doubts, and assumptions that they can muster.

Do I see you talking about the article I just listed on black holes getting shot full of holes? No. Do I see you proving that the future or past must be in a same state? No. I usually see silly pics from you, not much more. Try to face reality. That is what is going on.

 

[dad]

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.

You are welcome to believe what you like. Of course. However, the present is used as the key to the past, in science, and it is only assumed that the present state existed as is, with present laws. Without that, all bets are off. I have proven in years of threads on different forums that no on, no scientist, no anybody can prove that a same state past existed. In case you don't quite grasp the magnitude of what that means yet, the rug has been jerked out from under them.

 

[dad]

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.

The creation debate is NOT defined within the perceptions of Hovind and Ross. They both share the same wrong premise as so called science, but try to justify faith in God, or the bible from within that fishbowl. It is inevitable that they would disagree.

I used to lean on flood geology, and creationists explanations, till I, too, found that something was wrong. But what is wrong is so basic, that it happens to be what is wrong in science, that is so called science, as well. I do not get bitter, and blame them for ripping me off. I do not consider tossing out my faith because they are wrong.

There were 2 choices,

1) find out where everyone was going wrong.
or
2) Wrap it up in a bundle of faith, and forget about it all, trust God, and we will one day know!


I chose option 1. Thankfully, it provided the victory.

 

[dad]

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

Correct! As you perceive, the new found faith in so called science also rests on faith. And be sure it will come under heavy fire, and be destroyed in God's good time.

Better to build our houses upon the rock, not the sand.

 

[MoonLancer]

I chose option 1. Thankfully, it provided the victory.

yeah... who's consequence and be felt, even today? You have provided nothing except blindly waring against a reality that you find hostile to your rigid theology that can no longer function in todays world.

 

[Danyc]

Correct! As you perceive, the new found faith in so called science also rests on faith. And be sure it will come under heavy fire, and be destroyed in God's good time.

As I perceive?

We must have very different definitions of "faith", dad.

 

[dad]

yeah... who's consequence and be felt, even today? You have provided nothing except blindly waring against a reality that you find hostile to your rigid theology that can no longer function in todays world.

On the wonderful contrary, there is nothing blind about seeing crystal clearly that no same state is proven, in the far past, or future, nor indeed can be, and that ALL so called science REQUIRES that. That is not disputable, and anyone that can read can see that no one here or anywhere will provide us with the same state past they blindly believe in and preach!

My beliefs function perfectly here, as believers have always done in any situation! Thank you very much. What cannot fly is the claims, assumptions, and godless lying fables of so called science here! That is clear.

And anyone that dares to do more than hand wave, and blow fluff, and bluff charge, will find that out, when they try to put something on the table. Be certain of that.

Kids, it is OK to have faith after all.

 

[Jester4kicks]

Strange, that denial leads some to seem to actually believe what they say. Lurkers, take note that the same state past has never been proved, and I have dealt with every issue ever raised trying to do so, easily. Not much harder than swatting flies, really, dealing with the little doubts, and assumptions that they can muster.

Dismissing fact is easy when you're willing to ignore all evidence and invent rediculous ideas without any substantiating evidence whatsoever.

Do I see you talking about the article I just listed on black holes getting shot full of holes? No. Do I see you proving that the future or past must be in a same state? No. I usually see silly pics from you, not much more. Try to face reality. That is what is going on.

I saw the article... I simply have no desire to discuss it with you. You're not interested in discussion. You're only interested in trying to pull any little tidbit of information that you think "undermines" current scientific thought.

What you repeatedly fail to realize is that any real scientist would readily welcome real evidence that contradicts a well-established theory. Not only would it have major ramifications for the community, it would mean major money and fame for the scientist.

But we've been over this... and you just continue to troll with your same tired comments. It's old, sad, and boring.

 

[dad]

Dismissing fact is easy when you're willing to ignore all evidence and invent rediculous ideas without any substantiating evidence whatsoever.

Obviously, when you dismiss the fact you have no facts that prove a required same state past, it is truly ridiculous, as well as against the biblical account. You need a lot more than that. I dismiss nothing, ever. I do not dismiss decay, or light speed, or anything. Me and science are buds.

I saw the article... I simply have no desire to discuss it with you. You're not interested in discussion. You're only interested in trying to pull any little tidbit of information that you think "undermines" current scientific thought.

Sorry you don't like godless thought to be undermined. I suggest you get over it. It ain't going away.

What you repeatedly fail to realize is that any real scientist would readily welcome real evidence that contradicts a well-established theory. Not only would it have major ramifications for the community, it would mean major money and fame for the scientist.

What you fail to admit and see is that the only evidence that a "real" scientists can allow is fishbowl, present state evidence, and that only applies to the future or far past by assumption. Really.


So pony up, or forgive the lurkers for seeing the obvious here. That's just how it is.

 

[Gracchus]

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

So high education, (Beyond the third grade apparently!), is wicked?

Anything that opposes, and exalts it's little self against the science (knowledge) of GOD!!

You are the one who threatens to kick God's keister if he tells you that you are wrong! Even AV1611VET would only tell him to take a hike!

 

[dad]

So high education, (Beyond the third grade apparently!), is wicked?

No, learning is a good thing. But the higher education, so called, where they specialize in present state far past fantasy worlds, and Freudian incest dreams, and imaginary creations, and relatives being worms, is a direct link to hell. Time to look for a different matrix.

You are the one who threatens to kick God's keister if he tells you that you are wrong! Even AV1611VET would only tell him to take a hike!

That will never be needed, any more than your fantasy future, where you burn ouut all things, stars, sun, and earth! Relax.

 

[Gracchus]

You have been told before, dad, that science doesn't and can't prove things. It can however, disprove things.

Now science can explain, very well indeed, how the Earth was formed, and how life arose and evolved. It does so without invoking either magic or miracles. In short, science can explain without invoking a "split universe". It is up to you to provide evidence that a "split universe" is required to explain the way the world is.

Science is the heavy weight champion, with many achievements. You are the seventy-nine pound weakling challenger. Bring on your evidence. It is the challenger's responsibility to carry the fight to the champ.

And, before you make the claim, God isn't in your corner, God is the referee.

I think you should throw in the towel.

 

[dad]

You have been told before, dad, that science doesn't and can't prove things. It can however, disprove things.

You tell us squat, by the way. The evidence speaks for itself, and the same state past has none. Fancy that! Now I double dog dare you to EITHER prove, or disprove that! Lurkers, this laugh is on me. Cheers.

Now science can explain, very well indeed, how the Earth was formed,

Untrue, that is same state baloney. They can talk of a same past state dreamscape! So?!

and how life arose and evolved. It does so without invoking either magic or miracles. In short, science can explain without invoking a "split universe". It is up to you to provide evidence that a "split universe" is required to explain the way the world is.

Of course they evoke nothing else than a same state past! They are the seventy-nine pound weakling challenger. Bring on your evidence. It is the challenger's responsibility to carry the fight to the champ. The champ is not one that declares an imaginary same state past they can't prove!!! This is news!??

And, before you make the claim, God isn't in your corner, God is the referee.

Before you go on, how woulld you know!!?? get a grip, man. Be honest.

I think you should throw in the towel.

Maybe I should throw in the towel, with the white glove! Give the evos something to mop their brows with, while contemplating the glaring fact that they can't support the foundational lying godless premise that their fables rest on!

How sweet it is!

 

[AirPo]

You tell us squat, by the way. The evidence speaks for itself, and the same state past has none. Fancy that! Now I double dog dare you to EITHER prove, or disprove that! Lurkers, this laugh is on me. Cheers.

Untrue, that is same state baloney. They can talk of a same past state dreamscape! So?!



Of course they evoke nothing else than a same state past! They are the seventy-nine pound weakling challenger. Bring on your evidence. It is the challenger's responsibility to carry the fight to the champ. The champ is not one that declares an imaginary same state past they can't prove!!! This is news!??
Before you go on, how woulld you know!!?? get a grip, man. Be honest.

Maybe I should throw in the towel, with the white glove! Give the evos something to mop their brows with, while contemplating the glaring fact that they can't support the foundational lying godless premise that their fables rest on!

How sweet it is!

The HI theory in action!

 

[Jester4kicks]

Obviously, when you dismiss the fact you have no facts that prove a required same state past, it is truly ridiculous, as well as against the biblical account. You need a lot more than that. I dismiss nothing, ever. I do not dismiss decay, or light speed, or anything. Me and science are buds.

Sorry, stopped reading after that. I just figured dad out. I'll explain in a moment.

Sorry you don't like godless thought to be undermined. I suggest you get over it. It ain't going away.

Actually, it is. That's the best part. Atheism and agnosticism are on the rise... have been for a while now, and will continue to grow as more people realize it's not some terrible social taboo to be atheist.

People like you are becoming fewer and fewer in number. If that's not evidence of ongoing evolution, I'm not sure what is.

What you fail to admit and see is that the only evidence that a "real" scientists can allow is fishbowl, present state evidence, and that only applies to the future or far past by assumption. Really.

So, as I said earlier in this post, I finally figured dad out.

Dad, here's what it comes down to.

-Science has shown certain basic laws to be consistent and constant (i.e. the speed of light in a vacuum).
-In some cases, science has shown some things not to be constant, but still consistent (i.e. predictable in their variations). Good tests (and the resulting theories) account for this, otherwise they would quickly be disproven.
-To confirm this uniformity (or in some cases, lack thereof), scientists constantly run experiments and attempt to make predictions about the results. If the predictions are consistently confirmed, then the basis for making those predictions can be considered sound. If the predictions don't match the results, we have to go back to the drawing board and see where we went wrong.

It's all a process.

-What YOU are trying to do is just to say (essentially) that since we weren't there to witness it, we can't know what happened. However scientists regularly make predictions and run experiments on things we cannot see, or could not have seen. Just because we didn't see the tree fall in the forest, it doesn't mean we can't run experiments and tests to determine why it fell.

-Instead, you throw out this idea that the physical laws of the universe were different at some point in the past. Unfortunately, there's absolutely no solid evidence to support your own position... and the only reason you have invented it is to discredit scientific explanations that contradict your personal translation of a religious text.

What you don't seem to understand, dad, is that we would all LOVE to see you prove your position. It would have amazing effects on the scientific community. Unfortunately for you, there simply is no solid evidence to support your position.

 

[AV1611VET]

Jester, I just noticed you are a Taoist, and I've always wanted to ask a Taoist this question:

What caused Hurricane Katrina?

 

[Jester4kicks]

Jester, I just noticed you are a Taoist, and I've always wanted to ask a Taoist this question:

What caused Hurricane Katrina?

Not actually a Taoist... but it was about as close as I could get.

Would you like a Taoist answer, or a scientific one?

 

[AV1611VET]

Would you like a Taoist answer, or a scientific one?

Taoist.

 

[Jester4kicks]

Taoist.

Why does the wind blow? It is the wind.

Why does rain fall? It is rain.

Why does the ocean rise and fall? It is the ocean.




(BTW, that's not meant to be mysterious... and I'm certianly no sage. It's simply a taoist response to a simple question)

 

[AV1611VET]

Why does the wind blow? It is the wind.

Why does rain fall? It is rain.

Why does the ocean rise and fall? It is the ocean.




(BTW, that's not meant to be mysterious... and I'm certianly no sage. It's simply a taoist response to a simple question)

Not actually a Taoist...

Okay --- I believe you.