Dissecting an actual science article

[Nithavela]

Tell us the meaning of the flower then, grasshopper.

It's a narcis.

 

[Steve Petersen]

Sorry I won't bow the knee to your beliefset. I have my own, thanks. Run if you will...

Why bother. You have a ludicrous belief set all your own.

 

[dad]

It's a narcis.

So?

 

[dad]

Why bother. You have a ludicrous belief set all your own.

Creation is a basic Christian belief.

 

[Jimmy D]

Creation is a basic Christian belief.

And 'different state past' is an ad-hoc explanation with no evidence.

 

[Cute Tink]

 

[dad]

And 'different state past' is an ad-hoc explanation with no evidence.

No it isn't. In any case what has that to do with the topic? You seem to think it is mandatory to adopt a belief set that has no basis, and pretend that is science.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Dad, don't worry about it. God will remove the scales from their eyes (the "strong delusion") in due time. Many must already have a sneaking suspicion that all isn't what science makes it out to be. The deeper their study the more they must see the utter impossibility of it all being a "fortunate accident".

Meanwhile just don't stand near them during a thunderstorm.

 

[dad]

Dad, don't worry about it. God will remove the scales from their eyes (the "strong delusion") in due time. Many must already have a sneaking suspicion that all isn't what science makes it out to be. The deeper their study the more they must see the utter impossibility of it all being a "fortunate accident".

Meanwhile just don't stand near them during a thunderstorm.

Ha. Well, since they preach on the rooftops and shout on TV and documentaries and the news wires and gloat and cavort in wickedness, wringing their hands in glee at how most people blindly swallow their nonsense..I feel some duty to expose the lie.

Apparently many will never ever say uncle and worship the One who created it all...even in the very very end when an angel preaches it to them!

"
Re 14:7 - Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.

 

[Loudmouth]

Did we consider creation? What happened when God created the planet? Did anything liquefy or melt?

Until you state what evidence a planet would have because it was created 6,000 years ago there is simply nothing to consider. You need to make predictions about what we will see in the rocks found on Mercury if they were created, and how those features would differ from a planet that formed 4.5 billion years ago.

It would seem to me that all of the evidence is consistent with exactly what the scientists propose, and all you can do is call them names.

Everything about the so called science claim here shouts religion.

Like what?

 

[Loudmouth]

Creation is a basic Christian belief.

So what do those beliefs predict we should see in these rocks, and how would it differ from a planet that formed through natural processes 4.5 billion years ago?

If you can't answer this simple question, then you are admitting that all of the evidence is consistent with what the scientists are proposing.

 

[Loudmouth]

Ha. Well, since they preach on the rooftops and shout on TV and documentaries and the news wires and gloat and cavort in wickedness, wringing their hands in glee at how most people blindly swallow their nonsense..I feel some duty to expose the lie.

Then expose it. Show us any evidence that contradicts their conclusions.

 

[dad]

Until you state what evidence a planet would have because it was created 6,000 years ago there is simply nothing to consider.

Nothing for the religious to consider, no. The issue here is the so called science article and claims and evidences, and lack thereof. Why would anyone need to 'consider' anything but what God said happened when sillyscience doesn't have the slightest clue?

You need to make predictions about what we will see in the rocks found on Mercury if they were created, and how those features would differ from a planet that formed 4.5 billion years ago.

No. I don't. That is foolish. The point is that we need to know the laws in the past to determine what caused what on mercury! Obviously.

It would seem to me that all of the evidence is consistent with exactly what the scientists propose, and all you can do is call them names.

Of course it would seem that way to religious folks.

 

[dad]

Then expose it. Show us any evidence that contradicts their conclusions.

Done, the exposition lies in the glaring fact that they base it all on the same state past religion, and nothing else whatsoever.

 

[dad]

So what do those beliefs predict we should see in these rocks, and how would it differ from a planet that formed through natural processes 4.5 billion years ago?

If you can't answer this simple question, then you are admitting that all of the evidence is consistent with what the scientists are proposing.

What we should see depends on the state that existed. Since science doesn't know that, all the blather that they foam from the beak about how things got the way they are is worthless drool.

 

[Jimmy D]

What we should see depends on the state that existed. Since science doesn't know that, all the blather that they foam from the beak about how things got the way they are is worthless drool.

Take that Loudmouth!

 

[Loudmouth]

What we should see depends on the state that existed. Since science doesn't know that, . . .

We do know what we should see if there was a same state past. That's the whole point.

 

[Loudmouth]

Done, the exposition lies in the glaring fact that they base it all on the same state past religion, and nothing else whatsoever.

Funny how you try to make something look like your beliefs in order to discredit it.

It isn't a religion to predict what a same state past would produce. That would be science.

 

[dad]

We do know what we should see if there was a same state past. That's the whole point.

I do know. We should see exactly what history and Scripture record. Do not try to project your ignorance on others.

 

[dad]

Funny how you try to make something look like your beliefs in order to discredit it.

My beliefs are grounded in the proven fact of Scripture. Sp called science is really foolish demon talk based on diddly squat.

It isn't a religion to predict what a same state past would produce. That would be science.

Don't abuse the word 'predict'. Looking at what actually exists and was part of creation, and trying to associate that with some sick baseless fable is not predicting, it is usurping.