Help

[AV1611VET]

Absolute bunk. A few amino acids are all that is required to form a three-dimentional surface. All an enzyme had to do (most proteins are enzymes) is to increase the rate of a reaction that would occur in its absense anyway. Even a small increase in rate of reaction would be selected for. A small cleft with a negative charge, for example, would be enough to serve as a catalyst. That hardly requires 75 amino acids.

Good deal --- in 5 minutes, I'm sure I'll have forgotten everything you just said.

 

[Tomk80]

Well we should be in light of:

• [bible]Ephesians 4:4-6[/bible]

But unfortunately, we have an adversary that's skilled in divide-and-conquer tactics.

uhuh.

I always shake my head when I hear something like that.

Translation: I've been there, done that, heard it all. Anything I've never heard before, it's because some rogue wack-o is saying it. After all, I'm so knowledgeable in the different denominations in existence...

Yada yada.

Then show me how you are not a group of one AV?

Which denominations hold that the KJV is more accurate then the original hebrew? Which denominations hold your confused position on the age of the universe?

You claim that science is invalid because scientists discuss and disagree on which positions are more valid or not. But you don't apply that same reasoning to your own faith. As always, you are inconsistent in your reasoning.

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

You don’t believe the earth is the center of the universe any more do you?

Center-of-Mass or Center-of-Preference?

Or located at the center. Depends on your interpretation doesn't it?

 

[Baggins]

They may not hoot like an owl, but they have one doosey of a family album.
The word I'm grasping for is "scientist".
Says you.
No --- I got it right the first time --- thanks, anyway.

Do you just call anyone who disagrees with your own little world view a scientist?

Anyhoo: if you don't even know what the difference between a scientist and an historian is I can help you, you don't have to live in ignorance:

Definition of scientist:

sci·en·tist (sī'ən-tĭst)
n. A person having expert knowledge of one or more sciences, especially a natural or physical science.


scientist

IN BRIEF: A person who studies nature or the universe; an expert in such areas of knowledge as chemistry, biology, physiology


The noun scientist has one meaning:
Meaning #1: a person with advanced knowledge of one of more sciences


from wikipedia:

Types of scientists

• Astronomers (including astrophysicists)
• Biologists (including botanists, entomologists, evolutionary biologists, geneticists, herpetologists, ichthyologists, lepidopterists, microbiologists, neuroscientists, ornithologists, pharmacologists, virologists, and zoologists)
• Chemists (including biochemists)
• Computer scientists
• Ecologists (including hydrologists, limnologists, and toxicologists)
• Social scientists (including anthropologists, demographers, economists, political economists, political scientists, psychologists, and sociologists)
• Linguists
• Geologists (including mineralogists, seismologists, and volcanologists)
• Mathematicians
• Physicists
• Farther afield: some inventors. Charles Goodyear (co-)discovered vulcanization of rubber, but he had no formal training and his work was haphazard. Was Thomas Edison a scientist?

See also

• Science
• History of science (and the Category: History of science)
• Biography
• Natural science
• Social science
• Nobel Prize
• Fields Medal
• Pseudoscience
• Mad scientist

Related lists

• List of engineers
• List of mathematicians
• List of scientists

I wouldn't even agree with that list as it is too broad, linguists aren't scientists and neither are social scientists, but no mention of historians or archaeologists.

A scientist is an expert in at least one area of science who uses the scientific method to do research. William Whewell coined the word in 1833 at the request of the poet Coleridge. Before that scientists were termed "natural philosophers" or "men of science".


Now I can't see anything inthere about studying ancient civilisations.



Now shall we see what it says about historians:


his·to·ri·an (hĭ-stôr'ē-ən, -stōr'-, -stŏr'-)
n.

1. A writer, student, or scholar of history.
2. One who writes or compiles a chronological record of events; a chronicler

historian is someone who writes history, and history is a written accounting of the past. If events precede recorded history, the term is prehistory. Although "historian" can be used to describe amateur and professional historians alike, it is now often reserved for people whose work is recognized in academia, particularly those who have acquired graduate degrees in the discipline.

Historical analysis

The process of historical analysis is a difficult one, involving investigation and analysis of competing ideas, facts and purported facts to create coherent narratives that explain "what happened" and "why or how it happened". Modern historical analysis usually draws upon most of the other social sciences, including economics, sociology, politics, psychology, philosophy and linguistics, in order to ensure that these narratives will start from the beginning of the world. These prefaces are usually of much less historical interest. While ancient writers do not normally share modern historical practices, their work remains valuable for its insights within the cultural context of the times.
An important part of the contribution of many modern historians is the verification or, as revisionist history, the dismissal of earlier historical accounts through reviewing newly discovered sources and recent scholarship or through parallel disciplines such as archaeology.

Not any mention of the scientific method there.


Let's look at archaeologist as well, because that is often lumped in with scientist, but they don't really use the scientific method.

from wikipedia:
Archaeology is the study of human culture using artifacts—material remains from humans in the past. In the Old World, archaeology has tended to focus on the study of physical remains, the methods used in recovering them and the theoretical and philosophical underpinnings in achieving the subject's goals. The discipline's roots in antiquarianism and the study of Latin and Ancient Greek provided it with a natural affinity with the field of history. In the the United States and, increasingly, in other parts of the world, archaeology is more commonly devoted to the study of human societies and is treated as one of the four subfields of Anthropology. The other subfields of anthropology supplement the findings of archaeology in a holistic manner. These subfields are cultural anthropology, which studies behavioural, symbolic, and material dimensions of culture; linguistics, which studies language, including the origins of language and language groups; and physical anthropology, which includes the study of human evolution and physical and genetic characteristics. Other disciplines also supplement archaeology, such as paleontology, paleozoology, paleoethnobotany, paleobotany, geography, geology, art history, and classics. Archaeology has been described as a craft that enlists the sciences to illuminate the humanities. The American archaeologist Walter Taylor asserted in his major work "A Study of Archeology" (1948, American Anthropological Association) that "Archaeology is neither history nor anthropology. As an autonomous discipline, it consists of a method and a set of specialised techniques for the gathering, or 'production' of cultural information".



LOOK! the word science is in there.

But it calls it a craft that enlists the sciences so it is a craft.

There aresciences listed in the fields that supplement archaeology.


So perhaps we could find a scientist that gave two hoots about the Hittites, but that wouldn't be the reason he was a scientist.

 

[Baggins]

Good deal --- in 5 minutes, I'm sure I'll have forgotten everything you just said.

Are you proud of that?

 

[AV1611VET]

Then show me how you are not a group of one AV?

It's in my profile what I am --- Independent Fundamental Baptist.

Which denominations hold that the KJV is more accurate then the original hebrew?

Beats me --- even I don't say that. Genesis 1:1 written around 4003 BC is just as accurate as Genesis 1:1 written in 1611. Revelation 22:21 written in 96 AD is just as accurate as Revelation 22:21 written in 1611.

Which denominations hold your confused position on the age of the universe?

Cute wording.

You claim that science is invalid because scientists discuss and disagree on which positions are more valid or not. But you don't apply that same reasoning to your own faith. As always, you are inconsistent in your reasoning.

Let me say this for about the third time now. I have a much deeper respect for science than others on here do, because I claim God is the Author of science. In other words, I hold science up to a much higher standard than others.

I don't claim that science is invalid because scientists discuss and disagree --- I claim science is invalid only where it disagrees with Scripture --- period.

Scientists can only work with what God has given them to work with --- nothing more --- nothing less.

 

[AV1611VET]

Or located at the center. Depends on your interpretation doesn't it?

No --- it depends on the question.

 

[Baggins]

Scientists can only work with what God has given them to work with --- nothing more --- nothing less.

True ( if you believe in god ) but working with what god has left them, the physical universe, they come to evidence based conclusions that contradict the bible.

So what should you believe, what god made or what men wrote?

I believe in what god made

 

[Tomk80]

It's in my profile what I am --- Independent Fundamental Baptist.

And all independent fundamentalist baptists hold your positions?

Beats me --- even I don't say that. Genesis 1:1 written around 4003 BC is just as accurate as Genesis 1:1 written in 1611. Revelation 22:21 written in 96 AD is just as accurate as Revelation 22:21 written in 1611.

Yes, you do. You have claimed this in a number of places on this very forum.

Cute wording.

I guess I have a way with words.

[qutoe]Let me say this for about the third time now. I have a much deeper respect for science than others on here do, because I claim God is the Author of science. In other words, I hold science up to a much higher standard than others.

I don't claim that science is invalid because scientists discuss and disagree --- I claim science is invalid only where it disagrees with Scripture --- period.

Scientists can only work with what God has given them to work with --- nothing more --- nothing less.[/quote]
And yet that very position is inconsistent already. If God created the world, scientists do indeed work with what God has given them, and nothing more. And working with that has led them to the conclusion that the earth is billions of years old, including a history of billions of years and excluding a global flood. This conclusion was reached in the exact same way as all other scientific positions, by investigating the evidence there is, the evidence that God left if He created the world. You want to pick and choose which parts of that evidence you believe, picking one conclusion which has been reached in a certain way but rejecting another which has been reached in the exact same way. This is extremely inconsistent, yet you hold it anyway.

You hold to an extreme degree also. You want to accept the conclusion that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, which is arrived at using certain ways of radiometric dating. Yet, if those very same methods come to the conclusion that something else has an age that is less then that (and thus would show a history of the earth) you reject that date. It has been reached in exactly the same way, not just using the same methodological framework but using the exact same methods. Yet you accept one and reject the other, based on nothing more then your own, extremely personal interpretation of the bible. Had you at least rejected those dating methods in full, you would have a position that is at least somewhat coherent. But you don't. Your position is inconsistent in all ways.

 

[AV1611VET]

True ( if you believe in god ) but working with what god has left them, the physical universe, they come to evidence based conclusions that contradict the bible.

I agree.

So what should you believe, what god made or what men wrote?

The answer is in your question.

I believe in what god made

God predicted that --- and it's a shame:

• [bible]Romans 1:25[/bible]

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes, you do. You have claimed this in a number of places on this very forum.

I'll BBL to answer this.

 

[Split Rock]

Good deal --- in 5 minutes, I'm sure I'll have forgotten everything you just said.

In three minutes, I am sure I will have forgotten everything you said... haha! I beat you by two minutes!!11

I claim science is invalid only where it disagrees with Scripture --- period.

Correction: you claim that science is invalid only when it disagrees with your interpretation of Scripture.

You Fundies always leave that interpretation part out... why is that by the way?

 

[Baggins]

The answer is in your question.

I don't believe that god has ever written anything down has he?

People have claimed to have written down the word of god, but that is an entirely different matter.

 

[AV1611VET]

In three minutes, I am sure I will have forgotten everything you said... haha! I beat you by two minutes!!11

And I held that record for so long!

 

[AV1611VET]

And all independent fundamentalist baptists hold your positions?

Not all --- many "of my own kind" don't like my views on Cain and Abel - (including my wife). There's just some things we won't know until we get to Heaven.

Yes, you do. You have claimed this in a number of places on this very forum.

Please, by all means, feel free to show me where. You're probably referring to the time I said where the original Hebrew scriptures differs with the King James Bible, the original Hebrew scriptures are wrong. I stand behind that, as it is perfectly in line with my signature. (Of course, you realize that the original Hebrew scriptures would not differ with the King James Bible, as both are a product of the Lord's work.)

And yet that very position is inconsistent already. If God created the world, scientists do indeed work with what God has given them, and nothing more.

Consider this though: they don't have access to this universe before the Fall. A time when the laws of science operated differently than they do today - not much differently, mind you, but differently nonetheless.

And working with that has led them to the conclusion that the earth is billions of years old, including a history of billions of years and excluding a global flood.

I understand what you're saying, but again, God warns us not to interpret what we see at face value:

• [bible]Ecclesiastes 3:11[/bible]

This conclusion was reached in the exact same way as all other scientific positions, by investigating the evidence there is, the evidence that God left if He created the world.

Yes --- but after the Fall --- not before it. Prior to the Fall, only the 1st Law of Thermodynamics was in effect; but when the Fall occurred, it subjected the entire universe to the 2nd Law.

• [bible]Romans 8:22[/bible]

You want to pick and choose which parts of that evidence you believe, picking one conclusion which has been reached in a certain way but rejecting another which has been reached in the exact same way. This is extremely inconsistent, yet you hold it anyway.

Now this is just plain incorrect. We're dealing with the same conclusion (extreme age), arrived at by two different observations (age and history). See my next remark.

You hold to an extreme degree also. You want to accept the conclusion that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, which is arrived at using certain ways of radiometric dating. Yet, if those very same methods come to the conclusion that something else has an age that is less then that (and thus would show a history of the earth) you reject that date. It has been reached in exactly the same way, not just using the same methodological framework but using the exact same methods. Yet you accept one and reject the other, based on nothing more then your own, extremely personal interpretation of the bible. Had you at least rejected those dating methods in full, you would have a position that is at least somewhat coherent. But you don't. Your position is inconsistent in all ways.

I've already stated that I'm so versatile on the age of this earth, that you could say it is 6000 years or 6000 quindecillion years, and I'll go along with it just for the sake of agreement (See how easy I am?); but I draw the line when you start reinterpreting Scripture to make it fit history. You see craters in this earth made 30,000 thousand years ago, I see craters in this earth made by rock abrasions during the Flood. And, yes, that interpretation may be incorrect, but it would be even worse to reinterpret Scripture just to call it a meteorite. I'd rather err on the side of interpreting the physical evidence than interpreting the Scriptures.

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't believe that god has ever written anything down has he?

People have claimed to have written down the word of god, but that is an entirely different matter.

MEMO ONE:

• All Employees: Use of the Galileo for the purpose of joyriding will stop immediately! Sincerely, James T. Kirk, Captain, USS Enterprise, NCC 1701

MEMO TWO:

• All Employees: Use of the Galileo for the purpose of joyriding will stop immediately! Sincerely, James T. Kirk, Captain, USS Enterprise, NCC 1701 - JTK:jr

Can you tell me technically who wrote both memos, and what point I'm making here?

 

[Skaloop]

MEMO ONE:

• All Employees: Use of the Galileo for the purpose of joyriding will stop immediately! Sincerely, James T. Kirk, Captain, USS Enterprise, NCC 1707

MEMO TWO:

• All Employees: Use of the Galileo for the purpose of joyriding will stop immediately! Sincerely, James T. Kirk, Captain, USS Enterprise, NCC 1707 - JTK:jr

Can you tell me technically who wrote both memos, and what point I'm making here?

It certainly wasn't James T. Kirk. The captain of the Enterprise would know that it's NCC 1701.

But that aside. Look at the following:

Effective immediately, I resign as President of the United States of America.

Sincerely, George Walker Bush.
GWB:sl

So, is George Bush still currently the president? Since his initials are listed as the author of this brief memo, and I am merely the typist, it stands to reason that he is not.

 

[AV1611VET]

It certainly wasn't James T. Kirk. The captain of the Enterprise would know that it's NCC 1701.

OOPS --- thanks!

 

[Tomk80]

Not all --- many "of my own kind" don't like my views on Cain and Abel - (including my wife). There's just some things we won't know until we get to Heaven.

There ya go. A group of one you are.

Please, by all means, feel free to show me where. You're probably referring to the time I said where the original Hebrew scriptures differs with the King James Bible, the original Hebrew scriptures are wrong. I stand behind that, as it is perfectly in line with my signature. (Of course, you realize that the original Hebrew scriptures would not differ with the King James Bible, as both are a product of the Lord's work.)

In other words, you think the KJV is more accurate then the KJV, because you use the KJV as the reference, not the hebrew scripture.

Consider this though: they don't have access to this universe before the Fall. A time when the laws of science operated differently than they do today - not much differently, mind you, but differently nonetheless.

They do in a certain way, by studying processes the require deep time like radiometric dating. If such processes had proceeded differently in the past, they wouldn't agree with each other. Since they do agree, there is no reason to assume they worked differently in the past.

I understand what you're saying, but again, God warns us not to interpret what we see at face value:

• [bible]Ecclesiastes 3:11[/bible]

Which scientists don't. That's why scientists actually study the earth instead of drawing conclusion without studying it. That's why 'common sense' plays no part in science. Science is anything but looking at something at face value.

Yes --- but after the Fall --- not before it. Prior to the Fall, only the 1st Law of Thermodynamics was in effect; but when the Fall occurred, it subjected the entire universe to the 2nd Law.

• [bible]Romans 8:22[/bible]

How you get that conclusion from the scripture you quoted is beyond me. Pain=/=the second law of thermodynamics. If you hold that Adam and Eve ate before the fall (and scripture tells us they did, or at least could), then the 2nd law was in effect before the fall.

Now this is just plain incorrect. We're dealing with the same conclusion (extreme age), arrived at by two different observations (age and history). See my next remark.

I've already stated that I'm so versatile on the age of this earth, that you could say it is 6000 years or 6000 quindecillion years, and I'll go along with it just for the sake of agreement (See how easy I am?); but I draw the line when you start reinterpreting Scripture to make it fit history. You see craters in this earth made 30,000 thousand years ago, I see craters in this earth made by rock abrasions during the Flood. And, yes, that interpretation may be incorrect, but it would be even worse to reinterpret Scripture just to call it a meteorite. I'd rather err on the side of interpreting the physical evidence than interpreting the Scriptures.

Then why even hold such an inconsistent interpretation. Just say you think the earth is 6000 years old and be done with it. To claim that evidence shows that the earth is 4.5 billion years old but then turn around and reject all other evidence that shows history with exactly the same methods is inconsistent. Why be inconsistent for the sake of agreement? Where's the logic in that?

 

[AV1611VET]

It certainly wasn't James T. Kirk. The captain of the Enterprise would know that it's NCC 1701.

But that aside. Look at the following:

Effective immediately, I resign as President of the United States of America.

Sincerely, George Walker Bush.
GWB:sl

So, is George Bush still currently the president? Since his initials are listed as the author of this brief memo, and I am merely the typist, it stands to reason that he is not.

George Bush is the author of the memo, which was typed by SL.

Just like Capt. Kirk authored both memos above, but in the first one, he typed it; in the second one Yeoman Janice Rand typed it.

Get the point, now?