How many of you think there was a World Wide Flood? please vote.

[Yggdrasil]

Once again, if you want to claim the world is covered in a thick shell of Jell-o from now on --- do it. Otherwise, please don't try and use that as a refutation for Scripture. Okay?

Don't threaten to do it --- do it --- then we'll talk.



That's another subject altogether.

The scripture refutes itself, and its pretty hilarious.

 

[Chalnoth]

Evidence must be interpreted correctly; that is, in the light of Scripture, not the other way around.

Why should I believe you?

 

[Atheuz]

Why should I believe you?

Because the Bible says so!
Why should I believe the Bible?
Because God says the Bible is right!
Why should I believe God?
Because the Bible says so!

I'd imagine that'd be the conversation you'd get out of trying to get him to answer why you should believe him.

 

[AV1611VET]

Why should I believe you?

Believe the Bible --- It won't let you down.

It promises you eternal life, something science can't do.

 

[AV1611VET]

Because the Bible says so!
Why should I believe the Bible?
Because God says the Bible is right!
Why should I believe God?
Because the Bible says so!

I'd imagine that'd be the conversation you'd get out of trying to get him to answer why you should believe him.

The Bible walks its talk.

Unlike science, which simply moves the goalpoast whenever it shows itself to be wrong.

Take the moon landing, for instance - (since this is classic scientific PR).

When Armstrong walked on the moon, it was believed that the moon contained several feet of moondust.

When it only contained an inch or two, scientists, instead of admitting they made a mistake, simply said they "discovered new evidence".

That's how science works: they "discover new evidence", instead of admit they were wrong.

I used to have a list of all the techno-jargon scientists used to cover their mistakes. I wish I still had it - it was hilarious [sad, actually].

 

[johnlf]

3:3

Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,

3:4

And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

3:5

For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

3:6

Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

3:7

But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

King James Version of the Bible
Book of 2 Peter
Chapter 3

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

The Bible walks its talk.

Unlike science, which simply moves the goalpoast whenever it shows itself to be wrong.

Take the moon landing, for instance - (since this is classic scientific PR).

When Armstrong walked on the moon, it was believed that the moon contained several feet of moondust.

When it only contained an inch or two, scientists, instead of admitting they made a mistake, simply said they "discovered new evidence".

This is completely false. By 1965 it was known that the moondust was not several feet deep and of course the surveyor probe in 1966 confirmed this well before the moon landing.

Here is a quote from NASA physicist Tim Thompson on the subject for one of his pages.
"As for the business about NASA being afraid of a deep layer of dust greeting the astronauts, that is a fiction, probably invented by Harold Slusher. 'Twas never so. By the early 60's scientists knew that any dust layer could not be greater in depth than one meter at the very most, and was more likely 10cm or less. By 1965 the Ranger spacecraft had proven there was no deep dust layer. And, of course, the Surveyor landers had gone ahead of the astronauts, and landed on a hard surface. By the time astronauts were on their way nobody expected them to sink out of sight into the dust. They knew there might be a thin dust layer, which could be a problem if it were kicked up by landing rockets. That was a concern, but the creationists have misinterpreted this concern into the fear of a deep dust layer. '

That's how science works: they "discover new evidence", instead of admit they were wrong.

The "they in this case was Petterson who made earth based measurements that he knew might be too high. Space based measurements show that he was wrong but at the time he made the earth based measurements space based measurements were not possible.

I used to have a list of all the techno-jargon scientists used to cover their mistakes. I wish I still had it - it was hilarious [sad, actually].

If science didn't work you wouldn't be able to use a computer to send your antiscience nonsense over the internet.

 

[AV1611VET]

This is completely false. By 1965 it was known that the moondust was not several feet deep and of course the surveyor probe in 1966 confirmed this well before the moon landing.

Okay, so it wasn't the moonlanding --- but it still constitutes a mistake, no matter what year it was shown otherwise.

If science didn't work you wouldn't be able to use a computer to send your antiscience nonsense over the internet.

As I have said before, we hold science up to a higher standard that you guys do; so claiming I'm "antiscience" and "I hate science", etc. doesn't phase me one bit.

God is the Author of science --- despite what peer reviews say.

 

[Jet Black]

God is the Author of science --- despite what peer reviews say.

and the way the universe works - the actual data and facts - conflicts with a literal reading of Genesis. You've never thought your own interpretation of the Bible might be wrong.

 

[Jet Black]

Unlike science, which simply moves the goalpoast whenever it shows itself to be wrong.

and that is the power of science. If you're saying that is a bad thing, then you are basically claiming that it is a bad thing if someone, having seen only white sheep for his entire life states that "there are only white sheep", corrects his previously held opinion on the sighting of a black sheep.

Yes a number of scientific statements have been wrong, and in fact much of science still is wrong now, but it's far less wrong than it used to be. read the Relativity of Wrong.

 

[Jet Black]

It promises you eternal life, something science can't do.

oh lots of people promise all sorts of silly things, but do they deliver.

 

[anffyddwyr]

The Bible walks its talk.

Unlike science, which simply moves the goalpoast whenever it shows itself to be wrong.

Take the moon landing, for instance - (since this is classic scientific PR).

When Armstrong walked on the moon, it was believed that the moon contained several feet of moondust.

When it only contained an inch or two, scientists, instead of admitting they made a mistake, simply said they "discovered new evidence".

That's how science works: they "discover new evidence", instead of admit they were wrong.

I used to have a list of all the techno-jargon scientists used to cover their mistakes. I wish I still had it - it was hilarious [sad, actually].

Why do you keep up this pretence?
you know how science works, you have been told often enough.

Things are thought to be true until they are proven not to be true,
nothing devious or underhand about that.

If some scientists thought there might be a foot of dust on the moon, and there was only an inch,
it was pretty obvious to everyone that they were wrong, they had put themselves up to be
shot down in the first place by suggesting it, it was not written in stone, it was an opinion,
that's what people have, they were scientists, (not Creationists) they throw ideas into the pot
for others to pull to pieces, when the ideas can't be pulled to pieces, the idea is assumed
to be the truth, or until 20 years later someone has better equipment to analyse data and
proves the first idea wrong, the first idea is then dropped.

And you call that telling lies, remember, no one person decides what is true,
by the time an idea is accepted as fact every scientist in the world, I will repeat that,
every scientist in the world will have picked the idea to pieces, if for no other reason
than to make a name for themselves, so not a lot will get passed them, some scientists
think about problems for years, only to come up with an idea, and then get shot down.

When we come to Creationism things are slightly different,
everything is laid down and it never changes no matter what happens,
I will repeat that, no matter what happens.

Why don't you just believe the bible, and stop trying to prove it's true?

 

[AV1611VET]

and the way the universe works - the actual data and facts - conflicts with a literal reading of Genesis.

Oh really? Give me an example, please.

You've never thought your own interpretation of the Bible might be wrong.

When I think about interpretation --- I worry more about how you "scientists" misinterpret data --- not how we creationists misinterpret Scripture.

 

[AV1611VET]

and that is the power of science.

Ya --- no kidding! The power of illusion.

If you're saying that is a bad thing, then you are basically claiming that it is a bad thing if someone, having seen only white sheep for his entire life states that "there are only white sheep", corrects his previously held opinion on the sighting of a black sheep.

How about we just stick to the example I gave?

Yes a number of scientific statements have been wrong, and in fact much of science still is wrong now, but it's far less wrong than it used to be. read the Relativity of Wrong.

Far less wrong? I doubt it.

 

[Jet Black]

it was thought there might be a lot of dust because we had hardly even ventured into space in the 1960s. Heck, Columbus thought he was going to sail to Japan because nobody in recorded history had ever sailed that way and then lived to sail back. That's called "a voyage of discovery"

 

[Jet Black]

Ya --- no kidding! The power of illusion.



How about we just stick to the example I gave?



Far less wrong? I doubt it.

hmm.. given that you didn't read the link and the poor quality of your statements, I doubt you are really interested in learning, are you?

 

[Chalnoth]

Believe the Bible --- It won't let you down.

It promises you eternal life, something science can't do.

So? Just because something is pleasing doesn't mean it's true. Why should I believe it?

 

[AV1611VET]

you know how science works, you have been told often enough.

Let's put it this way: I know Who the Author of science is. I'm not really big on science, since it's all going to revert back to its Genesis One paradigms soon.

Things are thought to be true until they are proven not to be true,
nothing devious or underhand about that.

I have no problem with that. What I said was: when shown to be wrong, they never admit it. Instead, they have a whole slew of public-relation techo-jargon that they sugar-coat it with.

If some scientists thought there might be a foot of dust on the moon, and there was only an inch,
it was pretty obvious to everyone that they were wrong, they had put themselves up to be
shot down in the first place by suggesting it, it was not written in stone, it was an opinion...

No, it wasn't an "opinion". It was stated as a calculated fact, based on dust accretion x a certain length of time.

...that's what people have, they were scientists, (not Creationists) they throw ideas into the pot...

You're making it sound too innocent. They didn't "throw this idea into a pot", they calculated it with mathematical precision, using a formula that had an incorrect factor (length of time).

And you call that telling lies, remember, no one person decides what is true,
by the time an idea is accepted as fact every scientist in the world, I will repeat that,
every scientist in the world will have picked the idea to pieces, if for no other reason
than to make a name for themselves, so not a lot will get passed them, some scientists
think about problems for years, only to come up with an idea, and then get shot down.

Once again --- I'm harping about how they present this "new data" to the public; not how scientists show each other how they're wrong.

 

[AV1611VET]

it was thought there might be a lot of dust because we had hardly even ventured into space in the 1960s.

No, it wasn't "thought" there "might" be a lot of dust because we had "hardly even ventured into space".

It was calculated on a computer with mathematical precision, using a predetermined formula.

You johnny-come-lately, armchair apologists for "science" aren't fooling us Christians one bit.

 

[AV1611VET]

hmm.. given that you didn't read the link and the poor quality of your statements, I doubt you are really interested in learning, are you?

No --- I'm not.