Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Just don't call what you believe "science," and what we believe "religion."
What you believe is religion though, and we have no reason to believe that what scientists do shouldn't be called science.
Hovind's attempt at a point was trite and asinine.
Why are you wording your reply as if I said:
"Just don't call what you do 'science,' and what we believe 'religion.'"
When what I said was:
"Just don't call what you believe 'science,' and what we believe 'religion'".
Yours was by way of misquoting.
To try and compare it to religion, saying that a person must 'believe' in it, is an attempt to muddy the waters to try and put science and religion on a level playing field. They cannot be on a level playing field, because they are two entirely separate things.
I was correcting the words of a conman and an idiot.
I think you'll readily admit that you don't know where the primordial atom comes from.
I think you'll also claim that we don't know where God comes from.*
Yet your lack of knowledge is superior to ours?
I don't think so.
Correcting it with what? your emotions?
Factual definitions.
If that's the road you want to go down, then how many men did Darwin "con" with what he believed to be true?
He didn't con anyone. You and others can't even show what he said to be a lie.
And no, do not even think about pulling the subtitle of On Natural Selection, because it does nothing except to show that you really do not understand a damn thing you're talking about.
And while we're at it, how many students were forced to put Pluto down as our ninth planet, because scientists believed Pluto was our ninth planet?
You want to play "conman," let's get serious and play "conman."
I've got a whole list of "conmen" for you.
You wouldn't know what a conman is if they came and socked you over the head and told you pool was sure fire to turn children to delinquents (you might get the reference, you might not).
And for the record, how many atheists and other types of unbelievers bought his materials?
(I love those videos of unbelievers spending money to go to the Ark Encounter to make a video showing Mr Ham is conning us out of our money.)
Your post has degenerated into pure idiocy.Afraid you'll be some 200 years off of Usher's calculations as well?
As Mr Hovind pointed out:
If we don't know where God came from, and you don't know where that primordial atom came from, then don't call what you believe "science," and what we believe "religion."
Not over math though.
No, you don't have to accept them.
It's your freewill not to have to.
Others have done it for you, and I posted Usher's chronology for you, and now you're retreating behind your craft (science) and telling me this is a science forum, not a religious forum.
I figured you'd pull something out of your hat, if I was to do all that work and show you my calculations; and I rejoiced when I saw Usher's calculations in chart form.
So I posted it to see what you'd say.
And sure enough, I was right.
In short, if you won't accept Usher's calculations, you surely won't accept mine.
And I never did expect you to do the math yourself, either.
My point stands.
Earth may be extremely old, but it has only been in existence since 4004 BC.
Your post has degenerated into pure idiocy.
How about stop derailing threads with creationism which are off topic and violate forum rules.Anything else I can help you with?
Only one way to stop derailsHow about stop derailing threads with creationism which are off topic and violate forum rules.
This is not the Creation & Evolution forum.
If I say that I believe that the Earth revolves around the Sun in an elliptical orbit with an eccentricity of 0.0167, that the Earth is about 4540±20 million years old, and that red light is an electromagnetic wave with a frequency of about 450 Thz, do you object to my calling that 'science', and if so, why?Why are you wording your reply as if I said:
"Just don't call what you do 'science,' and what we believe 'religion.'"
When what I said was:
"Just don't call what you believe 'science,' and what we believe 'religion'".
Yours was by way of misquoting.
Well, it is all beyond imagining anyway.What I didn't expect is how many people in the video linked below didn't know how old the earth is. And how far off they were.
If I say that I believe that the Earth revolves around the Sun in an elliptical orbit with an eccentricity of 0.0167, that the Earth is about 4540±20 million years old, and that red light is an electromagnetic wave with a frequency of about 450 Thz, do you object to my calling that 'science', and if so, why?
They have found an animal called a Rangifer that emits electromagnetic energy from its anterior nares in the 750nm range.
Creation or evolution?
But if I asked you where that primordial atom came from, and you say "I don't know," then don''t call it "science," and what we believe "religion" if we can't say where God came from.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?