If creationism is true, then why is it useless?

[AV1611VET]

Oh that human body starts decomposing after death...yes, divine knowledge there again. You are rolling AV.

As I said, you're more than welcome to answer her challenge too.

Let's see you roll.

 

[Dawnhammer]

As I said, you're more than welcome to answer her challenge too.

I can spare few minutes to dispute ridiculous claims but have neither time or inclination to conjure up more of them since they serve no purpose whatsoever.

 

[AV1611VET]

I can spare few minutes to dispute ridiculous claims but have neither time or inclination to conjure up more of them since they serve no purpose whatsoever.

She took the time to ask it; can't you take the time to answer it?

And the time you waste with me, you could have given her five or six answers by now, eh?

 

[Dawnhammer]

And the time you waste with me, you could have given her five or six answers by now, eh?

Fundamentalists have far more amusing replies than atheists. Those poor people go by logic and sense.

Talking lightning means electronic commutations.

Not crapping on your bed is Bible science hygiene.

Tremendous. Keep it coming.

 

[AV1611VET]

Fundamentalists have far more amusing replies than atheists.

Well so far the score is:

• Fundamentalists: 3
• Atheists: 0

So, ya.

I guess anything above zero would constitute "far more."

 

[AV1611VET]

Fundamentalists have far more amusing replies than atheists.

By the way, Dawn, it was an atheist who made the challenge.

Are you saying other atheists know something that the challenger does not?

And if you're privy to what these other atheists say, please share one of their less amusing replies with us, will you?

And, of course, please feel free to share one of your own answers to Sarah's challenge as well.

 

[Dawnhammer]

I think your problem here is that you feel the need to have an answer to a question that was largely rhetorical.

Atheist doesn’t expect there to be any technological ideas that were beyond what could be reasonably expected on being common knowledge during those times. Nor do I.

Like basic sanitation rules. Nothing divine about those.

Your interpretations of random passages being applied as proofs of scientific knowledge are ridiculous.

The Bible is message of love and hope and you are just making it even easier for the people to ignore and ridicule it.

 

[AV1611VET]

I think your problem here is that you feel the need to have an answer to a question that was largely rhetorical.

I don't consider a challenge to have someone show science in the Bible as 'largely rhetorical.'

In fact, many people, like the late Henry Morris, did just that -- and quite effectively.

You can even Google them.

Even though I'm fond of saying many times here:

Expecting the Bible to be a science book is like expecting Bill Gates' diary to be a computer manual.

... I still believe the Bible contains scientific facts in seed form.

And in fact, that's one of the premises of my Boolean standards:

1. Bible says X, science says X = go with X
2. Bible says X, science says Y = go with X
3. Bible says Ø, science says Y = go with Y
4. Bible says Ø, science says Ø = speculate

I think Sarah's challenge was an excellent one, and I'm glad she made it.

Atheist doesn’t expect there to be any technological ideas that were beyond what could be reasonably expected on being common knowledge during those times. Nor do I.

That's their mistake.

Like basic sanitation rules. Nothing divine about those.

Except the rules came from God.

And yes, they could just as well have come from Joe Blow living at the time, but the challenge was to show science in the Bible.

If this science existed before the Bible was written ... say on a parchment somewhere ... then why can't it exist in the Bible as well?

Your interpretations of random passages being applied as proofs of scientific knowledge are ridiculous.

I knew it.

I just knew it.

I made this up, didn't I?

LOL

The very thing I tried to avoid by not posting Scripture and wanting you guys to look it up yourselves so I wouldn't be accused of making it up ... and your refusal to do so led to just the thing I was trying to keep from happening.

Oh, well.

It says more about how your education works than mine.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Wouldn't that imply that you aren't reading those comments that you "can't keep up with"?

If I miss a question then feel free to ask again. There are times when I get a lot of questions and other times not so many.

 

[Dawnhammer]

It says more about how your education works than mine.

Yes, I have internet broadband and pay monthly fee for it.

Your education makes you figure you are giving monthly donations to God through your internet provider after which God proceeds to give you talking lightning.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes, I have internet broadband and pay monthly fee for it.

Your education makes you figure you are giving monthly donations to God through your internet provider after which God proceeds to give you talking lightning.

Are you demonstrating this yourself?

Fundamentalists have far more amusing replies than atheists.

 

[Astrophile]

A typo. Just 2 million. Thanks for the correction.

If you are classifying Ia supernovae by their brightness how does that create a standard? And if your going to explain that certain fireCrackers make a particular noise and flash, I'll tell you that one particular brand might have a narrow range of flash and pop, and another brand another spread, but that's becasue they are made that way. And the age of the cracker is going to make a difference. Younger, more distant supernovae are made from stars of a younger age and composition than older supernovae that are closer.

So being that all stars lacked quality control standards during their manufacture, no stars were sent back becasue they were out of spec, and the age of your products is unknown, I don't see how you have a "standard candle" as a baseline measure. What two stars in the sky are identical in composition? Zero. What two orbiting stars crash into each other and create a standard explosion? Also zero. Who has measured the effect of large distance of space, and time, and dark matter, and dark energy on our observations? Who has the time to test our observations by actually creating a "standard star",spreading them across time and space, and whacking them into each other to test our observation theories?

Without a standard to use to test your theories and the time needed to do experiments, you don't have science.

All Type Ia supernovae explode by the same mechanism (Type Ia supernova - Wikipedia). They are interacting binary stars in which a carbon-oxygen white dwarf star accretes mass from a companion. When the mass of the white dwarf reaches the Chandrasekhar limit (1.44 solar masses), it undergoes runaway carbon burning and explodes, releasing an energy of (1-2)×10^44 joules. Because the same process is operating in all Type Ia supernovae, and because the white dwarf star explodes at the same mass in all of them, the peak luminosity is the same for all of them. That is why they can be used as standard candles.

There are complications, and Type Ia supernovae do not all have the same luminosity at maximum light, but the Phillips relationship (Phillips relationship - Wikipedia), which uses the decline in brightness during the first 15 days after maximum, is used to correct the luminosity to a standard value.

 

[Dawnhammer]

Are you demonstrating this yourself?

Well your amusement value is getting more secular so someone has to take up the slack.

Thankfully it is not too hard especially seeing you get rated funny once around every 7200 postings which is still pretty charitable but this is CF so I guess bit of charity is in order.

 

[AV1611VET]

Well your amusement value is getting more secular so someone has to take up the slack.

Thankfully it is not too hard especially seeing you get rated funny once around every 7200 postings which is still pretty charitable but this is CF so I guess bit of charity is in order.

Is that why you won't answer her challenge?

You're afraid someone will rate your answer FUNNY?

 

[Dawnhammer]

You're afraid someone will rate your answer FUNNY?

Dreadful indeed, but you are starting to repeat yourself a bit so I will exit this thread.

 

[pitabread]

Have you asked google?

Oh, I already know the answer: this is no application of creationism (beyond what I mentioned in the OP).

Yet that doesn't seem to stop creationists from claiming there is or claiming that creationism can explain/do everything evolution can do.

 

[AV1611VET]

Dreadful indeed, but you are starting to repeat yourself a bit so I will exit this thread.

Feel free to drop off an answer to her challenge on your way out.

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

I've been struggling to figure out the applications for creationism. Besides theme parks and merchandising, there doesn't appear to be anything else.

Why no biological applications? Or any other areas of applied science?

I mean, if creationism was true, wouldn't they have figured out a way to use it with respect to applied biology, geology, etc, by now? What's the hold up?

In reply, the basic assumption of a self designing and improving genome set against an originally perfect but degraded genome has significant implications for issues such as the value of transhumanism, medical ethics, genetic experimentation etc etc.

Wrong assumptions lead to wrong conclusions and wrong applications!

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

The evidence indicates what we would call a local flood. So we have to question how accurate our translation is of the Bible.

Only if you deny the evidence (much more extensive) that shows there was a flood as described in the BIBLE (which has never been proven wrong).

 

[PsychoSarah]

Fundamentalists have far more amusing replies than atheists. Those poor people go by logic and sense.

Talking lightning means electronic commutations.

Not crapping on your bed is Bible science hygiene.

Tremendous. Keep it coming.

XD counter: lightning is too strong and too brief to use as a means of electronic communications or to be in any way related to how we utilize electronics to communicate. It's another version of the burning bush. As for hygiene in the bible, come on, you know it has better guidelines to it than just "don't wallow in your own feces". For example, stating that sick people must keep away from healthy people until they haven't shown symptoms for a while. Not a perfect method of preventing the spread of disease, but one that would have helped some.