Man is Polluting Science

[TLK Valentine]

This is first and foremost a Christian Forum.

And when "Christian" officially means anti-science and pro-ignorance, your statement that "this is first and foremost a Christian forum" will mean something.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Then none of this matters. We love we did and turn to dust. And unless we've done something amazing enough to get us in the history books no one will remember us after avrelatively short number of years. And all these discussions really are nothing but a waste of time when we could be doing something more productive or relaxing. In fact life itself is really all in vain. Nothing really matters in the end anyway. We just fight and die for a vain fleeting thing called freedom. All the people who are suffering just suffer until their dead. No hope really. Serial killers had their brief moment of feel good glory. Their victims spending their last moments of life in terror and agony and are dust. I love my kids but once I'm gone I've left no real lasting legacy cause it doesn't really matter much after a time.

But if we are right and the bible is true then life has a purpose and the legacy lasts. When it's over we can see our loved one again and our dearest friends and family. We will see amazing people who did suffer in this planet only to find a greater reward in the next life. Our conversations here and debates have a purpose and a meaning because their rewards can be eternal. Maybe just maybe we will meet in heaven and will have a great time together as you or someone shares how what somebody on this forum said something that God used to tug at your heart and you eventually gave your life to Christ.

I and others are here not for the sole purpose of debate but for an eternal purpose. It matters a great deal.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

That's what I said and I was labeled a nihilistic lunatic who needs help. Lol.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Preaching in a science forum, falls short.

Unless it is on a Christian forum...oops!

 

[bhsmte]

Unless it is on a Christian forum...oops!

Point to the science in preaching. Or just admit, preaching has nothing to do with science.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Point to the science in preaching. Or just admit, preaching has nothing to do with science.

If you don't want to hear "preaching" I suggest going to a secular forum dedicated to science. Not one found on a " Christian Forum ".

 

[bhsmte]

If you don't want to hear "preaching" I suggest going to a secular forum dedicated to science. Not one found on a " Christian Forum ".

Hey, you can preach in a science forum all you want. And, I can point out it isn't science, all I want.

If someone has to resort to preaching on a science forum, it tells me something.

 

[Cimorene]

I think some people just see evil in everything. I just read this thread about being aware of Satan's music & a ton of bands from like 30 yrs ago being listed. Then Justin Bieber. Man hasn't polluted science but hardly worth debating it for 65 pages.

 

[amariselle]

Amariselle,

Can you explain to me why you refuse--refuse!--to say how you think the first donkey came into existence? I think it came about by evolution. You think it was some other way. Fine. How do you think it came about? You refuse to answer. Why?

I thought perhaps that you think the first zebra and donkey came forth out of nothing as created by God about 6000 years ago. You respond by saying "nope".

So you have no idea to put on the table? You deny that they came about by evolution through the hand of God. You deny they popped into existence about 6000 years ago as created by God. How do you think they came into existence?

It seems to me that if my view is the only view on the table, I win by default. If you have a different view you want to put on the table, please do.

Huh?

You are saying this in response to the question, "Why is it unreasonable for a theist to believe God evolved the first equus asinus by a long process of evolution, but it is not unreasonable to believe God created it out of nothing 6000 years ago?"

And your answer is that the theist who believes God evolved the first donkey thinks it was just random chance!!!! No! No! No! No! That is not what theistic evolution is about. Theistic evolution believes God directed the process, or at least that he designed and started the process in such a way that humans were inevitable.

As you now know, the horse series represents a clear sequence of evolution of the horse over 55 million years. And I think that you will agree that you have presented no alternative explanation for why the fossil record shows what it does regarding the fossil records. I think it shows that horses evolved over many years, because that is what happened.

You have given no answer for why every hyracotherium fossil is millions of years older than every zebra or donkey fossil.

You have given no answer for why the traits of the modern horse introduce gradually into the fossil record over millions of years.

You have some other view other than evolution. You refuse--refuse!!--to tell us what that view is, and you refuse--refuse!-- to explain why it is that horse traits have been gradually introduced into the fossil record over millions of years.

Wow, I this is probably one of the most extreme cases of someone telling me what I think/believe/know that I've come across.

You have made all kinds of presuppositions and assertions here. You aren't honestly asking me what I believe at all. You say you want to know, but then you answer your own questions. (I have highlighted in bold some of your unfounded presuppositions in the above quote).

Here is our earlier conversation:

Ah, so it is a creative fairytale that natural processes, over millions of years, created the first equus asinus?

And what's your tale? I'm still waiting to hear what you say. But I think you say the first equus asinus suddenly popped into existence out of nothing about 6000 years ago.Did I guess right?

Can you see how I might think your tale is a creative fairytale?

Why is it unreasonable for a theist to believe God evolved the first equus asinus by a long process of evolution, but it is not unreasonable to believe God created it out of nothing 6000 years ago?

Nope.

Absolutely, many think the Bible is a "fairytale."

But, just so you know, saying that is a violation of forum rules, so you might want to stay away from saying those things here.

Because, either way something still had to come out of nothing.

On the one hand, God created, on the other hand, nothing created, it was just random chance that anything is here at all.

I think I'll stick with the Bible and a Creator.

Random chance just doesn't do it for me.

But, we can all think what we like about it.

My "nope" was a response to the only actual question you asked; "Did I guess right?" The former part of that statement involved you saying you were waiting for my answer, then immediately adding that you thought you knew what my answer would be.

And I've told you where I think the first donkey came from. Please take the time to actually read my responses.

I've quoted my previous response above, so you can read my answer there.

Please refrain from telling me what I think, believe and know in the future.

If you want actual answers, ask actual questions.

 

[bhsmte]

I think some people just see evil in everything. I just read this thread about being aware of Satan's music & a ton of bands from like 30 yrs ago being listed. Then Justin Bieber. Man hasn't polluted science but hardly worth debating it for 65 pages.

Some people need to identify an enemy and they will manufacture one if they have to.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Sigh....really now. This is pretty basic.

I was making a point about science being unable to claim intelligence is not involved in natural processes and the creation of complex structures, and you deflected the issue to a completely different claim science cannot prove, snowflake fairies that guide snowflakes to the ground.

Your deflection was intentional.

Red herring.

It's not a deflection, but an example. Snow flake fairies are intelligent creatures. Can science absolutely rule them out as the entities responsible for the formation of snow flakes? No, not so long as such a claim remains completely unfalsifiable. The same could be said of orbital fairies. Even though we understand the orbits of the planets scientifically through orbital mechanics, can science rule out the possibility that there are really billions of fairies dragging the planets along in their orbits? No, not so long as that claim remains completely unfalsifiable. But why would we even need to posit orbital fairies if we already have a good understanding of how planetary motion works through orbital mechanics? And besides, wouldn't the burden of proof fall on those who insist that planetary motion is really due to the intelligence of orbital fairies?

 

[Cimorene]

Some people need to identify an enemy and they will manufacture one if they have to.

Why do they need to do that?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I have quoted your words for you more times than I care to count.

Those are the words I am asking you to address.

Stop playing evasive games. You know exactly what you said, and you know it was completely unscientific.

Do we need to review the statements again and their differing implications? What you claimed I said (2) wasn't at all what I actually said. You won't find that sentence anywhere in my posts (except when quoting you) because you made it up.

I've been trying to address statement (1) by asking you about how we explain the formation of snow flakes. But you insist that is a red herring! So I can't address statement (1) because any attempt to do so is dismissed as a red herring, and I won't address statement (2), except to note that it does not represent my position.

 

[amariselle]

It is, but this is the science portion of the site.

You know, where science is discussed.

You know, where Christians can also come.

I'm sure there are many secular science forums out there though.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Because, either way something still had to come out of nothing.

On the one hand, God created, on the other hand, nothing created, it was just random chance that anything is here at all.

I think I'll stick with the Bible and a Creator.

Random chance just doesn't do it for me.

But, we can all think what we like about it.

There you go again... This is what started our most recent exchange, which was embittered by your misrepresentation of my words. As I said before, you seem to think that there are only two possibilities for the formation of complex structures: either it was purposefully designed by an intelligence or it came about through random chance. My point, which you either severely misunderstood or distorted, was that natural processes can produce complex structures themselves without any apparent intelligent input. As an example, I pointed to planetary orbits. The planets move in orderly patterns through space, pushed and pulled along by their gravitational interactions with each other and the sun. They aren't wandering around in random directions, and if they were, well, then we wouldn't be here at all. But their motions don't require an intelligence either. They move naturally, their directions determined by gravity, which is in turn determined by their masses.

 

[bhsmte]

You know, where Christians can also come.

I'm sure there are many secular science forums out there though.

Christians can't talk about science???

Like I said, anyone can preach on the science forum and I can point out how meaningless preaching is to science discussions.

 

[amariselle]

You said that no human being has the power to arrange the clouds. You can't possibly know that -- you made an asusmption, and are only accepting "evidence" which supports your own assumption.

You've accused scientists of doing precisely this, but balked at every request to support it -- now we see you were merely projecting.

Someone had to put it to good use -- I got tired of waiting.

What evidence? No evidence to support the claim that the poster arranged the clouds was given.

 

[bhsmte]

Why do they need to do that?

It would involve their personal psychological need to do so.

 

[amariselle]

And when "Christian" officially means anti-science and pro-ignorance, your statement that "this is first and foremost a Christian forum" will mean something.

I'm more concerned as to why non-Christians are on a Christian forum disputing Christianity and suggesting that Christians are "pro-ignorance" because they don't agree with Darwinian Evolutionary Theory.

As far as I'm concerned that means something.

 

[bhsmte]

I'm more concerned as to why non-Christians are on a Christian forum disputing Christianity and suggesting that Christians are "pro-ignorance" because they don't agree with Darwinian Evolutionary Theory.

As far as I'm concerned that means something.

Why are you concerned people who do not believe as you do are allowed on certain portions of this site? You know, there is a Christian only section, where your problem would be solved.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

This is first and foremost a Christian Forum.

This is the Physical & Life Sciences forum. I'm sure there are plenty of forums on CF where Christians can preach uninterrupted.