Tribulation physics

[TLK Valentine]

Why do you get your science out of the book of fantasy and fairy tales?

The Bible?

(I almost feel bad about that one-- the setup was just too perfect.)

I am talking about people that get out there and make things happen. That can show some results.

So, scientists, then. People who actually do things as opposed to people who stand around and claim that "God" will show up (any day now; just you wait!) and do it all for them.

 

[Jamin4422]

So, scientists, then. People who actually do things

Just what does science do? Those who can do, those who can't teach. That is what science does, they teach and they do research. I do not see them actually doing anything. I had a friend that got $300,000 from March of Dimes. He hired a Chinese to do the work. Then they wrote up the article. I do not see where they actually did anything. He was a nice guy though, everyone really liked him. He may have added to our knowledge and understanding a little bit. But his hopes and dreams of a big breakthough and improved treatment plan never seemed to happen. If you think they actually do something, fine, keep those happy thoughts.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Just what does science do? Those who can do, those who can't teach.

And those who can't do or teach, complain.

 

[Jamin4422]

And those who can't do or teach, complain.

I would imagine they end up living in a test city somewhere,
complaining about how others can not do more for them.
Wondering why science has no solution for their problem.

 

[dad]

Show me your God and I will dismiss science! Deal? No? Oh well then enjoy your dream world of make believe!

FSM will pardon you and will ignore your heathen ways!

Mt 11:27 -All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.





Joh 6:37 - All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.







.

 

[dad]

I'm sorry. I seem to recall that Jamin said that plate tectonics was a lot more predictable than you think. He never said that it was completely predictable.

What is it with your "All or nothing" attitude?

If they could predict quakes that might be a small start. If they predicted the big shake soon, where all islands will move out of where they now are and all mountains flattened, they might have a clue. They have no ability to predict because they have no clue outside of some pitiful present state little residual movement of plates, etc. Therefore their predictive powers hardly rival Daffy Duck's.

The mechanism responsible for earthquakes is quite well understood, even if we can't predict exactly when they will occur.

'gee we really have it nailed, except we have no clue at all'. OK.

 

[TLK Valentine]

If they could predict quakes that might be a small start. If they predicted the big shake soon, where all islands will move out of where they now are and all mountains flattened, they might have a clue.

If you could do that, so might you.

 

[dad]

You ignored half of my point. I already understand why you dismiss future predictions. What interests me is why you take books that are thousands of years old at face value.

I don't. I take God's proven tested and known word to man for what it is rather than rejecting it like a mad banjee for no reason.

For example?

Jesus was born of a virgin in Bethlehem, and the temple and city were destroyed afterward.

We have no credible source for this. This "fact" is less solid then everything scientists say, yet you take it completely at face value.

Speak for yourself. Want to wave away last Thursday as well as Peter and all the people who were friends and followers and witnesses?

You are not credible.

Good point! I didn't think about that one!

Glad you are starting to question your programming.

It is. You assume that the laws of nature will always stay the same. So do scientists. Why is it okay for you, but not for them? Where do you draw the magic line between a reasonable assumption that the laws will stay the same and between the superstition that the laws will always stay the same? Where's the difference?

In the unknown. Either we know or not. I can assume that the temporal state I always knew will be here tomorrow as science does along with it's rules. How long that will continue we do not know. That neuters all your predictions.

 

[dad]

If you could do that, so might you.

I don't have to, God already did tell us in detail about the big shake. The Real Scientist is so much smarter than present state wise men it is hilarious.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I don't have to, God already did tell us in detail about the big shake. The Real Scientist is so much smarter than present state wise men it is hilarious.

Hilarious indeed -- I don't suppose He gave you even an inkling of when the Big Shake is supposed to happen.

No? He didn't? Color me shocked.

But let me guess -- "any day now; just you wait!"

Well, you keep up with the perfect 0-for-lifetime record; the rest of us prefer our "predictions" to come before the event, as opposed to after.

 

[dad]

By the Babylonians or the Romans? be specific, sonny.

Both were foretold...this is news, Einstein?

 

[The Engineer]

I don't. I take God's proven tested and known word to man for what it is rather than rejecting it like a mad banjee for no reason.

You have a reason to reject it: You have no proof that it's real.

Jesus was born of a virgin in Bethlehem, and the temple and city were destroyed afterward.

That's not evidence. Even if Jesus' existence was proven, that wouldn't mean Christianity was right, nor would it mean his mother was a virgin.

Speak for yourself. Want to wave away last Thursday as well as Peter and all the people who were friends and followers and witnesses?

What does Thursday have to do with this?

The only source which states that Jesus rose from the dead is the bible. That's hardly enough evidence for such an extraordinary claim.

You are not credible.

That's why I don't expect you to take anything I say at face value.

Glad you are starting to question your programming.

Glad you recognize sarcasm.

In the unknown.

In short, you have no idea what you are talking about.

Either we know or not. I can assume that the temporal state I always knew will be here tomorrow as science does along with it's rules. How long that will continue we do not know. That neuters all your predictions.

That doesn't answer my questions.

What's the difference between your assumption of consistency, and the scientific assumption of consistency?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Both were foretold...this is news, Einstein?

Actually, neither were foretold -- not in any useful way.

They were discussed quite a bit after they happened, but unless time also operates differently in your universe (and it probably does), that doesn't count as a "foretelling."

Care to try your luck again?

 

[Tiberius]

When you find God then you will find true science. If you do not know God then you you do not know true science.

Unsupported claim, citation needed.

Please give me an example of any scientific principle that requires the presence of a God of any kind in order for it to work.

 

[Jamin4422]

That's not evidence. Even if Jesus' existence was proven, that wouldn't mean Christianity was right, nor would it mean his mother was a virgin.

Actually that is not in your department. So it is really not anything your qualified to have an opinion on. The people in the Catholic Church have studied all of that for Thousands of years and they are much better qualified to decide what is and what is not.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Actually that is not in your department. So it is really not anything your qualified to have an opinion on.

Is nobody qualified in your world but you?

The people in the Catholic Church have studied all of that for Thousands of years and they are much better qualified to decide what is and what is not.

And they have the most to lose at this point if they're proven wrong. Not exactly a strong motivation for transparency, is it?

 

[Jamin4422]

Unsupported claim, citation needed.

Please give me an example of any scientific principle that requires the presence of a God of any kind in order for it to work.

This is simply based on truth. The field of study is not important. If you know God then you know truth. If you do not know God, then you do not know truth. I could give you all the Bible references and quotes, but I do not think that is the issue here. Actually to know God means to be born again and to have the Divine Mind of God. I do not know how much you want to go into this. There is lots and lots to learn about what is true and how we can know we abide in the truth. Like many things in life this takes years to learn and study.

 

[Jamin4422]

Is nobody qualified in your world but you?

Qualified for what? Just what makes up the Church or the Body of Christ is a VERY BASIC teaching. It is really not all that difficult to understand. We could go over some of the basic teachings on this if you want.

 

[Jamin4422]

And they have the most to lose at this point if they're proven wrong.

These people are the Phds, they are the experts. It's absurd to come here and demand we listen to the experts in Biology but disregard the experts in Religion and the Bible. That is a double standard.

 

[Illuminaughty]

My religion says Jesus wasn't God. You aren't a PHD in this religion so you better not disagree. Yay, religioulus logic.