Two creationists take a Commercial flight

[Gottservant]

If you need some word salad, to make it interesting: I have some handy.

 

[AV1611VET]

If you need some word salad, to make it interesting: I have some handy.

No, thanks! I like it just as it is!

 

[Brightmoon]

You can actually build an airplane. NO one has ever gotten evolution to work in the lab. Look at the fruit fly. You start with a fruit fly, you end up with a fruit fly. Unless you think a fly with a leg growing out of his head is useful.

actually a fly with a leg growing out of its head demonstrated quite well that insect mouthparts and antennae are modified limbs . So yeah that was useful .

 

[tas8831]

You can actually build an airplane. NO one has ever gotten evolution to work in the lab. Look at the fruit fly. You start with a fruit fly, you end up with a fruit fly. Unless you think a fly with a leg growing out of his head is useful.

Can you take dust of the ground and make a man out of it?
Show us in real time.

 

[Ophiolite]

Can you take dust of the ground and make a man out of it?
Show us in real time.

This should actually be easier than demonstrating evolution in the lab (in a manner that satisfies Creationists). We know that in large, multi-cellular eukaryotes (the only organisms Creationists properly recognise species in) macro-evolution takes longer than has yet been available to biologists. In contrast man was purportedly made from dust in no more than one day.

 

[dad]

AV1611VET: How do we know that the flight crew knows how to fly this plane?

Flight Attendant: They are trained experts and have been doing this for many years.

Dad: All because they are so-called experts doesn’t mean they can ignore God’s Word.

Dad actually travels. He doesn't think air fishbowl flights really matter in the creation debate.

AV1611VET: Homo sapiens means “Wise Man,” doesn’t it? Since the flight crew are Wise Men they are really fools and God will show them they are fools by crashing the plane.

If they thoght they were on a flight over the garden of Eden, heaven, or the ark of Noah, I suggest people get a refund.

Dad: How do these Ivory Tower so-called experts know they can fly this plane between here and the destination? What if the atmosphere between here and the destination is in a different state?

We know what the atmosphere is like now. That does not mean we can take samples of what the atmosphere Adam knew was like.

Flight Attendant: Different State?? What do you mean??

I mean that Split Rock is trying to pretend some other reality should apply here when really that is foolish.

Dad: A different state…. Like it was before “The Split.”

Flight Attendant: What “Split?”

Dad: During the time of Peleg. To think differently, is anti-Bible hogwash and a fantasy!

Flight Attendant: What are you talking about?

Dad: You cannot prove that the space-time state between here and there is not different can you?

Flight Attendant: No, but we have never had any problem flying this route before..

Why would you? Your route is in the present world, and over known space and time.

Dad: I just discovered that human flight is impossible! Amazing!!

Actually human flight is fine. It aso happens to be unrelated to the evolution religion debate.

Flight Attendant: Please, take your seats so we can take off! I promise it is safe!

OK, thanks, who am I to be nervous in a Boeing 737?

Dad: Prove with your so called science that the state between here and there is the same! You can’t!!!! Human flight is an anti-Bible lie! Amazing!

Don't be confused you poor cute flight attendant, dad never suggested any such thing, and has no reason to doubt that fishbowl space is not a safe place to navigate.

 

[dad]

The problem is, science is an intergrated system of understanding and your "standards" leave you with an flawed understanding of the universe around you. Only because you refuse to re-evaluate your own understanding of the scriptures.

The problem is, God's word is an intergrated system of understanding and your "standards" leave you with an flawed understanding of the universe around you. Only because you refuse to re-evaluate your own understanding of the science.

 

[dad]

Humour aside, this does show up the inconsistency of most creationists.

It's the point about accepting forensics but rejecting evolution all over again.

Forensics is like a wind up car toy, it can only go a certain distance.

 

[Ophiolite]

Forensics is like a wind up car toy, it can only go a certain distance.

The only wind up here is the wind up creationists are trying to pull on evolutionists through their reality free assertions.

 

[dad]

The only wind up here is the wind up creationists are trying to pull on evolutionists through their reality free assertions.

Reality is not constrained to the flights of fancy and beliefs imposed upon the reality of the past by purposely clueless religionists of the evo persuasion.

 

[KWCrazy]

Then why don't you accept all science? Evolution is useful in modern medicine, much like airplanes are useful in modern transportation. Why are you cool with "sight" for airplanes, but not evolution?

The principles of flight are a provable science; easily reproduced and validated.
Evolution enjoys no such validation. It is not provable and cannot be reproduced. It's a theory of origins. Rejecting it is not a rejection of all science, despite the frequent claims of evolutionists.

 

[Ophiolite]

The principles of flight are a provable science; easily reproduced and validated.
Evolution enjoys no such validation. It is not provable and cannot be reproduced. It's a theory of origins. Rejecting it is not a rejection of all science, despite the frequent claims of evolutionists.

1. Flight is engineering, not science.
2. Evolution is validated by observations in biogeography, genetics, zoology, botany, comparative anatomy, microbiology, palaeontology, etc.
3. Nothing in science can be proven. Proof is not a part of the scientific process. I don't ask you to prove that God exists. I understand how faith and revelation work. I respect those approaches, while rejecting their value to me. I would appreciate a comparable respect for the scientific method.
4. Evolution is a theory concerned with the origin of biodiversity, of species, variation etc. I hope you are not trying to suggest that it is also concerned with the origin of life. That would be, if I may phrase it politely, disingenuous of you.
5. Many, but not all, creationists reject other aspects of science, such as dating techniques, deep time, Big Bang theory etc. A small sub-set seems to be associated with those who argue for a Flat Earth, and others who oppose vaccination.

 

[KWCrazy]

1. Flight is engineering, not science.

Engineering is the application of science and mathematics. Lift is a result of the application of
Bernoulli's Principle.

2. Evolution is validated by observations in biogeography, genetics, zoology, botany, comparative anatomy, microbiology, palaeontology, etc.

Evolution has never been replicated under any scientific experimentation. Despite repeated claims by evolutionists, that holds true.

3. Nothing in science can be proven.

Proven to whom? If I hold a bowling ball over your head the law of gravity tells me that in every case it will fall if I let go. If that law isn't proven, the bowling ball my just remain in the air. Shall we test this?

I respect those approaches, while rejecting their value to me.

See your statement 2.

I would appreciate a comparable respect for the scientific method.

Respect for the scientific method doesn't mean blind acceptance of unprovable theories. I also reject the "science" of alchemy. Remember, science also once demonstrated that the black man was genetically inferior.

4. Evolution is a theory concerned with the origin of biodiversity, of species, variation etc. I hope you are not trying to suggest that it is also concerned with the origin of life. That would be, if I may phrase it politely, disingenuous of you.

I know, we all agree that science can't account for the origination of anything. However, the acquisition of all characteristics in all species from simple life forms not having those characteristics is equally vacuous.

5. Many, but not all, creationists reject other aspects of science, such as dating techniques, deep time, Big Bang theory etc.

Or they don't view them as you do. For example, if God created a tree, would it have rings? Would it be a tree if it did not? Would it be a new creation if it did? I believe the Big Bang happened on day four of the creation.

A small sub-set seems to be associated with those who argue for a Flat Earth,

I always hear that argument but never met a "flat earther."

and others who oppose vaccination.

Jehova Witnesses? Jesus never told us to resist medication.

 

[Ophiolite]

Engineering is the application of science and mathematics. Lift is a result of the application of
Bernoulli's Principle.

Yes. You agree flight is engineering.

Evolution has never been replicated under any scientific experimentation. Despite repeated claims by evolutionists, that holds true.

That statement is not a relevant response to " Evolution is validated by observations in biogeography, genetics, zoology, botany, comparative anatomy, microbiology, palaeontology, etc"

Proven to whom? If I hold a bowling ball over your head the law of gravity tells me that in every case it will fall if I let go. If that law isn't proven, the bowling ball my just remain in the air. Shall we test this?

I can think of a number of cases in which this will not occur. For example, if we are in orbit, where we are still under the influence of the Earth's gravity, the ball will remain where it is.
If you seriously believe that science proves things then there is little point in discussing matters of science with you any further.

Respect for the scientific method doesn't mean blind acceptance of unprovable theories. I also reject the "science" of alchemy. Remember, science also once demonstrated that the black man was genetically inferior.

Seriously, get a new script writer.

I know, we all agree that science can't account for the origination of anything.

That is the opposite of what I said. Either you have serious reading comprehensions issues, or you are deliberately misrepresenting my position. Either way there is no value in further discussion.

Have a nice delusion.

 

[Yttrium]

I always hear that argument but never met a "flat earther."

I never encountered any before I came here. Then I found six right away. They all seem to be quite serious about it. Here's a list, look up their posts:

d taylor
JacksBratt
morse86
patrick jane
SeventyOne
YHWH_will_uplift

 

[AV1611VET]

C'mon, guys.

This is just a tongue-in-cheek thread, created to break the monotony.

Give it some groove and don't go L7, for crying out loud.

 

[Yttrium]

If I hold a bowling ball over your head the law of gravity tells me that in every case it will fall if I let go. If that law isn't proven, the bowling ball my just remain in the air. Shall we test this?

Ah, but the law isn't that the ball falls on your head. The law is a formula that describes the force acting on the ball as it falls on your head. You know, the force is the gravitational constant times the mass of the ball times the mass of the Earth divided by the distance between the centers of mass squared. That's the law that's actually a theory.

And the law wasn't right. It was a good approximation for things here on Earth, where everything moves much, much slower than the speed of light. General Relativity had to step in as a better theory. And General Relativity may just be another step to something even better.

 

[tas8831]

The principles of flight are a provable science; easily reproduced and validated.
Evolution enjoys no such validation. It is not provable and cannot be reproduced. It's a theory of origins. Rejecting it is not a rejection of all science, despite the frequent claims of evolutionists.

Hi Karl,
Please show us a man being created from dust.

 

[AV1611VET]

Hi Karl,
Please show us a man being created from dust.

That was a miracle, not science.

 

[Bob Crowley]

It would be just as easy to set up a couple of evolutionists in the aircraft arguing that it somehow "evolved" from the earlier string and canvas model of the Wright Brothers, and denying that any intelligence was necessary.

Whereas we know for a fact that not a single aircraft ever flew which wasn't designed and built from the ground up by an intelligent being. They did not "evolve". Oh, sure, we learnt as we went along, using our intelligence to analyse every step in heavier than air flight's progress, but every single aircraft that ever flew was intelligently designed and carefully built - end of story.

And if we omit something, despite all the thought and painstaking planning which goes into an aircraft, our omission can have disastrous consequences, as witnessed by the recent Boeing 737 MAX tragedies.

Take for example the butterfly, which starts with a larva crawling around eating leaves etc. It then morphs into a pupae, and while it is in that stage, it literally dissolves itself to become a soup of chemicals. From there it re-develops into a beautiful butterfly, which then flies out, completely liberated from its land bound origins.

Now what sequence of chances would be required for those three separate stages to develop the necessary sequence, and why the hell would any creature bother to go about it's life cycle in that particular way, bearing in mind that for flight alone to take place, a whole host of cooperative features have to be included. Miss just one, and the creature goes nowhere, easy prey for any other predator.

And this preparation has to come about while it is in the chemical soup stage.

Design Features for the Monarch Butterfly Life Cycle

A bit on butterfly wings -

Butterfly designer wings - creation.com

And here's a bit of a nutshell view of aircraft DESIGN, requiring the input of a lot of shared intelligence.

Aeroplane Design and Engineering