What Are Your Top 5 Scientific Proofs That Creationists Cannot Dispute?

[AV1611VET]

Holding science to the standard of religious dogma is a lower standard than evidence.

Not hardly --- this "religious dogma" --- as you call it --- proves Itself with mathematical accuracy.

 

[AV1611VET]

Last time I checked, the internet was NOT lightning.

Check again --- you might learn something.

 

[lemmings]

Not hardly --- this "religious dogma" --- as you call it --- proves Itself with mathematical accuracy.

You mean like that time when you figured that the Bible had a lower than 50% (I think that I was closer to 35%) success rate when it came to fulfilling prophecies, many of which where likely written after the event that they ‘foretold’ already occurred?

 

[DisgruntledPostalEmployee]

Not hardly --- this "religious dogma" --- as you call it --- proves Itself with mathematical accuracy.

Anyone for a slice of pi?

 

[Firikon21]

Not hardly --- this "religious dogma" --- as you call it --- proves Itself with mathematical accuracy.

Mathematical accuracy you say?

I Chronicles 3:22
The sons of Shemaiah: Huttush, Igal, Bariah, Neriah, and Shaphat, six.

Ooops god, there's five there. Sure messed that one up didn't you?

Joshua 15:33-36
And in the lowland, Eshtaol, Zorah, Ashnah, Zanoah, Engannim, Tappuah, Enam, Jarmuth, Adullam, Socoh, Azekah, Shaaraim, Adithaim, Gederah, Gederothaim: fourteen cities with their villages.

Here God goes again! Isn't that 15 villages god, not 14? Oops! That silly counting! Omniscience is one thing, counting is quite another apparently.

1Chronicles 25:3
Of Jeduthun, the sons of Jeduthun: Gedaliah, and Zeri, and Jeshaiah, Hashabiah, and Mattithiah [with Shimei, mentioned], six, under the hand of their father Jeduthun, who prophesied with a harp to give thanks and to praise the LORD.

Five, god, five.

But remember children, the Bible is mathematically accurate!

 

[Psudopod]

Check again --- you might learn something.

Do please elaberate. How is the internet lightning? And how on earth does wifi work if it is?

 

[birdan]

We Christians hold science to a higher Standard than even scientists do --- the Bible. We have much more respect for science than any Atheist does.


Is that so? Just because you can't explain it correctly in scientific terms like we can, doesn't mean it's "anti-science".

Bad, Av, bad. It's against the rules to make up personal definitions of words (like science). Words have a common usage and in using those words you should adhere to that usage. Don't use the word 'science' - make up your own word. How about "mumbocadabra"?

Now that's funny --- seeing as how the Internet is mentioned in the Bible.

[bible]Job 38:35[/bible]

Oh wow! And all this time I thought it was a divine prophesy of the invention of the telegraph!

 

[AV1611VET]

Mathematical accuracy you say?

I Chronicles 3:22
The sons of Shemaiah: Huttush, Igal, Bariah, Neriah, and Shaphat, six.

You left some of that verse out ---

[bible]1 Chronicles 3:22[/bible]

What version was that, by the way? I checked several, and not one was written the way you wrote it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Bad, Av, bad. It's against the rules to make up personal definitions of words (like science).

Or "day"?

 

[Atheuz]

Check again --- you might learn something.

The internet is a series of tubes.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

AV, please show me how the internet is operated by lightning.

 

[FishFace]

Check again --- you might learn something.

Lightning occurs when the potential difference between either the cloud and ground, or two clouds, overcomes the dielectric strength of air, causing a rapid drop in resistance. The lightning phenomenon that we see is caused by electrons excited in the process dropping back to rest state and releasing light as they do so.

The internet, on the other hand, is a communications system built using various methods. One is electricity, which uses the flow of electrons through conducting wires. Another is optic fibre, which uses the total internal reflection of light through a transparent cable. Neither of these involve the dielectric breakdown of air, and subsequent emission of light by excited electrons.

Today, AV, you have learned something. Try not to forget it.

 

[FishFace]

Oh yeah, wifi - that's another form of the internet, transmitted by radio waves. Nothing to do with the dielectric breakdown of air, there, either.

 

[Chalnoth]

Lightning occurs when the potential difference between either the cloud and ground, or two clouds, overcomes the dielectric strength of air, causing a rapid drop in resistance. The lightning phenomenon that we see is caused by electrons excited in the process dropping back to rest state and releasing light as they do so.

The internet, on the other hand, is a communications system built using various methods. One is electricity, which uses the flow of electrons through conducting wires. Another is optic fibre, which uses the total internal reflection of light through a transparent cable. Neither of these involve the dielectric breakdown of air, and subsequent emission of light by excited electrons.

Today, AV, you have learned something. Try not to forget it.

Just as a little FYI, lightning doesn't actually overcome the dielectric strength of air for its entire path: it makes hops and jumps from one ionized patch in the air to another. Where do the ionized patches in the air come from? Cosmic rays bombard atoms in the atmosphere, ionizing them. What basically happens is that both the source and the destination emit something like a bush of lightning, spreading outward, hopping between the ionized pockets, and ionizing the air in their wake. When one of the 'branches' of a bush hit a 'branch' from the other, a connection is established, and the full force of the lightning is able to pass back and forth between source and destination.

 

[LeeC]

Evolution is a theory... it is possible to disprove it. This has not happened. It is therefore a very good theory.

The young Earth creationists have nothing but faith, it is impossible to disprove them, and they cannot explain it to themselves. They certain cannot explain their position about from “Well, I do not understand your science, so it must be God”

They ignore evidence if it does not fit into their "worldview" - it is sad but true.

They have no evidence to back up their claims. Science is able to answer much of what we see in the universe today - what it cannot, science is working on. (So the creationist will attack the gaps of course.)

It is like the captain of a sinking ship. They shout, "All is well, nothing is happening here, we are not sinking." As their feet are getting wet.

The rest of the Christians have understood that evolution is correct and have jump ship to save themselves.

Good luck… and may God bless all who sail in her!

Lee

 

[AV1611VET]

Lightning occurs when the potential difference between either the cloud and ground, or two clouds, overcomes the dielectric strength of air, causing a rapid drop in resistance. The lightning phenomenon that we see is caused by electrons excited in the process dropping back to rest state and releasing light as they do so.

The internet, on the other hand, is a communications system built using various methods. One is electricity, which uses the flow of electrons through conducting wires. Another is optic fibre, which uses the total internal reflection of light through a transparent cable. Neither of these involve the dielectric breakdown of air, and subsequent emission of light by excited electrons.

Today, AV, you have learned something. Try not to forget it.

Ya --- I learned you conveniently left out the last part of that verse.

[bible]Job 38:35[/bible]

I don't need a lecture on lightning, I need you to explain the latter part of that verse.

And "the language of the times", while you're at it.

You want to lecture me --- lecture me --- but please don't cherry pick.

(You too, MrGoodBytes.)

 

[FishFace]

Just as a little FYI, lightning doesn't actually overcome the dielectric strength of air for its entire path: it makes hops and jumps from one ionized patch in the air to another. Where do the ionized patches in the air come from? Cosmic rays bombard atoms in the atmosphere, ionizing them. What basically happens is that both the source and the destination emit something like a bush of lightning, spreading outward, hopping between the ionized pockets, and ionizing the air in their wake. When one of the 'branches' of a bush hit a 'branch' from the other, a connection is established, and the full force of the lightning is able to pass back and forth between source and destination.

I love this forum...

Actually, no, I love being places where physicists will tell me random physics facts, since I no longer do physics (too boring, at A level, anyway - in the UK they have this crazy idea that you can do physics without taking maths, so the entire physics course has to be taught without calculus. Nuts.) it's nice to get these little tidbits!

 

[FishFace]

Ya --- I learned you conveniently left out the last part of that verse.

[bible]Job 38:35[/bible]

I don't need a lecture on lightning, I need you to explain the latter part of that verse.

And "the language of the times", while you're at it.

You want to lecture me --- lecture me --- but please don't cherry pick.

(You too, MrGoodBytes.)

What? You're still trying to claim that the internet involves sending lightning, and having the lightning somehow communicate with people.

The internet doesn't use lightning, and lightning can't communicate. (Nor can it be used for communication - either natural lightning or man-made sparks - it would be pointless.)

The fact that you're trying to claim the Bible references the internet when the verse, taken in context, is clearly about God's power, not a prediction of some future technology. If it were reference to the internet, we obviously now have a power of God. Cool!

EDIT: AV always goes on about how if you can't interpret Genesis properly, you've got no chance with the rest of the Bible. Little did he know the truth of his words - when anyone, like AV does here, tries to read too much into the Bible, treats it as infallible and predictive of all sorts of things, you get this nonsense.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

Ya --- I learned you conveniently left out the last part of that verse.

[bible]Job 38:35[/bible]

I don't need a lecture on lightning, I need you to explain the latter part of that verse.

And "the language of the times", while you're at it.

You want to lecture me --- lecture me --- but please don't cherry pick.

(You too, MrGoodBytes.)

Oh, that's grand. You claim that a verse about God sending lightning is a prophecy about the internet (because lightning = electrons in a wire, as we all know), and then accuse us of cherry picking. .

 

[Brennin]

I'd stay right away from scientific debates. Most of the time, creationists are arguing outdated or utterly incorrect versions of evolutionary theory. It's like trying to debate advanced algebra with someone who thinks that 1+1=3. It's a waste of time.

Instead, I'd focus on this: real-world evolution. In particular, the fact that evolution has practical (including commerical) application. This is something no creationist has ever addressed. Indeed, they prefer to completely ignore this. I would suggest Googling "comparative genomics" and "phylogenomics". Heck, just read up bioinformatics in general.

ETA: A few articles:

Evolutionary Biology: Technology for the 21st Century
Evolutionary biology and the national research agenda (outdated but good)
Applied Evolution (requires subscribed access; you could probably do it through a university or library)

Something else I would recommend paying attention to is the funding for evolutionary based science specifically related to biotech, as well as political initiatives in relation to biotech businesses (typically state-level). There's a whole world of applied evolutionary science out there, which creationists have no clue about. Quite frankly, it puts the whole "debate" into perspective. And I guarantee they won't be able to much more than duck and dodge this stuff.

How much of this 'applied evolution' you have in mind consists of bacteria evolving into new strains or the like? (As if that were in dispute.) The real bone of contention is not that allele frequencies change over time, but that humans are evolved apes. How has that concept helped your research, especially in light of the fact that chimps react quite differently to common diseases?