- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,059
- 52,631
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Not hardly --- this "religious dogma" --- as you call it --- proves Itself with mathematical accuracy.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Holding science to the standard of religious dogma is a lower standard than evidence.
Last time I checked, the internet was NOT lightning.
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?Not hardly --- this "religious dogma" --- as you call it --- proves Itself with mathematical accuracy.
Not hardly --- this "religious dogma" --- as you call it --- proves Itself with mathematical accuracy.
Not hardly --- this "religious dogma" --- as you call it --- proves Itself with mathematical accuracy.
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"?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".
Oh wow! And all this time I thought it was a divine prophesy of the invention of the telegraph!Now that's funny --- seeing as how the Internet is mentioned in the Bible.
[bible]Job 38:35[/bible]
Mathematical accuracy you say?
I Chronicles 3:22
The sons of Shemaiah: Huttush, Igal, Bariah, Neriah, and Shaphat, six.
Bad, Av, bad. It's against the rules to make up personal definitions of words (like science).
Check again --- you might learn something.
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.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.
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.
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. .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.)
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?