Different Opinions....Who is right?

[cladking]

Why can’t “species” be used? Is it because not found in your idiotic Ancient Language and Ancient Science.

There's nothing wrong with "species". But as soon as you invent it you are rubber stamping your belief that all things can be discovered through reducing reality to words, types, and common attributes. Every single thing you discover about "species" is dependent on the assumption and the definition. When you forget this all of your observations and experiment become open to misinterpretation.

All life is individual and all change in life is sudden but we "look and see" species go on and believe our experiments are relevant beyond the definitions and methodology. Humans desire to understand and have answers and we see our beliefs so are self deluded into thinking we already have the answers.

You are ok with ancient people pre-2000 BCE or mythological pre-Tower of Babel, inventing your conspiracy theory of Ancient Language being created for Ancient Science.

Ancient people used an observational science that worked because they thought differently. Our words have infinite meaning and we each try to pick it out of what each other says. No two people get the same message. Ancient words had a single meaning and the intent of the speaker arose in context. Their language worked because it mirrored the natural logic of the wiring of the brain. This natural logic like mathematics underlay observation and allowed the formation of theory.

We couldn't conduct science this way even if we were as logical as a computer because we lack the language in which to do it and modern science is far too complex to be manipulated by humans in a natural language.

Do you expect the world to remain static, and to continue to use outdated knowledge and methods for your woo Ancient Science?

Ancient Language had to fail. Nothing can stay static. Some such changes can be predicted; when automobiles were invented buggy whips became obsolete suddenly. But many changes catch us unprepared no matter how slowly they come about.

Knowledge is never outdated but it can become irrelevant. It may seem ancient knowledge is obsolete but I believe it can be manipulated by computers and used in tandem with modern science. Even the simplest life forms use natural science and computers are sufficiently complex to mimic simple life forms.

Get over yourself, we not living in the 3rd millennium BCE or older.

He who forgets the past may be condemned to repeat it.

We have forgotten our past and if we are to repeat it there can be no new "Golden Age". We may be teetering on the edge of extinction and several more threats to our existence await us in the next 100 years.


What possible harm can result from 120 years of promoting the glib instead of the competent? What harm can befall a country run by those who believe there are too many people? Why should we even worry about an educational system that failed 80 years ago? Things have been this way a long time and there are no problems yet.

"Look and See Science" says this is the best of all possible worlds which were all made with ramps!!!

You believe you can reject religion and you believe that religious people are fundamentally different and have rejected science. In the real world seekers are merely trying to pick their way through scant information and total ignorance. Only the pious of "God" or "Science" have all the answers and you think everyone must choose. True science and true religion demand everything to be considered. True science requires an examination of its own definitions and axioms and you do not understand this. You don't understand the concept that science and mathematics can be improperly applied. You can't understand the nature of your own science but want to use it to deny the existence of any other kind of science and "God" as well. You want to use words and definitions to show the cause of change is species without understanding the real nature of species or of consciousness. You are stuck in an endless loop repeating the beliefs generated not by experiment or proper observation but by assumptions and semantics.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Oh please.
They're following an interpretation of the evidence.

Oh please. You offer no evidence at all and do not have an interpretation. You have a preconceived notion that you want to force everything to fit. What doesn't fit (which is most of it), you ignore, deny, rationalize or twist.

 

[Nimos]

Those with a science claim need to demonstrate. Once we know that science does not know what laws existed and what nature, then we can use the process of elimination.

Forget the scientists working in these fields, they have thrown their years of research in the garbage bin and moved on to MCdonalds where they are now burger flippers.

Adam lived about 6000 years ago. He was created in the same week as the stars and sun and fish and birds etc.

How do you prove any of these claims? Again remember that there is no scientists left to argue against you, they have publicly apologized for having no clue what they are doing. So they are now all looking for you to provide them with the answers that they missed.

So one of them ask you, how you will prove that the stars, fish and humans were all created in the same week?

Another one, which is a more brave scientists steps forward and explain to you how carbon dating works, or how they thought it works, and if you could explain how it used to work in the alternative nature, because there seem to be some issues with Earth only being 6000 years old and the half life of Carbon-14 being 5730 years, because it is used to determine the age of bones for instance, which is much older that than, so how would you explain that and also are you going to write new physics books?

Science doesn't know either way, no one is going to prove anything with science.

Agree, we have already decided that science is useless and all the scientists have been fired. Everyone have now turned to you as the oracle of knowledge and for you to bring us forward.

No one can show them how it was possible in this nature, because it was not in this nature! So all they can say if they are honest is 'I don't know'.

Ok, that statement is probably not a good way to start off the new Age of Enlightenment. People have gathered all around the world waiting for you to provide them with the truth. So starting off by saying that "No one can show them how it was possible" doesn't really sound like you have a lot of confident in what you are saying.

The scientists, don't even dare to say they don't know. Its on you now to convince people that what you are saying is true.

The whole continent moved. No need to jump anywhere, the continents did the jumping.

You mean God moved them? or what? If so that is one hell of a strong argument!!

Yes. The time-frame dictates that it had to be fast.

Ok, checkmate I guess, that is also one hell of a strong argument, see no way to argue against that.

He created animals and all life. He did not create dead stuff. He is the God of the living.

This one is much more interesting, because how do you think that the fossils were made then, because now we have excluded God?

Once we know that science does not know what laws existed and what nature, then we can use the process of elimination.

So if science got it wrong, then your idea must be right, is that what you are saying? And if not, how do you demonstrate that you are not also wrong?

Once we see that science doesn't know, people can believe what they like.

That's a bit confusing, because then we are not even interested in the truth, simply what people would like to believe. So Muslims can make up there own ideas as well I guess? Buddhists, Hindus etc. And everything is equally valid, I see no issues with that to be honest.

 

[dad]

Forget the scientists working in these fields, they have thrown their years of research in the garbage bin and moved on to MCdonalds where they are now burger flippers.

That works for me. Anything to protect kids from their anti God lies.

How do you prove any of these claims? Again remember that there is no scientists left to argue against you, they have publicly apologized for having no clue what they are doing. So they are now all looking for you to provide them with the answers that they missed.

That has a nice ring to it. Almost prophetic. One day the truth of God will cover the earth.
So, the answer is that they need to believe God and His word. Then they need to realize that they need to memorize a little phrase...'I do not know'. If they seek they would find. All science has sought was to ignore and defy and replace Scripture, and pridefully pretend to know better.

So one of them ask you, how you will prove that the stars, fish and humans were all created in the same week?

Science cannot prove God did or did not. So the thing that now needs proving is whether there is a God or not. If there is, then He did create. That proof has been offered and demonstrated all through time. If there were scientists in Noah's day, they would have had their proof when they were swept away to their deaths.

Another one, which is a more brave scientists steps forward and explain to you how carbon dating works, or how they thought it works, and if you could explain how it used to work in the alternative nature

Looking at your art, we see that there is a process involving nature that results in a chain reaction. Looking at the brown area on the bottom, that is all after carbon existed. So we can look at the blue part. How it was produced. First we could look at things like oxidization. That would depend on how much oxygen was in the air. It also depends on electric charges.

1. To combine with oxygen; make into an oxide.
2. To increase the positive charge or valence of (an element) by removing electrons.
3. To coat with oxide.
oxidization

We would notice also that those cosmic rays are charged.

"Cosmic rays provide one of our few direct samples of matter from outside the solar system. They are high energy particles that move through space at nearly the speed of light. Most cosmic rays are atomic nuclei stripped of their atoms with protons (hydrogen nuclei) being the most abundant type but nuclei of elements as heavy as lead have been measured. Within cosmic-rays however we also find other sub-atomic particles like neutrons electrons and neutrinos.

Since cosmic rays are charged – positively charged protons or nuclei, or negatively charged electrons –"
Cosmic Rays - Introduction

Then we have trees and what they do. If a tree lived in a different former nature where they grew in weeks, we would not assume that trees grew as they now do. Trees depend on the laws of nature to work as you know.

"During oxygenic photosynthesis, light energy transfers electrons from water (H2O) to carbon dioxide (CO2), to produce carbohydrates. In this transfer, the CO2 is "reduced," or receives electrons, and the water becomes "oxidized," or loses electrons. Ultimately, oxygen is produced along with carbohydrates."
What Is Photosynthesis? | Live Science

In all areas we see one thing in common, that the forces of nature result in certain changes to atoms and atomic charges etc.

In a different nature, we would not expect these same forces to be working on atoms and resulting in the same gain or loss of charges, etc.

Simple.

.. saying that "No one can show them how it was possible" doesn't really sound like you have a lot of confident in what you are saying.

It was possible because life and all things that exist obey the laws God has in place. The issue is what forces and laws did He have in place? The answer is we do not know. One way to conceptualize this is to look at the future as foretold in the bible. The world again will be like it was in the former nature! So how would you expect us to tell you how that is possible? The short answer is that God is the creator, and all forces and laws depend on Him.
Do you know why the strong and weak nuclear forces are exactly as they are? No. Do you know why the electromagnetic forces are the way they are? No. Etc etc.
If man does not even know how or why the forces of nature are as they are now, how would you expect him to know how they will be in the future?! (or a different state past)

You mean God moved them?

I would suspect that the nature of that day was interrupted and changed, and this may have resulted in the plate shifts.
One interesting point is that I suspect that in the future, nature will change again suddenly (God will change it) and continents will move rapidly again! This time they will go back together! The timing of this event in Scripture is right at the very very end days of time just before the return of Jesus to rule the earth forever. It is described in many ways. A 'great shaking', a time when God shakes the earth, and etc. In that time all towers on earth will be leveled to the ground. Every mountain also will be leveled! Every island will be moved! Men will be hiding in the rocks begging for death.

This one is much more interesting, because how do you think that the fossils were made then, because now we have excluded God?

Fossils are just a small minority of creatures that lived long ago. They happened to be the ones able to leave remains in that former nature. The dates science claims for when these creatures died are wrong and totally faith-based. No one created fossils.

So if science got it wrong, then your idea must be right, is that what you are saying? And if not, how do you demonstrate that you are not also wrong?

Once we see science was wrong, it doesn't matter anymore what people resort to. God was right all along, and science was wrong though. That much is known.

That's a bit confusing, because then we are not even interested in the truth, simply what people would like to believe. So Muslims can make up there own ideas as well I guess? Buddhists, Hindus etc. And everything is equally valid, I see no issues with that to be honest.

When it comes to creation fairy tales, sure why not? Have you something against freedom?

Once we take the field of battle into the area of belief, then..may the best man win! The ugly truth is that so-called science has strutted around pretending it was a little hot shot that knows more than God and that it was some sort of fact-based operation.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

And here he is again...that phantom "common ancestor"...no mention of what it could have been

Sure there is. It was a single celled marine prokaryotic population encased in a lipid membrane capable of metabolizing, mutating, reproducing, and transferring genetic material. That's what it was.Faith-based refusal to accept that fact doesn't negate it. This is a theme we will revisit as you make other erroneous faith-based pronouncements.

Do you not know the difference between guesses and facts?

Do you? You seem to think science has guesses and you have facts. It's the other way around.

Are you prepared to listen to a scientist with credible scientific credentials, why he believes in Intelligent Design?

If he believes in intelligent design, I don't care what else he believes about science. And your scientist doesn't have credentials to make pronouncements in biology anyway.

Darwin saw adaptation....not organic evolution. Adaptation is not in dispute.

Darwin saw "organic" (biological) evolution, one form of adaptation. You saying that the adaptation of populations over generations subjected to genetic variability and differential selection by the environment in which these creatures compete for scarce resources is not biological evolution is incorrect. Calling it adaptation doesn't make it not biological evolution

Are you pitting your scientific credentials against a Professor?

No. I'm pitting my reasoning skills against a creationist's faith.

A professor. So what? He professes Christian creationism. How good a scientist is he if he doesn't realize that that is already ruled out by the evidence for evolution, even if the theory is falsified, or that science doesn't include faith-based beliefs.

If you give a flawed human being power over others, it will corrupt them every time.

Unless they are the leadership of the Jehovah's Witnesses, right? That would be the one time that people are immune to corruption, right?

"Stinnett, in his first interview about the case, explained how he and eight other Sanders County jurors found the Jehovah's Witnesses governing organizations negligent and "guilty of malice" in the child sexual abuse of Alexis Nunez, awarding her $35 million." Two guilty verdicts deliver legal blow to Jehovah’s Witnesses

we can't accept suggestions or assertions as facts

Sure you can. Your entire world view is suggestion, assumption, and speculation, including your intelligent designer and this paradise you imagine visiting some day.

We are the ones rejecting your assumptions and all other unevidenced beliefs.

I understand why evolutionists must believe that they are correct, because the opposing view may lead somewhere that they are not prepared to go.

That describes creationists, not the scientists. The scientists go wherever the data takes them. The creationists do not. They are the ones that must believe that they are correct, and they must do it in the face of overwhelming contradictory evidence, so they tell us that they can't see it.

Imagine what your world would be like if one day, you saw the evidence and realized that you were wrong. It would devastate you. Completely disorienting. Your mind will do what it must to defend you from that.

Mine, on the other hand, would welcome convincing evidence of a god if there were one.

The difference is that I want to right, whatever that is, and you want to be comforted, whatever the truth.

Wow, what a desperate roll of responses there @Wild Fox ......All protestations...but where's your "evidence"?

Take off your confirmation bias and look at it. Just kidding. Not an option for you any more.

Corrected...? When was there a correction? Did I miss it?

You miss all of the corrections. That's why you are unaware of them. This post is a long litany of corrections. You won't see any of them.

And saying that they're not corrections doesn't make them not corrections, just as calling biological evolution adaptation doesn't make it not biological evolution.

Nor does saying that there is no evidence for evolution doesn't make that so, nor that it is all assumption or faith-based. Noe of that becomes true just because you've painted yourself into a corner and now need it to be true to make it through the day.

If you have strong religious believers in the world, they will fight for God to the last drop of their blood.

This is an argument against organized religion, especially those with apocalyptic eschatologies. They are an existential threat to all of us:

"Forty-four percent of the American population is convinced that Jesus will return to judge the living and the dead sometime in the next fifty years. According to the most common interpretation of biblical prophecy, Jesus will return only after things have gone horribly awry here on earth. It is, therefore, not an exaggeration to say that if the city of New York were suddenly replaced by a ball of fire, some significant percentage of the American population would see a silver lining in the subsequent mushroom cloud, as it would suggest to them that the best thing that is ever going to happen was about to happen - the return of Christ. It should be blindingly obvious that beliefs of this sort will do little to help us create a durable future for ourselves - socially, economically, environmentally, or geopolitically. Imagine the consequences if any significant component of the U.S. government actually believed that the world was about to end and that its ending would be glorious. The fact that nearly half of the American population apparently believes this, purely on the basis of religious dogma, should be considered a moral and intellectual emergency.The book you are about to read is my response to this emergency" - Sam Harris, Letter To A Christian Nation

Looking at the empty streets and businesses of once bustling cities demonstrates how quickly things can change globally.....no one thought that this was even possible.

That's incorrect, and you should know that (as should Trump). Outbreaks like this characterize human history.

I guess you didn't see a correction there, either, huh?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You will not find human fossils mixed up with dinosaur fossils for instant. If humans were living side by side with them we would expect to find fossils there as well, but we don't.

What Christian creationists fail to acknowledge is that their god has already been ruled out by the evidence supporting evolution such as the geological column here and the data extracted from its strata. If evolution didn't occur - if life on earth were intelligently designed as kinds - then they all ought to be found in all strata. Instead, we find that as we dig deeper, the more complex forms we see today disappear. Go deep enough, and there are no human beings, just brachiating apes. Deeper yet, and no apes, just monkeys.

Moreover, radiodating ratios are also stratified, with the more modern forms in the higher strata also having younger dating ages, and deeper ones older.

What these creationists are not taking into account is that this evidence rules out the god of the Christian Bible even were evolution ever falsified. Suppose a human were found in the Cambrian strata, and the fraud and error could be ruled out. What then? Yahweh doesn't come back into play.

The only explanation then is that superhuman force and intelligence deliberately set up the earth to appear as if (abiogenesis and) evolution occurred naturalistically in a great deception ether by a prankster god or an advanced alien civilization - not a benevolent god that created life in kinds and then sent us a message so that we would know this creator, and trust, believe, love, obey, and worship it, not the trickster creator.

But the creationists, impervious to evidence, are unaware of this, and so do battle against Darwin's theory not realizing that they are fighting for the trickster intelligent designer, not their ruled out god that cannot be resuscitated by any finding.

You fail to see religious arguments as well simply because it is faith based but then you don't see your argument is faith based as well. You have a faith in the nebulous concept of "science" that you don't comprehend and in language that means something different to every single user.

There is no faith in science, and calling belief in the validity of scientific principles, methods, and findings faith doesn't make it such.

In fact, if faith is inserted anywhere in the process, it ceases to be science. It becomes pseudoscience, as with the intelligent design movement, where faith in an unevidenced intelligent creator is assumed as a premise. This poisons the scientific method, which is founded in dispassionate scientific skepticism. Nothing is believed without sufficient evidence.

And since the creationists' central tenet is false, their program has been as sterile as astrology for the same reason (wrong ideas don't work), and has been declared both pseudoscience and religion in court by a conservative Christian judge.

all life is carbon-based, and many rocks are carbon-based. Are they all related? No, just created.

Yes, they are related - life and rocks - and the presence of carbon in both is evidence of that. They are both products of the same Big Bang and subsequent material evolution. The carbon in stars is also related to both, and not surprisingly, has the same molecular weight, subatomic constituents, configuration, and other properties. This commonality is what tells you they all evolved (materially, not biologically) from a single common ancestral substancesometimes called ylem : "(in the Big Bang theory) the primordial matter of the universe, originally conceived as composed of neutrons at high temperature and density." This evolved into the entire periodic table of elements, and explains why carbon observed anywhere in the universe has the same emission and absorption spectrum after taking red-shifting into account.

So....Axe, Behe, Meyer, Minnich, Wells, etc.....they don’t “understand science”?

If they inject faith into their thinking, they cannot do science properly. They don't seem to understand that.

Let me explain with an example from arithmetic. Applying reason properly to a column of numbers to be added is the only way to get a correct sum short of making two errors that cancel one another. Reason says that 2 + 2 = 4 and only four. By faith, we can believe that they total 5.

If you inject that faith-based belief into your adding, you go off the rails immediately and cannot return. Even if all of the rest of the steps are executed perfectly before and after that digression from reason, the game is still over.

That's what these ID guys have done - injected a faith-based belief into what might otherwise be science rendering it pseudoscience. The truth is probably that there is no god. How can they possibly see that once they've jumped the reason shark? They can't. It's the nature of faith-based thinking. It perverts reason first by disregarding it, then by evaluating and massaging the evidence to support the faith-based belief. That's not science.

In fact, therapeutic medical trials are designed to eliminate patient and clinician biases. It is understood that if the patient and the doctor want the potential remedy to work, that's what they'll see and what they'll report - also not science.

That's what happened to the ID people. They were looking for irreducible complexity, and so they kept seeing it where it didn't exist. Good scientists don't presume that they will or will not find irreducible complexity. They go where the data takes them. The ID people took the data where they wanted to go, and consequently, were unable to generate any useful ideas regarding the existence of gods.

From the design observed in the finely-tuned 4 fundamental forces

The fine tuning argument suggests that there was only one way (or very few numbers of ways) for this god to create the world such that it could sustain life and mind. If a god was forced to build a universe withing narrow limits in its physical parameters, how can we say that that god was all-powerful or the author of those requirements rather than that they were something imposed on it by a higher, prior order? How could this god be called omnipotent if it could only form universes in one or only a few ways? If that's the case, this god didn't actually design anything. It followed a set of instructions that restricted it

Saying that nature used to be the same is not good enough, it has to be demonstrated. Especially when you base all science models of the past on that premise!

It has been demonstrated.The success of science attests to the fact that its fundamental principles are valid, including the idea that the laws of physics evolved in a certain way in the early instants of the universe (symmetry breaking) and remained static thereafter. The now confirmed prediction of the existence of a cosmic microwave background at a specific temperature / frequency, for example, would not have been possible if the laws of physics had changed since then

 

[Nimos]

So, the answer is that they need to believe God and His word. Then they need to realize that they need to memorize a little phrase...'I do not know'. If they seek they would find. All science has sought was to ignore and defy and replace Scripture, and pridefully pretend to know better.

I don't think you will find a group of people more willing to use the words "I don't know" than scientists.

"So, the answer is that they need to believe God and His word."
So now a person comes to you and say that they once heard some of these outdated scientists talk about fossils, which sounds very interesting. But do you know where in the bible to find information about that? How they are made etc? Because he is pretty sure that God forgot to add that part, but maybe he missed it?

So the thing that now needs proving is whether there is a God or not. If there is, then He did create. That proof has been offered and demonstrated all through time. If there were scientists in Noah's day, they would have had their proof when they were swept away to their deaths.

Ok, but then there is not really a need to prove God, as you write, "That proof has been offered and demonstrated all through time." So God is real!! weird why so many seem to not think so... let me, guess the damn scientists again, misleading people?

Do you know why the strong and weak nuclear forces are exactly as they are? No. Do you know why the electromagnetic forces are the way they are? No.

Does that mean that we should stop trying to figure it out? No

I would suspect that the nature of that day was interrupted and changed, and this may have resulted in the plate shifts.
One interesting point is that I suspect that in the future, nature will change again suddenly (God will change it) and continents will move rapidly again! This time they will go back together! The timing of this event in Scripture is right at the very very end days of time just before the return of Jesus to rule the earth forever. It is described in many ways. A 'great shaking', a time when God shakes the earth, and etc. In that time all towers on earth will be leveled to the ground. Every mountain also will be leveled! Every island will be moved! Men will be hiding in the rocks begging for death.

That is going to make one hell of an interesting chapter in the school books.

Chapter 9 - Continental drift (In the alternative nature)

I would suspect that the nature of that day was interrupted and changed, and this may have resulted in the plate shifts.
One interesting point is that I suspect that in the future, nature will change again suddenly (God will change it) and continents will move rapidly again! This time they will go back together! The timing of this event in Scripture is right at the very very end days of time just before the return of Jesus to rule the earth forever.

It is described in many ways. A 'great shaking', a time when God shakes the earth, and etc. In that time all towers on earth will be leveled to the ground. Every mountain also will be leveled! Every island will be moved! Men will be hiding in the rocks begging for death.

Fossils are just a small minority of creatures that lived long ago. They happened to be the ones able to leave remains in that former nature.

No what is the process required for creating a fossil? We know fossils exists, you still believe that they do right? I mean people have to go to University to learn this new science. You can't leave them with just 1.5 line of text, that is not very helpful, it will be easy for the exam, but still

Once we see science was wrong, it doesn't matter anymore what people resort to. God was right all along, and science was wrong though. That much is known.

Ok, so basically what you say, is that people should spend all their time in prayers and we just stop learning anything except the bible? That would explain the rather short chapters in regards to Continental drift and fossils, I guess.

When it comes to creation fairy tales, sure why not? Have you something against freedom?

Not as long as it comes with a sense of responsibility, if it doesn't, then freedom is evidently not good, solely based on this conversation.

Once we take the field of battle into the area of belief, then..may the best man win!

Excellent, so people sharing fairy tales are going to decide the future of mankind, im going to need a whole lot of popcorns for this showdown

 

[cladking]

There is no faith in science, and calling belief in the validity of scientific principles, methods, and findings faith doesn't make it such.

Every time you apply a model to understanding reality you are exercising your faith. It requires a faith in the correct interpretation of all relevant experiment and faith in proper model construction. Why do you think physicists and physics students often get different answers to questions. They employ different models and apply different mathematical techniques. Sometimes they are wrong, sometimes the question is wrong, and some times there is simply not enough data to make a proper calculation.

Everyone thinks they know everything which is why I call our species "Homo Omnisciencis". It simply doesn't matter that we are all blind men trying to describe an elephant. People each see what we expect to "see".

 

[cladking]

In fact, if faith is inserted anywhere in the process, it ceases to be science. It becomes pseudoscience, as with the intelligent design movement, where faith in an unevidenced intelligent creator is assumed as a premise. This poisons the scientific method, which is founded in dispassionate scientific skepticism. Nothing is believed without sufficient evidence.

But you take it on faith there is no Creator.

I might accept there is no need for there to be a Creator but I have seen no experiment that rules it out. I might accept that that "survival of the fittest" is a viable explanation for change in species if a single experiment supported it or if your "theory" included the nature of consciousness vis a vis such change. In light of logic and observation I reject your interpretations and refer you to my sig-line.

 

[Nimos]

Every time you apply a model to understanding reality you are exercising your faith. It requires a faith in the correct interpretation of all relevant experiment and faith in proper model construction. Why do you think physicists and physics students often get different answers to questions. They employ different models and apply different mathematical techniques. Sometimes they are wrong, sometimes the question is wrong, and some times there is simply not enough data to make a proper calculation.

Everyone thinks they know everything which is why I call our species "Homo Omnisciencis". It simply doesn't matter that we are all blind men trying to describe an elephant. People each see what we expect to "see".

Absolutely none sense. It might be true in everyday life when people are just sharing random ideas. Why do you think we have something called a scientific method? Try to listen to this clip from 1964 just the first 60 second. And you will see why it is done that way.

 

[cladking]

And since the creationists' central tenet is false, their program has been as sterile as astrology for the same reason (wrong ideas don't work), and has been declared both pseudoscience and religion in court by a conservative Christian judge.

There's a funny thing about all Homo Omnisciencis thought; it can be right for all the wrong reasons or wrong for all the right reasons. In this case I believe the creationists have a great deal of truth behind their beliefs because their beliefs are extrapolations of ancient knowledge. Indeed, they are right about a great many things. Meanwhile one could say "science" is even more correct but the problem is there are too many extrapolations and misapplications of theory. We are always inclined to think we are right no matter how wrong.

It's not so much that the "theory of evolution" is wrong as it is the model of evolution used by most people is mostly wrong. "Survival of the fittest" is bunk and misapplied. There is no gradual change in life except in extreme circumstances that must persist in a linear way for protracted periods., Such events are rare in the cosmos so gradual change is rare. The exception would be something like a sun that changes gradually over a long time affecting the individuals of a species otherwise unaffected by such a change. Obviously it is rare.

You do not have all the answers and neither does science. The best we can hope to do is to find the proper questions.

 

[cladking]

Absolutely none sense. It might be true in everyday life when people are just sharing random ideas. Why do you think we have something called a scientific method? Try to listen to this clip from 1964 just the first 45 second. And you will see why it is done that way.

Feynman is virtually a mystic compared to some. Sure, he is one of the finest metaphysicians of the 20th century but this is damning him with faint praise.

He was a good physicist and great teacher though.

 

[Nimos]

Feynman is virtually a mystic compared to some. Sure, he is one of the finest metaphysicians of the 20th century but this is damning him with faint praise.

He was a good physicist and great teacher though.

My point was according to how to determine truth, the method is deigned to work in a way so even if mistakes are made, which happens of course, they can be corrected, which to me makes it a very sensible way of approaching knowledge and to determine, whether A is more correct than B, and as more an more data is made available we can keep adjusting it.

 

[cladking]

My point was according to how to determine truth, the method is deigned to work in a way so even if mistakes are made, which happens of course, they can be corrected, which to me makes it a very sensible way of approaching knowledge and to determine, whether A is more correct than B, and as more an more data is made available we can keep adjusting it.

Of course mistakes will be corrected so long as science proceeds according to experiment.

But this can take a very long time and many of Darwin's worst errors are still to be corrected.

"Look and See Science" (consensus science) might NEVER correct errors because it doesn't require experiment.

 

[dad]

It has been demonstrated.

Completely untrue and a foolish thing to say.

The success of science attests to the fact that its fundamental principles are valid, including the idea that the laws of physics evolved in a certain way in the early instants of the universe (symmetry breaking) and remained static thereafter.

Rubbish. The science that works today does so under our rules in this nature. Nothing to do with a past nature at all.

The now confirmed prediction of the existence of a cosmic microwave background at a specific temperature / frequency, for example, would not have been possible if the laws of physics had changed since then

That has no relation to laws on earth and specifically in the far past on earth. The specific temperature, by the way, has nothing to do with a big bang any more than creation.

In fact, the pile of fables stacked up together that could never begin to be proven that provide the so-called starting point of the CMB is ridiculous. Below we get a capsule ide of these, with the main aspects bolded.

"When the universe was young, before the formation of stars and planets, it was denser, much hotter, and filled with a uniform glow from a white-hot fog of hydrogen plasma. As the universe expanded, both the plasma and the radiation filling it grew cooler. When the universe cooled enough, protons and electrons combined to form neutral hydrogen atoms. Unlike the uncombined protons and electrons, these newly conceived atoms could not scatter the thermal radiation by Thomson scattering, and so the universe became transparent instead of being an opaque fog.[3] Cosmologists refer to the time period when neutral atoms first formed as the recombination epoch, and the event shortly afterwards when photons started to travel freely through space rather than constantly being scattered by electrons and protons in plasma is referred to as photon decoupling. The photons that existed at the time of photon decoupling have been propagating ever since, though growing fainter and less energetic, since the expansion of space causes their wavelength to increase over time (and wavelength is inversely proportional to energy according to Planck's relation). This is the source of the alternative term relic radiation. The surface of last scattering refers to the set of points in space at the right distance from us so that we are now receiving photons originally emitted from those points at the time of photon decoupling.

Cosmic microwave background - Wikipedia

So they imagine something like a ten-point process and then claim that IF this all happened then we would see radiation as we do see it.

There is no way to check! The great time is something needed...not observed. The supposed free travel of photons is something they imagine, not observed. Etc etc etc.

Creation would leave radiation also, so their pile of baloney is not the only possible reason radiation would exist!

 

[dad]

I don't think you will find a group of people more willing to use the words "I don't know" than scientists.

A tree is known by its fruits. The unending barrage of origins stories in education and media from science gives the lie to your claim. Most often, the origin fable is presented as a matter of fact, not as some foolish and godless fable and belief.

So now a person comes to you and say that they once heard some of these outdated scientists talk about fossils, which sounds very interesting. But do you know where in the bible to find information about that? How they are made etc? Because he is pretty sure that God forgot to add that part, but maybe he missed it?

That depends if you want to know how they are made in the present nature or past nature.

Ok, but then there is not really a need to prove God, as you write, "That proof has been offered and demonstrated all through time." So God is real!! weird why so many seem to not think so... let me, guess the damn scientists again, misleading people?

God did not reveal Himself to science. Science came along long after the fact and tried to explain creation without God. Nothing new there. People always drift away from God. After the flood, we saw the same thing at Babel. AFTER man rejects truth (God) Satan comes along and blows lies into man's ears and uses the voice of science partially to do it.

Does that mean that we should stop trying to figure it out? No

Yes! Stop trying to omit creation and God from knowledge. Otherwise no matter how hard you try you cannot ever figure it out. No possibility.

That is going to make one hell of an interesting chapter in the school books.

I agree. Maybe many kids would not be so bored and 'need' to be drugged with Ritalin and such drugs to keep them pacified enough to pretend to be paying attention to the boring lies!

No what is the process required for creating a fossil?

In the former nature of this present one?

Ok, so basically what you say, is that people should spend all their time in prayers and we just stop learning anything except the bible?

No. But history and art and all things can have God included, and by doing so the truth is learned. Just because kids will not be taught lies against creation any more does not mean that they will have nothing to do! On the contrary.

That would explain the rather short chapters in regards to Continental drift and fossils, I guess.

If one comprehended those short truths, one would have a foundation to actually start learning, rather than wade in strong delusion and pretense.

Not as long as it comes with a sense of responsibility, if it doesn't, then freedom is evidently not good, solely based on this conversation.

People are free to believe what they want actually. When they learn that origin sciences actually were beliefs also, they will be free. The truth shall set them free.

Excellent, so people sharing fairy tales are going to decide the future of mankind,

People propagating fairy tales in the guise of science will NO LONGER be deciding the fate of mankind!

im going to need a whole lot of popcorns for this showdown

Not really, the outcome is fixed.

 

[Nimos]

But this can take a very long time and many of Darwin's worst errors are still to be corrected.

Well we live in a complicated Universe, not really a lot we can do about it, but look at the bright side, science is open for anyone to participate, as long as they follow the scientific method

 

[gnostic]

Brewing took a primitive form of science same as gardening/growing good tobacco.

No, they don’t require science at all.

Science is about attempting “to explain” WHAT the physical phenomena are and HOW they work, then TEST this explanation.

They just do, from matter of experience, not requiring testable explanations.

Humans living in the Palaeolithic period, who were trapped by the sheets during glacial periods (Ice Ages) had to adapt to conditions they were living in, hence built fire for warmth and cooking food, find shelters in caves, be constantly on the move to follow games, make clothes from animals’ hides, make tools and weapons from stones, bones and wood, etc, all as matters of survival, not science. They developed different techniques for making stone tools, in matter of experience, not science. They do not have luxury of using words to explain the science what they have do.

Unlike other regions where there were no ice sheets, where there were seasons, contemporary humans continued to live as they always do. But humans who were living in places where the ice don’t melt in Spring, the periods of glacial could last thousands of years or tens of thousands of years with no warmer seasons.

When the ice sheets retreated that began the Holocene epoch, humans found themselves in conditions where they no longer have to be constant move, to find games, they learned to grow their own food, through agricultural farming and domesticating animals, built permanent settlements that could hold larger population. The start of geological epoch (Holocene) coincided with the start of Neolithic period, hence the “Neolithic revolution”.

Eventually they learned to store food and drinks by using creating pottery from clay, and hardened these vessels through firing them in primitive forms of kilns, there by creating ceramic wares. First, pottery were simply hand-made, learning to create vessels without the potter’s wheels. The earliest potter’s wheels (developed around 4500 BCE) were simply turn by hands, and even by feet, the processes were slow. Eventually, people developed techniques to make wheels spin faster, using centrifugal force, and keep turning the wheel using sticks to push the wheel or by kicking, during the early Bronze Age, from mid- to late 3rd millennium BCE.

My points are that no science were involved in developing the technologies during the Palaeolithic and Neolithic periods. Pottery making and stone-flint tool making developed through refining techniques in craftsmanship, not by science.

 

[Nimos]

That depends if you want to know how they are made in the present nature or past nature.

Both would be best, that way we can compare the differences and see how it has changed.

Satan comes along and blows lies into man's ears and uses the voice of science partially to do it.

Just wondering, If you should get sick would you go to a hospital in seek of help or would you assume that it was bad, since its potentially based on the lies from Satan?

In the former nature of this present one?

Both please

No. But history and art and all things can have God included, and by doing so the truth is learned.

So we should teach kids that the T-rex and humans used to live side by side? And if they did, can you explain what happened as Adam and Eve sinned? As I assume that is where things went wrong... Where did the T-rex go or what happened to it? Was it just a mere coincident that all the dinosaurs died, except the birds, which I guess you don't agree are descendants from them?

If one comprehended those short truths, one would have a foundation to actually start learning, rather than wade in strong delusion and pretense.

Im still waiting for you to share some teachings, so im ready to hear about this alternative nature and how you fit everything into a 6000 year old Earth.

Not really, the outcome is fixed.

Hard to tell which one it is..... could it be??

Did I get it right?

 

[dad]

Both would be best, that way we can compare the differences and see how it has changed.

Possibly by dropping the fanatical belief that the past was the same? Otherwise you have nothing to compare in your mind, and no clue if a comparison is needed or possible.

Just wondering, If you should get sick would you go to a hospital in seek of help or would you assume that it was bad, since its potentially based on the lies from Satan?

If I did, and had a choice which one to go to I would choose one that did not whack babies. I also would go to one in the present time and nature. This has what to do with the far past?

So we should teach kids that the T-rex and humans used to live side by side?

Probably not the smart humans!

And if they did, can you explain what happened as Adam and Eve sinned? As I assume that is where things went wrong... Where did the T-rex go or what happened to it?

? There were dinosaurs created? Evidence? I assumed they may have evolved from other kinds.

Was it just a mere coincident that all the dinosaurs died, except the birds, which I guess you don't agree are descendants from them?

If the dinos were not created kinds, but adapted greatly from the kinds, then they would not be invited to the ark! Notice that God invited a few of each KIND! Birds were created kinds.

Im still waiting for you to share some teachings, so im ready to hear about this alternative nature and how you fit everything into a 6000 year old Earth.

Sure, Grasshopper.

Hard to tell which one it is..... could it be??

The One God told us would come. Why, did you think someone could overrule that?