God Recreated the Earth 6,000 Years Ago!

[metis]

I make assumptions BY reasoning.......
and by reason.....in the scheme of superlatives.....
there is only ONE Almighty

And exactly how is it that you have narrowed it down to supposedly "One Almighty"? Would you say that this should be placed in scientific textbooks just based on your "reasoning"?

 

[Thief]

And exactly how is it that you have narrowed it down to supposedly "One Almighty"? Would you say that this should be placed in scientific textbooks just based on your "reasoning"?

the scheme of superlatives

 

[metis]

the scheme of superlatives

Clarify please?

 

[Thief]

Clarify please?

of any two....one is greater.....

 

[metis]

of any two....one is greater.....

I still don't know what you are referring to.

 

[Thief]

I still don't know what you are referring to.

bigger, faster, stronger, more intelligent and greatly experienced.

Someone fits that description more than anyone else.

 

[McBell]

I make assumptions BY reasoning.......
and by reason.....in the scheme of superlatives.....
there is only ONE Almighty

Yes.
You have chanted that dogma for years.

Then you throw out your reasoning once it gets you to your god.
So much for your "reasoning"....

 

[Thief]

Yes.
You have chanted that dogma for years.

nice to see the word....yes

and I include God in my reasoning of superlatives.

 

[McBell]

I still don't know what you are referring to.

It is yet another of his false dichotomies.
Guess there is no such thing as equal in his world.

 

[Thief]

It is yet another of his false dichotomies.
Guess there is no such thing as equal in his world.

no one is equal to God.
it's not my world.....it's His.

 

[metis]

bigger, faster, stronger, more intelligent and greatly experienced.

Someone fits that description more than anyone else.

I have no clue what you are trying to say.

Anyhow, belief is simply not evidence nor science, and if one confuses the two, as you are doing, then all I see is blind belief matched with no concept whatsoever of how science works. As one who studied within the sciences for over 50 years and taught anthropology for 30 years, I can with certainty say that you simply have no clue how it operates. You can play all the word games that you want, but that simply doesn't change the fact of what you do not know.

 

[gnostic]

I make assumptions BY reasoning.......
and by reason.....in the scheme of superlatives.....

I have read many of your posts, and "superlative" is not the word I would use for your "reasoning".

If anything I find your reasoning to be sadly lacking in the area of science. I find your education in science to be below average, and even lower than mine by long miles, and I am not even a scientist.

I view myself as an engineer because of two different courses I did, so both of my qualifications (civil engineering & computer science) involved applied science, more specifically with physics. My science background are therefore involved application of science in the real world - practical.

And with science being practical tools - testings, evidences, error-checking, problem solving is very important in the line of the works that I have done.

What I am saying is that my science background is less theoretical than other fields of science.

But even then, I have a great deal of interests in science outside of my areas of expertise, such as relativity, quantum physics, particle physics, string theory, astronomy, physical cosmology, etc. In my own times, I have tried to read what I can about science, and attempt to, at the very least, understand what I have read.

And I am telling you now, you are no where smarter than you think or believe to be.

That you can't grasp even grasp the difference between hypothesis and theory, or the difference between scientific theory and layman version of theory, just demonstrated to all of us, your understanding of science is sadly lacking and limited.

You have claimed that your reasoning is superior, but so far you haven't demonstrated any of this superior intellect in this topic.

All I have seen from you are dishonesty, ignorance, propaganda and self-flattery.

 

[prometheus11]

I have read many of your posts, and "superlative" is not the word I would use for your "reasoning".

If anything I find your reasoning to be sadly lacking in the area of science. I find your education in science to be below average, and even lower than mine by long miles, and I am not even a scientist.

I view myself as an engineer because of two different courses I did, so both of my qualifications (civil engineering & computer science) involved applied science, more specifically with physics. My science background are therefore involved application of science in the real world - practical.

And with science being practical tools - testings, evidences, error-checking, problem solving is very important in the line of the works that I have done.

What I am saying is that my science background is less theoretical than other fields of science.

But even then, I have a great deal of interests in science outside of my areas of expertise, such as relativity, quantum physics, particle physics, string theory, astronomy, physical cosmology, etc. In my own times, I have tried to read what I can about science, and attempt to, at the very least, understand what I have read.

And I am telling you now, you are no where smarter than you think or believe to be.

That you can't grasp even grasp the difference between hypothesis and theory, or the difference between scientific theory and layman version of theory, just demonstrated to all of us, your understanding of science is sadly lacking and limited.

You have claimed that your reasoning is superior, but so far you haven't demonstrated any of this superior intellect in this topic.

All I have seen from you are dishonesty, ignorance, propaganda and self-flattery.

It is blatantly obvious to everyone but him.

 

[`mud]

!! The Almighty Stuff !!
It's everywhere, it is almighty !
Stuff is the soup of the Cosmos.
I like Stuff,
even Thief's !
~
'mud

 

[BilliardsBall]

This shows your severe bias and lack of the academic methods.

No credible science is done that way

Your wrong again.

How am I wrong? I'm open here--but be specific. None of your usual sweeping generalizations--generalizations which are why I called you out to begin.

Thank you.

 

[BilliardsBall]

They don't do this. They don't believe claims in scripture until they are substantiated by verifiable evidence. They aren't going to assume that any claim is true. They weigh the evidence and come up with the theory that best accounts for it. Scripture, to them, is nothing more than unsubstantiated claims. Maybe they are true, maybe they aren't, but they are prudent in that they aren't going to "buy into" any claim until it is substantiated. The purpose of science is to get beyond mere claims and subjective experience to arrive at the best explanation for the evidence.

You are correct in the abstract. You are yet to account for personal biases, which all scientists, creationist and otherwise, hold.

 

[BilliardsBall]

The above comment is simply red herring. Empiricism provides for repeatable tests. Repeating tests allows for predictable results. Then...voila...chemistry works and the medicine fights the infection and the person is cured.

You creationists would have a point if science did only what belief does: nothing. But science flies planes, sees tumors inside the body, operated your computer.

When creation science can DO something, you'll have the world's attention.

Sounds like you want to search on terms like "How has evolutionary (or other non-creationist) theory harmed advances in science (and medicine, etc.)?"

 

[BilliardsBall]

Yet another reason creationism is not science

Huh? Why cannot creationism postulate hypotheses? Be specific.

 

[prometheus11]

Sounds like you want to search on terms like "How has evolutionary (or other non-creationist) theory harmed advances in science (and medicine, etc.)?"

Sounds like you need to pay attention.

Yes, things that actually work can be used for good and bad. Just like kitchen knives. Evolutionary theory does a lot of good and has been misappropriated for some harm.

Creation science doesn't do anything at all, so it can't be used. When somebody can actually do something with creation science, instead of just talk about it, you'll have the world's attention.

 

[prometheus11]

Huh? Why cannot creationism postulate hypotheses? Be specific.

Show one which is testable by experiment.