New Ohio law allows students to be scientifically wrong.

[Subduction Zone]

The ingrained beliefs that have wrongly been labeled as science is nothing but fiction.

How ironic. You refuted yourself by posting this claim.

 

[exchemist]

If creation is tinkering then nature itself was tinkered with, cause He created it also.

Wy do creationists think life, above all else in creation, is special in this way?

 

[cladking]

Wy do creationists think life, above all else in creation, is special in this way?

Consciousness.

 

[exchemist]

Consciousness.

Thank you, yes, that will be it.

 

[cladking]

Why are you having a hard time keeping track of the conversation?

What does your assertion...

You are extrapolating our primitive experimental results in ways that are inconsistent with what is currently known​

...have to do with my beliefs about "all important questions"?

There is no experiment showing the universe arose from a point (or space emerged from a point). This is all mathematics, extrapolation of experiment, and observation. I never said there is no basis to the "big bang theory". I said that there is no proof; ie- it is not established science within scientific parameters.

You see on;y what you believe and you believe important questions are already answered.

 

[cladking]

Is science contradicting itself by stating the earth is a sphere?

Do you realize that the earth is moving and its shape constantly changing? Do you realize that the mass of the water in the oceans and lakes increases when the moon passes overhead?

Do you understand science (experiment and metaphysics)? Do you believe a sphere was impossible even in theory before the big bang?

Are you aware that nature never occurs in isolation as we attempt in the lab? Every single one of your "scientific laws" act in tandem all the time.

 

[exchemist]

There is no experiment showing the universe arose from a point (or space emerged from a point). This is all mathematics, extrapolation of experiment, and observation. I never said there is no basis to the "big bang theory". I said that there is no proof; ie- it is not established science within scientific parameters.

You see on;y what you believe and you believe important questions are already answered.

There is no "proof" to ANY theory in science. That is absolutely basic to the philosophy of science. What there needs to be is observational evidence that supports the theory.

You are quite right that the conjecture about the universe arsing from a singularity is just that and not part of a scientific theory, for the simple reason that there is no observational evidence to support it.

But this is not an intrinsic part of the Big Bang theory. All the Big Bang theory actually says is that universe appears - from the evidence of the CMBR and from measured rates of expansion - to have expanded from a very small hot and dense state.

 

[ecco]

So where did the (imaginary) singularity hot soup or whatever come from? Basically they say it was just there and do not know how or why. If that ain't poofing what is?!

Science, unlike religious people in general and you specifically, is not afraid of saying "I don't know". "I don't know" isn't poofing. Let me give you a simplistic example.

Thousands of years ago people saw volcanoes erupt and wondered about the causes.

• The rational people said, "I don't know, but someday we'll understand it."
• The frightened superstitious people said, "GodDidIt!".

Today, frightened superstitious people still say GodDidIt, don't you?

God is not a science theory...

That's the most rational thing you have said in a very long time.

Since most would agree they are invisible...so what?
How would you know? Daniel saw angels, as did others. Stick to what you know.

Just listen to yourself:

• They are Invisible.
• Daniel saw them.

You probably don't even realize that you contradicted yourself.
Oh, wait, I know. God poofed magic into Daniel's eyes so he could see them. You believe in angels and demons because a few eye-poofed people wrote that they saw them. How quaint.

But is that really how it happened?

2In those days I Daniel was mourning three full weeks. 3I ate no pleasant bread, neither came flesh nor wine in my mouth, neither did I anoint myself at all, till three whole weeks were fulfilled.​

Many people have seen many visions after not eating for three weeks. You seem to know very little nothing of physiology.

Since God hasn't poofed the angel-demon-seeing-stuff into your eyes, why don't you try fasting for three weeks and see what happens. If that's too long, you might try a sweat lodge.

The ingrained beliefs that have wrongly been labeled as science is nothing but fiction.

Well, you almost had that sentence correct.

It is fiction that trust in science is an ingrained belief.​

Ingrained beliefs are those indoctrinated into little children's heads from before they can walk. God this. God that. Say your prayers. It's God's will. God is watching.

Sound familiar? I'm sure it does.

 

[ecco]

I said that there is no proof

Light is waves. Light is packets. No Proof.
Evolution is the accepted reason for the existence of humans. No Proof.
Gravity is instantaneous. Gravity travels at light speed. No Proof.

You have been told repeatedly that science does not deal in "proofs", so one has to wonder why you would continue to expect "proofs" rather than rely on evidence.

You see on;y what you believe...

Duh.

• If I see something, I tend to believe it.
• If there are things I cannot see, like atoms and germs, I rely on the evidence provided by modern science, not by current and ancient mystics.
• If there are things I cannot see, like angels and demons, I rely on the evidence provided by modern science, not by current and ancient mystics.

...you believe important questions are already answered.

Viruses cause colds. Germs cause infections. The sun is the center of our solar system.

I also know that many more important questions have not been answered.

Now that I've clarified those things, I hope that you will not make such ridiculous comments about me in the future.

 

[ecco]

Do you realize that the earth is moving and its shape constantly changing? Do you realize that the mass of the water in the oceans and lakes increases when the moon passes overhead?
Do you understand science (experiment and metaphysics)? Do you believe a sphere was impossible even in theory before the big bang?
Are you aware that nature never occurs in isolation as we attempt in the lab? Every single one of your "scientific laws" act in tandem all the time.

Again you duck and dodge. You were complaining about science always contradicting itself. You used a study on coffee as an example.

Try answering the questions I asked...

• Is science contradicting itself by stating the earth is a sphere?
• Is science contradicting itself by stating the sun is just one of a few billion stars in a grouping called the Milky Way?
• Is science contradicting itself when newer and better tools for analysis find newer and different things than were known previously?

As to the spherical earth changing shape, yes I am aware. How does that support your contention that science is constantly contradicting itself? It doesn't. So why did you even bother posting it?

 

[dad]

Too bad that you do not have any reliable evidence that supports that claim.

What you quoted makes the point that IF creation was called tinkering, so too would nature have to be called. Try to focus.

 

[dad]

Wy do creationists think life, above all else in creation, is special in this way?

All else is here to accommodate life! We are the reason the sun is exactly as far away and hot as it is. We are the reason there are now planets, which I hear can divert dangerous asteroids etc in some cases. We are the reason plants are here...to provide air and food etc. We are the reason animals and fish and birds are here. We are the reason nature is as it is now. We are the reason God came to earth to die for us. We are the reason He made earth! Etc.

 

[dad]

Science, unlike religious people in general and you specifically, is not afraid of saying "I don't know". "I don't know" isn't poofing. Let me give you a simplistic example.

Thousands of years ago people saw volcanoes erupt and wondered about the causes.

• The rational people said, "I don't know, but someday we'll understand it."
• The frightened superstitious people said, "GodDidIt!".

Today, frightened superstitious people still say GodDidIt, don't you?

No. However we have records in Scripture of both God and Satan affecting nature, so we can't rule it out automatically.

Just listen to yourself:

• They are Invisible.
• Daniel saw them.

Normally they are invisible but can take on a body and even be in disguise so you would never dream they were spirits. When an angel appears to us, that is the exception to normal life and nature. In the pre flood days apparently spirits lived more visibly and directly with men.

But is that really how it happened?

2In those days I Daniel was mourning three full weeks. 3I ate no pleasant bread, neither came flesh nor wine in my mouth, neither did I anoint myself at all, till three whole weeks were fulfilled.​

Many people have seen many visions after not eating for three weeks. You seem to know very little nothing of physiology.

Ho hum. Your one strategy is to try to explain big things with small reasons that you know about, while being in denial of things you do not know about.

Well, you almost had that sentence correct.

It is fiction that trust in science is an ingrained belief.​

Then provide proof of that same nature in the earth's far past that you want to treat as non fiction!

Busted.

Ingrained beliefs are those indoctrinated into little children's heads from before they can walk.

Such as evolution, when dinos lived, where we came from etc.

 

[cladking]

There is no "proof" to ANY theory in science. That is absolutely basic to the philosophy of science. What there needs to be is observational evidence that supports the theory.

"I said that there is no proof; ie- it is not established science within scientific parameters."

AND EVEN THOUGH I DEFINED "PROOF", YOU SIMPLY IGNORED IT.

People don't want to argue religion and science reasonably. Everyone wants to take up sides and then play word games when they lose.

 

[cladking]

But this is not an intrinsic part of the Big Bang theory. All the Big Bang theory actually says is that universe appears - from the evidence of the CMBR and from measured rates of expansion - to have expanded from a very small hot and dense state.

OK. I went off half cocked. This is all I was saying. The big bang is mostly just mathematics and the result of interpretations.

 

[cladking]

Duh.

• If I see something, I tend to believe it.
• If there are things I cannot see, like atoms and germs, I rely on the evidence provided by modern science, not by current and ancient mystics.
• If there are things I cannot see, like angels and demons, I rely on the evidence provided by modern science, not by current and ancient mystics.

Look and See Science.

As long as Peers can't see angels or the hand of God then you can sleep easy knowing all the answers through google and wiki.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What you quoted makes the point that IF creation was called tinkering, so too would nature have to be called. Try to focus.

Wrong dad, you missed the point. If your claims about your God were true one should be able to find reliable evidence that supports that claim. Yet when it comes to the concept of evidence I have not met a creationist yet that does not act like a coward when that idea arises.

 

[ecco]

No. However we have records in Scripture of both God and Satan affecting nature, so we can't rule it out automatically.

No. You have stories written by relatively ignorant humans. Stories that were based on the stories of other religions in the area.

Normally they are invisible but can take on a body and even be in disguise so you would never dream they were spirits. When an angel appears to us, that is the exception to normal life and nature. In the pre flood days apparently spirits lived more visibly and directly with men.

Normally they are invisible? Apparently? You asserted that they were invisible. Did you suddenly read more stuff that convinced you to change your mind? Good Golly! You're supposed to know this stuff.

You also ignored that Daniel was probably hallucinating from lack of food. Why can't you address the questions and comments that are directed to you?

That last sentence was rhetorical. We all know why you must tap dance around the issues.

 

[exchemist]

"I said that there is no proof; ie- it is not established science within scientific parameters."

AND EVEN THOUGH I DEFINED "PROOF", YOU SIMPLY IGNORED IT.

People don't want to argue religion and science reasonably. Everyone wants to take up sides and then play word games when they lose.

You can't just redefine words at will, you know. Proof has a meaning, and that is just not it.

 

[ecco]

Ingrained beliefs are those indoctrinated into little children's heads from before they can walk.

Such as evolution, when dinos lived, where we came from etc.

I doubt many two-year-olds are taught to kneel down and say prayers to dinosaurs.
I doubt many two-year-olds are taught to kneel down and say prayers thanking scientists for providing the evidence to support evolution.
I doubt many two-year-olds see nativity scenes with a mommy, daddy and infant dinosaur.

On the other hand, by the time the average child is five years old, he/she has been subjected to hundreds and hundreds of hours of introduction to and reinforcement of religious beliefs.

In some households, perhaps yours, it is much worse. This is true not only for Christianity but Islam and Judaism as well. Moreover, it is not just Christianity, it is Catholocism, Southern Baptist, LDS, etc. It is not just Islam, it is Sunni or Shiite, etc.

Brains get wired very early. I'll bet you speak with the regional accent that was prevalent in the area of your childhood.

We've seen people from all different backgrounds kill and die for God and Country (always in that order). We've never seen people kill and die for science or evolution.