Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes, a point that you or I can make ad nauseam without ever penetrating the brains of the True Believers in scientism. This thread has predictably evolved from the "nonsense of Young Earth Creationism," about which the vast majority of believers and nonbelievers of all stripes can agree, to "the nonsense of anyone who holds a Biblical worldview" (or even beyond that, to "the nonsense of anyone who questions the prevailing scientific paradigm"). There is rather a large gulf between the two. Statements that the Biblical worldview is fading and will eventually vanish are simply silly wishful thinking by True Believers in scientism who are nothing more than the mirror image of those they ridicule and despise. But the debate is pointless - without fail, threads like this descend into pissing contests and go nowhere.
If a Christian casually refers to the earth as being "round," it is going to precipitate a stream of hostile threads insisting that only a moron with no background in science would make such a statement and that the earth is in fact an oblate spheroid. Any statement by a Christian is a red flag to the bulls of scientism. The reality is, the Intelligent Design movement has merit and momentum, which is why it must be ridiculed and shouted down rather than confronted head-on. Anyone familiar with The Structure of Scientific Revolutions knows the game. Just to pick one author, Signature In the Cell, Darwin's Doubt and Debating Darwin's Doubt are scarcely YEC-level stuff, yet they are lumped together with "dinosaurs on Noah's ark" and I can almost guarantee that someone will inform me that only a credulous fool would take them seriously. On it goes, on the road to nowhere.
ID is bogus to the core. In fact it is worse than YEC. At least YECism admits that it needs no facts and that it bases its beliefs on God magic . ID pretends to be a well thought out process that seeks to learn the truth, but it does nothing of the sort . Its main proponent has been forced to admit under oath that ID is not science and does no actual science. It merely pretends to do science so that the gullible will think there is something more than blind faith in a mythological story behind their worldview.
Science does not depend on faith. Ever. You do not understand science, do you?
No , he doesn't. No one who makes the ridiculous statement that people who believe in science accept it on blind faith just like believers accept religious doctrine understands the slightest bit of actual science and how it works and proves itself.
Last edited by wallflash; 10-30-2015 at 04:14 PM..
You see a reply was not supplied until you said something.
A hypotheses is really more than just an idea. The theory can come from the hypotheses first before the experiments start. And then you refine the theory based on what the evidence reveals.
Anyway - my point is that with no real human evolution data, where does the theory com from?
The theory comes from worshipping the creature rather than the creator. The theory comes from suppressing the truth in unrighteousness. 28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. 29 They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Though they know God's righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.
Plenty to talk to here, and as this is NOT the only forum I participate in, I don't have any problem keeping as busy as I want to. IMO, it's quality and NOT quantity. I've been doing this a long time, and all the forums I'm on require that I have an ignore list for my own sanity. It's very obvious some do NOTHING but troll and bait.
When you feel the need on EVERY forum you participate in to have an ignore list, you might want to look in the mirror.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,917,771 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katzpur
Well, I can tell you that having been posting here on City-Data for nearly seven years now, and having had to take more than what I consider to be my fair share of crap, I am not here to troll or to debate. But I do lose patience with people who aren't even able to consider the possibility that someone else might have a worthwhile thing or two to say.
Katzpur and I could not be more different on theological philosophies, but I respect her arguments and perspective. I do not agree with her having her faith, as I am sure she doesn't understand why I am an atheist, but that does not negate being able to have a respectful discussion. I doubt if I will ever change her mind, and I know she won't change mine, but it is good to understand her, and other theists of various kinds similar to her, perspectives.
Then there are some here that are so pig headed one wonders how they are successful in other branches of their lives.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,917,771 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by StanJP
Because the first involves faith and acceptance of His written word, whereas the second involves submitting to the contradictory so-called evidence of geologic science.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,917,771 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by DRob4JC
You see a reply was not supplied until you said something.
A hypotheses is really more than just an idea. The theory can come from the hypotheses first before the experiments start. And then you refine the theory based on what the evidence reveals.
Anyway - my point is that with no real human evolution data, where does the theory com from?
Pardon me?
A theory can come from the hypothesis BEFORE experiments start??????!!!!
You have just proven you have NO CLUE WHATSOEVER of how science works, and worse, you don't even understand that you are ignorant of that.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,917,771 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by Electron
The theory comes from worshipping the creature rather than the creator. The theory comes from suppressing the truth in unrighteousness. 28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. 29 They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Though they know God's righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.
I see you still have not been able to answer my questions in Post #52.
I am not telling you that I am any kind of an expert in the field of science. What I am telling you is that pretty much every scientist with any credentials at all knows more about science than I do. I listen to them because I believe they know how to read and analyze the evidence of how God went about creating the earth. I trust them for accurate information because I don't see them as the enemy. It's unfortunate that you do.
That would include me as well, but my point would be that unless one can show/demonstrate a scientific theory/hypothesis has been successfully tested and successfully falsified, it doesn't qualify as factual.
The theories on dating the world and universe have attained neither.
Much of science is empirical, but not all, and IME, threads like this are ripe with nonfactual assertions or just plain outright lies on the part of many who don't even understand the science. In my 45+ years as a Christian and student of the Bible, I have yet to find any even reasonable explanation of age.
I will ask you one question though. How old would Adam have been measured by our current technology, on the first day of his existence?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
