quote:1) Mathematics is the most exact science known to man.
This is false. Mathematics is not a science.
-
quote:2) Evolution is only a theory.
This is false. Evolution has been confirmed pretty well over the last 150 years.
-
quote:God created a grown man and woman and an "old" earth.
Wow! The old omphalos argument! Actually, God created the earth only a week ago, including all the "historical artifacts" and all of the "memories" that we have.
When you produce evidence that a dog can produce a non-dog or that a dog came from a rock 4.6 billion years ago, I'll believe your theory.
Whether you believe anything or not is not what I was talking about, Tal.
Law of universal gravitation
Do you even know what a Scientific Law is? Do you not realize that the law you reference was once a theory, as were all other scientific laws?
I don't honestly care whether you "believe" a theory accurately represents reality or not, Tal. What I was saying in my post was that most people, yourself apparently included, either don't understand or make no distinction between the words "idea" and "theory." A scientific theory connotates a great deal more than a simple hypothesis or random person's idea. A scientific theory carries the weight of evidence and has been tested by the peer review process. To make the statement "it's just a theory" demonstrates a clear lack of any knowledge of science.
Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.
1) Adam "was formed" first - Gen 2.7. 2) The Beast was "formed" later - Gen 2.19. 3) Adam named the beasts - Ibid. 4) For the uninformed, let it be known that "beasts" in the Bible are four-footed beasts; or else, quite frequently, symbols for 12 Tribes of Israel, and Gentile nations. [I noticed a comment about God hating beasts and killing them; when it was nations symbolized by beasts that were destroyed.] hoaryhead
Bishop Ussher, and Barnabas had added the Bible story up to about 4000 years, in 2nd century, and 17th century. My calculation (Gen 5.1; The Beginning of Time) is: 4148 BC. God created a grown man and woman and an "old" earth. hoaryhead
I disagree with this.
In more modern Biblical accounts, Jesus fed the 5000 with loaves of bread and fish. He did not give them young fish eggs and dough or wheat seeds. He gave them a usable product.
In the same way he created them as functional man and woman that could take dominion of the Earth. Not as infants that required years of special nurture before they could be set free in the garden.
In like manner he created a usable universe and a usable Earth. Not young or old because the concept of time only applies or means anything Bibically when it is referenced to the creation of man. So what ever was put down as creatures in the first days of creation is not specifically revealed, but it is saying that the miscelanious creatures were fully functional in their enviorment and then given the command to multiply.
What is often over looked is that something very horrible was taking place on this planet about 1600 years after the creation. Again, the Bible does not go into detail as to what it was but it is clear in the magnitude of the situation. It was so bad that it required the total destruction of the creation and a radical rearranging of the landscape of the planet.
But again, the total rearranging was left in a usable condition.
Evolution says that this planet started out as a molten mass, and in several short billion years it has transformed into this complex ecosystem.
Evolution contradicts a literal interpretation of the Bible.
Whether the Bible contains the absolute infallable Word of the One True God is a matter of personal faith and belief.
If you, or anyone, wants to take on pure faith that the Bible trumps all evidence, in effect saying that 1+1=3 if the Bible says so, that's fine, so long as it's understood that it's a matter of personal belief and faith.
Observable, reproducible evidence shows the Bible to be blatantly false in several historical accounts, as well as the entirity of the origin of the universe and life. Faith can allow you to ignore that evidence - but saying that the Bible is infallible is to say that black is white and up is down. Those who are not willing to believe based entirely on blind, irrational faith will not be convinced that what they can see with their own two eyes is wrong.
Everyone is entitled to their own belief structures. But attempting to "prove" that Evolution is wrong because it contradicts a literal reading of the Bible is a fruitless exercise. Those who believe the Bible is infallable already share that belief. Those who do not will not be convinced that observable evidence is wrong by a very old book.
Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.
Evolution says that this planet started out as a molten mass, and in several short billion years it has transformed into this complex ecosystem.
Evolution says nothing of the sort. You are speaking about entirely different theories, LB.
Evolution states only that new species slowly evolve out of pre-existing species, as a result of small generational changes in the structure of offspring guided by natural selection.
Abiogenesis, the origins of the universe, the origin of our planet, are all irrelevant to evolution. Seperate theories. Evolution does not state that "life came from a rock" as Tal likes to say. Neither does evolution claim to explain the origins of our universe or the formation of planetary systems. Even if those other theories are falsified, evolution would still stand unless it is falsified individually.
Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.
"Mathematics is not a science," writes Chiroptera.
For most of the history of the United States, it has been universally agreed that the three basic sciences are: Reading, Riting, and Rithmatic. This has been taught in grade school, high school, and universities.
On the other hand, Evolution is the most speculative theory every devised. Every new book on the subject increases the age of the earth by one, or more, million years. Very instable subject, indeed. hoaryhead
I'm beginning to think that both Tal and LB are trolls. I can't recall any time either one of these two converse with people about scientific evidence or anything scientific. What they do contribute to the forum, however, are a whole junk load of pseudoscientific facts and then just ignore anyone that either ask for more explanation or confront them about the stuff they just pulled out of their arses.
™ Version 4.0 Beta
