So I differ with the topic and title, and would change it to CHRISTIANS get along with SCIENCE
Some fundamentalist Christians are 180 anti-science--all it takes is for science to disagree with their religious beliefs and old folk tales.
They reject any science that disagrees with their religious beliefs, and in some cases become real internet trolls spreading their anti-science propaganda and delusions.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1
"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.
Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other points of view--William F. Buckley Jr.
The same can be said about evolutionists, they reject anything that differs with their religious belief system in evolution...
But each individual has to search and be responsible for their choices. In Christianity, Jesus makes sure it is an individual CHOICE as He is not group oriented and does not force like evolutionists in their schools and universities.
Its all a matter of FREE CHOICE.... evolutionists should learn about free choice, **** speech and ***** discussions....
Coyote similiarly you must learn and study SET LAW, as some is a minority and some does not disprove all. Learn what SET LAW dictates about a majority or over half and what you can learn from its LOGIC. Then your comments would make more sense. Similarly dont automatically mindlessly deny deny deny, think and study what you are commenting on without trying to always back up your religion and put down Christianity and Christ.
Just a suggestion...
Evolution is not science. It did not create life nor did it diversify life. It didn;t create the laws that exist nor did it create science. It is a religion and not Science.
Intelligent design always defeats evolutions lack of design and lack of intelligence. Luck and Chance is not a scientific doctrine,
The same can be said about evolutionists, they reject anything that differs with their religious belief system in evolution...
The difference is the sciences rely on data (evidence) while religions rely on belief (old folk tales). And the various religions can't even agree on which old folk tales are to be believed!
Here's a nice old tale for you.
The Creation of Men and Women
When the world was finished, there were as yet no people, but the Bald Eagle was chief of the animals. He saw that the world was incomplete and decided to make some human beings. So he took some clay and modeled the figure of a man and laid him on the ground. At first he was very small but he grew rapidly until he reached normal size. But as yet he had no life; he was still asleep. Then the Bald Eagle stood and admired his work. "It is impossible," he said, "that he should be left alone; he must have a mate." So he pulled out a feather and laid it beside the sleeping man. Then he left them and went off a short distance, for he knew that a woman was being formed from the feather. But the man was still asleep and did not know what was happening. When the Bald Eagle decided that the woman was about completed, he returned, awoke the man by flapping his wings over him and flew away.
The man opened his eyes and stared at the woman. "What does this mean?" he asked. "I thought I was alone!" Then the Bald Eagle returned and said with a smile, "I see you have a mate! Have you had intercourse with her?" "No," replied he man, for he and the woman knew nothing about each other. Then the Bald Eagle called to Coyote who happened to be going by and said to him, "Do you see that woman? Try her first!" Coyote was quite willing and complied, but immediately afterwards lay down and died. The Bald Eagle went away and left Coyote dead, but presently returned and revived him. "How did it work?" said the Bald Eagle. "Pretty well, but it nearly kills a man!" replied Coyote. "Will you try it again?" said the Bald Eagle. Coyote agreed, and tried again, and this time survived. Then the Bald Eagle turned to the man and said, "She is all right now; you and she are to live together. California Indian creation story
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1
"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.
Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other points of view--William F. Buckley Jr.
Instead of reading your myths and non facts, Read above...do get to the source and get your Science correct, start with Moses and Genesis.... and have some sort of base for your decision making and science..
JESUS and SCIENCE get along... much better name or title or topic.
Note how I always try to stay on topic and answer the question of the topic, even when you do not.... Its a habit, as the S************ are always looking for an ****** to ***** **.
Evolution is not science. It did not create life nor did it diversify life. It didn;t create the laws that exist nor did it create science. It is a religion and not Science.
Intelligent design always defeats evolutions lack of design and lack of intelligence. Luck and Chance is not a scientific doctrine,
Only if they make up their own definition of science.
I don't understand why fundamentalists don't just come right out and say that SCIENCE is wrong. Why pretend to get along with science while you're rejecting its conclusions? Just have the guts to say it's wrong.
I don't understand why fundamentalists don't just come right out and say that SCIENCE is wrong.
Because it is blatantly obvious that science works.
Why pretend to get along with science while you're rejecting its conclusions? Just have the guts to say it's wrong.
That would let the cat out of the bad, and they'd be immediately ridiculed for being so stupid. Taking the round-about way gives them a delay so they have time where they can close their minds.
Only if they make up their own definition of science.
Actually Ringo the evolutionist, one of your own actually admitted that your religion, makes up definitions as they go, saying that a KIND is only a bible definition and they dont go by KINDS.
This is why you cant debate them according to KINDS or SPECIES as they have no boundaries and are only cemetarians from their seminaries and religious institutions called Universities of Forced Learning.
You evolutionists do change definitions whenever its needed by you. Its amazing but TRUE.
This is why you think just changing a clad name by one letter, proves an evolutionary branch. Then you deny braqnching, then you say we came from chimps and apes, and then say all things are presently equally evolved as there is no present evolutionary branching. It is confusing as hell because the doctrine comes from there.
Now you know..
IHS
David
Evolution is not science. It did not create life nor did it diversify life. It didn;t create the laws that exist nor did it create science. It is a religion and not Science.
Intelligent design always defeats evolutions lack of design and lack of intelligence. Luck and Chance is not a scientific doctrine,
Could it be you are deliberately confusing the things we're telling you? I can't believe that anyone could compose such posts unless they were deliberately misrepresenting what we post.
If so, that would certainly be trolling, which is frowned upon here and most everywhere.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1
"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.
Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other points of view--William F. Buckley Jr.
Dr. Wiens has a PhD in Physics, with a minor in Geology. His PhD thesis was on isotope ratios in meteorites, including surface exposure dating. He was employed at Caltech's Division of Geological & Planetary Sciences at the time of writing the first edition. He is presently employed in the Space & Atmospheric Sciences Group at the Los Alamos National Laboratory.
First edition 1994; revised version 2002.
Radiometric dating--the process of determining the age of rocks from the decay of their radioactive elements--has been in widespread use for over half a century. There are over forty such techniques, each using a different radioactive element or a different way of measuring them. It has become increasingly clear that these radiometric dating techniques agree with each other and as a whole, present a coherent picture in which the Earth was created a very long time ago. Further evidence comes from the complete agreement between radiometric dates and other dating methods such as counting tree rings or glacier ice core layers. Many Christians have been led to distrust radiometric dating and are completely unaware of the great number of laboratory measurements that have shown these methods to be consistent. Many are also unaware that Bible-believing Christians are among those actively involved in radiometric dating.
This paper describes in relatively simple terms how a number of the dating techniques work, how accurately the half-lives of the radioactive elements and the rock dates themselves are known, and how dates are checked with one another. In the process the paper refutes a number of misconceptions prevalent among Christians today. This paper is available on the web via the American Scientific Affiliation and related sites to promote greater understanding and wisdom on this issue, particularly within the Christian community.
Nor do some Christians have a problem with an old earth it seems, nor the scientific methods that show the earth is old.
There is more at
SO:
If some Christians have no problems with science and some Christians do have a problem with science, then the problem is not with the science, but with those Christians that have a problem.
Again I point out the definition of delusion:
The belief that the earth is young is a false belief, it is not supported by the bible, the bible is not a science text (although it contains some scientific observations), nor an historical text (although it contains some historical observations).
If some Christians have no problems with an old earth and some Christians do have a problem with an old earth, then the problem is not with the old earth evidence, but with those Christians that have a problem.
If the universe is the creation of god, then the best homage you could do to that god is to learn to understand the reality of that universe as best you can, study as much science as you can to understand how "life, the universe and everything"(*) works.
You evolutionists do change definitions whenever its needed by you.
Yes, definitions do change as new information comes to light.
But I said that creationists make up their own definition of SCIENCE, specifically, to try to shoehorn their misinterpretation of the Bible into it. That isn't a "change" in a definition; its a false definition. The real definition is still the same.
Evolutionists are strictly into semantics.. they have nothing else.
Their semantic classifications are a sheer joke and hilarious except some duped people believe them. Its where their research funding goes. Its all just a con, and letter manipulation into clades, and sets that supposedly originate our species and Kind. But they still dont know what clade we came from and just argue argue argue about their theology of theoriology of theories upon theories.
This is why Razz and others theorise and want to bring attention to their latest break through theory.
Maybe they can get some notoriety or research funds to further advance their theory, in their semantic disconnected brains.
Evolution is not science. It did not create life nor did it diversify life. It didn;t create the laws that exist nor did it create science. It is a religion and not Science.
Intelligent design always defeats evolutions lack of design and lack of intelligence. Luck and Chance is not a scientific doctrine,
This is why Razz and others theorise and want to bring attention to their latest break through theory.
RAZD doesn't theorize. The scientists who do the actual science are the ones who theorize. What RAZD does is try to show how the evidence fits the theory.
You should try to understand what the words mean before you whine about semantics.
Evolutionists/Atheists should get real and know biology instead of accepting demented non mathematical unscientific theories rather than observed phenomena and traits and abilties and instincts and behaviours..
Evolutionists reject genetics and know not genetics as they still think inbreeding (like Razz) is a proof of evolutionary change. They still think color change is evolutionary proof, they still think that the semantic change of one letter changes the clade setting of human ancestry.
Evolutionist/atheism is for non scientific types to fantasize about their upbringing and their future offspring... even though they refuse to talk about human sexuality in an OPEN FORUM, or beneficial mutations in an OPEN FORUM, or maybe ten different other topics of interest to truth seekers in an OPEN FORUM.
Neverthless truth always wins in the end, and in the middle and from the start. truth always defeats and obliterates the whining and complaints of those with lack of intelligence and a lack of design who trust luck and chance as their Saviour.
IMHO
David
Thanks to the webmasters HERE for allowing me to defeat atheists and evolutionists HERE, and show they have no math, no science backing them up and that they are totally dependant on semantics and luck and chance as their only support for their religion. Thanks again...
™ Version 4.2
(1)
