Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,455 Year: 3,712/9,624 Month: 583/974 Week: 196/276 Day: 36/34 Hour: 2/14


EvC Forum ⇒ Science Forums ⇒ Is It Science? ⇒

faith based science?

Thread ▼ Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   faith based science?
Larni
Member (Idle past 186 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005

Normal Thread Display
Message 12 of 171 (676311)
10-21-2012 5:16 PM 		Reply to: Message 10 by eclectic1993
10-21-2012 5:04 PM

What your friend seems to be saying is that he or she does not have the expertise to make a meaningful comment about abiogenesis and that that question is best left up to a chemist.
​
That seems perfectly reasonable since evolution is biology and abiogenesis is chemistry. Why ask a person about something that is not in his or her field?
​
I see no bone of contention.
​
Welcome to EvC.
The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
​
The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286
​
Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134
This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by eclectic1993, posted 10-21-2012 5:04 PM eclectic1993 has not replied
  
Larni
Member (Idle past 186 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005

Normal Thread Display

(2)
Message 29 of 171 (676597)
10-24-2012 7:30 AM 		Reply to: Message 28 by Alfred Maddenstein
10-24-2012 6:54 AM

Re: Maddenstein
Or was it my suggestion that galaxy clusters are quadrillions of years old?
​
I reckon that the Universe has no possible age
​
I would dismiss that, given what we know about the age of the Universe.
​
Or was it Feynman quoted to depart from the usual quantum probability tripe and suggest that necessity rules throughout? Applied to abiogenesis that makes the process either necessary or impossible. Which is the case is not clear so is a matter of faith and not probability.
​
This sounds like bollocks.
​
Which is a totalitarian trick.
​
Saying that you are insane is not totalitarian. You may not be insane but your ability to debate is fucking rubbish.
The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
​
The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286
​
Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134
This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-24-2012 6:54 AM Alfred Maddenstein has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-24-2012 7:57 AM Larni has replied
  
Larni
Member (Idle past 186 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005

Normal Thread Display

(3)
Message 31 of 171 (676608)
10-24-2012 9:45 AM 		Reply to: Message 30 by Alfred Maddenstein
10-24-2012 7:57 AM

Re: Maddenstein
Who are we? Relying on authority? You yourself know nothing. Buy a telescope, watch the sky, learn to calculate the peculiar galaxy velocities going towards the formation of such clusters as the Sloan Great Wall and others and then talk about how long the process may have taken.
​
So you are saying that the concensus that we start measuring time from about 13.5 billion years ago is wrong: I get that.
​
What you have failed to do is to provide any evidence to justify your assertion. I don't understand why you can't do this.
​
Why don't you start a topic about this contention? And then you could stop walking all over otherwise interesting threads with you big stinking, repellent, shit covered nonsensical boots.
The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
​
The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286
​
Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134
This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-24-2012 7:57 AM Alfred Maddenstein has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-24-2012 2:41 PM Larni has replied
  
Larni
Member (Idle past 186 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005

Normal Thread Display

(2)
Message 35 of 171 (676680)
10-24-2012 5:03 PM 		Reply to: Message 32 by Alfred Maddenstein
10-24-2012 2:41 PM

Re: Maddenstein
Larn, the consensus-nonsensus claim that the existence as a whole possesses the property of duration is not right or wrong by evidence or absence of it, it's just plain impossible by definition.
​
Really?
​
Ok.
​
You win.
​
My parting shot is thus: you stupid, fucking, twat.
​
Edited by Larni, : Cleaned up for the PG-13 certificate.
The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
​
The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286
​
Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134
This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-24-2012 2:41 PM Alfred Maddenstein has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-25-2012 4:21 AM Larni has not replied
  
Larni
Member (Idle past 186 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005

Normal Thread Display
Message 111 of 171 (677339)
10-29-2012 10:02 AM 		Reply to: Message 95 by foreveryoung
10-28-2012 11:48 PM

I agree.
​
Christians should be well versed in and live their lives as the Bible instructs.
​
I'm not myself a Christian but I do get annoyed when so called Christians have no idea about the Bible or what it says about Jesus.
The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
​
The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286
​
Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134
This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by foreveryoung, posted 10-28-2012 11:48 PM foreveryoung has not replied
  
Date format: mm-dd-yyyy
Timezone: ET (US)
  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024