As a creationist, I don't consider guess-timates involving thousands, or millions of light years as a science that is to be readily accepted and unquestioned. Science is supposed to be testable, repeatable, observable, falsifiable. I think it gets a little vague when we claim to analyze something (glimmers of light) that took thousands or millions of years to reach us.
Good thing none of that is true or else there would be a problem. Whew! The "guesstimate" yenmor spoke of was the number of stars in our galaxy, not the hodgepodge of wrongness you purported. The study of light and it's speed is very well documented and contains no guess work.
Nice try, though.
As an agnostic/atheist, are you never the slightest bit skeptical of secular guess-timates involving deep space?
As a christian, what does your god say about misrepresentation of others and lying? Based on creationists writing, I'd say he/she/it is all for it and commands it.
Not at all, because science restricts itself to naturalistic rearrangement processes only.
Creationists the world over have been emplored to provide a way to study the supernatural. You've all failed. Science studies what it CAN study and that is nature.
Those who control it don't even allow the exploration of the possibility of an intelligent designer.
That is a lie. As a matter of fact, the whole paragraph surrounding that is wrong and a lie.
Much of what passes for science today is actually atheism - a public establishment of it. That's the only thing (U.S.) creationists are attempting to stifle. Not necessarily in a religious interest, but in a constitutional interest.
Oh, look, another lie.
"Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off." -Dawkins
You could clear this all up by pointing to one bit of "real" science you accept. As of now, you've simply asserted that you (and all YEC's, apparently) actually do accept some science even though the evidence ("real" evidence, that is) strongly indicates otherwise.
So, let us have it. What actual science that can be found in a science text do you accept? Since you claim to accept 90% of it, I expect you to not toss a softball and offer up some hard science that you accept.
Do you accept or deny this challenge?
"Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off." -Dawkins
Fair enough. Do you dispute the efficacy or the methodolgy of the administration of the flu vaccine? Do you accept that it works for it's stated purpose?
"Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off." -Dawkins
Those are two pretty esteemed science sources. Since you claim to not object to 99% of science AND you admitted to accepting the science behind the flu vaccine, you have yourself quite a pickle.
Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.
"Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off." -Dawkins
Look, they had smallpox vaccine back in the 18th century before anybody believed in evolution, and all kinds of other vaccines into the 20th century that were simply developed on the basis of permitting the body to develop antibodies to a given pathogen. I was enough of a science nut that I saved clippings on the Salk vaccine when it first came out.
What is your point? I wasn't talking about smallpox or any other vaccine since they are not all the same.
Let me guess, you are going to claim that the flu "evolves" from season to season which requires new formulas to adapt to its new forms or something along those lines?
I don't need to make claims. I have evidence and I just showed you the science that you have made an entire thread about accepting, but since it goes against your beliefs, you are going to call upon all your cognitive dissonance to now deny it.
Can you go ahead and admit to only accepting science that has been properly vetted against your religious beliefs? This makes the choices very few since your particular brand of religion is YEC.
Also, could you finally point me/us to science you actually accept?
Then let me hasten to assure you that that level of "evolution" is not a problem for YECs. That's the usual "microevolution" that we all know and love, not "macroevolution."
Ahh, I see. The goalposts weren't adequately shifted. I certainly hope I have proven a point to onlookers or at the very least, taught someone a valuable lesson in honesty.
"Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off." -Dawkins
That is a distinction witout a difference, Faith. Only science haters make that distinction. Also of note is that you only care about this distinction now that I have created an internal problem for you. Previously, you were fine calling ALL evolution just evolution. If we put forth miniml effort, we can point to where you have objected to forms of microevolution.
quote:Microevolution over time may lead to speciation or the appearance of novel structure, sometimes classified as macroevolution.[2] Contrary to claims by creationists however, macro and microevolution describe fundamentally identical processes on different time scales.[2][3]
quote:House sparrows have adapted to the climate of North America, mosquitoes have evolved in response to global warming, and insects have evolved resistance to our pesticides. These are all examples of microevolution — evolution on a small scale.
(bolding mine) Sausage (note: you previously accepted this as a source, so no bias for you)
quote:Microevolution is evolution on a small scale — within a single population. That means narrowing our focus to one branch of the tree of life.
Not that you can't know SOMETHING about it, but you can't know what you think you know, which is all conjecture. Like the meaning of the supposed order in the geologic column.
Go dig something up. Is what you now hold in your hand conjecture? No? THAT is how the geologic column is determined.
Your window of available sciences that you claim to accept is rapidly dwindling. Quick! Tell us what sciences you DO accept so we can dash your hopes and dreams and destroy any notion that they are compatible with your goat herder mentality.
Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.
"Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off." -Dawkins
So let me get this straight: YOU see a very great distinction between MICROevolution and MACROevolution, yet in dealing with EVOLUTION, you don't bother to make clear this distinction and you repeatedly use the word evolution as your word choice to state the science you object to even though there is already a word for that with which you object to which is different from evolution? And you do not see how this is dishonest?
It is absurd that this still needs to be argued after months and years of this debate.
That is the most honest thing you've said in this whole thread... just not for the reason you intended.
For the 4th or 5th time now: will you identify what sciences you Do accept and DO believe are compatible with the YEC worldview?
::abe::
In the current context I've been using "evolution" ONLY to refer to macroevolution which is the contested theory after all.
You DO realize that there is only one theory, right? You either accept evolutionary theory or you don't. In Message 96, you said:
quote:Evolution, however, is ABOUT THE PAST, it is NOT SCIENCE AS REAL SCIENCE is SCIENCE, the kind of science that can be replicated in the laboratory, that produces things, that builds things and so on.
Well, evolution "builds" influenza vaccines. Not the "theory of MICROevolution, the theory of evolution.
So, since you admitted to accepting the science behind the flu vaccine, you by proxy accept evolution.
Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.
"Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off." -Dawkins
Certainly I disagree with those supposedly "useful conclusions and comparisons" that aren't useful at all, certainly not in biology, and only because somehow they are pressed into service in the oil industry are they used in Geology, though their necessity may be questioned there as well. But that's only a small part of the sciences in question really, 100% disagreement with five or ten percent.
So how does this message jice with your goalpost shifting of now claiming you were talking about "MICROevolution"? Those "useful conclusions and comparisons" in biology use.....EVOLUTION. One theory. You should stop lying.
"Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off." -Dawkins
No I meant 90%, a guess at how much of the science is uncontaminated with Old Earth / evolutionist assumptions.
Hmm. I would have to take a guess at your meaning of "evolutionist" but my guess is that it refers to people that accept evolution and DO NOT make distinction between macro and micro and realize they use the same science. If I extrapolate further, I can see that you accept science that has not been "contaminated" by "evolutionists".
You previously accepted the science behind the influenza vaccine.
You admit that vaccine is the result of evolution.
You claim to accept science that is not "contaminated" by "evolutionists".
These have been YOUR admissions. I am not making any of this up. It must be a real pain to be you. However, i am seriously doubting that you believe a word you type. This level of trolling gives /b/ a run for their money.
"Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off." -Dawkins
They both use the same science, the same methodology, the same theory. There is zero functional difference. None. Accept one, you accept the other. Period.
"Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off." -Dawkins
No. The problem is that you are a dishonest liar and I have proven THAT beyond a reasonable doubt by using your very own words against you.
Why do you have such a problem saying "I do not like any science"? Why do you feel the need to pander to some sciences? It would be far more honest of you.
Why don't you tell us what sciences you claim to accept and feel are compatible with YEC? You have dodged that question more times than I care to count.
"Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off." -Dawkins
™ Version 4.0 Beta
(1)
