Oh goody. Then you can do what you claim on this question I will pose. The bible says that this universe will pass away one day. It is temporary. Can you say that is wrong, or correct? Hopefully you were not just lying. Fill us in.
Let's see you strut your stuff here.
Relative, I presume it is not your religion that prompts you to believe that flippant personal insults and dismissals constitute productive debate.
Please try to tackle the speech rather than the speaker.
Otherwise, I predict (with a high degree of both scientific and spiritual certainty) that you will take some time off from the forum.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
I noticed that you responded to the {Age Correlations, step by step}. If you agree we can move that to the {Great Debate} forum and waive the "rules" of the science forums.
This post is too long, I'll cut it off here.
It is long because you refuse to {answer\clarify\resolve} issues with your assertions in previous posts while continually adding new assertions.
If we can {answer\clarify\resolve} those old issues then we can move on to new ones without more clutter.
Says who? This is about what it is about, not what you dictate.
It is about you supporting and defending your arguments rather than make reckless statement after reckless statement.
Of course, if you won't defend your arguments after they have been shown to be erroneous, or after serious problems with them have been pointed out, that is your choice - it leaves your arguments in a "refuted until new defense provided" status.
The only other logical conclusion is that you can't defend your assertions, rather than won't. Your choice.
Take it as chop suey if you want. I'll take it that the question if there ever was one was vague.
I'll take it that every single undefended (reckless) assertion your have made that has been {criticized\critiqued\refuted} is in a "refuted until new defense provided" status. Not because I am mean spirited or callous, but because you have abandoned the (reckless) assertions that you have not defended.
Great, so next time they say our galaxy will crash into another,
I know of no scientific prediction that our galaxy will "crash" into another - can you give me an instance of this? Which galaxy and at what future time would also be welcome. Otherwise this is just speculation that you are equating (falsely) with science.
... or the sun burn out one day ...
That is a scientific prediction based on the amount of Hydrogen in the sun, as are the stages that the sun would go through before then. Those predictions are based on observations of other stars similar in size and composition to the sun. It is also not anything we need to worry about for several millennia.
I like real prophesy, like in the bible. It is so much better than ignorance and beliefs. It is so right on, and 100 % true so far, that there isn't hardly any belief required. More like history.
Another reckless statement? Strangely I am unaware of a single significant prediction of any consequence. Perhaps someone of your expertise could provide an example of a prediction that {X} will happen at {Y} time and location, and then show me that this specific {X} indeed did happen in {Y} time and location?
Remember that you think I have trouble connecting the dots, so I will need direct correlations of {X} in one to {X} in the other and of {Y} in one to {Y} in the other.
Great, eh? I don't know much about religion, so you'll have to work through your own problems.
Does this mean you are not an expert on prophesy and thus cannot provide the example requested above?
I also notice that you did not address the issue of conflicts between different faiths. Equivocating on the term "religion" doesn't answer the question on these conflicts.
My personal feelings have nothing to do with it. It is the word of God, and the huge limits of science that give me authority.
In other words you cannot demonstrate that two people - even of the same faith - are talking about the same god no matter how much they think they are.
So what? Are you insinuating most men are mad?
Nope. Delusional at best, and only those who are irrational, such as those that believe that the earth is flat and the sun orbits around it. Such as those that ignore and deny evidence that is available. If what you believe is contradicted by evidence it is irrational to continue to believe it. If you continue to believe it in spite of the evidence then you are being irrational.
Belief is religion. Projecting present science in the past or future is belief.
Nope. As already demonstrated before (are you ignoring the evidence? Or is this just where you stopped reading?) science involves predictions and testing:
RAZD, msg 25 writes:
Science involves several elements, observation, hypothesis, prediction, testing, revisions = new cycle of observation, hypothesis, prediction, testing ... it is a never ending cycle, and part of that cycle is predictions about what future results will involve.
This is not belief, it is logic -- IF {A} is true THEN {B} will happen and {C} will NOT happen.
Science is willing and able to wait for the results to see if theory {A} is invalidated by future observations, but until then it operates on the observation and accumulated evidence that such invalidation has not occurred yet so {A} is tentatively accepted as valid as long as {B} keeps happening and {C} does not happen -- because the evidence points that way.
It doesn't matter whether that prediction is about what happened in the past or what may happen in the future, theory {A} is tentatively accepted as valid as long as {B} keeps happening and {C} does not happen -- because the evidence points that way.
Belief would mean believing a theory is still true after it has been invalidated. Science doesn't do that.
There was no radioactive decay in the past. There will be none in the fiuture. The daughter material you see you think decayed was already there, as the decay process began thousands of years ago. It never got there by decay, and of course we know it now does. But the process itself changed, it never used to be a decay process at all.
There is no evidence of any of the half-lives changing over time. In fact, as discussed below, they have been observed to not change at all over hundreds of thousands of years.
Ignoring the evidence, denial of the evidence, does not make the evidence go away.
There is no evidence of any change in the radioactive decay of elements. The ratio of parent to daughter elements and isotopes gives the same age for the earth for several different dating systems. Either we have radioactive decay operating in the past in the same way as today or we have God=Loki.
This post is too long, I'll cut it off here.
Conveniently so you don't have to defend any other reckless statements?
Just remember that I'll take it that every single undefended (reckless) assertion your have made that has been {criticized\critiqued\refuted} is in a "refuted until new defense provided" status.
This applies to the rest of the post that you skip here -- because you have abandoned the (reckless) assertions that you have not defended.
??? Why is this stuff supposed to be a reply to me?
Later on==== Oh, I see what is going on here, they tar whisper with the simple brush. Now I have been around a bit. There was a 'dad; over on christianforums who posted I think it was said as one of the 'simple's' here at one time. He would be the one to take care of Razd, not me.
There was no radioactive decay in the past. There will be none in the fiuture. The daughter material you see you think decayed was already there, as the decay process began thousands of years ago. It never got there by decay, and of course we know it now does. But the process itself changed, it never used to be a decay process at all.
Everytime I see this patented, trademarked, copywrited refutation of science based on the assertion that the laws of the universe have changed since the Fall, or Flood, or whenever I think simple is back and up to his stupid debate tricks again.
If it isn't him, then someone is cloning his gimmick.
If you hover your mouse pointer over whisper's name on one of his posts it will show that it is indeed just an alias of simple (and arkathon and...)Never put off until tomorrow what you can put off until the day after
I thought he had been permantly banned for his reliance on last thursdayism?
simple was suspended and he just kept re-registering under new names.Just a monkey in a long line of kings. If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! *not an actual doctor
You can also click on the name and you will get a list of the sites where the person has been posting. You can get an idea of their interests from the list, and also of their relative responsiveness by the number of "yes"es for responses unanswered.
Can thine heart endure, or can thine hands be strong, in the days that I shall deal with thee? I the Lord have spoken it, and will do it. - Ezekial 22:14
Oh no, not at all. In fact, the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), who literally wrote the book of "creation science", was originally based in Southern California east of San Diego (just down the street from a stone carver who, I would assume, gave them good rates on millstones).
Obviously, "creation science" is a purely American product, the factors of whose creation do include American fundamentalist sects (your reference to Alabama), but also the history of the anti-evolution movement in the USA from the 1920's on, and the US court system that they need to circumvent and the US public they need to deceive.
But there's no reason to assume that it nor the fundamentalist sects would remain isolated to the USA. Aggressive missionary work ensures that that won't be the case. The ICR's monthly newsletter, Acts & Facts, would always carry stories of their missionary efforts in several other countries to spread their "gospel" of "creation science."
Plus, there are also Islamic creationists. Not of the same school as the ICR, I would assume, but that doesn't mean they couldn't have plagarized^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hresearched something from the ICR.
I thought that the only people who doubted evolution were fundies from Alabama?
As with (apparently) most of the things you think, this is not the case. Obviously mere geographical location doesn't prevent fundies from being wrong about evolution, otherwise you could cure 'em of it with a plane ticket.
But there's no reason to assume that it nor the fundamentalist sects would remain isolated to the USA. Aggressive missionary work ensures that that won't be the case. The ICR's monthly newsletter, Acts & Facts, would always carry stories of their missionary efforts in several other countries to spread their "gospel" of "creation science."
quote:According to Nature.com, a group called the Society for Textbook Revise mounted an effective petition drive and is claiming credit for the removal of the evolution "error" from student's textbooks in order to "correct" their understanding of the world. . . .
According to Newser, the Society For Textbook Revise was set up in the 1980s by the US Institute for Creation Research when Christianity spread across South Korea.
Obviously mere geographical location doesn't prevent fundies from being wrong about evolution, otherwise you could cure 'em of it with a plane ticket.
The official caricature of creationists is that it only exists in a small minority of fundies in the South and that it doesnt exist anywhere else in the world. Even though two of the biggest creation organisations, CMI and Answers in Genesis were started in Australia not USA.
Can thine heart endure or can thine hands be strong, in the days that I shall deal with thee? I the Lord have spoken it and will do it. - Ezekial 22:14
The official caricature of creationists is that it only exists in a small minority of fundies in the South and that it doesnt exist anywhere else in the world.
I wasn't aware that the Federal Bureau Of Satire And Caricature had agreed on an official standard.
Yet again, "creation science" is a purely American product, born uniquely out of the religious, political, and judicial environment of the USA. From there it was exported to other countries.
If you want to try to make a case about fundamentalist Christian and creationist movements in other countries, then you also need to provide information about their formation and developmental histories.
™ Version 4.0 Beta
(1)