17 Aug 17
Originally posted by @humyAnd one of the topics you choose to use as an example of science at work is exactly my complaint with respect to how "science" is applied.Despite the insistence by those drunk on knowledge-lust...
so you hate people wanting and trying to know things, such as the world being round and not flat like your insist it is.
Clearly you don't want people to know the truth but rather be stupid and ignorant. Without people wanting and trying to know things (what you call "drunk on know ...[text shortened]... ot stand people knowing things against your beliefs, such as the Earth being round and not flat.
If a thing is a thing, no matter what angle one approaches, the view will be consistent, will fit.
If the world is a globe, it will follow mathematical principles related to a sphere.
If it does not follow those principles, it cannot be as stated.
Super, super, super simple.
And yet lost on you!
17 Aug 17
Originally posted by @lemon-limeYes, I do. Was it worth it? Did you learn anything?
Do you realise just how far off track you need to go in order to make it appear I've gone off track?
17 Aug 17
Originally posted by @freakykbhI think F has me on ignore so ask him this: Why is it we can measure the difference in weight of an object on the equator vs on north or south pole? How is that going to happen on a flat planet?
And one of the topics you choose to use as an example of science at work is exactly my complaint with respect to how "science" is applied.
If a thing is a thing, no matter what angle one approaches, the view will be consistent, will fit.
If the world is a globe, it will follow mathematical principles related to a sphere.
If it does not follow those principles, it cannot be as stated.
Super, super, super simple.
And yet lost on you!
Originally posted by @sonhouseBut evolution as we know it, the science of evolution does not have to know where life came from by definition
No 'selection' but trillions of little chemical 'experiments', random reactions that proceeded to make more and more complex chemicals that led to life, that is the prevailing science answer. And the feeling is once cells started, a lot of different cells developed at the same time and then selection took place weeding out the weakest.
But evolution as ...[text shortened]... r it is already here. None of your mealy mouthed objections can change that absolute fact jack.
Okay, so as far as evolutionists are concerned how life began (by definition) is of no concern to them...?
The reason I'm not buying into this line of bull is because of strenuous objections from evolutionists whenever someone suggests life was first created by an intelligent designer. If evolution has nothing to say about abiogenesis, then why all the push back from evolutionists? It seems you want to have it both ways. If abiogenesis presents a problem for evolution you claim it has nothing to do with evolution. But the moment someone suggests the first living things could have been created by a superior intelligence you all scream bloody murder and rail against 'goddidits'.
So what am I supposed to believe? Am I supposed to believe evolutionists who have nothing to say about how life began can magically morph into beings who do have something to say about it? The rules of engagement you make for yourselves is very fluid and can change in your favor whenever you wish. And the rules you expect those you disagree with to abide by are very narrow and unyielding.
But evolution as we know it, the science of evolution does not have to know where life came from by definition, they follow the changes of life after it is already here. None of your mealy mouthed objections can change that absolute fact jack.
Define mealy mouthed
17 Aug 17
Originally posted by @lemon-limeYou mean you put your sperm in a PAN? What temperature?
[hidden]panspermia[/hidden]
17 Aug 17
Originally posted by @lemon-limeMealy mouth, your posts. Evolutionists WANT to know how life got here but that is a discipline not in their kit bag. They leave that to cosmologists and all your screaming and writhing around won't change that. It matters little to evolution science how life got here. If you want to believe a human shaped god with a big white beard did it, fine, till we actually figure it out, you have a case. I just think science will win that one in the end, leaving creationists nothing but the quick reversion back to faith and maybe stop crying about evolution science not realy caring how life started. It is in fact the science of changes AFTER life is here, how it got here is moot, they don't care if it IS from a god or THE god whatever you want to call it. You have just as hard a time proving a god didit as cosmologists right now figuring out how life started. At least for now, you are on equal footing.
[b]But evolution as we know it, the science of evolution does not have to know where life came from by definition
Okay, so as far as evolutionists are concerned how life began (by definition) is of no concern to them...?
The reason I'm not buying into this line of bull is because of strenuous objections from evolutionists whenever someon ...[text shortened]... mealy mouthed objections can change that absolute fact jack.[/b]
Define mealy mouthed[/b]
Originally posted by @lemon-limeSo you are still an ignorant in the subject... 😞
[youtube][/youtube]
Originally posted by @lemon-limeyou mean
[hidden]panspermia[/hidden]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia
what does that have to do with definition of new species, or, what exactly?
Ignorant questions:
1. Has anyone on this thread yet explained why abiogenesis or panspermia are antithetical to religious dogma?
2. Why do scientific concepts seem more threatening to Christianity than, for example, mormonism or scientology?
The reason why science doesn't like religious terms is because they're typically unprovable and un-hinged from empirical evidence. Science isn't a religion, nor can it replace religion. It's simply a method for studying the natural world. Why isn't that enough to remove the supposed threat of science to religion? Isn't there another forum for the religious musings?
18 Aug 17
Oh good grief, I forgot how literal minded some of you are.
Panspermia has nothing to do with speciation. I just tossed that out there as a nonsensical answer to a nonsensical response...
humy brought up the discovery of a new species which evidently came about through speciation. It shouldn't it be necessary for me to explain the Speciation link to people who (by their own account) are not ignorant.
18 Aug 17
Originally posted by @wildgrassThe ONLY thing Christianity works against is lies.
Ignorant questions:
1. Has anyone on this thread yet explained why abiogenesis or panspermia are antithetical to religious dogma?
2. Why do scientific concepts seem more threatening to Christianity than, for example, mormonism or scientology?
The reason why science doesn't like religious terms is because they're typically unprovable and un-hinged ...[text shortened]... the supposed threat of science to religion? Isn't there another forum for the religious musings?
And it really doesn't work all that hard, either, since, you know: truth.
Don't need a lot of help with that corner man.
18 Aug 17
Originally posted by @freakykbhcool. Sort of like the old adage "The ONLY thing is the tree hid the stop sign and the fish ate my hard truth."
The ONLY thing Christianity works against is lies.
And it really doesn't work all that hard, either, since, you know: truth.
Don't need a lot of help with that corner man.
How old are you? My toddler has better answers than whatever this is. What is the corner? What don't you need help with?
18 Aug 17
3 edits
Originally posted by @freakykbhsuch as the 'lie' that the Earth is round and not flat; got that.
The ONLY thing Christianity works against is lies.
I guess round Earth must be just stupid evil atheistic lying-science-based anti-Christianity propaganda to confuse Christians into turning against Jesus.
To all other Christians here;
Do you all agree with him that the ONLY thing Christianity works against is lies, such as the lie that the Earth is round and not flat etc?