Young Physicist on the boards

[Meatball]

What?

I'm going to be a good Berean and check you out! On the Biblical accuracy of the story that is...

I can't believe it took them millions of years for them to simply decide to let Lucifer have reign over those silly beings. Even I could have thought of that.

Through about two seconds of heavy scrutiny, I have decided that the story is not Biblical, then being errant, and thus being illogical to believe.

If man were experimental, then we are mistakes. God does not make mistakes, so then we are intentional in our original created form. Experiments and Research Opportunities are executed for and by the non-omniscient. Correct?

 

[No Sheep Here]

What?

I'm going to be a good Berean and check you out! On the Biblical accuracy of the story that is...

I can't believe it took them millions of years for them to simply decide to let Lucifer have reign over those silly beings. Even I could have thought of that.

Through about two seconds of heavy scrutiny, I have decided that the story is not Biblical, then being errant, and thus being illogical to believe.

If man were experimental, then we are mistakes. God does not make mistakes, so then we are intentional in our original created form. Experiments and Research Opportunities are executed for and by the non-omniscient. Correct?

Why would god purposely make men knowing their short comings? Why would he stage it all from the beginning so that he'd have to go through all of these loops and twists and tricks? Was he bored?

What is his reason for the many other failed solar systems and planets without life etc?

What are your beliefs? Are you a young earth creationist?

 

[Stripe]

I see. I would be interested in hearing his statement expanded upon- to see on what basis he makes the claim, and which aspects of science he means.. But you must first start with a common definition of science, which is not the easiest thing to come across. Perhaps a new thread is in order? I'll do some searching first.

It was a shot across the bow of any atheists silly enough to poke their noses in. We all know evolution isn't science, right?

 

[No Sheep Here]

It was a shot across the bow of any atheists silly enough to poke their noses in. We all know evolution isn't science, right?

Well i am not an Atheist. I seen the comment to be untrue and misleading. And evolution is very much science. The question for you i guess is if Macro evolution is science, because you can't deny micro. Obviously anyone educated on evolution also knows macro to be true as well, but for your religious beliefs I see why you reject macro. In any case, your statement about there not being any science without Christians was an untrue one.

 

[Stripe]

Well i am not an Atheist. I seen the comment to be untrue and misleading.

Hmm .. perhaps you're over-reacting.

And evolution is very much science.

No, it's not. :nono:

It just tries to use all the big words a lot. When it comes to making predictions and practical application it's got nothing.

The question for you i guess is if Macro evolution is science, because you can't deny micro.

It's much more sensible to discuss the ways populations change over time without using the word, "evolution". It just poisons the discussion.

Populations change over time. There is a very easy distinction that one can make between macro and micro changes.

Obviously anyone educated on evolution also knows macro to be true as well, but for your religious beliefs I see why you reject macro.

I don't do science based on religion. :nono:

 

[No Sheep Here]

I don't do science based on religion. :nono:

I've seen your Noah's ark thread. Your scientific approach is in defense of your religious beliefs. Even the guy in the video you posted let us know his motives was based on Jesus saying the Noah's flood was real. These are religious motivated scientific approaches. If you tell me that your faith is nothing if Jesus got the flood wrong, then I have to conclude you have a vested interest in making it match the pre thought conclusion. I assume you do agree with the guy in the video you posted or else you wouldn't have made the thread, right? You have a right to defend your views, but at least admit your views are religious.

Btw, I wasn't overreacting, I just replied to what I saw because it matched the norm I hear from Christians on a regular basis. And if you don't like the term evolution then tell the creo scientist to get in the lab and in the fields and putting together some test and evidence for their claims. Science is not changed by lobbying and debates, it's changed by evidence and tests. Even the Christian who proposed the big bang had to face the rigors of scientific scrutiny and peer review. Most scientist back then thought the universe had no beginning and always existed; man how they fought to keep the big bang theory down, but in the end evidence won. They hated it because it gave notion to a creation. Blame people like Micheal Behe for not being in the lab and proving their claims. Unlike Behe, Ken Miller is in the lab doing scientific tests on a regular basis and he believes in evolution and proves it true. Write Behe and the other creo scientist and tell them to stop taking those debate tour dollars and get their butts in the lab to defend your views.

 

[Jukia]

I don't do science based on religion. :nono:

A bit of fantasy Stripe. While there appears no evidence that you "do" any science, it is clear that your analysis of the evidence is based on your need for a literal interpretation of Genesis.

 

[Stripe]

I've seen your Noah's ark thread. Your scientific approach is in defense of your religious beliefs. Even the guy in the video you posted let us know his motives was based on Jesus saying the Noah's flood was real. These are religious motivated scientific approaches. If you tell me that your faith is nothing if Jesus got the flood wrong, then I have to conclude you have a vested interest in making it match the pre thought conclusion. I assume you do agree with the guy in the video you posted or else you wouldn't have made the thread, right? You have a right to defend your views, but at least admit your views are religious.

I'll admit to what I'm guilty of. My ideas on science are just as valid and reasonable as the next guy's.

Btw, I wasn't overreacting, I just replied to what I saw because it matched the norm I hear from Christians on a regular basis.

Then perhaps you need to start reading with a little less prejudice. It was a fairly light-hearted comment.

And if you don't like the term evolution then tell the creo scientist to get in the lab and in the fields and putting together some test and evidence for their claims.

:yawn:

Are you going to follow the same path as every other boring atheist? There are all sorts of people doing all sorts of research. Quit pretending the evolutionists have the market cornered on empirical investigation.

Most scientist back then thought the universe had no beginning and always existed

That's because they rejected the word of God.

Blame people like Micheal Behe for not being in the lab and proving their claims.

Who? :idunno:

...get their butts in the lab to defend your views.

I'm quite capable of presenting and defending my own ideas, thanks. :thumb:

 

[Selaphiel]

so you have evidence that biology can decrease entropy?
or
create energy?

Who says that biology decreases entropy?

Your question is based on a erroneous understanding of organisms. Organisms are not closed systems, they actually gather energy from outside environments. They gather the energy emitted from the sun and the food that they eat. So if you look at a biological organism as a system, there is energy attributed to the system from the outside which of course invalidates the entropy argument against evolution.

No energy is created, it is simply changed and concentrated by the organisms absorption of different sources of energy around it.

Welcome Meatball.

 

[Meatball]

Why would god purposely make men knowing their short comings? Why would he stage it all from the beginning so that he'd have to go through all of these loops and twists and tricks? Was he bored?

What is his reason for the many other failed solar systems and planets without life etc?

What are your beliefs? Are you a young earth creationist?

He made men and angels- each with free will- the ability to choose, and the ability to act upon choice. We were made to glorify God and enjoy him forever. Is that not a noble purpose? That God would not create just any creature to glorify him but man?

Not failed solar systems. The larger the universe gets, the more there is to declare the glory of God. If it took God billions of years to prepare this universe just for us, its obvious that he finds great value in us.

As stated before, I am DEFINITELY an old Earth Creationist. Believing that the the Bible proves a 10,000 year old Earth is as if you used the Bible to prove the Earth was flat- very difficult to do, and inconsistent.

 

[Meatball]

Why would god purposely make men knowing their short comings? Why would he stage it all from the beginning so that he'd have to go through all of these loops and twists and tricks? Was he bored?

What is his reason for the many other failed solar systems and planets without life etc?

What are your beliefs? Are you a young earth creationist?

He made men and angels- each with free will- the ability to choose, and the ability to act upon choice. We were made to glorify God and enjoy him forever. Is that not a noble purpose? That God would not create just any creature to glorify him but man?

Not failed solar systems. The larger the universe gets, the more there is to declare the glory of God. If it took God billions of years to prepare this universe just for us, its obvious that he finds great value in us.

As stated before, I am DEFINITELY an old Earth Creationist. Believing that the the Bible proves a 10,000 year old Earth is as if you used the Bible to prove the Earth was flat- very difficult to do, and inconsistent.

Who says that biology decreases entropy?

Your question is based on a erroneous understanding of organisms. Organisms are not closed systems, they actually gather energy from outside environments. They gather the energy emitted from the sun and the food that they eat. So if you look at a biological organism as a system, there is energy attributed to the system from the outside which of course invalidates the entropy argument against evolution.

No energy is created, it is simply changed and concentrated by the organisms absorption of different sources of energy around it.

Welcome Meatball.

I agree. Define the system, and the laws of entropy are always withheld.

Some interpret the second law as "Everything goes from order to disorder" or "Everything must goes from more complex to less complex". Both of these are untrue.

As simple mutation is always a loss of genetic information, but it can and has led to beneficial, and constructive traits in numerous life forms.

And just so we're all clear, evolution IS definitely science. But when its done by bad scientists, it becomes bad science, or nothing more than a fruitless tree which is cast into the fire.

 

[Jukia]

As simple mutation is always a loss of genetic information, .

Not sure that is always correct

 

[Nydhogg]

Believing that the the Bible proves a 10,000 year old Earth is as if you used the Bible to prove the Earth was flat- very difficult to do, and inconsistent.

Not to mention pointless. No matter what the Bible says or doesn't say, the Earth is old and it ain't flat.

 

[Stripe]

Not to mention pointless. No matter what the Bible says or doesn't say, the Earth is old and it ain't flat.

"Ancient", in fact.

 

[No Sheep Here]

I'm quite capable of presenting and defending my own ideas, thanks. :thumb:

I've seen your comments in the Noah's Ark thread and they're pretty idiotic. You are not capable of defending your views. More than once while reading your thread I seen them trap you and you run from the obvious. Your science is not just as good as the next man's unless he is as unlearned as you on the subject.

 

[Stripe]

I've seen your comments in the Noah's Ark thread and they're pretty idiotic. You are not capable of defending your views. More than once while reading your thread I seen them trap you and you run from the obvious. Your science is not just as good as the next man's unless he is as unlearned as you on the subject.

:rotfl:

 

[No Sheep Here]

:rotfl:

You are pretty funny, I agree with you on that.

 

[Meatball]

Not sure that is always correct

You might be right. That's why I was sure to mention the "simple" mutation. I'm sure there are exceptions, but I don't want to over qualify myself by saying I know of any- because I'm not biologist or geneticist.

What are you two arguing about up there?

The ability to defend arguments? Or the ability to defend your personal scientific methods?