Announcement

Collapse

Creation Science Rules

This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective.
Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed.
1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team
2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.
See more
See less

Key Assumption Made in Discovery of Dark Energy in Error

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Right Divider View Post
    This is completely true. Is it any wonder that there's a "consensus"?
    Really? Isn't there a consensus within creationist circles that the earth simply cannot be more than ten thousand years old give or take a few? Are you open to it being a fair bit older than that or not?
    Well this is fun isn't it?

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Arthur Brain View Post

      Yeah, because the prevailing consensus in science came about because of a laugh between a bunch of atheists wearing lab coats and the like. Otherwise, do some math and acquaint yourself with how scientific theories come into being and the processes involved as to how they come to fruition.

      Or play some Pokemon or something...
      Yeah, because I said anything about atheists in my post. Way to play deaf and stupid to my questions regarding evidence, just like I, in my post to which you just reacted, accurately predicted you must do.

      Why would anyone take you seriously when you meaninglessly parrot the phrase, "scientific theories", when you, in the first place, have been forced into silence regarding questions asked you about evidence?

      Hahahaha! Your "the scientific method" is supposed to be all about evidence, and you can't even answer questions about evidence. I definitely do not envy you the manifest, hopeless stupidity of the position you're in.
      All my ancestors are human.
      PS: All your ancestors are human.
      PPS: To all you cats, dogs, monkeys, and other assorted house pets whose masters are outsourcing the task of TOL post-writing to you (we know who you are )– you may disregard the PS.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by 7djengo7 View Post

        Yeah, because I said anything about atheists in my post. Way to play deaf and stupid to my questions regarding evidence, just like I, in my post to which you just reacted, accurately predicted you must do.

        Why would anyone take you seriously when you meaninglessly parrot the phrase, "scientific theories", when you, in the first place, have been forced into silence regarding questions asked you about evidence?

        Hahahaha! You can't even answer questions about evidence. I definitely do not envy you the manifest, hopeless stupidity of the position you're in.
        Oh, well, I don't envy you the ignorance you have to continually wade in to deny what science has already clearly established the world over and if you want to cling to some fundamentalist belief system then have at it.
        Well this is fun isn't it?

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by 7djengo7 View Post

          Your "the scientific method" is to start and end by merely asserting that something is evidence for whatever it is you wish it to be evidence for. Notice how irate you will get when, after you've asserted that x is evidence for g, someone comes along and asks you for evidence for the proposition you just asserted: "Do you have evidence for your proposition, 'x is evidence for g'?"

          Merely asserting that something is evidence for what you wish it to be evidence for is the sum and substance of your "the scientific method". Your "global consensus" is merely an agreement amongst you and your fellow errorists to always reduce yourselves to playing deaf and stonewalling against questions concerning your claims about evidence. Indeed, you subject yourselves to that commitment with impeccable stringency. But you know that you have to resort to stonewalling, because your language game is not, and could never be, capable of dealing with the contingency of such questions being asked of you.

          Of course, you know, as well as we know, that you are, as a matter of course, incompetent to answer any questions concerning your claims regarding what is, and what is not, evidence.

          You: "B is evidence for L."
          Us: "Says you, but so what? What evidence would you say there is for your assertion that B is evidence for L?"
          You: "How dare you ask me questions that embarrass me!!!!!!@#$%^&*!!!!!!Bladasgkhdslkjdslfjsdljfsdkjl fsdfkjldsfj!!!! My presupposition is that B is evidence for L; you've no right to question my presuppositions!!!!"
          This is such a great point!

          It's so true of the way scientists typically react to any probing question or common sense objection to any of the mainstream theories. I'm reminded of some of Bob Enyart's exchanges with Lawrence Krauss who just goes into hysterics before Bob has even made his point or gotten the question out of his mouth. If these scientists were so dispassionate and intellectually honest and our questions so juvenile and naive, you'd think that they'd simply answer the question and make the argument. Instead, it seems to almost always be vitriolic righteous indignation as though we had offended their moral sensibilities, insulted their mother and poked them in the eye all at once.
          sigpic
          "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Arthur Brain View Post

            Really? Isn't there a consensus within creationist circles that the earth simply cannot be more than ten thousand years old give or take a few? Are you open to it being a fair bit older than that or not?
            There are two types of consensus. One is based on facts (creation, global flood) and the other is based on foolishness (an "evolved" solar system, plate tectonics, single common ancestor).
            All of my ancestors are human.
            Originally posted by Squeaky
            That explains why your an idiot.
            Originally posted by God's Truth
            Father figure, Son figure, and Holy Spirit figure.
            Col 2:9 (AKJV/PCE)
            (2:9) For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

            1Tim 4:10 (AKJV/PCE)
            (4:10) For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

            Something that was SPOKEN OF since the world began CANNOT be the SAME thing as something KEPT SECRET since the world began.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Arthur Brain View Post

              Oh, well, I don't envy you the ignorance you have to continually wade in to deny what science has already clearly established the world over and if you want to cling to some fundamentalist belief system then have at it.
              LOL
              All my ancestors are human.
              PS: All your ancestors are human.
              PPS: To all you cats, dogs, monkeys, and other assorted house pets whose masters are outsourcing the task of TOL post-writing to you (we know who you are )– you may disregard the PS.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Right Divider View Post

                There are two types of consensus. One is based on facts (creation, global flood) and the other is based on foolishness (an "evolved" solar system, plate tectonics, single common ancestor).
                So, you're not open to the possibility of the earth being considerably older than 10,000 years old then. Fair enough but the rest of this is opinion based on doctrinal interpretation of text and not fact by any stretch. Plenty of Christians alone can appreciate the difference.
                Well this is fun isn't it?

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Arthur Brain View Post

                  So, you're not open to the possibility of the earth being considerably older than 10,000 years old then. Fair enough but the rest of this is opinion based on doctrinal interpretation of text and not fact by any stretch. Plenty of Christians alone can appreciate the difference.
                  I'm open to any facts. If you'd like to discuss some facts, please do.

                  P.S. You never did attempt to discuss the facts of radiometric dating. You always took the 'discussion' back to consensus.
                  All of my ancestors are human.
                  Originally posted by Squeaky
                  That explains why your an idiot.
                  Originally posted by God's Truth
                  Father figure, Son figure, and Holy Spirit figure.
                  Col 2:9 (AKJV/PCE)
                  (2:9) For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

                  1Tim 4:10 (AKJV/PCE)
                  (4:10) For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

                  Something that was SPOKEN OF since the world began CANNOT be the SAME thing as something KEPT SECRET since the world began.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
                    https://phys.org/news/2020-01-eviden...very-dark.html

                    Dark Matter is a[n ad hoc] rescue device for scientists who reject God.
                    On the subject of modern cosmology adding ad hoc ideas to rescue their theories, I found the following diagram somewhere online some time ago that I think does a great job of describing the problem...


                    Click image for larger version

Name:	science vs mainstream cosmology.JPG
Views:	9
Size:	86.0 KB
ID:	2732176
                    sigpic
                    "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Clete View Post

                      On the subject of modern cosmology adding ad hoc ideas to rescue their theories, I found the following diagram somewhere online some time ago that I think does a great job of describing the problem...


                      Click image for larger version

Name:	science vs mainstream cosmology.JPG
Views:	9
Size:	86.0 KB
ID:	2732176
                      Indeed it does

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Right Divider View Post

                        I'm open to any facts. If you'd like to discuss some facts, please do.

                        P.S. You never did attempt to discuss the facts of radiometric dating. You always took the 'discussion' back to consensus.
                        Well, no, you aren't. You've admitted that you're not open to anything that contravenes a young earth etc because as far as you're concerned it can't be any older than a certain amount of years because of how you interpret a Biblical account. You've described anything that opposes such a view as "foolishness" in your own terms because of that, despite the actual fact that science the world over has no truck with it and including many Christians who aren't bound by such rigid doctrinal limitations.

                        Where it comes to consensus and theories in science then you can't play ignorant as to either anymore. They don't just come about on a whim.
                        Well this is fun isn't it?

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Arthur Brain View Post

                          Well, no, you aren't. You've admitted that you're not open to anything that contravenes a young earth etc because as far as you're concerned it can't be any older than a certain amount of years because of how you interpret a Biblical account. You've described anything that opposes such a view as "foolishness" in your own terms because of that, despite the actual fact that science the world over has no truck with it and including many Christians who aren't bound by such rigid doctrinal limitations.

                          Where it comes to consensus and theories in science then you can't play ignorant as to either anymore. They don't just come about on a whim.
                          Are you really this thick?

                          How can anyone not be open to facts? A fact is a fact. Just because someone doesn't agree with your interpretation or application of some fact or set of facts, doesn't mean that they aren't open to the facts themselves.

                          His point. as well you know, was basically to challenge you to present any facts that you think contradicts the idea that the Earth is young. Based on what you've said in this ridiculous post, my bet is that you don't know any such facts.
                          sigpic
                          "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Arthur Brain View Post

                            Well, no, you aren't.
                            Well, yes, I am.

                            Originally posted by Arthur Brain View Post
                            You've admitted that you're not open to anything that contravenes a young earth etc because as far as you're concerned it can't be any older than a certain amount of years because of how you interpret a Biblical account.
                            I've never said any such thing.

                            Originally posted by Arthur Brain View Post
                            You've described anything that opposes such a view as "foolishness" in your own terms because of that, despite the actual fact that science the world over has no truck with it and including many Christians who aren't bound by such rigid doctrinal limitations.
                            I've never said any such thing.

                            Originally posted by Arthur Brain View Post
                            Where it comes to consensus and theories in science then you can't play ignorant as to either anymore. They don't just come about on a whim.
                            The "consensus" is OFTEN wrong... whim or not.

                            All of my ancestors are human.
                            Originally posted by Squeaky
                            That explains why your an idiot.
                            Originally posted by God's Truth
                            Father figure, Son figure, and Holy Spirit figure.
                            Col 2:9 (AKJV/PCE)
                            (2:9) For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

                            1Tim 4:10 (AKJV/PCE)
                            (4:10) For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

                            Something that was SPOKEN OF since the world began CANNOT be the SAME thing as something KEPT SECRET since the world began.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Clete View Post

                              Are you really this thick?

                              How can anyone not be open to facts? A fact is a fact. Just because someone doesn't agree with your interpretation or application of some fact or set of facts, doesn't mean that they aren't open to the facts themselves.

                              His point. as well you know, was basically to challenge you to present any facts that you think contradicts the idea that the Earth is young. Based on what you've said in this ridiculous post, my bet is that you don't know any such facts.
                              I'm open to facts for certain so your little ad homs don't do you any favours. The fact of the matter is that the evidence does not tie in with fundamentalism and so what? Science doesn't care about what you believe or insist upon and nor should it. If you knew anything about how actual scientific methods work and how theories come about then you'd know fine well why there's a global consensus on matters such as evolution, old earth/universe etc.

                              If your belief is contingent on the earth being young then that's up to you. It doesn't for many Christians or people unfettered by a dogmatic belief system.
                              Well this is fun isn't it?

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Right Divider View Post
                                Well, yes, I am.


                                I've never said any such thing.


                                I've never said any such thing.


                                The "consensus" is OFTEN wrong... whim or not.
                                Well if you're open to the earth being old then good for you then. Might want to quit talking about "facts" that are just part of your belief system and "foolishness" in relation to science though.
                                Well this is fun isn't it?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X