Stripey, I have already considered the evidence for the existence of a deity, especially the Christian sort, and the veracity of the Bible and find the evidence wanting.
-
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.
Key assumptions about Earth and Radiometric Dating by Scientists are wrong.
- Thread starter WYRose
- Start date
Stripey, I have already considered the evidence for the existence of a deity, especially the Christian sort, and the veracity of the Bible and find the evidence wanting.
Right Divider
Body part
So the words and letters that you posted here are just random chemical reactions? Why should I believe random chemical reactions?
You cannot... due to your blindness.
My point is that you cannot study everything materially.
Once AGAIN, that is YOUR bogus definition of "science".
If you're permanently blind, I can't help you see.
Right Divider
Body part
And if they are not random, they are directed... what directs them?
Your philosophy claims that life came about by random chance. And that live "evolves" by random chance. It is your philosophy that fights the facts.
Are you asking what "directs" the formation of a water molecule? or a molecule of O2? to keep things simple. To ask that question are you suggesting that it is directed by Someone???
Right Divider
Body part
Since there in no intelligence in your creation story. Even the very thoughts in your head are nothing but random chance.
Last I knew I was talking about how your neurons work based on chemistry and physics. That information is pretty basic neuroscience developed by some pretty intelligent people. Has nothing to do with my "creation story". Your neurons work the same as mine, unless your "creation story" makes it work differently. Does it?
I think I've pointed out that chemistry is not necessarily random. Perhaps you can tell me differently. I await your information
Do you always answer questions that nobody asked?
You jumped into this discussion when you balked at the statement: "Science is not limited to the material world." In your experience, science investigates the material world.
Then you agreed that science is the process of rejecting ideas, which are immaterial.
So, the actual question once more: Are you going to retract your assertion that science only deals with material things, or are you going to keep dissembling?
:idunno:
Last edited:
Yes stripey, science deals with ideas. Ideas are not material. But science deals with the real world, with the material world in the sense of what it investigates. Unless you can show me a supernatural experiment.
Dissembling, had to look it up. Not sure it is the right word. I dont think I have ever concealed my true motives or feelings here. But I do love it when you use big words, makes me all tingly.
And clearly science rejects your 6day creation story.
"Science deals with immaterial things, but it deals with material things."
This is either monumental stupidity, or you're trying to hide from something. I went with dissembling because this attitude is ubiquitous among Darwinists.
Well, we could just start name calling like 5th graders, it is ubiquitous among right wingers. OR we could talk about supernatural experiments. Got one?
Or you could suggest Einstein's thought experiments about relativity, but you then have to accept that they were about the real world and led to actual experiments in the real world that collected data and his theories were shown to be accurate. See it would have been much easier if RD or Stripey had suggested that. Then you would be correct in the sense that ideas, something non material, are used in science. In fact I'll give you that lots of science starts with thoughts such as "Wait, what about this?" or "What if we did this instead".
Instead RD goes off in a huff because there is no intelligence in "my creation" story which has no bearing on how chemistry and physics work in my brain and his brain, no matter our "creation story". And now Stripey jumps in misquoting me as is his wont.
So, lets see the supernatural experiment the experiment ON nonmaterial things.
Or you could suggest Einstein's thought experiments about relativity, but you then have to accept that they were about the real world and led to actual experiments in the real world that collected data and his theories were shown to be accurate. See it would have been much easier if RD or Stripey had suggested that. Then you would be correct in the sense that ideas, something non material, are used in science. In fact I'll give you that lots of science starts with thoughts such as "Wait, what about this?" or "What if we did this instead".
Instead RD goes off in a huff because there is no intelligence in "my creation" story which has no bearing on how chemistry and physics work in my brain and his brain, no matter our "creation story". And now Stripey jumps in misquoting me as is his wont.
So, lets see the supernatural experiment the experiment ON nonmaterial things.
You got into this debate on the notion that science can only investigate the material world. Since then, you've allowed that ideas — which are immaterial — are the things that science tests. Moreover, you conceded that experimental investigation is not the sole tool in the scientist's kit — reason and logic are also valid pursuits.
So, to make your argument for you, the challenge is to present an idea that contains a supernatural element and can be assessed using evidence, reason and logic. Naturally, there are innumerable such ideas. Obviously, the tools of a scientist can be brought to bear on them. Presumably, you want to declare that all of those ideas have been shown impossible, which would be a bold claim indeed.
Nobody knows what you're talking about anymore. :idunno:
For an assessment of Einstein's ideas, see my sig. :up:
Did you not read my post? :AMR:
But you won't show where I've misquoted you. :idunno:
English, dude. English.
Idea: Jesus rose from the dead.
Assessment: Analyze documents from that time.
Naturally, you will reject the idea. The underlying issue is that you want ideas you hate a priori excluded from the discussion.
We prefer rational discourse.
Right Divider
Body part
Since everything in YOUR theory happens by random chance... then it follows that your brain is just randomly creating and firing neurons.
There is no intelligent force that could make it any other way.
Right Divider
Body part
Only you are huffing around here.
Go fo it, what documents would you suggest we analyze?
You still dont understand chemistry do you? My brain and yours operate the same way. So if I am wrong please explain the difference between what I believe about the operation of neurons and what you understand.
Right Divider
Body part
Of course I understand chemistry.
Once again, the ORIGIN of these things is the question.
Nope... My brain operates far better than yours.
You believe that all things came about by random chance, I don't.
No, if you think chemistry is random then you do not understand it. If it were random we might wind up with CO42 rather than CO2 or H4O12 rather than H2O and in equal concentrations of H and O for example. We dont because chemicals form molecules depending on certain physical relationships, number of electrons and where they are for example.
Your brain works on the same chemical and physical reactions that everyone else's does. You get no special neuron working based on theology. If you do please advise.
We were not talking about ORIGINS until you needed to do so to avoid rational responses to my position.
Seems to me you are required to throw out any scientific theory which does not depend on your particular Biblical requirements.
Well, not since high school
Right Divider
Body part
No, I never said that "chemistry is random". God created chemicals and chemical reactions. That is why they are consistent and we can experiment on them. Your random worldview provides no reason to believe that chemicals should consistently behave in any certain way.
It is you that thinks that your thoughts are "just chemical reactions".