Why creation science is an oxymoron

[kut2k2]

Quote from OPTIONAL777:

Quote from kut2k2:

Quote from OPTIONAL777:

Darwin never said anything near what modern day atheistic scientists are claiming he said...

Darwin presented his observations, threw out a theory, and that was it.

Darwin was in no way an atheist...

So are you anti-evolution or just anti-abiogenesis? It helps to be precise about these things.

I am pro science, which takes no position beyond the scope of science...

The atheists with their atheistic agenda don't argue from scientific fact, they argue from their atheistic religion and their agenda. They believe there is no God, so they fit whatever facts to meet that agenda.

This is not science...

Nowhere did Darwin say that what he observed was atheistic...

In other words, you won't answer the question. Yes, I expected as much.

And again you make accusations without backing them up. "The atheists with their atheistic agenda don't argue from scientific fact, they argue from their atheistic religion and their agenda." Can you give a concrete example. Or will you just ignore the question again?

 

[kut2k2]

Quote from OPTIONAL777:

Speaking being soooo stupid about science: there are no chemical reactions in the sun; it's all nuclear reactions.

The source of the sun's fuel is hydrogen and helium gases. Through a special chemical reaction, called nuclear fusion, the hydrogen gas is "burned" releasing an enormous amount of energy in the form of light and heat.

http://www.extremescience.com/sun.htm

:eek:

OM<s>G</s>!

I can't even get into how stupid it is to not know the difference between a chemical reaction and a nuclear reaction but to pretend like you do.

"I am patient with stupidity, but not with those who are proud of it."
-- Edith Sitwell

 

[OPTIONAL777]

When and if you could form and intelligent and necessary question to clearly up your obvious confusion, I would not hesitate to answer it...

Your fishing expeditions are worthless...

Quote from kut2k2:

So are you anti-evolution or just anti-abiogenesis? It helps to be precise about these things.

I am pro science, which takes no position beyond the scope of science...

The atheists with their atheistic agenda don't argue from scientific fact, they argue from their atheistic religion and their agenda. They believe there is no God, so they fit whatever facts to meet that agenda.

This is not science...

Nowhere did Darwin say that what he observed was atheistic... [/QUOTE]In other words, you won't answer the question. Yes, I expected as much.

And again you make accusations without backing them up. "The atheists with their atheistic agenda don't argue from scientific fact, they argue from their atheistic religion and their agenda." Can you give a concrete example. Or will you just ignore the question again? [/QUOTE]

 

[OPTIONAL777]

When you come with a nuclear fusion reactor and build one, then you could try and support your faith in the sun's energy being the product of nuclear fusion alone...

...just another example of atheistic beliefs without there being a test to prove or disprove them...

Quote from kut2k2:

:eek:

OM<s>G</s>!

I can't even get into how stupid it is to not know the difference between a chemical reaction and a nuclear reaction but to pretend like you do.

"I am patient with stupidity, but not with those who are proud of it."
-- Edith Sitwell

 

[maxpi]

Scientists, Philosophers, don't waste our brain cpu cycles, ok?

Philosophers have concluded that you cannot prove the existence of God... but you can read a Bible, any translation at all will do, and discover that God says He will prove He's God and prove He's dictating the Book too.. He predicts the future! Nobody else can do that...

And super clever Scientists buy into the argument that "the Strata is calibrated by the Geologic Column and the Geologic Column is calibrated by the Strata". Calibration is defined as "comparison to a known standard", that does not happen in this version of "science", let's call it "Fantasy Science" shall we? For an encore they discard all readings that don't match the fantasy calibration!! Wow, I really want to worship at the feet of idiots with circular reasoning, no really, I read science magazines all the time...

 

[Index piker]

More proof that our resident atheists have an OCD.

I don't believe in the tooth fairy, but then again I don't devote my life attempting to engage, ridicule and endlessly pontificate to (tooth fairy) believers like these losers do concerning anything to do with: God, religion or Christianity in particular.


Sounds to me like they were traumatized by being potty trained or something.

One would think that as adults they would learn to :GET OVER IT ALREADY!

 

[hermit]

Quote from Index piker:

More proof that our resident atheists have an OCD.

I don't believe in the tooth fairy, but then again I don't devote my life attempting to engage, ridicule and endlessly pontificate to (tooth fairy) believers like these losers do concerning anything to do with: God, religion or Christianity in particular.


Sounds to me like they were traumatized by being potty trained or something.

One would think that as adults they would learn to :GET OVER IT ALREADY!

When there is nothing to argue with, just flame - works everytime doesn't it.

 

[I am...]

Quote from kut2k2:

WTF, dude. There is a huge dispute between science and faith. Faith is belief without evidence, whereas science is all about the evidence.

A world of eternal spirit is created by Go(o)d. A universe of time/mass is made by faith. And so, a universe of time/mass springs out of nothingness in response to faith, and remains nothing while it appears to be something. Scientists then study the something, not realizing it is nothing wrought by faith.

Before a universe of time/mass, there is no evidence of a time/mass universe. After faith is applied, there appears to be a universe of time/mass. It's appearance is evidence of faith...not evidence of reality. Evidence of faith can never really prove anything. And so, science can never really prove anything. It can only establish a relatively reliable pattern. Those patterns are then traded, so-to-speak, to make products, predictions, etc...until the system breaks down and the predictions no longer hold true.

A faith-based "something" may seem stable...for a while. It is stabilized around a set of beliefs. When those beliefs change, so does the "something". When beliefs are withdrawn, the something goes back to the nothingness ("dust") from which it came.

 

[I am...]

Quote from kut2k2:

If that's not iron-clad evidence that life evolves, give us your theory.

Ok.

A universe of time/mass is faith-based.
Such a "thing" is put together simultaneously.
Time is not linear. It is all-at-once (ie. a moment).
Time and mass are correlated. Mass must also be all-at-once.
It is nothing, appearing as something to percievers/believers.

Christ!

 

[jem]

Quote from I am...:

A world of eternal spirit is created by Go(o)d. A universe of time/mass is made by faith. And so, a universe of time/mass springs out of nothingness in response to faith, and remains nothing while it appears to be something. Scientists then study the something, not realizing it is nothing wrought by faith.

Before a universe of time/mass, there is no evidence of a time/mass universe. After faith is applied, there appears to be a universe of time/mass. It's appearance is evidence of faith...not evidence of reality. Evidence of faith can never really prove anything. And so, science can never really prove anything. It can only establish a relatively reliable pattern. Those patterns are then traded, so-to-speak, to make products, predictions, etc...until the system breaks down and the predictions no longer hold true.

A faith-based "something" may seem stable...for a while. It is stabilized around a set of beliefs. When those beliefs change, so does the "something". When beliefs are withdrawn, the something goes back to the nothingness ("dust") from which it came.

that is some good stuff. You have put together a very intriguing construct based on your faith. I will grant you that.

You should take all your contributions from ET - put them into some organized pattern and write a book. I fear it may screw many people up... but I would like to see the chronicles of the et gnostic. I have often wondered if it were possible that the universe reorganizes in response to a discovery.

did the universe really exist that way before it was observed?

If light can have a nature dependent on the observer - what else does?