MLD Woody Posted February 1, 2014 Report Share Posted February 1, 2014 http://www.scienceinthebible.net/ Cal posted this in another forum. I am going to look through some of this and just post comments, or anything I find that is interesting. Feel free to add whatever you want. I guess I will start with the note to parents section. The children will learn to discern in a modern confusing world. The children will learn to recognize the nonsense and be able to discern nonsensical and technical jargon from the meaningful important substance necessary for the development and achievement in a dangerous, confusing world that is threatening to people of faith. I guess this world is a confusing place to the author? All that nonsensical and technical jargon... blasphemy. If it goes toward disproving god or religion, or its necessity, all worthless. Hopefully his faith is strong enough to get through this confusing ass world... "The students who were noted to be the best achievers and rose to the top were most always those students who were strictly disciplined and fortunate to have come from faith based families." I don't see how this is true. Of course there is no source or reference, that would be asking to much. Also, who knows what is considered to be a 'faith based' family. In vague terms I probably did. I had to do PSR and get a first communion. But I haven't been to church in years. My parents had to do the church thing, but don't now. To claim that every top student came from a faith based family is absurd. Before we begin parents, there are some very important things about some harmful elements and areas of essential knowledge that you as parents of faith may already know and should know about. This has to do with craft you should to encourage your children to be able to recognize, to know the harmful effects thereof and to stay clearly away from. Be sure your kids know this, as the internet is loaded with all kinds of stuff like this. Yes, avoid any source that may question your faith. There is absolutely no scientific evidence that knowledge or predictions can be gotten from spherically shape objects or crystal balls. These objects have absolutely no scientific value and have absolutely nothing at all to do with Godly things or the Bible. Lol. That is pretty funny. There is a little section pointing out the things that aren't godly or scientific. Like members of this site would actually need to be told about dousing sticks and other things like that. Know that Astronomy (a science) and Astrology (a craft) are two different words. Well done. I really love the way he can combine the words "godly" and "technical" so much. This dude is all about science, but then uses passages from the Bible to prove what he says. I feel like there is a disconnect in his logic there. The children of faith will learn to recognize non-sense, unfounded speculations and sloppy science, especially the arrogant and aggressive attacks of non-believers aimed at the weakening of the faith of Believers. I agree. If it is disproving or attacking your faith, it is nonsense and sloppy science. Well done! From the about the authour page With the intense levels of cosmic radiation beyond our solar system and galaxy, there is NO WAY possible that a living organism with the complexity of the human DNA molecule could survive the journey through the hostile deep space of the cosmos and fall into the Earth's atmosphere at meteoric velocities I don't think anyone is saying that is how they got there It is my desire to see believers, people of faith, get clearly away from the so-called "Young Earth" ideas, the teachings thereof and the so-call Young Earth philosophies. Evidence clearly shows that the Young Earth theory arises chiefly from those who claim to be experts in the science of the age of the Earth and the beginning of mankind, and at the same time the experts grossly misinterpret the Bible or they lack knowledge thereof. People of faith who shy away from the sciences may be equally responsible for the arising of the so-called Young Earth philosophies. He doesn't think the Earth is 6,000 years old, which is good. But apparently he is combining science and the bible in the right way, but the young earth guys aren't. How you can say one is incorrect and then say the other is correct is beyond me. on the big bang The thought that all the mass of the universe was once assembled at one single point and then suddenly overcame its gravitational grip, expanding out into the universe, is an intimidation to sound minds. This is especially so when it is being taught by non-believers who are in front of the classrooms filled with faithful young innocent, bright and potentially creative minds. For how sure he is in his faith, he seems very worried that others of faith can easily be swayed by this crazy scientific theories... The section on Noahs ark is great too. I didnt know Noah started the Ark on his 500th birthday and completed it on his 600th. Also Noah didnt round up EVERY ANIMAL SPECIES ON EARTH. Instead they came on their own. Also the door was shut by god! I also like the way he points up some things in the Bible, and uses science to say some interpretations are wrong or whatever. Then he uses his method of science to show what the RIGHT interpretation is. Also all of the water that was used to flood the earth was in a water vapor canopy above the Earth. This canopy blocked cosmic radiation and allowed people to live for hundreds of years. This give proves this by.... using the bible. People werent said to have lived as long after Noah, and there is no mention of stars and the heavens until after the ark story (because the water vapor canopy blocked them). This site is crazy. This guy flashes his PhD and uses some moderately scientific words, to give people more support in their beliefs. I dont see anything being proved here. I dont see any damning scientific evidence. You cant prove religion with the bible. It is circular logic. Anyone that actually really does believe everything this guy says must actually need this site to shield and protect themselves from that crazy confusing modern world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted February 1, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 1, 2014 Luckily, we have shows like this one coming: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBTd9--9VMI I cant wait to watch this series. In the interview here http://www.space.com/24243-cosmos-tv-series-neil-degrasse-tyson.html notice how the writer/producer said one of the reasons for bringing this show back was due to us coming out of a period of intense antagonism to science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted February 1, 2014 Report Share Posted February 1, 2014 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAxNAzTY7VY Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FairHooker11 Posted February 1, 2014 Report Share Posted February 1, 2014 Luckily, we have shows like this one coming: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBTd9--9VMI I cant wait to watch this series. In the interview here http://www.space.com/24243-cosmos-tv-series-neil-degrasse-tyson.html notice how the writer/producer said one of the reasons for bringing this show back was due to us coming out of a period of intense antagonism to science. looks more like a "lets worship Niel Degasse" (sp?) festival..... incredible images of the universe and NO mention of an intellegent designer.... just more of what we come to expect from an angry kid like you - easily enamored by imagery like a forlorn gamer stuck in an endless video game Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicIsForSquares Posted February 1, 2014 Report Share Posted February 1, 2014 Why would a science show talk about an "intelligent designer"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted February 1, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 1, 2014 Lol now I am angry and just a fall gamer, lol. You realize that was a trailer right? Neil DeGraaae Tyson is great What scientific merit is there to intelligent design? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FairHooker11 Posted February 2, 2014 Report Share Posted February 2, 2014 Why would a science show talk about an "intelligent designer"? why not? Stephen Hawking even attempts to from his book "Theory of Everything" Lol now I am angry and just a fall gamer, lol. You realize that was a trailer right? Neil DeGraaae Tyson is great What scientific merit is there to intelligent design? I would just let that statement rest on its own merit and marvel at its total ignorance..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted February 2, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 2, 2014 Tell me then. I am interested in hearing the best scientific case for god making everything in 6 days. What peer reviewed articles are there of this that provide irrefutable evidence for intelligent design. What scientific case can be made that outweighs evolution? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted February 2, 2014 Report Share Posted February 2, 2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FairHooker11 Posted February 2, 2014 Report Share Posted February 2, 2014 Arrogant too..... I am completely ok with leaving that one alone.....you scientist priests proudly claim as fairy stories while expecting the world to believe in your evolution faith that is as empty as the unobserved "billions of years ago" assumptions.... I would point out to you to look at the "observable " proof of things like say, air or water.... or the ever expanding growth of the universe... you tell me then, from where did they come - how did it start? humility is a good thing too sometimes - but lost on you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FairHooker11 Posted February 2, 2014 Report Share Posted February 2, 2014 LOL Diehard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted February 2, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 2, 2014 Arguments from ignorance Eugenie Scott, along with Glenn Branch and other critics, has argued that many points raised by intelligent design proponents are arguments from ignorance. In the argument from ignorance, a lack of evidence for one view is erroneously argued to constitute proof of the correctness of another view. Scott and Branch say that intelligent design is an argument from ignorance because it relies on a lack of knowledge for its conclusion: lacking a natural explanation for certain specific aspects of evolution, we assume intelligent cause. They contend most scientists would reply that the unexplained is not unexplainable, and that "we don't know yet" is a more appropriate response than invoking a cause outside science. Particularly, Michael Behe's demands for ever more detailed explanations of the historical evolution of molecular systems seem to assume a false dichotomy, where either evolution or design is the proper explanation, and any perceived failure of evolution becomes a victory for design. Scott and Branch also contend that the supposedly novel contributions proposed by intelligent design proponents have not served as the basis for any productive scientific research.[126] In his conclusion to the Kitzmiller trial, Judge Jones wrote that "ID is at bottom premised upon a false dichotomy, namely, that to the extent evolutionary theory is discredited, ID is confirmed." This same argument had been put forward to support creation science at the McLean v. Arkansas trial which found it was "contrived dualism", the false premise of a "two-model approach". Behe's argument of irreducible complexity puts forward negative arguments against evolution but does not make any positive scientific case for intelligent design. It fails to allow for scientific explanations continuing to be found, as has been the case with several examples previously put forward as supposed cases of irreducible complexity.[127] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted February 2, 2014 Report Share Posted February 2, 2014 Crap. I have the munchies and some chores...but I lol'd, and now I have to watch that woody video again later. LOL ! Diehard nailed it ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted February 2, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 2, 2014 We have left over evidence for evolution. We watch it happen in real time in bacteria and viruses. We can see it over generations in some animals. You are really going to equate faith in a man in the sky making everything in a week to "faith" in the scientific and peer reviewed evidence and experiments over decades that have lead us to the scientific theory of evolution? That is mind-boggling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted February 2, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 2, 2014 Really, someone, anyone, state the best scientific evidence that is available for the Christian idea of the origin story. Or, for the more religion removed intelligent design case. Which is still basically a god leaving his/her/its imprint on the living world in some way. What proof or evidence is there for either of those two things? Sit there and post videos, call me stupid, do whatever idiotic shit you like. But if you cant even sit here and defend your own beliefs then maybe you should take some time and reflect on them yourself... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicIsForSquares Posted February 2, 2014 Report Share Posted February 2, 2014 Really, someone, anyone, state the best scientific evidence that is available for the Christian idea of the origin story. Or, for the more religion removed intelligent design case. Which is still basically a god leaving his/her/its imprint on the living world in some way. What proof or evidence is there for either of those two things? Sit there and post videos, call me stupid, do whatever idiotic shit you like. But if you cant even sit here and defend your own beliefs then maybe you should take some time and reflect on them yourself... I am going to start a belief that the tooth fairy was behind the Big Bang. I mean, there are questions about evolution so that absolutely means that the tooth fairy started it all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted February 2, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 2, 2014 I am going to start a belief that the tooth fairy was behind the Big Bang. I mean, there are questions about evolution so that absolutely means that the tooth fairy started it all. How old is your book with the tooth fairy origin story though? That is the difference between a religion and a cult Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicIsForSquares Posted February 2, 2014 Report Share Posted February 2, 2014 Give it a few years. and I think I will be rolling in that naive Retard money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FairHooker11 Posted February 2, 2014 Report Share Posted February 2, 2014 like I said, arrogant..... and ad hominems aside, I answered honestly dude.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted February 2, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 2, 2014 I answered honestly as well. I am just waiting for whatever evidence you can come up with. I just want to people actually try to support their beliefs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicIsForSquares Posted February 2, 2014 Report Share Posted February 2, 2014 What is wrong with someone believing in the tooth fairy being behind the Big Bang? I hope Fox News writes about how Toothfairians are being persecuted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FairHooker11 Posted February 2, 2014 Report Share Posted February 2, 2014 Quote - I answered honestly as well. I am just waiting for whatever evidence you can come up with. spoken like the two liner sychophant you are lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted February 2, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 2, 2014 Alright FairHooker, I am done. Believe whatever you want. Free country. But don't drag down scientific theories to the level of creationism. Don't equate it to nothing better than faith. Especially when you can't even present anything to support your beliefs other than faith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legacy Fan Posted February 2, 2014 Report Share Posted February 2, 2014 Every time I've ever exploded 1 big thing, the result perfect spheres - each sphere unique in it's composition and make-up, sharing nothing in common with each other, other than their proximity. Also, after the explosion, total amnesia as to what caused the explosion, and no evidence of what the spheres composed prior to the explosion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicIsForSquares Posted February 2, 2014 Report Share Posted February 2, 2014 Yes that is exactly what happened. All at once everything exploded and it all became perfect unique spheres. We will ignore the billions and trillions of years. I will instead opt for believing the much more feasible explanation that a bearded man in the clouds planned it all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legacy Fan Posted February 2, 2014 Report Share Posted February 2, 2014 Several of you in here were demanding evidence for intelligent design in such a pompous manner it almost seemed like you had evidence to support another theory. I was merely reminding you that you don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted February 2, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 2, 2014 Right, there is no evidence to support the big bang theory. None at all. Science just pulled that out of its ass and now we are forcing good, god fearing religious foke to believe in this blasphemous idea just out of spite and the war on religion! Yeah, no evidence... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENpjTd57ZYE I went over this in an earlier post. Argument from Ignorance. Just because we can not fill in everything 100%, it is not a win for creationism/intelligent design. And again, give me ANY SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE for the other side. I honestly want to know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legacy Fan Posted February 2, 2014 Report Share Posted February 2, 2014 Observation of results do not equal evidence supporting a theory. Weren't you all over somebody about causation & correlation? Yes we can observe planets, light year phenomena, etc. We can't exactly say what caused it though. To that point, a white beard seems as logical as any other theory (in that they're all utterly ridiculous). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted February 2, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 2, 2014 That is a 30+ minute long video. Clearly you didn't watch it. We can put forth a scientific theory that best fits what we see now, makes sense mathematically, has evidence of its occurrence, etc etc. What are you looking for, us to manually create a big bang? It is observation of results of the hypothesis proposed. It is peer reviewed work. It is following mathematical laws in place. Not to mention the experiments by astrophysicists and the like. How on earth is this equally ridiculous? Are you at the point now where you aren't going to attempt to defend any of them? Just stick your nose in the air, say they are all ridiculous and leave it at that? I take it I will never get and evidence for the other side then... shocker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted February 2, 2014 Report Share Posted February 2, 2014 Woody is a fucking idiot. God help our engineering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.