Don't tell me there's any proof for creationism.

TheCorrectResponse wrote:

Farmerman:
It's none of my business but I'm just curious. From what I've seen from your posts you would have to be lobotomized to be on the same cognitive level as RL, BD, Gunga, et al. yet you patiently explain over and over again science that you know they are incapable or unwilling to comprehend. I was just wandering why you would bother?

If you had as much money as you do ego - I'd gladly call you Mr. Gates. :wink:

0 Replies

Funny, I didn't see anywhere I mentioned myself in the post. Or are you starting to spin my questions to others to suit your purposes too, since you have nothing of substance to say?

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

Kind of circular reasoning there BD. "Creation happened because some story book deploys 2 versions of same" Thats not evidence, thats hearsay..

There's not 2 versions.

farmerman wrote:

You dont have to worry about thermodynamics, Creation "science" violates conservation of mass and energy, and a gazillion other laws of science.

Does the Big Bang violate conservation of mass and energy?

Depends of which version of the Big Bang you buy into, I suppose.

There's the version where matter/energy just keep expanding and contracting, basically recycling themselves into 'new universes' every so often (the 'eternal universe' version). This probably wouldn't violate CME but would violate SLT...

....or the version where matter/energy did not exist prior to said event but somehow emerged out of an undefined 'singularity' (which by definition in this scenario cannot be matter or energy). This version probably would violate CME.

What say you?

0 Replies

Will Real Life go round in circles, will Real Life fly high like a bird up in the sky

I got words ain't got no message gonna go babble em on the web

I got words ain't got no message gonna go babble em on the web

Will Real Life go round in circles, will Real Life fly high like a bird up in the sky, Fly High!

0 Replies

Could BD or RL please tell me if you believe that the sun, moon and stars were created after plants and flowering trees, as the Bible says?

Can you tell me if you believe God made the sun stand still for a day? If so how?

Do you have the science to back up what the Bible says on this subject or do you consider any science that contradicts this to be wrong?

0 Replies

xingu wrote:

Could BD or RL please tell me if you believe that the sun, moon and stars were created after plants and flowering trees, as the Bible says?

I think I answered this for you recently.

Yes, one day after.

I think plants could easily live for one day without the sun, especially if light is already present (having been created the first day).

xingu wrote:

Can you tell me if you believe God made the sun stand still for a day?

No.

0 Replies

Hey, come on, they are speaking the unerrant word of god. I think they subscribe to the 'Word of Knowledge" newsletter.

WWW.WOK.GOD

or if that link doesn't work try:

WWW.ILEFTMYBRAINATHEDOOR.DUMB

Isn't it great that the bible is the word of God but ya still get to pick and choose what you take seriously and what you can ignore? Where does it say you get to do that again?

0 Replies

TheCorrectResponse wrote:

Funny, I didn't see anywhere I mentioned myself in the post. Or are you starting to spin my questions to others to suit your purposes too, since you have nothing of substance to say?

I don't have much thought on creation other than what I believe, but ole baddog has you pretty well pegged there Bud. After reading back on some of these pages, you are pretty full of yourself. I'm not meaning to disrespect and you might not mean anything by it, but I can see where baddog's coming from.

0 Replies

southernpride wrote:

I don't have much thought on creation other than what I believe,

You're right, not much thought at all.

0 Replies

But you of course don't notice where Baddog never answers questions only asks them. And while we are expected to rehash the minutia of standard science (which he gets to pronounce if these responses are worthy of him or not) we are expected to be satisfied with Genesis 1:1.

And, by the way, show me where I've commented on other's morals or interpretations of what is moral or not. I stick to science. Can you look at all of Baddog's posts and say the same? You certainly seem to be very particular in your review of posts.

And I'd like someone to show me how my question to farmerman, whose gained my respect by his posts speaks of MY ego. Look at his posts and tell me that baddog's et al understanding of science (based on thier posts) is even in the same league.

You are certainly entitled to your opinions of me but as I've said before the one great thing about A2K is all our posts are there forever for everyone to see.

0 Replies

maporsche wrote:

southernpride wrote:

I don't have much thought on creation other than what I believe,

You're right, not much thought at all.

I thought I already said that. Maybe I'm missing something.

I like your name there maporsche. What's the story behind it?

0 Replies

TheCorrectResponse wrote:

But you of course don't notice where Baddog never answers questions only asks them. And while we are expected to rehash the minutia of standard science (which he gets to pronounce if these responses are worthy of him or not) we are expected to be satisfied with Genesis 1:1.

And, by the way, show me where I've commented on other's morals or interpretations of what is moral or not. I stick to science. Can you look at all of Baddog's posts and say the same? You certainly seem to be very particular in your review of posts.

And I'd like someone to show me how my question to farmerman, whose gained my respect by his posts speaks of MY ego. Look at his posts and tell me that baddog's et al understanding of science (based on thier posts) is even in the same league.

You are certainly entitled to your opinions of me but as I've said before the one great thing about A2K is all our posts are there forever for everyone to see.

Well, you're right about not noticing what you said about dogs answering. I'll look into that when I have a little more time. For the little time that i've been here he seemed to answer questions pretty well, but I could be wrong.

I didn't say anything about your morals. I'm not sure where you're coming form there bud.

You're right again about farmer. I didn't see the post where he talked about your ego. I should have checked closer. Sorry about that.

Hey, I didn't mean to ruffle your feathers, you just seem a little strong in putting others down, not just dog and telling everyone how smart you are. Nothing personal meant there thecorrectresponse. I hope there's no hard feelings.

0 Replies

Quote:

and telling everyone how smart you are

This is too funny. I give answers that can be found in any good textbook. I profess acceptance of standard theories, while baddog et al riducule them and I'm the one telling everyone how smart I am.

So, let me get this straight in my mind...if I repeat what the experts say, I don't say I invented it I just repeat it, it shows my ego but when others ridiclue or show contempt for the experts that shows, what, humility, is that it?

And don't worry I can't take you seriously enough to take offence, just incredulity. Its good to see baddog has another friend becasue he tends to disapear when put in a corner by the usual science posters here.

Oh I've purused your other posts and notice in your short time here you have become a big fan of Real Life's also. Well now there is one thing I'm sure that everyone on this thread can agree with you on. He is kind of a hero to us! We always say George Washington and Real Life, two people who never told a lie, yea that's what we all say.

0 Replies

TheCorrectResponse wrote:

And I know that RL and BD just like to muddy things up because they have no real answers that can be demonstrated outside their dogmatic little minds; which is why I keep pointing to the math. But apparently there is some law where BD lives that says he will be executed if he disproves math outside the science forum.

The only mystery to me is why take on RLs contentions but always seem to give BD a pass. HE is the one who purports to be an engineer and so should know better.

I could be wrong about this, but BD and RL seem very different to me, both in their beliefs and in their posting style.

BD seems to be an "old earth creationist", almost a Deist in some ways. Whereas, RL is a YEC (or at least he's playing to role of a YEC for the sake of debate... I'm not sure which yet).

Also, BD doesn't create challenges to science with logical fallacies and symantic ambiguities. BD doesn't seem to be trying to create a smoke screen to him in. His challenges seem to be more philosophical.

RL isn't interested in learning the answer to anything. His sole purpose seems to be create a propaganda cloud which obscures scientific knowledge and process.

BD actually seems to be asking real questions and trying to understand things (sometimes), which is why it's unfortunate to see RL throwing misinformation at him which only serves to confuse him.

(on the other hand, I could be totally wrong about both of them).

0 Replies

TheCorrectResponse wrote:

See ROS, that's why we can never dicuss anything interesting on A2K. I've had tons of questions that farmerman's posts bring to mind for example, not being a geologist myself, but who want to cut through the noise you know will show up.

You can ask real questions. And you can even get real answers. You just have to not get distracted by the people you don't consider knowledgeable to answer the question.

If you want to limit yourself to very specific opinions, you could try PM's. Or start a thread with a boring title (so nobody will read it), and only invite the guests you want Smile

0 Replies

real life wrote:

farmerman wrote:
You dont have to worry about thermodynamics, Creation "science" violates conservation of mass and energy, and a gazillion other laws of science.

Does the Big Bang violate conservation of mass and energy?

Depends of which version of the Big Bang you buy into, I suppose.

There's the version where matter/energy just keep expanding and contracting, basically recycling themselves into 'new universes' every so often (the 'eternal universe' version). This probably wouldn't violate CME but would violate SLT...

....or the version where matter/energy did not exist prior to said event but somehow emerged out of an undefined 'singularity' (which by definition in this scenario cannot be matter or energy). This version probably would violate CME.

What say you?

The BB theory only relates to events which happened after (or inside) the event. The BB theory does not address what caused the Universe to come into being, or what happens outside of it.

As far as we know, from the start of the BB until the present, no matter or energy has been created or destroyed. It's entirely possible that all the specialization we see in our Universe is simply a reorganization of existing matter/energy with a net entropy (for the Universe) which is unchanged since the initial conditions.

There is no science which addresses anything outside of (or before) the Universe as anything other than pure speculation. If you want to speculate that it was poofism which caused it all, then your guess is as good as any other, essentially it's meaningless. The only argument which can be used against the philosophy of poofism is occam's razor which simply says that by adding an additional element, you are reducing the probability by increasing the number of assumptions.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

xingu wrote:
Could BD or RL please tell me if you believe that the sun, moon and stars were created after plants and flowering trees, as the Bible says?

I think I answered this for you recently.

Yes, one day after.

I think plants could easily live for one day without the sun, especially if light is already present (having been created the first day).

So your saying the all physical science is wrong; physics, astronomy, math, chemistry....the whole shebang.

And your right cause you read the Bible.

real life wrote:

xingu wrote:
Can you tell me if you believe God made the sun stand still for a day?

No.

So the Bible is wrong on this matter.

Quote:

Joshua 10:12
Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon.

10:13
And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. [Is] not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.

If you believe the Bible was wrong here why would you believe in something just as ridiculous as Genesis?

Did you know that many of your fellow Creationist believe this story is true and give ample "evidence" for it?

http://www.grmi.org/Richard_Riss/evidences/7longday.html

I like this example;

Quote:

T. W. Doane relates the following facts concerning these traditions:

Quote:
There are many stories similar to this, to be found among other nations of antiquity. We have, as an example, that which is related of Bacchus in the Orphic hymns, wherein it says that this god-man arrested the course of the sun and the moon. An Indian legend relates that the sun stood still to hear the pious ejaculations of Arjouan after the death of Crishna.

With so much "evidence" for this phenomenon you may want to change your mind.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

I think plants could easily live for one day without the sun, especially if light is already present (having been created the first day).

And especially if poofism was used to create them, because then poofism could obviously be used to support them.

If you're gonna start with poofism, then you can just shut off your brain and stop asking questions, because I can tell you right now, poofism can answer them all.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:
I think plants could easily live for one day without the sun, especially if light is already present (having been created the first day).

And especially if poofism was used to create them, because then poofism could obviously be used to support them.

If you're gonna start with poofism, then you can just shut off your brain and stop asking questions, because I can tell you right now, poofism can answer them all.

Hi Ros:

Isn't it fair to say that 'poofism' as it were. could have happened either way, whether you believe in Creation or creation? No play on words here, just trying to look at this issue from both sides.

0 Replies

Don't tell me there's any proof for creationism.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know