Originally posted by josephwAccording to the National Academy of Sciences, a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." Creationism, far from being rock solid, is no more than a supernatural school of thought,
I've always thought of science as a very exacting and precise discipline. Knowledge based on facts. Indisputable facts. When science begins to define the material universe based on theory, such as in the case of evolution, I begin to question the soundness of science.
I think creation is rock solid. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that science has lost i ...[text shortened]... and that our perceptions can be manipulated. Reality just doesn't seem to be what it used to be.
1 edit
Originally posted by HandyAndyHey sup Randers, high five! low five! we cool!
According to the National Academy of Sciences, a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." Creationism, far from being rock solid, is no more than a supernatural school of thought,
Originally posted by HandyAndyI'm perfectly good with all that. Thing is though, science cannot verify the spiritual by means of its methods.
According to the National Academy of Sciences, a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." Creationism, far from being rock solid, is no more than a supernatural school of thought,
It's the law. Separation of science and spirit. Science cannot pass laws that effect the spirit, but the spirit can bend and break the laws of science at will. After all, God created science and everything else.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI must be older than you because my mid-life crises days are long over. But I didn't know this until a few years ago, when someone asked one of my kids (at her birthday party) "So how does it feel to be middle aged?"
I'm fresh in from da street dude!
No joke, this really threw me for a loop and I yelled out "What? I thought I was middle aged!" After the party I called my dad to tell him about it, and he said "Yeah, you're an old man."
So I guess it's true.
Originally posted by lemon limeI kind of see middle age as coresponding to one's prime earning years. Usually between 40 and 55. I suppose it depends on all the variables and each individuals particular circumstances.
I must be older than you because my mid-life crises days are long over. But I didn't know this until a few years ago, when someone asked one of my kids (at her birthday party) "So how does it feel to be middle aged?"
No joke, this really threw me for a loop and I yelled out "What? I thought [b]I was middle aged!" After the party I called my dad to tell him about it, and he said "Yeah, you're an old man."
So I guess it's true.[/b]
If the average life span is 75, technically middle age would be 25-50.
Originally posted by sonhouseYou SAY 'I might be wrong' but you really mean EVERYONE else is wrong and we flatassers are right.
You SAY 'I might be wrong' but you really mean EVERYONE else is wrong and we flatassers are right. Your understanding of science is abysmal, you don't know jack about optics, physics, chemistry, basic radio transmission and atmospherics but you act like you have 10 Phd's in every such subject where you can just say 'I have proved this over and over again' w ...[text shortened]... all over backwards believing the flatasss bullshyte.
And you wonder why I call you an idiot.
Ah, I guess I had no idea what my true intentions were when I repeatedly stated I may be wrong.
Thanks, sonhouse, for telling me what I really meant.
You're just a peach, ain't ya?
Your understanding of science is abysmal, you don't know jack about optics, physics, chemistry, basic radio transmission and atmospherics...
I'd pit my understanding up against your understanding of any of these fields any time, anywhere.
As you have amply demonstrated, you're an effing tool.
Like it is FLAT IMPOSSIBLE for there to be a flat planet because gravity will pull it together into some kind of compact arrangement that we see even in small comets ony a few miles wide, they NEVER become pancakes.
And yet your globe-worshipping ass is flat as a pancake.
Whoda thunk?
Funny how you use a known (gravity: that thing that even Newton--- who discovered it--- can't explain) to explain an unknown.
Aren't you just so precious in your hidden knowledge?
All the rest of your tripe is not even worth responding to, since your only goal is to cloud the fact that you're not responding to what's been put to you.
Wonder why.
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHSo lets put up your knowledge against mine, what discoveries in science you have made V me.
[b]You SAY 'I might be wrong' but you really mean EVERYONE else is wrong and we flatassers are right.
Ah, I guess I had no idea what my true intentions were when I repeatedly stated I may be wrong.
Thanks, sonhouse, for telling me what I really meant.
You're just a peach, ain't ya?
Your understanding of science is abysmal, you don't know jack ...[text shortened]... y goal is to cloud the fact that you're not responding to what's been put to you.
Wonder why.
Where did you get all those Phd's in science, since you know everything already?
I am not the one parroting the flatassness party line.
THEY gave you the anti-NASA hard on.
THEY gave you the 'you see over the horizon because Earth is flat' nonsense.
The only thing I hear you say for your own research is you can see a city over the water from Cleveland?
Then just ASSUMING you can do that because Earth is flat.
That is not research, that is jamming your expectations into your previous brainwashing by the flatasssers.
Show me ONE scientific advance you have made. I have a few on my own.
Show me the results of your work in ANY field, like music, art, sculpture, theater, laser light shows, whatever.
Originally posted by HandyAndyWhat can be more specific than "God created" everything? You're simply baulking at the idea. The concept of creation defies your imagination, so you presumptuously quell it before you have a chance to think outside the borders of you self imposed narrow mindedness.
That's an evasive answer, Joe, a platitude. Can you be more specific?
Not to be taken as an insult or reprimand.
A kazillion scientific arguments for the idea that the universe came into being by any other process than by creation will never silence the truth.
The knowledge of the God of creation is innate. It can be suppressed and buried under a mountain of excuses is all. One can run, but never hide from God.
Originally posted by josephwIn Jainism, the universe has always existed. There was no beginning, no creation.
What can be more specific than "God created" everything? You're simply baulking at the idea. The concept of creation defies your imagination, so you presumptuously quell it before you have a chance to think outside the borders of you self imposed narrow mindedness.
Not to be taken as an insult or reprimand.
A kazillion scientific arguments for the idea ...[text shortened]... suppressed and buried under a mountain of excuses is all. One can run, but never hide from God.
Perhaps you could adopt this way of thinking?
🙂