1 edit
@kellyjay saidTalk about wishful thinking. While science keeps moving forward, you seem to be in denial such advancement takes place. It has only been a few decades since we walked on the moon with the relatively primitive technology back then.
I'm not the one in denial over what I see now that is you. What may turn up in 200 years isn't evidence that is blind faith, faith on a hope of something you don't have a clue about, so with respect to science and faith you are the one that is living blind faith not me, you are the one filling in the gaps of knowledge with wishful thinking.
Now our computers are trillions of times stronger, even a flip phone has more computing power than dozens of Apollo craft computers so you seem to blind yourself to the advancement of science.
I am looking forwards for sure to greater things to come in technology, not because I am reading tea leaves in a cup but because I peruse the journals and see the work being done now that some of that work will bear fruit in many sciences.
As one minor example, medical scientists have just sussed out why long distance runners seem to be able to go on for hours with no fatigue setting in.
When the scientists looked at that very closely they found in the guts a particular bacteria in those athletes that consumes lactose and gives off energy in the process, a real symbiotic relationship where the lactose produced by the athletes gets disappeared, eaten, by that bacteria and that implies anyone can have a huge reserve of stamina when they fully develop this new science of athleticism.
I don't consider that faith, it is what I already read and can see it developing into something beneficial to humans.
THAT is what I do to project the future of science, by seeing the science, the new science in the journals, of today. That is where the future of science and humanity lies, not in the bible.
@kellyjay saidThe airplane was designed. It did not appear out of nowhere.
I can claim that what we see here and now, the most logical source would be something we find in our daily existence. A common source for informational data is a mind, we see words we think a mind, we see functional complexity doing amazing things like airplanes we think design. Yet you see these things in ways that go far beyond anything we can do or dream up you think random chance.
Your contention that science and religion are in opposition to each other (pond scum vs. child of god, with nothing in between) is bogus. However, faith-based scientific arguments are completely useless. They don't prove or disprove anything. Likewise, I suppose, you would not walk into church and expect your pastor to build a functioning airplane. Leave that to the scientists.
@wildgrass saidWhat test proves that?
The airplane was designed. It did not appear out of nowhere.
Your contention that science and religion are in opposition to each other (pond scum vs. child of god, with nothing in between) is bogus. However, faith-based scientific arguments are completely useless. They don't prove or disprove anything. Likewise, I suppose, you would not walk into church and expect your pastor to build a functioning airplane. Leave that to the scientists.
@sonhouse saidNever denied science moves forward, I will deny your wishful thinking is scientific. Another thing I will deny is if something is true, it will remain so throughout time unless there is a change. Truth doesn’t age!
Talk about wishful thinking. While science keeps moving forward, you seem to be in denial such advancement takes place. It has only been a few decades since we walked on the moon with the relatively primitive technology back then.
Now our computers are trillions of times stronger, even a flip phone has more computing power than dozens of Apollo craft computers so you seem ...[text shortened]... in the journals, of today. That is where the future of science and humanity lies, not in the bible.
@kellyjay saidYou clearly wish for us to be engaged in wishful thinking when I say we see positive gains in scientific projects every day. It is not wishful thinking but simple observation.
Never denied science moves forward, I will deny your wishful thinking is scientific. Another thing I will deny is if something is true, it will remain so throughout time unless there is a change. Truth doesn’t age!
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to expect Intel or AMD to come out with even faster more powerful CPU's and memory chips and new memory technology comes on line all the time. That is not wishful thinking, it is just following the development of computers when there were no integrated circuits to the development of integrated circuits where I worked on analog computers now flip phones have thousands of times more computing capability and it is not a huge leap to expect stronger chips using less energy in the future.
If that is wishful thinking, I am Ghandi's uncle.
@sonhouse saidYou don't have a stinking clue what I wish for. I've nothing bad to say about science, I have a lot to say about world views. You keep preaching about OOL studies that are going to learn so much in the future. What you are doing is talking about things you hope validate your world view, make the creation story go away by being able to show all of this could come about without God.
You clearly wish for us to be engaged in wishful thinking when I say we see positive gains in scientific projects every day. It is not wishful thinking but simple observation.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to expect Intel or AMD to come out with even faster more powerful CPU's and memory chips and new memory technology comes on line all the time. That is not wishful th ...[text shortened]... t stronger chips using less energy in the future.
If that is wishful thinking, I am Ghandi's uncle.
I'm well aware of Intel and AMD's goals with CPU. Your bias makes you only entertain what you want to see and reject anything that doesn't scratch your itching ears.
@kellyjay saidIt is obvious Earth and the universe is billions of years old and if you can't accept that then you would not accept anything else about OOL or evolution.
You don't have a stinking clue what I wish for. I've nothing bad to say about science, I have a lot to say about world views. You keep preaching about OOL studies that are going to learn so much in the future. What you are doing is talking about things you hope validate your world view, make the creation story go away by being able to show all of this could come about withou ...[text shortened]... you only entertain what you want to see and reject anything that doesn't scratch your itching ears.
@sonhouse saidWell if it is obvious!
It is obvious Earth and the universe is billions of years old and if you can't accept that then you would not accept anything else about OOL or evolution.
Even if it is and I don’t care, that does not mean anything else you claim is true!
@kellyjay saidWe are going round and round with you half denying, half accepting the real age of Earth. You say you don't care, I assume then that means you don't care WHAT science says about age of Earth, it is only 6000 years old period,
Well if it is obvious!
Even if it is and I don’t care, that does not mean anything else you claim is true!
@wildgrass saidYou are talking about a slide at the end of a lecture. I believe I told you to watch the whole thing or quit worrying about it. I am not going to explain to you something you cannot be bothered to watch!
What test proves what?
I've asked multiple times how the "is it time to consider design?" slide makes it into a scientific presentation, but have received no coherent response.
@sonhouse saidI don’t bring up the age that is you not me, I told you claim whatever time you want or need it will not change anything with respect to accomplishing what you claim. Time does not help you!
We are going round and round with you half denying, half accepting the real age of Earth. You say you don't care, I assume then that means you don't care WHAT science says about age of Earth, it is only 6000 years old period,
@wildgrass saidHere is something to ponder, I posted that lecture in early May and you are still taking things out of context because you have not bothered to watch the whole thing. I don’t give a rats a$$ what your questions are as long as you avoid watching it all.
What test proves what?
I've asked multiple times how the "is it time to consider design?" slide makes it into a scientific presentation, but have received no coherent response.
@kellyjay saidThe correct answer is... it's propaganda not science.
Here is something to ponder, I posted that lecture in early May and you are still taking things out of context because you have not bothered to watch the whole thing. I don’t give a rats a$$ what your questions are as long as you avoid watching it all.