Originally posted by KellyJayMaybe 'all' knowledge was a trifle OTT, it it's not far off. Pretty much every branch of science must be drastically wrong if the universe is thousands of years old and life didn't evolve. Yet all you have to counter is some vague statement about the 'nature of man'.
I'm not alleging that all knowledge gathered through the scientific process
is wrong. I said that where you have people you have built in issues due to
the nature of man.
2 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadNo. Only that part dealing with evolution (macro-evolution) and billions and millions of years of imaginary history is being disputed.
You do however believe that approximately half of all scientific disciplines are largely wrong.
You dispute much of, and in some cases most of:
Biology, Physics, Astronomy, Geology, Archaeology, and others.
Originally posted by Proper KnobNo, not at all. Those sciences were being done before the idea of billions of years became popular and needed for the evolution theory to survive. All the real science in those area would still be the same, only the interpretations would change for those today that are believing in evolution and billions of years.
Yes, and that statement means the above sciences must also be wrong if the world is only a few thousand years old.
Originally posted by RJHindsThe idea became popular because it was a direct finding of all those sciences. Every single branch of science has come up with the same result: a universe billions of years old. Deny the age of the universe and you are contradicting nearly every branch of science.
Those sciences were being done before the idea of billions of years became popular ...
Originally posted by RJHindsThat could be one of the dumbest posts I've ever read.
No, not at all. Those sciences were being done before the idea of billions of years became popular and needed for the evolution theory to survive. All the real science in those area would still be the same, only the interpretations would change for those today that are believing in evolution and billions of years.
Originally posted by Proper KnobNo, not every branch of science, just people in those branches and not all
Maybe 'all' knowledge was a trifle OTT, it it's not far off. Pretty much every branch of science must be drastically wrong if the universe is thousands of years old and life didn't evolve. Yet all you have to counter is some vague statement about the 'nature of man'.
of them.
Originally posted by twhiteheadHow does the billions and millions of years agree with the Holy Bible? If you accept billions and millions of years of past history, doesn't that mean you are rejecting the Genesis account of history?
The idea became popular because it was a direct finding of all those sciences. Every single branch of science has come up with the same result: a universe billions of years old. Deny the age of the universe and you are contradicting nearly every branch of science.
Originally posted by KellyJayYour position, that the universe and all within it is only a few thousand year old, means that vast swathes of scientific knowledge need rewriting. It's all hopelessly wrong. Yet you can't drum up a reason as to why that is apart from some vagueness about the 'nature of man'. Your position is simply way beyond implausible.
No, not every branch of science, just people in those branches and not all
of them.
Originally posted by Proper KnobMy position on the universe has nothing to do with evolutionary theory! The
Your position, that the universe and all within it is only a few thousand year old, means that vast swathes of scientific knowledge need rewriting. It's all hopelessly wrong. Yet you can't drum up a reason as to why that is apart from some vagueness about the 'nature of man'. Your position is simply way beyond implausible.
issues I've brought up are meaningless to time, I freely admit I could be
completely wrong about how old this place is by billions of years. You using
my views about the age in my opinion shows weakness on your part, since
you have been reduced to going after me instead the points I've been making
that are NOT bound to any Biblical text.
Originally posted by KellyJayIf you go back through the thread I was initially responding to your jibe about the 'party line'. All I was after was an attempt at an explanation as to why countless scientists have got the 'party line' spectacularly wrong for so long. Unfortunately you've not been very forthcoming in that regard.
My position on the universe has nothing to do with evolutionary theory! The
issues I've brought up are meaningless to time, I freely admit I could be
completely wrong about how old this place is by billions of years. You using
my views about the age in my opinion shows weakness on your part, since
you have been reduced to going after me instead the points I've been making
that are NOT bound to any Biblical text.
Going after you? Weakness? What are you talking about? I've been asking you questions about your beliefs and the ramifications of those beliefs.
Originally posted by Proper KnobOn this topic exactly what do my beliefs about the age of the universe or
If you go back through the thread I was initially responding to your jibe about the 'party line'. All I was after was an attempt at an explanation as to why countless scientists have got the 'party line' spectacularly wrong for so long. Unfortunately you've not been very forthcoming in that regard.
Going after you? Weakness? What are you talking about? I've been asking you questions about your beliefs and the ramifications of those beliefs.
earth mater? Nothing I have said helps or hurts supporting my beliefs on
the topic.
On what others think, I have no idea why they believe what they believe,
as I don't think you grasp why those that disagree with you believe what
they do, in the very same circles you seem to want to believe are all on
your side of the discussion.
Originally posted by KellyJayThey matter because they affect what you think about the validity of science. You clearly believe that most of the worlds scientists are wrong about most of science. That the specific discussion here is about evolutionary theory wont change the above fact.
On this topic exactly what do my beliefs about the age of the universe or
earth mater?
Originally posted by twhiteheadDo you think scientists know more the one tenth of one percent of what could be known? If so, what is your estimate of their knowledge?
They matter because they affect what you think about the validity of science. You clearly believe that most of the worlds scientists are wrong about most of science. That the specific discussion here is about evolutionary theory wont change the above fact.