Originally posted by RJHindsSo it's your contention there were no clouds 10 thousand years ago? There were no ice caps on the north and south pole and greenland was ice free?
I was taught practical Science that could be used in Engineering. I did not
waste my time with theoretical science that can be debated. I have already
told you how the Holy Bible said God provided water mists from the ground and
underground springs for agriculture. But I think the 10 thousand years is an
exaggeration, a common practice. I woke up ab ...[text shortened]... ago. 😏
P.S. You have heard of irrigation, right?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irrigation
You do know about humidity, right? So if there were no clouds the humidity would have been zero or close to. I used to live in Scottsdale Arizona and there was a saying there, if you have toast, better eat it immediately or it will dry out before breakfast is done.
Try to think about what it would be like in your practical engineering background of what it would have been like for there to have been no rain.
For instance, do you know what drives water in trees? How they get water from the roots all the way up in some cases 300+ feet high?
Originally posted by sonhouseDid you every read this in the Holy Bible?
So it's your contention there were no clouds 10 thousand years ago? There were no ice caps on the north and south pole and greenland was ice free?
You do know about humidity, right? So if there were no clouds the humidity would have been zero or close to. I used to live in Scottsdale Arizona and there was a saying there, if you have toast, better eat it ...[text shortened]... water in trees? How they get water from the roots all the way up in some cases 300+ feet high?
Then God said, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.” Thus God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. So the evening and the morning were the second day.
Then God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas. And God saw that it was good.
(Genesis 1:6-10 NKJV)
Much of the water that caused the flood during Noah's day was from this water
stored above the firmament. This water is believed to have diffused the rays
from the Sun before they reached the earth in those days. This may also have
accounted for the people, before the flood, living such long lives.
Therefore, it is not correct to compare how things are today with how they might
have been at the beginning of creation and at the time before the flood as being
the same. You are again using the uniformity principle, which is an assumption.
Originally posted by RJHindsThere is another problem with your belief's, and millions of others of your ilk. I assume you don't care that when a moon colony or mars colony starts up, the principle language will be Chinese. Does that bother you at all? The anti science nature of millions of people in the US are directly contributing to the decline in American science and it will be countries like Brazil, China, Korea, Japan and Russia who will be generating the next generation of scientists and projects like the space programs for their countries. Your anti science stance is one of the problems which is leading directly to the decline of US power. You can't just say god did it, read the bible, Muslims are idiots, etc., when Christianity AKA Paulism is not even a majority any more.
Did you every read this in the Holy Bible?
Then God said, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.” Thus God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. So the evenin ...[text shortened]... lood as being
the same. You are again using the uniformity principle, which is an assumption.
That is my biggest fear in the US, that this anti science trend will take over the US government and complete the Iranization the the US and then the Chinese take over the moon and mars and the only language spoken outside of earth is Chinese.
Does that bother you even a little bit? You would rather be stuck in a then backwards looking country just like the latter years of the Roman Empire? While barbarians are looking on at your past great works and wondering how they could have done it? Like when Chinese astronauts get to the moon, say in 20 years and find our Apollo sites that would be some 70 or 80 years old at that time.
Does that bother you even a little? You would rather be the king of a small pond?
You should think on that very very seriously, you and all the religious right in the US.
Originally posted by sonhouseStop fighting it, and learn Chinese.
That is my biggest fear in the US, that this anti science trend will take over the US government and complete the Iranization the the US and then the Chinese take over the moon and mars and the only language spoken outside of earth is Chinese.
Originally posted by sonhouseI, for one, am not anti-science. I am only against masquerading pseudoscience
There is another problem with your belief's, and millions of others of your ilk. I assume you don't care that when a moon colony or mars colony starts up, the principle language will be Chinese. Does that bother you at all? The anti science nature of millions of people in the US are directly contributing to the decline in American science and it will be cou ...[text shortened]... ?
You should think on that very very seriously, you and all the religious right in the US.
as true sicence. There is no requirement that we must believe man and the
universe are so old or that we evolved from some unknown life form to do proper
science. The old scientists did not believe such things and did science just fine.
Read the following for proof:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_science
http://www.bede.org.uk/sciencehistory.htm
Originally posted by RJHinds“...The old scientists did not believe such things and did science just fine. ...”
I, for one, am not anti-science. I am only against masquerading pseudoscience
as true sicence. There is no requirement that we must believe man and the
universe are so old or that we evolved from some unknown life form to do proper
science. The old scientists did not believe such things and did science just fine.
Read the following for proof:
http: ...[text shortened]... edia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_science
http://www.bede.org.uk/sciencehistory.htm
-and now the new scientists know the fact of evolution and do science just fine.
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsOf course there is no requirement to believe anything. But you look at the evidence and if pretty much all of it indicates that the earth is much older than what fits with the bible version, then it is the bible version we should question first.
I, for one, am not anti-science. I am only against masquerading pseudoscience
as true sicence. There is no requirement that we must believe man and the
universe are so old or that we evolved from some unknown life form to do proper
science. The old scientists did not believe such things and did science just fine.
Read the following for proof:
http: ...[text shortened]... edia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_science
http://www.bede.org.uk/sciencehistory.htm
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by RJHindsYou are emphatically and indisputably anti-science because you do not support or follow
I, for one, am not anti-science. I am only against masquerading pseudoscience
as true science. There is no requirement that we must believe man and the
universe are so old or that we evolved from some unknown life form to do proper
science. The old scientists did not believe such things and did science just fine.
Read the following for proof:
http: ...[text shortened]... edia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_science
http://www.bede.org.uk/sciencehistory.htm
scientific methodology and reject those things found out by the scientific method including
but by no means limited to the age of the earth and the universe.
You are against anything that contradicts your religious beliefs which BY DEFINITION makes
you anti-science.
When you claim to not be anti-science while in fact opposing everything science stands for and
has discovered you are lying flat out about what you stand for and believe in.
The requirement to do proper science is that you follow the empirical evidence and ONLY the
evidence to build as accurate a picture of the world and how it works as is possible and that
all ideas are tested and retested from every angle and approach that can be devised before they
are accepted and the testing does not stop there, or ever.
If you hold preconceived ideas that cannot be tested or challenged then you are not doing science.
You believe in a god and the supernatural not only with no proof or evidence (on faith) but in opposition
to all available evidence. And you bend and distort everything through your preconceived idea of how
the universe works based on this blind faith in a god and the supernatural.
You are the absolute and unequivocal antithesis and nemesis of science and reason.
You are irrational to sciences rationality.
You are illogical to sciences logic.
You ignore evidence instead of following it.
You blindly accept things as being true instead of being skeptical and enquiring.
You believe in authority rather than questioning it.
You believe based on faith instead of reason and evidence.
You are anti-science. period.
1 edit
Originally posted by googlefudgeAnd part of that evidence is exactly that, You claim to accept other sciences, like medical science, for instance, or atmospheric science, say. The thing is, ALL sciences use the same scientific method to come to their conclusions. The fact that you reject only those sciences that refute the bible proves you don't really get the idea of scientific method, used by all sciences in exactly the same way. The conclusions are evidence based and peer reviewed and there are a lot of alternative ideas in all sciences and through rigorous and sometimes hotly contested debates, the evidence wins. When evolution first came out as a science by Darwin you can bet there was immediate anti evolution arguments but the evidence continued to mount to a point today where only partially or non-educated people deny the truth of evolution.
You are emphatically and indisputably anti-science because you do not support or follow
scientific methodology and reject those things found out by the scientific method including
but by no means limited to the age of the earth and the universe.
You are against anything that contradicts your religious beliefs which BY DEFINITION makes
you anti-s ...[text shortened]... .
You believe based on faith instead of reason and evidence.
You are anti-science. period.
The fact you deny evolution which uses the exact scientific methods used by medical science or rocket science proves you are anti science and I hope against hope one of your kind never gets to positions of power, to try to complete the Iranization of the US where ideas have to pass a biblical filter to get public money for instance.
Right now, Santorum wants to cut funding for stem cell research, because he is so frigging ignorant he doesn't know or doesn't want to know the recent developments in stem cell research has gone past the need for umbilical cord or embryonic cells and all the attendant moral issues. We can now use skin cells to create insulin producing cells for instance, turning skin cells to stem cells then into almost anything else. But because of the anti science stance of Santorum, he brushes all that aside and just says he will stop this program, that program, eliminate entire branches of government all based on religious dogma.
Is that what you want for the US? You can be sure if Santorum wins, the decline of the US would accelerate to a degree maybe insurmountable and we will take a back seat to the rest of the world instead of being the leaders in science. Is that what you want?
Originally posted by humyEvolutionists are pseudo-scientists, who claim the theory of evolution is fact
“...The old scientists did not believe such things and did science just fine. ...”
-and now the new scientists know the fact of evolution and do science just fine.
and misrepresent adaptation as evolution. They can not do science just fine.
Originally posted by googlefudgeNonsense. 😏
You are emphatically and indisputably anti-science because you do not support or follow
scientific methodology and reject those things found out by the scientific method including
but by no means limited to the age of the earth and the universe.
You are against anything that contradicts your religious beliefs which BY DEFINITION makes
you anti-s ...[text shortened]... .
You believe based on faith instead of reason and evidence.
You are anti-science. period.
Originally posted by sonhouseEvolutionary scientists (Pseudo-scientists) fudge on the scientific method to
And part of that evidence is exactly that, You claim to accept other sciences, like medical science, for instance, or atmospheric science, say. The thing is, ALL sciences use the same scientific method to come to their conclusions. The fact that you reject only those sciences that refute the bible proves you don't really get the idea of scientific method, u ...[text shortened]... seat to the rest of the world instead of being the leaders in science. Is that what you want?
suit their beliefs. The end does not justify the means in science. There opinions
are neither science or fact. Santorum is a politician and does not speak the views
of all Christians. But he has a right to his opinion just as you do. But that has
nothing to do with true science. As I have said before opinion is not science.
Originally posted by RJHinds“...who claim the theory of evolution is fact ...”
Evolutionists are pseudo-scientists, who claim the theory of evolution is fact
and misrepresent adaptation as evolution. They can not do science just fine.
-which is is. We have the physical proof; we have the fossils; we have the missing link (both as some as fossils and some currently living ones) we have the geological evidence; we have the genetic evidence; we have the evidence of micro-evolution occurring today and the data to prove that macro-evolution happened in the past.
“...and misrepresent adaptation as evolution. ...”
“genetic adaptation by means of natural selection” = “evolution”