Originally posted by sonhouse
So rather than accepting anything science has to say about the age of the universe you would, no matter the evidence, cling to the arrogance basic to your belief system.

You tell me why a god would be so deceptive as to make it look like the universe was 14 billion years old and the solar system 4.

You look at a bundle of rice fronds and see crosses. ...[text shortened]... bacteria, that will happen eventually.

Till that time, have a ball with your blindness.

Science cannot tell you what it does not know!
You want to believe what you see is what a billion year old universe looks like
feel free, you've no idea, but your free to believe it. You have to know how it
started to know how to tell how old it is, and even there that maybe beyond you.

Correct I've not problem one with science doing anything, what it can do in the
here and now is outstanding! What it cannot do is prove what cannot be shown to
be wrong.

Did I miss the part where you told me where and how everything came from
nothing?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Science cannot tell you what it does not know!
You want to believe what you see is what a billion year old universe looks like
feel free, you've no idea, but your free to believe it. You have to know how it
started to know how to tell how old it is, and even there that maybe beyond you.

Correct I've not problem one with science doing anything, what it ...[text shortened]... .

Did I miss the part where you told me where and how everything came from
nothing?
Kelly

You expect me to show how life started? A nobel prize waiting to happen and you think I can do it, a mere technician? Get real. First, you prove by scientific means how YOU think life started. Oh, you can't do that either? Looks like we are at an impasse. I think the scientific proof of life coming from non-life will come a lot sooner than creationsism, which is based on fairy tales from thousands of years ago and it isn't even original, but based on earlier religions, which is called plagiarism in any other endeavor but in religion, it's just that much more truthful.....

Originally posted by sonhouse
You expect me to show how life started? A nobel prize waiting to happen and you think I can do it, a mere technician? Get real. First, you prove by scientific means how YOU think life started. Oh, you can't do that either? Looks like we are at an impasse. I think the scientific proof of life coming from non-life will come a lot sooner than creationsism, whi led plagiarism in any other endeavor but in religion, it's just that much more truthful.....

You say, "I think the scientific proof of life coming from non-life will come a lot sooner than creationsism..."

But scientists have already discovered by observation the law of biogenesis. The following is from Wikipedia on biogenesis:

The law of biogenesis, attributed to Louis Pasteur, is the observation that living things come only from other living things.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biogenesis

Therefore, life can not come from non-living things and must have come from the living God.

Originally posted by RJHinds
You say, "I think the scientific proof of life coming from non-life will come a lot sooner than creationsism..."

But scientists have already discovered by observation the law of biogenesis. Te following is from Wikipedia on biogenesis:

[b]The law of biogenesis, attributed to Louis Pasteur, is the observation that living things come only from other liv ...[text shortened]... herefore, life can not come from non-living things and must have come from the living God.[/b]

flawed logic

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
flawed logic

he he he 😀

Originally posted by RJHinds
he he he 😀

ah, so you realize your logic is flawed. this is a step in the right direction.

Originally posted by RJHinds
You say, "I think the scientific proof of life coming from non-life will come a lot sooner than creationsism..."

But scientists have already discovered by observation the law of biogenesis. The following is from Wikipedia on biogenesis:

[b]The law of biogenesis, attributed to Louis Pasteur, is the observation that living things come only from other li ...[text shortened]... herefore, life can not come from non-living things and must have come from the living God.[/b]

Well, if old Louis said it, that must settle the issue. I don't suppose he could have been slightly biased in favor of creationism in the first place could he? NAH, he is a clearminded scientist, and we all know scientists NEVER have biases, right?

Originally posted by sonhouse
Well, if old Louis said it, that must settle the issue. I don't suppose he could have been slightly biased in favor of creationism in the first place could he? NAH, he is a clearminded scientist, and we all know scientists NEVER have biases, right?

Louis Pasteur (December 27, 1822 – September 28, 1895) was a French chemist and microbiologist who was one of the most important founders of medical microbiology. He is remembered for his remarkable breakthroughs in the causes and preventions of diseases. His discoveries reduced mortality from puerperal fever, and he created the first vaccines for rabies and anthrax. His experiments supported the germ theory of disease. He was best known to the general public for inventing a method to stop milk and wine from causing sickness, a process that came to be called pasteurization.

This is just one example of what a scientist that believes in God can do for the good of human life.

Originally posted by sonhouse
You expect me to show how life started? A nobel prize waiting to happen and you think I can do it, a mere technician? Get real. First, you prove by scientific means how YOU think life started. Oh, you can't do that either? Looks like we are at an impasse. I think the scientific proof of life coming from non-life will come a lot sooner than creationsism, whi ...[text shortened]... led plagiarism in any other endeavor but in religion, it's just that much more truthful.....

I expect you to either show up or shut up!
You don't know how it began but you want to tell me what I have to look at
to know how old it is! You want to tell me how life began without God yet you
do not know how it began period! You don't know squat yet you run off your
mouth as if you do. Science does not know how everything got here, there isn't
even a theory as far as I know, all people have is some point in time things
were and they began there, which is to say they got nothing! Since they got
nothing they don't have a leg to stand on with respect to making claims about
how long things have been here, because they don't know how it began!

If this universe started and was able to support life at its very beginning there
isn't anything you can look at to give you a clue as to its age! Making claims
that you know how old a billion year old universe shoudl look, it is arrogance as
if you knew how old one looked at a billion years old. You have this one to look
at, and it is a mystery as to how it got here. Anyone suggesting they know is
full of themselves it is and will always be a matter of faith until something quite
beyond our abilities clues us into as to how.

I again will stand back and hear you out if you want to tell me how it all started.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I expect you to either show up or shut up!
You don't know how it began but you want to tell me what I have to look at
to know how old it is! You want to tell me how life began without God yet you
do not know how it began period! You don't know squat yet you run off your
mouth as if you do. Science does not know how everything got here, there isn't
even ...[text shortened]... I again will stand back and hear you out if you want to tell me how it all started.
Kelly

Listen to this guy. He will explain it for you.

YouTube

Originally posted by RJHinds
Louis Pasteur (December 27, 1822 – September 28, 1895) was a French chemist and microbiologist who was one of the most important founders of medical microbiology. He is remembered for his remarkable breakthroughs in the causes and preventions of diseases. His discoveries reduced mortality from puerperal fever, and he created the first vaccines for rabies and ...[text shortened]... is just one example of what a scientist that believes in God can do for the good of human life.

"However, despite his belief in God, it has been said that his views were that of a freethinker than a Catholic, a spiritual more than a religious man. He was also against mixing science with religion."

smart man. you might learn a thing or two from his example.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I again will stand back and hear you out if you want to tell me how it all started.

He has already stated that he doesn't know, so stop making ridiculous demands. The dispute is not whether or not he knows how life started, it is whether or not such knowledge is a prerequisite for knowing anything else.
I don't think you have made a good case for your claim that it is a prerequisite. In fact, you yourself do not follow your own claims. You only use your claim when it suits you.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
"However, despite his belief in God, it has been said that his views were that of a freethinker than a Catholic, a spiritual more than a religious man. He was also against mixing science with religion."

smart man. you might learn a thing or two from his example.

He sounds like me, IMO.

Originally posted by RJHinds
He sounds like me, IMO.

In your humble opinion you should be compared to Pasteur? Your arrogance is showing.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Listen to this guy. He will explain it for you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ga33t0NI6Fk

🙂 Just started listening to him, funny and cool.
Basically a lot of what I've been saying but he says it better.
Kelly