1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadYes it is. Observation is a necesary part of the scientific method to prove
Being present at a phenomena is not a requirement of science. Science is based on evidence, not on personal experience.
anything in science. That is why the scientists say creation is not science,
because they think no one was there to observe it happen. Yet they say
evolution is science because they see adaptation happen and confuse this
with evolution, which they have never observed happen. Even those things
that are too small to be seen must have an observable effect to be part of
science.
Originally posted by RJHindsDo you think patroleum and oil in the earth are the result of ancient vegetation destroyed in the flood of Noah ?
I do not recall speculating on moon dust and radiometric dating. I did
mention at one time that some scientists associated with the moon
landing speculated that the age of the moon should result in a lot of
moon dust and designed the moon lander with long legs with pods
to make sure they did not sink down into the deep layers of moon dust
they expected ...[text shortened]... that speculation but we have written
and physical evidence of this flood all around the world.
Originally posted by jaywillI do not know. But if God did not make the earth with oil and petroleum,
Do you think patroleum and oil in the earth are the result of ancient vegetation destroyed in the flood of Noah ?
it could have resulted due to the flood. I have read that gas, oil, coal,
and petroleum have been artificially produced in the lab from wood and
a variety of plant material.
2 edits
Originally posted by RJHinds
I do not know. But if God did not make the earth with oil and petroleum,
it could have resulted due to the flood. I have read that gas, oil, coal,
and petroleum have been artificially produced in the lab from wood and
a variety of plant material.
I do not know. But if God did not make the earth with oil and petroleum, it could have resulted due to the flood. I have read that gas, oil, coal, and petroleum have been artificially produced in the lab from wood and
a variety of plant material.
You cautiously say that it "could" have resulted due to the flood. Okay. Non-commital, but I accept that.
Now, before the flood of Noah, pitch, an oil product, was used to seal the ark.
Genesis 6:14 - "Make yourself an ark of gopher wood; you shall make rooms in the ark and shall cover it within and without with pitch."
If you say oil MAY have been the result of the flood, then I also say BEFORE the flood, compressed ancient vegatation MAY have been there from a previous destroyed world - "And the earth became waste and emptiness, and darkness was on the surface of the deep ... " (Gen 1:2 RcV)
It is at least equally as possible as what you propose is possible.
Originally posted by RJHindsHilarious! This from the guy who in another thread stated that science establishes the Big Bang and therefore attests to the idea that the universe had a beginning (in defense of a premise in the Kalam Cosmological Argument). How many scientists do you reckon were there to observe the Big Bang?
The problem I see with your idea is the scientist were not there to observe
when and how the earth came into existence. So their statement that the
earth is 4.5 billion years old is just a belief system, not pure science. It
is not even as good as the creation belief because creationists at least
have the testimony of the one who says He was in the beginning and
created it.
You are the worst sort of intellectual fraud, latching on to deliverances of science when you think they support your theistic presuppositions and then swearing off science the rest of the time. You presume to declaim on science when you clearly have no idea how it works and are just too lazy to reform those aspects of your ignorance and misunderstanding. You should just quit wasting others' time with your nonsense.
Originally posted by LemonJelloYou are speaking lies about me now. Not only do I not believe in
Hilarious! This from the guy who in another thread stated that science establishes the Big Bang and therefore attests to the idea that the universe had a beginning (in defense of a premise in the Kalam Cosmological Argument). How many scientists do you reckon were there to observe the Big Bang?
You are the worst sort of intellectual fraud, latching ...[text shortened]... ignorance and misunderstanding. You should just quit wasting others' time with your nonsense.
the theory of evolution, I do not believe in the theory of the big bang.
However, most scientist do believe that the universe has a beginning.
They are the ones that put forward a theory of the big bang and I do
not even know what this Kalan Cosmological Argument is all about.
Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else. I do not require
you to pay any attention to my nonsense.
2 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsNo, I am not confusing you with anyone else. You claimed very clearly in one of Grampy Bobby's threads that it is known that the universe had a beginning and that such knowledge is the reason for theories surrounding the Big Bang. And I know you do not know what the Kalam is by name, but it was precisely in defense of one premise of the Kalam that you trotted out this claim of yours. If you are going to swear off science like some ignoramus from the Dark Ages, at least do it consistently.
You are speaking lies about me now. Not only do I not believe in
the theory of evolution, I do not believe in the theory of the big bang.
However, most scientist do believe that the universe has a beginning.
They are the ones that put forward a theory of the big bang and I do
not even know what this Kalan Cosmological Argument is all about.
Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else. I do not require
you to pay any attention to my nonsense.
Originally posted by LemonJelloNo, I do not swear off science, at least, not true science. However, I do
No, I am not confusing you with anyone else. You claimed very clearly in one of Grampy Bobby's threads that it is known that the universe had a beginning and that such knowledge is the reason for theories surrounding the Big Bang. And I know you do not know what the Kalam is by name, but it was precisely in defense of one premise of the Kalam that you t ...[text shortened]... going to swear off science like some ignoramus from the Dark Ages, at least do it consistently.
not see the theories of evolution and the big bang as true science. They
belong in the same category as the theory of the spaghetti monster.
Originally posted by RJHindsI know I carry very little authority here but I tell you that an event , like the one that the scientists explain as "the big bang" DID in fact occur some 15billlion years ago.
You are speaking lies about me now. Not only do I not believe in
the theory of evolution, I do not believe in the theory of the big bang.
However, most scientist do believe that the universe has a beginning.
They are the ones that put forward a theory of the big bang and I do
not even know what this Kalan Cosmological Argument is all about.
Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else. I do not require
you to pay any attention to my nonsense.
But this does not mean there is no God, just not an Abrahamic one.
I contend that the real truth is so shocking that your ears could not handle it.
But for us humans to find out where we came, which will also go to a long way of answering "who we are?" , is an important one, and scientists and theists, pantheists, pagans of any description,heck just about anyone should be heard as to their theory of how we all got here. Because I believe, if we look for the truth, (scientifically viable truth), there is an answer waiting for us.
But most importantly the scientific enquiries must be done by factoring the scientist as part of the experiment as we now know that quantum theory tells us that you can not have a completely isolated experiment. The questions will influence the answers, etc.
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsNo, I do not swear off science, at least, not true science.
No, I do not swear off science, at least, not true science. However, I do
not see the theories of evolution and the big bang as true science. They
belong in the same category as the theory of the spaghetti monster.
By what method do you ascertain what is 'true science' and what is 'false science'.
Originally posted by jaywillThe problem with that is that the Holy Bible says nothing about aI do not know. But if God did not make the earth with oil and petroleum, it could have resulted due to the flood. I have read that gas, oil, coal, and petroleum have been artificially produced in the lab from wood and
a variety of plant material.
You cautiously say that it "could" have resulted due to the flood. Okay. Non-commital, b ...[text shortened]... Gen 1:2 RcV)
It is at least equally as possible as what you propose is possible.[/b]
previous world in which God created vegetation. So we have to
imagine one that is destroyed like the evolutionists do. The Holy
Bible says vegetation was created on the third day. So it seems
that if the pitch was not part of the creation of earth, then it may have
come about from the vegetation created from the third day. We
just aren't told, but apparently God provide Noah with the correct
knowleged to make or get the pitch that was needed for the ark.
Originally posted by karoly aczelYour little authority means little to me because I believe Jesus when He
I know I carry very little authority here but I tell you that an event , like the one that the scientists explain as "the big bang" DID in fact occur some 15billlion years ago.
But this does not mean there is no God, just not an Abrahamic one.
I contend that the real truth is so shocking that your ears could not handle it.
But for us humans to ...[text shortened]... an not have a completely isolated experiment. The questions will influence the answers, etc.
said. "All authority has been given to Me..." I believe what is written in
the scriptures, as He did, and there is no mention of a "big bang". That
is not a little matter to ignore. So to me, it did not happen, plain and
simple.