Rob Osborn Posted April 25, 2014 Author Share Posted April 25, 2014 Your coin analogy doesn't work because a coin has two equal sides. On one "side" of this coin is practically all scientists, colleges and universities, and academic publications and all the evidences they provide available from multiple sources and organizations. There are both Christians and non-Christians in this group. On the other "side" is VERY small number people, and all on them are biblical Christians, providing "evidences" that can only be found on their ministry pages. It's fair to say the probability of flipping one side this coin or the other is worlds away from 50/50. You either do not do any homework, or are a liar, or you have no clue. There are scientists who believe in a global flood and there are scientists who disbelieve in Darwinian evolution. There are even books by them they have written. Link to comment
The Nehor Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 Then go back to school and learn the proper use of words because you obviously do not use them correctly. As an English Major who is nicknamed "Wordsmith" where I work: "No, you're wrong". Link to comment
The Nehor Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 You either do not do any homework, or are a liar, or you have no clue. There are scientists who believe in a global flood and there are scientists who disbelieve in Darwinian evolution. There are even books by them they have written. Those aren't scientists; those are Christian ministries wasting money publishing tripe. Link to comment
Rob Osborn Posted April 25, 2014 Author Share Posted April 25, 2014 You still didn't answer my questions about my theory of a robot battle forming the earth's design as we now it today. Should I have equal footing in the science classes as evolution and creationism? Evidence does exist that evolution as told by scientists did not occur the way they say it happened. Now as to finding evidence for your robot saga- go for it- provide some evidence and lets discuss it. Link to comment
Rob Osborn Posted April 25, 2014 Author Share Posted April 25, 2014 See, this is why you are insufferable. Electrical theory is a theory. It is NOT proven once and for all to be true because science does NOT work that way. It always works when we use it but it only takes one instance where it is shown to not work as expected to require overhauling or dismissing the theory. We do not expect it to be overturned. We have a theory explaining light. Again, it seems to work like we expect it to but it is still not proven. Evolution is not as well supported as our theories regarding light or electricity but it is not that far off. That is how scientific theory works. You obviously have no idea how it works if you think science is busy proving our theories about electricity and light. It is more correct to say they have not been disproven. Again, things you accept as proven are theories so kindly shut up about saying theories are not truth. Let me just ask- Does the Sun exist? Do cars travel on roads? Do bicycles have wheels that go round and round? Does rain fall from the sky? Does it snow when it gets cold enough? These are all things that science can and does in fact verify to be truths. Call it what you may but all of the above can be verified as truths by science. Now, as to "theories", they are different than the above. Science never says it is theorized that sun exists. It also doesnt say- "according to theory, cars are said to travel on roads." Theories are used only in the context of explaining something not surely known. Link to comment
Rob Osborn Posted April 25, 2014 Author Share Posted April 25, 2014 Those aren't scientists; those are Christian ministries wasting money publishing tripe. Again, thats only your opinion and I respect your opinion, just don't agree with it. Link to comment
The Nehor Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 Let me just ask-Does the Sun exist?Do cars travel on roads?Do bicycles have wheels that go round and round?Does rain fall from the sky?Does it snow when it gets cold enough?These are all things that science can and does in fact verify to be truths. Call it what you may but all of the above can be verified as truths by science.Now, as to "theories", they are different than the above. Science never says it is theorized that sun exists. It also doesnt say- "according to theory, cars are said to travel on roads." Theories are used only in the context of explaining something not surely known. Look up scientific theory and read about what it means. All of it. Prepare to have your worldview shaken and your mind blown. You asking me silly questions is not going to change science works. I am sure the answer to all those questions is yes except for the last one because you need more then just cold to get snow. Me being certain though does not change the underlying framework in which science operates. Science would give a tentative yes to your question. That seems to be how it works. In the absence of new contradictory data we will stick with that theory for now. Link to comment
The Nehor Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 Again, thats only your opinion and I respect your opinion, just don't agree with it. Nope, it's a fact. Link to comment
Rob Osborn Posted April 25, 2014 Author Share Posted April 25, 2014 Nope, it's a fact. Opinion. Opinion. Opinion. Link to comment
Rob Osborn Posted April 25, 2014 Author Share Posted April 25, 2014 Look up scientific theory and read about what it means. All of it. Prepare to have your worldview shaken and your mind blown. You asking me silly questions is not going to change science works. I am sure the answer to all those questions is yes except for the last one because you need more then just cold to get snow. Me being certain though does not change the underlying framework in which science operates. Science would give a tentative yes to your question. That seems to be how it works. In the absence of new contradictory data we will stick with that theory for now. I already know what scientific theory means and how it is used. You stated earlier that science cant establish truths or facts. I just showed that science actually can and does establish truths and facts or supports them. The "theory" of this or that in science is another way of saying- this is the idea we have as to how this works, it may be right, it may be wrong, we just arent sure. Link to comment
Rob Osborn Posted April 25, 2014 Author Share Posted April 25, 2014 No rebuttal required. ... Link to comment
The Nehor Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 I just showed that science actually can and does establish truths and facts or supports them. No, you didn't. Perhaps the kind of science that goes on in your brain but no. Science finds data and constructs theories to explain the data. All theories are tentative and can be overthrown later. You have no idea what the hell a scientific theory is because you keep saying dumb stuff like this. Now, most scientists when speaking casually will say that things are established as fact for simplicity's sake even though they can be overturned. That is why people say evolution, gravity, quanum mechanics, etc are facts. Link to comment
Rob Osborn Posted April 25, 2014 Author Share Posted April 25, 2014 No, you didn't. Perhaps the kind of science that goes on in your brain but no. Science finds data and constructs theories to explain the data. All theories are tentative and can be overthrown later. You have no idea what the hell a scientific theory is because you keep saying dumb stuff like this. Now, most scientists when speaking casually will say that things are established as fact for simplicity's sake even though they can be overturned. That is why people say evolution, gravity, quanum mechanics, etc are facts. In oder to develop scientific theories facts first have to be produced through science. These become scientifc facts from the which theories are then constructed to explain those facts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact Link to comment
mfbukowski Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 Why do I wander in here? Now I have to go pour bleach into my brain to get rid of the stupid. Link to comment
Brian 2.0 Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 You either do not do any homework, or are a liar, or you have no clue. There are scientists who believe in a global flood and there are scientists who disbelieve in Darwinian evolution. There are even books by them they have written.You are not reading what I said. Did I say there were no scientists? Did i say there was no evidence?I'm saying your "scientists" and "evidences" are in such a small sliver of a minority in the scientific community compared to the mounds and mounds of scientists and evidences on the "other side of the coin." Link to comment
Ahab Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 You said the above regarding gravity. And this is exactly what people say about evolution as well. The rub happens because you, Rob, and others don't find it reasonable, because you don't see the evidences and observations as in support of the theory. And there are "observations" for evolution. It's not watching one species transform to another in a lifetime, but there are countless evidences from genetics, fossil record, etc that support the theory. So one can't say that evolution is a theory without evidence/observations and toss it aside as purely imagination or opinion. And you understand that ALMOST ALL scientists, educational institutions, and academic publications view evolution as "a reasonable explanation based on what we observe." So how would things change? There are people that believe in all sorts of weird things in the face of scientific consensus (global flood, young earth, flat earth, alien interaction with humans, etc). Should they all get a seat in the science classroom? Or should science teach differently about the age of the earth because there are young earthers out there?1. The majority is often wrong, so I don't put a lot of stock into what the majority thinks.2. The majority of scientists believe everything began 13.8 billion years ago. Everything. Even time itself began only 13.8 billion years ago, according to them. Need I say that I do not agree with that either?3. I have faith in what God tells me and when people don't agree with God I choose to believe God instead of agreeing with those who don't agree with God. Like when God tells me certain things are eternal, and that life on this planet came by different kinds of beings begetting others of their kind by their own kind. Including us, who were beget through Adam, who was beget by God.Clearly many scientists do not agree with God. Link to comment
Rob Osborn Posted April 25, 2014 Author Share Posted April 25, 2014 You are not reading what I said. Did I say there were no scientists? Did i say there was no evidence? I'm saying your "scientists" and "evidences" are in such a small sliver of a minority in the scientific community compared to the mounds and mounds of scientists and evidences on the "other side of the coin." To be fair I agree that the amount of scientists is lopsided. The evidence onthe other hand is either pretty even. Link to comment
Brian 2.0 Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 1. The majority is often wrong, so I don't put a lot of stock into what the majority thinks.2. The majority of scientists believe everything began 13.8 billion years ago. Everything. Even time itself began only 13.8 billion years ago, according to them. Need I say that I do not agree with that either?3. I have faith in what God tells me and when people don't agree with God I choose to believe God instead of agreeing with those who don't agree with God. Like when God tells me certain things are eternal, and that life on this planet came by different kinds of beings begetting others of their kind by their own kind. Including us, who were beget through Adam, who was beget by God.Clearly many scientists do not agree with God.I understand that's your belief and you are obviously entitled to it. And you recognize it's a minority opinion, which you are fine with. So how should universities, publications, or science itself change? What should we do with these niece minority views? Teach them all in classrooms? We can't give every crackpot theory equal billing, no? We obviously can't get into #3 in the science classroom. Link to comment
The Nehor Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 To be fair I agree that the amount of scientists is lopsided. The evidence onthe other hand is either pretty even.No, it is not. Here is my closing argument:Rob, you are wrong and you are a textbook example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. I will let John Cleese explain your situation for you:https://youtube.com/watch?v=wvVPdyYeaQU now a closing farewell:https://youtube.com/watch?v=xE8zAFjR8YE Link to comment
Calm Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 (edited) Are you atheist?How many times does someone have to tell you "no" before you accept the answer? Because if they know the amount they could tell you over and over in one post to be done with it and then we would never have to be subjected to this jerk of a question again.That someone can testify their beliefs in Christ and the Father and their hand in his life constantly all over the board and you still think it is appropriate to question their faith based on disagreement on the process used when God created the earth reminds me of antimormons who demand that LDS are not Christian even when we testify of Christ and seek to follow him because we see obedience as necessary or because we happen to believe the Father has a body just as the Son does.If Elder Talmage were to talk about an old earth, would you ask him if he was an atheist? Edited April 25, 2014 by calmoriah 1 Link to comment
Rob Osborn Posted April 25, 2014 Author Share Posted April 25, 2014 How many times does someone have to tell you "no" before you accept the answer? Because if they know the amount they could tell you over and over in one post to be done with it and then we would never have to be subjected to this jerk of a question again.That someone can testify their beliefs in Christ and the Father and their hand in his life constantly all over the board and you still think it is appropriate to question their faith based on disagreement on the process used when God created the earth reminds me of antimormons who demand that LDS are not Christian even when we testify of Christ and seek to follow him because we see obedience as necessary or because we happen to believe the Father has a body just as the Son does.If Elder Talmage were to talk about an old earth, would you ask him if he was an atheist?I still wonder because he posts anti-Christianand anti- cereation material and videos over and over again and then continually asks if I want to be grouped with these christians professing their belief in the resurrection, Christ and the creation. So, he either is not checking his lunks very carefully or he really is an atheist. Or perhaps, he has a split personality This unpleasant comment will end an unpleasant thread. Link to comment
Recommended Posts