discussion style in faith vs. science

[thomas t]

Dear friends,

what kind of discussion do we want to have here?

 

I don't want to attack anybody personally (Mark, I hope you won't feel offended). I just quote others to show what they wrote in order to ask whether this is the style we want to have on this forum.

 

I personally would like to have a debate in which people back up what they say either by logic or by scripture or by scientific sources or by a combination of these three.

 

In my opinion, we'll find the following phenomena in the quoted replies.

 

1) pressure

2) prejudice

 

 

 

The reason is that you do not have an answer.

 

 

Furthermore any answer given would just further prove the evolution of atoms to mankind false.

 

As far as I know there is no answer from the evolutionists on these questions.

 

How can evolution win if this vital point is not even answered yet?

 

How can it ever be sold as remotely true if there is no answer?

 

 

This answer was written as the discussion partner was wanting to opt out. This is setting somebody under pressure, I think. Furthermore, the author categorizes a priori any answer as false.

 

 

 

Is there any answer for any of these questions by anybody?

 

Go to a library, museum, and/or university and look!

 

I already know what most of the answers that evolutionists would give to these questions. 

 

Here are the answers:

 

 

 

Here again, the author is telling us he already knows before asking his quesions.

 

3) sources unrevealed

 

I have read a number of books, looked at many sites, read some technical articles, and other things. I do not like revealing too much about myself on the internet.

 

 

The author was asked to be specific which books he cited. In a scientific debate I understand quoting sources as vital. If anybody doesn't want to name his sources, nobody could go read and verify. I think, hiding sources is unfair and further diminishes the quality of the discussion.

 

Have a good day

Thomas

[MarkNigro]

 

Dear friends,

what kind of discussion do we want to have here?

 

I don't want to attack anybody personally (Mark, I hope you won't feel offended). I just quote others to show what they wrote in order to ask whether this is the style we want to have on this forum.

 

I personally would like to have a debate in which people back up what they say either by logic or by scripture or by scientific sources or by a combination of these three.

 

In my opinion, we'll find the following phenomena in the quoted replies.

 

1) pressure

2) prejudice

 

 

 

The reason is that you do not have an answer.

 

 

Furthermore any answer given would just further prove the evolution of atoms to mankind false.

 

As far as I know there is no answer from the evolutionists on these questions.

 

How can evolution win if this vital point is not even answered yet?

 

How can it ever be sold as remotely true if there is no answer?

 

 

This answer was written as the discussion partner was wanting to opt out. This is setting somebody under pressure, I think. Furthermore, the author categorizes a priori any answer as false.

 

 

 

Is there any answer for any of these questions by anybody?

 

Go to a library, museum, and/or university and look!

 

I already know what most of the answers that evolutionists would give to these questions. 

 

Here are the answers:

 

 

 

Here again, the author is telling us he already knows before asking his quesions.

 

3) sources unrevealed

 

I have read a number of books, looked at many sites, read some technical articles, and other things. I do not like revealing too much about myself on the internet.

 

 

The author was asked to be specific which books he cited. In a scientific debate I understand quoting sources as vital. If anybody doesn't want to name his sources, nobody could go read and verify. I think, hiding sources is unfair and further diminishes the quality of the discussion.

 

Have a good day

Thomas

 

I do not take offense.

 

I am only trying to get people to see that in trying to determine origins everyone has an approach that is based on a religious assumption.

 

As to the naming of books that I have read, that was a little silly. Here is why.

 

I have read many books over the course of the last 40+ years about Math, Statistics, Physics, Biology, Logic,  and Chemistry. I do not even have all these books with me. I could not possibly remember the names of these books.

 

I do have a number of these books and I could go and get the info on these books. But as I was on my way to do so, I realized that it is wasting my time. In effect, whether intentional of not, it was a demeaning request.

 

The same holds for all the articles I have read and internet site I have looked at.

 

I believe I am more than qualified to discuss these matters.

 

The matter started when I asked for information as to what do evolutionist believe were the answers to some very important questions.

 

In all my years of looking at any literature about these I have never come across a single answer to these questions. 

 

When I posted the question, I could not know that there was no answer since I had not looked at ALL literature.

 

When no answer was given by anyone on these topics from people who are knowledgeable on this subject, it was then that it dawned on me that there were no answers to the questions I asked.

 

This is a major problem with evolutionary theory as it stands. It is important to know that there are no answers to these important questions. Thus it really isn't a theory that should be taught in public school.

 

Also it makes it extremely difficult to refute a theory which in essence is just a conjecture. Because then you need to go through all possibilities.

 

That is why I wanted the answers to my questions so I can show that the answer must be false from simple Biology, Chemistry, Math, Logic, Physics and Statistics.

 

When I got no answer, now I must have to disprove the following combinations.

 

First creature: protein or RNA or DNA or something else

Frist creature: long chain of amino acid or nucleotides or a small chain of either.

Second creature: small jump from first creature or large jump from creature.

 

​The reason the perosn might feel pressure is that in essence he might not understand that the theory of evolution is just a conjecture based on a religious assumption and there are no answers yet on key points.

 

The problem is that most evolutionist literature is a conclusion but without sound facts and logic behind them.

 

Thanks,

Mark

[JDavis]

The problem here is that you do not do what you ask others to do.

You stated as fact that there is proof that the earth is no more than 6000 years old.

I asked many times for you to provide this proof and you have chosen not to do so.

You have stated you can prove the Creator of the universe is God Almighty, without using the Bible.

I have asked many times for you to do so, but you have chosen not to.

I will close with this, the thing that makes me doubt your background is your use of the word "proof".

As a stats guy I know that stats can never prove anything, to say that stats offer proof is to not understand the very nature of statistics.

Science is very much the same way, the point of science is not to prove things.

To use the words "proof" and "prove" demonstrate a basic misunderstanding of science

[MarkNigro]

The problem here is that you do not do what you ask others to do.

You stated as fact that there is proof that the earth is no more than 6000 years old.

I asked many times for you to provide this proof and you have chosen not to do so.

You have stated you can prove the Creator of the universe is God Almighty, without using the Bible.

I have asked many times for you to do so, but you have chosen not to.

I will close with this, the thing that makes me doubt your background is your use of the word "proof".

As a stats guy I know that stats can never prove anything, to say that stats offer proof is to not understand the very nature of statistics.

Science is very much the same way, the point of science is not to prove things.

To use the words "proof" and "prove" demonstrate a basic misunderstanding of science

I only asked that they admit that they have a religious assumption.

[JDavis]

The problem here is that you do not do what you ask others to do.

You stated as fact that there is proof that the earth is no more than 6000 years old.

I asked many times for you to provide this proof and you have chosen not to do so.

You have stated you can prove the Creator of the universe is God Almighty, without using the Bible.

I have asked many times for you to do so, but you have chosen not to.

I will close with this, the thing that makes me doubt your background is your use of the word "proof".

As a stats guy I know that stats can never prove anything, to say that stats offer proof is to not understand the very nature of statistics.

Science is very much the same way, the point of science is not to prove things.

To use the words "proof" and "prove" demonstrate a basic misunderstanding of science

I only asked that they admit that they have a religious assumption.

Any chance you will admit you don't have proof that the earth is only 6000 years old?

[MarkNigro]

 

 

The problem here is that you do not do what you ask others to do.

You stated as fact that there is proof that the earth is no more than 6000 years old.

I asked many times for you to provide this proof and you have chosen not to do so.

You have stated you can prove the Creator of the universe is God Almighty, without using the Bible.

I have asked many times for you to do so, but you have chosen not to.

I will close with this, the thing that makes me doubt your background is your use of the word "proof".

As a stats guy I know that stats can never prove anything, to say that stats offer proof is to not understand the very nature of statistics.

Science is very much the same way, the point of science is not to prove things.

To use the words "proof" and "prove" demonstrate a basic misunderstanding of science

I only asked that they admit that they have a religious assumption.

Any chance you will admit you don't have proof that the earth is only 6000 years old?

 

None at all.

Any chance that you will admit that you do not have a single fact, not based on a religious assumption, of anything older than 6,000 years.

Any chance that you will admit that you have a religious assumption in how you approach determining origins.

Any chance that you will admit that the teaching of evolution from atoms to mankind and long ages of the universe in public schools violates the establishment clause of the US constitution.

Any chance that you will admit that of the other questions that I asked you do not have an answer.

[JDavis]

The problem here is that you do not do what you ask others to do.

You stated as fact that there is proof that the earth is no more than 6000 years old.

I asked many times for you to provide this proof and you have chosen not to do so.

You have stated you can prove the Creator of the universe is God Almighty, without using the Bible.

I have asked many times for you to do so, but you have chosen not to.

I will close with this, the thing that makes me doubt your background is your use of the word "proof".

As a stats guy I know that stats can never prove anything, to say that stats offer proof is to not understand the very nature of statistics.

Science is very much the same way, the point of science is not to prove things.

To use the words "proof" and "prove" demonstrate a basic misunderstanding of science

I only asked that they admit that they have a religious assumption.

Any chance you will admit you don't have proof that the earth is only 6000 years old?

None at all.

Any chance that you will admit that you do not have a single fact, not based on a religious assumption, of anything older than 6,000 years.

Any chance that you will admit that you have a religious assumption in how you approach determining origins.

Any chance that you will admit that the teaching of evolution from atoms to mankind and long ages of the universe in public schools violates the establishment clause of the US constitution.

Any chance that you will admit that of the other questions that I asked you do not have an answer.

I never made any of those claims so I have nothing to admit.

Now, you have made a claim about the age of the earth, and you now refuse to support it or to withdraw it.

Why do you ask others to do something that you refuse to do?

[MarkNigro]

 

 

 

 

The problem here is that you do not do what you ask others to do.

You stated as fact that there is proof that the earth is no more than 6000 years old.

I asked many times for you to provide this proof and you have chosen not to do so.

You have stated you can prove the Creator of the universe is God Almighty, without using the Bible.

I have asked many times for you to do so, but you have chosen not to.

I will close with this, the thing that makes me doubt your background is your use of the word "proof".

As a stats guy I know that stats can never prove anything, to say that stats offer proof is to not understand the very nature of statistics.

Science is very much the same way, the point of science is not to prove things.

To use the words "proof" and "prove" demonstrate a basic misunderstanding of science

I only asked that they admit that they have a religious assumption.

Any chance you will admit you don't have proof that the earth is only 6000 years old?

None at all.

Any chance that you will admit that you do not have a single fact, not based on a religious assumption, of anything older than 6,000 years.

Any chance that you will admit that you have a religious assumption in how you approach determining origins.

Any chance that you will admit that the teaching of evolution from atoms to mankind and long ages of the universe in public schools violates the establishment clause of the US constitution.

Any chance that you will admit that of the other questions that I asked you do not have an answer.

I never made any of those claims so I have nothing to admit.

Now, you have made a claim about the age of the earth, and you now refuse to support it or to withdraw it.

Why do you ask others to do something that you refuse to do?

 

Because my claim isn't being taught in the public schools. Theirs is.

[Guest]

Don't Worry, Be Happy

 

They continually say to those who reject what the LORD has said, 'Things will go well for you!' They say to all those who follow the stubborn inclinations of their own hearts, 'Nothing bad will happen to you!' Jeremiah 23:17 (NET Bible)

 

~

 

Any chance you will admit you don't have proof that the earth is only 6000 years old?

 

~

 

Beloved, The Only Proof I Know Of

 

Now when all the people were baptized, it came to pass, that Jesus also being baptized, and praying, the heaven was opened,

 

And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.

 

And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,

 

Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph,

 

Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge,

 

Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda,

 

Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri,

 

Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er,

 

Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi,

 

Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim,

 

Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David,

 

Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson,
 

Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of Juda,

 

Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor,

 

Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala,

 

Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech,

 

Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan,

 

Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God. Luke 3:21-38

 

Is To Question Someone

 

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 (NIV)

 

Who Was There

 

Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. Genesis 1:2 (NIV)

 

And To Trust

 

Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. Acts 17:11 (NIV)

 

His Word

 

Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever. Psalms 119:160

 

See?

 

What if some were unfaithful? Will their unfaithfulness nullify God’s faithfulness? Not at all! Let God be true, and every human being a liar. As it is written: “So that you may be proved right when you speak and prevail when you judge.” Romans 3:3-4 (NIV)

 

~

 

Dear Brother, On A Personal Note I Find That When Some Scientists

 

How foolish can you be? He is the Potter, and he is certainly greater than you, the clay! Should the created thing say of the one who made it, "He didn't make me"? Does a jar ever say, "The potter who made me is stupid"? Isaiah 29:16 (NLT)

 

"Discover" The Words Of God To Be Proven False

 

So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. Romans 17:17

 

They Have Applied A Presumptive

 

Yea, hath God said, Genesis 3:1(c )

 

Mind Killer To Their

 

See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the elemental spiritual forces of this world rather than on Christ. Colossians 2:8 (NIV)

 

Research

 

The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. Psalms 19:1

 

See

 

Take care, brethren, that there not be in any one of you an evil, unbelieving heart that falls away from the living God. Hebrews 3:12 (NASB)

 

~

 

Be Blessed Beloved Of The KING

 

The LORD bless thee, and keep thee:
The LORD make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee:
The LORD lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace.

 

And they shall put my name upon the children of Israel; and I will bless them. Numbers 6:24-27

 

Love, Your Brother Joe

 

~

 

Once I Had All The Answers

 

O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: 1 Timothy 6:20

 

Until I Became A Child

 

Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein. Luke 18:17

 

Again

 

But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. Hebrews 11:6

[JDavis]

The problem here is that you do not do what you ask others to do.

You stated as fact that there is proof that the earth is no more than 6000 years old.

I asked many times for you to provide this proof and you have chosen not to do so.

You have stated you can prove the Creator of the universe is God Almighty, without using the Bible.

I have asked many times for you to do so, but you have chosen not to.

I will close with this, the thing that makes me doubt your background is your use of the word "proof".

As a stats guy I know that stats can never prove anything, to say that stats offer proof is to not understand the very nature of statistics.

Science is very much the same way, the point of science is not to prove things.

To use the words "proof" and "prove" demonstrate a basic misunderstanding of science

I only asked that they admit that they have a religious assumption.

Any chance you will admit you don't have proof that the earth is only 6000 years old?

None at all.

Any chance that you will admit that you do not have a single fact, not based on a religious assumption, of anything older than 6,000 years.

Any chance that you will admit that you have a religious assumption in how you approach determining origins.

Any chance that you will admit that the teaching of evolution from atoms to mankind and long ages of the universe in public schools violates the establishment clause of the US constitution.

Any chance that you will admit that of the other questions that I asked you do not have an answer.

I never made any of those claims so I have nothing to admit.

Now, you have made a claim about the age of the earth, and you now refuse to support it or to withdraw it.

Why do you ask others to do something that you refuse to do?

Because my claim isn't being taught in the public schools. Theirs is.

You and I have no effect on what is taught in schools.

You made a claim and have now refused to support that claim, so the only conclusion i can draw is you know your claim is false