Navaros #fundie

Navaros #fundie imdb.com

[Science may contradict logic, but it doesn't contradict facts the way religion does.]

Sure it does, at least, the darwinism which you mislabel as "science" does.

Here are some of the facts that your so-called "science" contradicts but which God's Word does not:

The scientific law of biogenesis: only life can begat life.

Each kind only ever reproduces after it's own kind.

God created the kinds male and female.

And moreover, darwinists' own self-proclaimed "facts" contradict each other all the time. I.e. Pluto is a planet vs. Pluto is not a planet, brontosaurus is a dinosaur vs. brontosaurus is not a dinosaur. Those are completely contradictory claims, all of which your darwinist kind have lyingly proclaimed as "scientific facts." That is irrefutable evidence that darwinists' claims about what is "science" or "fact" are not reliable and cannot be trusted.

28 comments

old comment by TimeToTurn

Each kind only ever reproduces after it's own kind.

Define "kind". Whenever creationists do it, they seem to create bizarre definitions that make no logical sense (see baraminology and its implied hyperevolution).

God created the kinds male and female.

Well, except all the species which reproduce asexually and all that.

That's just science moving on, because unlike the Bible, science has the capability to change based on the natural world.

Further, even creationist sources like Bob Jones University agree with science in that Pluto isn't a planet (source, I had a textbook when I was at a Christian school that mentioned that). I bet creationist sources nowadays will say brontosaurus is a dinosaur, since creationists rip off real science all the time.

That is irrefutable evidence that darwinists' claims about what is "science" or "fact" are not reliable and cannot be trusted.

No, that's irrefutable evidence that science is superior to the Bible, because science is the record of what people nowadays best know about the universe, while the "science" in the Bible is what 2,500 year old Middle Eastern goat herders knew about their world.

old comment by Vifibi

What is better--to know nothing, or to KNOW you know nothing?

I always find these "Science changed its mind!" types hilarious. They try to paint scientists as indecisive buffoons, when really, all they're doing is showing how they can't divorce words from reality.

Let's be clear about something. Whether Pluto is a planet or not, Pluto is still orbiting the Sun. It is still in our solar system. It will probably still be part of many a science-fiction story. Pluto hasn't CHANGED. What has changed is our classification of it, because our methods of describing planets, asteroids, planetoids and other orbiting formations have become more accurate and minute over time. We haven't suddenly shrunk Pluto into a mini-planet, we just better understood what it IS. Same with the Brontosaurus (I'm much better acquainted with astronomy than with evolution, but isn't that the dinosaur that was discovered to be made out of different dinosaurs by mistake?).

old comment by The Mimic Octopus

"God created the kinds male and female."
Except for hermaphrodites and those that reproduce asexually.
And how do you explain parthenogenetic species? Were they always parthenogenitic? Were they created male and female and acquired parthenogenesis? Are they all Begotten Daughters of God?

"Pluto is a planet vs. Pluto is not a planet"
It is nothing but a reorganisation of human terminology. The facts about Pluto did not change. Or do you really believe that a woman transforms into another biological entity when she marries, changing her title from Miss to Mrs. and her family name to that of her husband?
On second thought, I do not want to know.

"brontosaurus is a dinosaur vs. brontosaurus is not a dinosaur."
Brontosaurus was never believed to be not a dinosaur. On the contrary, it was merely believed to be be identical with a different dinosaur.

Have you ever heard of the term "heresy"? Only someone who is utterly ignorant about the history of Christianity or extremely dishonest can deny that Christian theology is unchanging and free of disputes - disputes often settled by far less civil ways than even the worst of academic feuds. Even Fundies theolog evolves, e.g. inventing the Rapture in the 19th Century.

old comment by John

Pluto is what it is. The only thing that changed was the definition of the word "planet". The animal we used to call "brontosaurus" is still a dinosaur called "apatosaurus". The name "brontosaurus" was dropped chiefly because it was discovered that the famous dinosaur the American Museum of Natural History in NYC had labeled "brontosaurus" was actually an apatosaurus. There's no "scientific law" of abiogenesis. We don't yet know where the first life came from. That doesn't mean that therefore came from the Judaeo-Christian God's magic wand. If each "kind" (whatever that is) only ever reproduces after its own kind, how come we never find fossils of modern animals mixed with ancient extinct ones? Why does the fossil record look as if animals came into being, lived for a time and went extinct to be replaced by new ones?

old comment by Phil O'Macedon

The original "Brontosaurus" specimen discovered was a juvenile and rather incomplete(1879). It was named Apatosaurus Ajax. Two years later a much better and larger specimen was found and named Brontosaurus Excelsus. Re-examination in 1903 determined that the two specimens were of the same genus. This finding was published in a rather obscure scientific journal and took time to get around, by wich time Brontosaurus, the "Thunder Lizard" was well known. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature has long mandated that the older nomenclature is the correct one by precedence. Thus, for common usage Brontosaurus is okay, though not correct. Writers on serious scientific topics should always use Apatosaurus. Simple, no?

"Planet" is an abstract category. It's rather arbitrary and to change the definition doesn't falsify any scientific claims. It is just irrelevant. You could call such objects "spaceballs" and devide them in neat little categories according to color, or rotation speed and no scientific claim would be falsified. Pluto is absolutly meaningless for your "argument" - and there wasn't ever any big ass reptile which called itself a Brontosaurus. There were certain scientific reasons to consider "Brontosaurus" as synonymous with "Apatosaurus", and because of science we found out it wasn't just a synonyme.
Both changes were made because of science, not despite of science.
But of course one has first to understand what science is, how it works and why it is useful to understand this - and I suspect that you aren't interested to do so.

Navaros #fundie imdb.com

28 comments

Confused?