[I've seen many attempts to make Genesis fit with modern science - none of them work. The Genesis account, taken literally, are just bad science. -artybloke]
Now that's an absolutist statement to make with no proof. Modern sceince makes a lot of assumptions for example there's never been enough time to prove that the decay of Carbon isotopes is a proved time. It's all theroy. Just like the THEROY of Evolution. Anytime a definitive statement is made centering around billions and billions of years (Saganism) there's no proof just assumption.
So to make your statement you MUST put faith in the (religous) SCIENCE statements that foist truth onto us by means of extrapolation of what they do know. The story of sceince is ever changing and corrupted by the sinful nature of man. I for one can't and won't accept anything they say as being the gospel truth when it comes to matters of unprovability.
42 comments
Saganism? Are you fucking serious?
Actually, I think I'm going to take up that title. Better than Christian.
Edit: oh, and what's The Roy of Evolution?
If you accept to be called a Jamesist (after the King James Bible), I'll gladly accept the Saganist title.
Besides, which Roy are talking about? Unless you mean a "theory", of course.
hmm... as you consistently fail to spell 'theory' and 'science' correctly, I'm making the assumption you know shit about both of these subjects.
And since the rest of your reasoning is deranged rambling, I'm even willing to call it a theory.... which will stand untill you prove otherwise, but sofar it's imho a valid working model.
'fundy talking about evolution ==> rambling badly spelled wordsalad'
let's call it Darn's theorem number 1
I know we've had other theroy rants. Apparently, misspelling in the same manner is a trait among fundies who know nothing of science.
Also, the childhood learning tool of I before E except after C is not a standing rule of spelling.
Oh, I get it now - "gospel" is a qualifier, meaning "NOTTT!" as in "gospel truth"=other than
"My friend, I'ma gonna tell ya the gospel truth right here an' now - this here little car yer alookin' at was owned by a little old lady who . . ."
The Roy of Evolution. Must be a French scientist, like The Rey of Sunshine might be a Spanish solar heating expert.
I wanna be a Saganist.
Now that's an absolutist statement to make with no proof. Modern sceince makes a lot of assumptions for example there's never been enough time to prove that the decay of Carbon isotopes is a proved time.
Yeah, 'cause you know when something is working at a rate that fits to a pretty simple curve, you can't you know, mathematically extrapolate how long the thing's gonna take. You have to time the entire process.
Bollocks. Approximations? All the time, but assumptions? No. But the point of approximations is that they are approximately correct.
Example: the half life of Carbon. We may not know it exactly, but we know it definitely to within several significant figures. In other words, if carbon dating says something is 100000 years old, you can bet your arse it isn't less than 6000.
Hmmm, maybe you should apply your feelings on unprovability to some other things as well, such as, say, the Bible?
Science takes evidence/facts and assesses them on their own merits. From this it formulates THEORIES (NOT THE ROYS!). These theories gain acceptance or are discarded in the light of the discovery of furthers knowledge.
In the light of present knowledge, Genesis is unsustainable as fact. It is myth. It casts light on the mindset of those who developed it, just like all creation myths.
Religion is not science and never can be, because it posits that there is a 'holy book' that contains all the answers, even thought it was written about 600 BC when people's awareness of the world and the cosmos was very limited. It claims divine authorship, to be sure, but there is no record of gaws ever putting pen to paper other than the story of the 10 commandments. Moreover, the bible is riven with internal contradiction and 'facts' that are clearly mistaken or just plain stupid. No self respecting deity would be able to identify with it and save face. But there are always plenty of fundies who are prepared to stick their necks out and make monumental displays of their ignorance and closed minds. They are utterly shameless about it. But this is to the good as anyone who thinks for the briefest period, sees their lunacy and has a quiet laugh about it, and pities them.
Sceince? Theroy? Religous? How can we take this seriously?
The story of science is ever changing, you mutt, because it is continually being examined and tested for verification. Extrapolation (to formulate hypotheses leading, if viable, to theories) is important because it encourages further exploration; without it science would grind to a halt and so would our civilisation.
Contrary to your belief, science doesn't assume. It calculates educated probabilities (hypotheses) by extrapolating from available evidence (facts), and then it goes on to check them and verify them. If this can be done, as new supporting evidence accumulates, the hypotheses will eventually become theories some of them so well backed up that they are virtual certainties. And still the search for more evidence continues, because that it what scientists do: search for the absolute truth.
This cannot always happen because evidence is not available, and may never be: but in the case of evolution, there is so much uncontested evidence that the likelihood of its not being true is infinitesimally small. It is therefore almost universally accepted in the science community as being true.
And religion has not been able to refute any of this science, although its adherents write illiterate tripe like this to pretend it has. The trouble is it takes another fundy to believe it, and no-one with any grasp on reality will be hoodwinked by it.
fergus
@Fanatic-Templar
The roy is dead, long live the roy! Oh, you bet he is !
Unlike like Religion, Science is the search for truth. Science does not try to keep us in boundaries and structures with fear. Everything starts with a theory. It can be proved or disproved. There have been many scientists who believed in a theory and when tested out, it didn't work and these scientists ACCEPT IT. Unlike Religion, Science does not take certain laws of physics and apply them to their life, and disregard the others we refuse to believe. Christianity for example, it's followers tend formulate everything around the belief that God is testing them. Do you know how long it takes for crops or a flower to grow and bloom? Do you really think some guy in the sky created all of this with his magic finger? Or was he a carpenter, construction worker that built it all with his own two hands. It's not hard to see that you're all hiding behind the bible to avoid death by creating an afterlife. Nothing is eternal, even stars burn out.
Scientists retract ideas and theories all of the time, but figureheads and followers of religions don't. They simple make the jagged puzzle pieces fit. If you do that long enough, the entire puzzle looks like a piece of shit; There's no clear picture.
Please read your bible again, take a look at some history books, and brush up on your knowledge of carbon dating.
i before e except after c
Most people know the spelling rule about i before e except after c, as in the following words:
-ie- -ei-
The rule only applies when the sound represented is ee’, though. It doesn’t apply to words like science or efficient, in which the ie- combination does follow the letter c but isn’t pronounced ee’.
Neither does the rule apply to any word without the ee sound, even when there is no c involved. For example:
-ei- (not pronounced ee)
There are a few exceptions to the general i before e rule, even when the sound is ee’. Examples include seize, weird, and caffeine. There’s nothing for it but to learn how to spell these words, checking in a dictionary until you are sure about them.
- OxfordDictionaries.com
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
