[Trollbait] Questions creationists can't answer?

[Roger Stanyard]

Because scientists say things does not mean it is correct. They have interpretations on the science just like many others do.
The scientists did not create science, it was always here long before any of us.
Of course there is time and there is space. ( I already answered that, in another post)

Rubbish.

Science is entirely man made because it is a methodology - a pragmatic one that has been developed and tried and tested over the centuries.

People who don't understand that simple schoolboy basic have nothing at all to say about science. They don't and can't understand it.

So now we have established that you don't even know what science is and have no idea what a hypothesis or a theory is, what other idiotic statements are you going to come out with next?

[Roger Stanyard]

Where does the Bible discuss energy (in a SCIENTIFIC sense)? Chapter and verse, please.

Isaiah 40:26

Amplified Bible (AMP)

26Lift up your eyes on high and see! Who has created these? He Who brings out their host by number and calls them all by name; through the greatness of His might and because He is strong in power, not one is missing or lacks anything.



Jeremiah 10:12

New King James Version (NKJV)

12 He has made the earth by His power,
He has established the world by His wisdom,
And has stretched out the heavens at His discretion.



Jeremiah 32:17

New King James Version (NKJV)

17 ‘Ah, Lord God! Behold, You have made the heavens and the earth by Your great power and outstretched arm. There is nothing too hard for You.

There is no science at all in the Bible. Science is a methodology, not a subject. Nowhere in the Bible is the scientific method employed, not least because the scientific method was not put together until the 17th century.

The Bible is no more science that the works of Charles Dickens or Thomas Hardy.

[Roger Stanyard]

en·er·gy
   [en-er-jee] Show IPA
noun, plural -gies.
1.the capacity for vigorous activity; available power: I eat chocolate to get quick energy.

2. an adequate or abundant amount of such power: I seem to have no energy these days.

3. Often, energies. a feeling of tension caused or seeming to be caused by an excess of such power: to work off one's energies at tennis.

4. an exertion of such power: She plays tennis with great energy.

5. the habit of vigorous activity; vigor as a characteristic: Foreigners both admire and laugh at American energy.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/energy?s=t

It's a literary definition of the word energy as it is meant and used by speakers of the English language, not a universal scientific definition.

I suspect that anyone with a basic knowledge of 2LOT would rip you to shreds on this one.

[a_haworthroberts]

According to Sir Patrick Moore (in a couple of recent Daily Telegraph night sky booklets) astronomy is the oldest science. He doesn't say how old. But of course for a long time it was simply naked eye observation and noting down what was seen over time and in different places. A touch of this observational 'science' in the Bible - though the writers seemed to think that the Sun followed a course across the sky as it 'circled' the Earth (which is what observation appeared to suggest was actually happening, as Earth's rotation is not felt).

[MrDunday]

natman wrote:
Your lack of understanding is more testament to your ignorance than a true reflection of the science involved. You're taking the balloon example too literally.
Your inability to grasp scientific concepts is not proof that your own ideas are true.

How do you mean? Are you saying the universe in not literal?
So scientifically, what is nothing?

[MrDunday]

Happy to see what others think but (NB I don't know the words used in the original language) 'power' could mean 'might' or 'ability' rather than energy as such. The verses don't quite say that God made his power into the Earth and universe.

The Wycliffe translation uses the world 'strength'

Jeremiah 10:12

New King James Version (NKJV)



12 He has made the earth by His power,
He has established the world by His wisdom,
And has stretched out the heavens at His discretion.

[MrDunday]

Happy to see what others think but (NB I don't know the words used in the original language) 'power' could mean 'might' or 'ability' rather than energy as such. The verses don't quite say that God made his power into the Earth and universe.

The Wycliffe translation uses the world 'strength'

Jeremiah 10:12

New King James Version (NKJV)



12 He has made the earth by His power,
He has established the world by His wisdom,
And has stretched out the heavens at His discretion.

[MrDunday]

So I a have answered a few now it's your turn.

Why is it that the scientists can not explain how a cell got started? And why do they need 2 hypothesis?
Also why is it we don't see the transitional animals? The ones in between the defined species.
Why are there no almost humans and no ex-humans? The small little changes from one to another.
How did the first cell know it had to survive?
How did it know how too?
What did the first cell 'evolve' into?

[Dagsannr]

Why is it that the scientists can not explain how a cell got started? And why do they need 2 hypothesis?

2? There's a few hypothesis about how the first cell got started, we're not sure which it was. However, this doesn't make god the alternative.

Also why is it we don't see the transitional animals? The ones in between the defined species.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

Why are there no almost humans and no ex-humans? The small little changes from one to another.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils

How did the first cell know it had to survive?

Er, what?

How did it know how too?

Are you terminally dense? How do you know how to breathe? To digest food? To metabolise?

What did the first cell 'evolve' into?

All I'm getting from your questions is that you've no real idea what evolution is, or how it works.

[psiloiordinary]

More evidence you have no idea at all what you are talking about;

How did the first cell know it had to survive?
How did it know how too?

Why do you think a cell needs to know or is even capable of knowing anything?

How do we know you aren't a trick of the devil to make Christians look stupid?

This is a serious question.

[MrDunday]

Natman wrote:
2? There's a few hypothesis about how the first cell got started, we're not sure which it was. However, this doesn't make god the alternative.

The point is why do you need 2 hypothesis on the start to life, it is because you don know which one to choose, which really means they don't know. Neither could be correct. The other very import bit of evidence is that the reason they can't answer this is that a cell has to be put together, 'built.'
So this is not about God filling what the scientists do not know , it about why they do not know.
The scientists have to ask these questions.
How did the cell know it had to survive?
How did it know how to? This had to have happened the first time and many times or all you have is one cell. How did the DNA get the code for making all of this happen? There would not be any heredity in the first cell.
How did this chance of life, know to make food ( plants) for animals? And for correcting the atmosphere and make soil?
What did the first life 'evolve' into?

The scientists can only assume that this could happen at all, because we don't see it today. And because they believe in 'evolution' that means they have no choice but say life started from non life. But that is circular thinking and not scientific.
Also the only evidence we actually have is,
1- life comes from life
So strictly by the evidence we have, this is true. But the scientists base their ideas on assumptions.

[MrDunday]

More evidence you have no idea at all what you are talking about;

How did the first cell know it had to survive?
How did it know how too?

Why do you think a cell needs to know or is even capable of knowing anything?

How do we know you aren't a trick of the devil to make Christians look stupid?

This is a serious question.

Yes this is very serious.
That is exactly the point. The cell doesn't know.
So how did that cell work in the way which will make it survive and how to pass on it'self? The very first time? And more than once?
Scientists have assumed that it just happens. Even in a 'simple' cell, this idea of copying itself has to happen perfectly or you get nothing. This is not just splitting itself in half by chance.That would be half the parts in one cell and half the parts in another. That is not what happens, because that would be the end of it.
Why didn't the first cell just be alive and then die? That in itself would be astounding. Where did it get the info on how to survive and make more of itself?

[MrDunday]

Natman wrote:
Again, you're using a 3 dimensional shape erronously. The universe is 4 dimensional, it has no radius and circumference. It is possible for a 4 dimensional shape to expand in 3 dimensions and not expand into anything.

How so? The 4 dimension is time.

[Dr_GS_Hurd]

So how did that cell work in the way which will make it survive and how to pass on it'self? The very first time? And more than once?
Scientists have assumed that it just happens. Even in a 'simple' cell, this idea of copying itself has to happen perfectly or you get nothing. This is not just splitting itself in half by chance.That would be half the parts in one cell and half the parts in another. That is not what happens, because that would be the end of it.
Why didn't the first cell just be alive and then die? That in itself would be astounding. Where did it get the info on how to survive and make more of itself?

I looked briefly at your website. It is clear that nobody can try to use a scientific argument with you, because you cannot understand them. You seem proud of being ignorant. So, let me try something else. The first "cell" that could not replicate was not the cell we are the descendants from since it never had any. And, if a cell was a "perfect" replicator, it too would have died, and all of its replicated copies would have died a very great long while ago. The first example would have died by simple accident. The other because it could never adapt by evolution to live under the radically shifting conditions we know the Earth has experienced over the last 4.5 billion years, or just the 3.8 billion we can safely conclude life has existed. Life demands an imperfect replicator to survive. The utterly stupid creationist insistence that a few words in Genesis poorly translated as "very good" foolishly interpreted as "utterly perfect, and immutable" would literally spell the death of all life on Earth. All dead, very long ago.

[MrDunday]

Because scientists say things does not mean it is correct. They have interpretations on the science just like many others do.
The scientists did not create science, it was always here long before any of us.
Of course there is time and there is space. ( I already answered that, in another post)

Rubbish.

Science is entirely man made because it is a methodology - a pragmatic one that has been developed and tried and tested over the centuries.

People who don't understand that simple schoolboy basic have nothing at all to say about science. They don't and can't understand it.

So now we have established that you don't even know what science is and have no idea what a hypothesis or a theory is, what other idiotic statements are you going to come out with next?

All the laws that we know were around long be fore the scientists.So that is the study of that, is called science. Because they study it they call themselves scientists. All the scientists are really doing, is learning about what is already there. And they copy it.