Christian Scientific Methods

Category: So Stupid that’s it’s Funny!

scientificmethod

Here’s an example of Christian scientific proof used by Alexandru Curbert in a debate when he tries to prove the world is 7000 years old and that God created the World in 7 days:

Alexandru Curbert says: ” You’re right the Earth has a young age – almost 7000 years old.  And here you can find SCIENTIFIC PROOF:

http://alexcurbet.wordpress.com/2009/03/31/cate…
http://alexcurbet.wordpress.com/2009/02/16/fapt…

And by the way, The world was not created in 7 days, but in 6!”

😀 … I also liked the last one: ‘The world was not created in 7 days, but in 6!”  🙂  Me Fool! How could I not know that?! There’s a scientific METHOD to determine the age of earth: and that is to reference to the bible itself, just like we reference to our web-site when we try to make a point that we have “scientific proof” of something 🙂

Oh Look! It’s written in MY WEBSITE on the Internet by me, THEREFORE IT MUST be TRUE! 🙂

Alexandru Curbert says:

“Ai dreptate , Pământul are o vîrstă tînără- aproape de 7000 de ani, 
vezi şi dovezi ştiinţifice :
http://alexcurbet.wordpress.com/2009/03/31/cate…
http://alexcurbet.wordpress.com/2009/02/16/fapt…
Apropo, Dumnezeu nu a creat totul în 7 zile , ci în 6 zile.
Cât ţine de trimiterea din Levitic, ţi-am mai spus – trebuie să iei versetul în context, altfel devine un pretext. 
Dacă nu le vei lua în context vei ajunge la nişte erezii.”

Advertisements

24 Comments

  1. Nici nu ai citit articolele propuse de mine. Dădeam link-urile la două site-uri destul de documentate.
    Este ignorant şi arogant.

  2. Alexandru, the links are still valid. In fact i saw them. But you do have a very big LOGICAL FLOW.
    I will not argue with you that based on the method of radio decay we can determine the age because i assume you know that and I also assume that you KNOW (hopefully) that when the age of the object to be determined was subject to different env. circumstances than it can show you that it has an older age than it actually is.
    However, Whenever YOU find something that you cannot EXPLAIN, it merely means that YOU CANNOT YET EXPLAIN IT and further research is needed… IN NO WAY Does it Tell you that “IT MUST have been GOD that did it” and in our case, based on the links you gave, in NO WAY does the finding of a bell in carbonized wood constitute proof that the world is 7000 years old! Common! You must be kidding!

  3. Buna! tot te bati cu el? 🙂

  4. Alexandru, Pamantul are mult mai mult de 7000 de ani, si iata dovada:
    – an estimated 500 meteorites ranging in size from marbles to basketballs or larger do reach the surface each year; only 5 or 6 of these are typically recovered and made known to scientists. Few meteorites are large enough to create large impact craters. Instead, they typically arrive at the surface at their terminal velocity and, at most, create a small pit.

    -Most of the largest herbivorous specimens on record were all discovered in the 1970s or later, and include the massive Argentinosaurus, which may have weighed 80000 to 100000 kilograms (90 to 110 short tons).

  5. puteţi să traduceţi şi în română citatele de mai sus?

  6. Alexandru, noi nu suntem angajati ca sa traducem citate. 🙂

  7. Alexandru… tell me what you don’t understand and i will translate…
    spune ce nu intelegi si-ti traduc…

  8. – an estimated 500 meteorites ranging in size from marbles to basketballs or larger do reach the surface each year; only 5 or 6 of these are typically recovered and made known to scientists. Few meteorites are large enough to create large impact craters. Instead, they typically arrive at the surface at their terminal velocity and, at most, create a small pit.

    -Most of the largest herbivorous specimens on record were all discovered in the 1970s or later, and include the massive Argentinosaurus, which may have weighed 80000 to 100000 kilograms (90 to 110 short tons).

  9. hai baiete, ce nu poti traduce? deci nu are rost sa truduci ca argumentul ne adauga la discutia. Nu are sens.

    apropo, cum crezi despre potopul? s-a intimplat sau nu? Este scris si in Biblia.

  10. As an atheist who believes in evolution, what is the first uncaused cause that started it all in motion? Logic teaches us that something has to cause something else to happen. I know that is a difficult subject for you evolutionists to explain so please, humor me.

    • What does cosmology have to do with evolution? Your question belies your ignorance.

      While we do not yet know how the universe originated, this does not mean that we do not have purely natural hypotheses. Not only is this the case, there is nothing about the universe which points to an external agent at all. The universe looks exactly as it should in the absence of an external (whatever that means) creator.

      So, no. It’s not a difficult subject at all. Nor is the theist position immune from the infinite regress. What caused god? If you posit that nothing caused god, then why not just stop the regress at the universe instead of positing something extra and (as far as we can tell so far, and we can tell quite a bit) completely unnecessary?

      • Wow Shamelessly Atheist … right to the point! 🙂
        I wish I had the writing abilities you have! 🙂 You can say a lot in very few words!

      • Can we have a decent conversation like rational, civilized people without the name calling and put downs? I continue to show nothing but respect to you while you and your friends continue to talk down to me (even though you do not know me at all).

        It is a simple question. With micro-evolution, you set up a theory to remove God from the picture (not being able to demonstrate proof) you require faith from the followers of the theory (believe us because it happened that way, we cannot show you but believe us). Also, science teaches that something does not come from nothing. Macro-evolutionists have a hard time with this fact because according to the theory, there is no creator God so where did it all come from (what set the process in motion?)? Where did the matter come from since it cannot come from nothing? We know that the universe is not infinite (the big bang theory tells us that there was a beginning). Again where does the matter come from to set the stage for macro-evolution? You have no answer, and according to the theory, there is no rational being controlling the entire system so who/what created the matter and caused the big bang?

        The Bible explains this problem very easily, God was there before the big bang (He caused it). He is the uncaused first cause so creationists do not believe that everything came from nothing, we believe that matter came from something (and science proves the point).

        God does not have to be caused, He is the uncaused first cause. He has always existed (unlike the universe). He does not need a cause (creation). The infinite regress argument is pure smoke, it is spin to shift the focus on the argument at hand. Plus the infinite regress argument once again moves back to something coming from nothing.

        You wrote “The universe looks exactly as it should in the absence of an external (whatever that means) creator.”

        That is a conclusion based on your worldview. You interpret the information based on your worldview. I look at the same information and interpret it according to my worldview, that God is in control of the microscopic details of keeping the universe together and functioning on a second by second basis. Same info yet two totally different results (your worldview plays a huge role in how you interpret the info, so there is no such thing as purely scientific conclusions, your conclusions are biased according to your worldview not matter what the info is).

      • Erik, it wasn’t an ad hominem. Your question conflating two hugely differing disciplines (cosmology and evolution) displays ignorance. One who accepts evolution need know not a thing about cosmology and vice versa.

        As for first cause, several events come to mind which show how poor an argument it is – radioactive decay and formation of virtual particles. No cause is required for these quantum processes to occur.

        Also, science teaches that something does not come from nothing. Macro-evolutionists have a hard time with this fact because according to the theory, there is no creator God so where did it all come from (what set the process in motion?)? Where did the matter come from since it cannot come from nothing?

        OK. With this idiocy, It pisses me off when someone tries to present a facade of knowledge when it is quite clear they haven’t a clue about what they are speaking. YOU HAVE NO EXPECTION OF NOT BEING MOCKED MERCILIESSLY!!! What is this? What does evoluition have to do with the Big Bang? Why am I wasting my time on someone who can’t be bothered to get even the basic facts straight?

        Let me put this to you in terms anyone should be able to understand: I DO NOT NEED EVOLUTION TO REJECT THE NONSENSE OF CHRISTIANITY. I DO NOT NEED COSMOLOGY TO REJECT THE NONSENSE OF ANY RELIGION. I need only know that the claims of each and every religion are unfounded. That’s it! I don’t need to go round through every religion and disprove it. The burden of evidence is on those making the claim!

        Now, back to deciphering your text. What I think you mean to say is that there is a violation of the first law of thermodynamics, that energy can neither be created nor destroyed.

        This is true. The problem is that the net energy of the universe is indeed zero. Energy contained in mass (positive energy) and gravitational forces (negative) balance out exactly. Thus, there is no net formation of energy. Problem solved.

        Nor does the Big Bang hypothesis tell us the unvierse had a beginning. It does not. It tells us that space itself inflated, nothing more. We do not know what happened prior to about 10-43 sec after the event. The universe did not start as a singularity, and therefor time and space existed prior to the Big Bang.
        The Big Bang is NOT synonymous with the origin of the universe. If you had read “A Brief History of Time” you would know this already and I wouldn’t be wasting my time explaining it.

        In other words, there is not only no need for a cause for the universe, it is actually necessary. All of time and space is contained within the universe. There is no ‘outside’. Thus, an external cause is impossible.

        Does God explain the origin of the universe? Not one bit. How did said deity perform this act? Where there is no mechanism, there is no explanation.

        In answer to your question whether we can have a decent conversation like rational, civilized people, the answer is no, You have seen to that. You haven’t bothered to learn some of the most basic facts. You conflate evolution with cosmology. You are unaware of the glaring problems with the First Cause argument . You make use of the logic fallacy known as the ‘argument from ignorance’ to hide your god in. Rational, civilized people don’t do this. So, no. We can’t have a civil argument because you aren’t remotely prepared to do so.

  11. There’s good info here. I did a search on the topic and found most people will agree with your blog. Keep up the good work mate!

  12. bune imaginile 😀
    plac posturile si ideile tale in general

    interesant, interesant blog

  13. nope, eu ma ocup numai de colindarea unor bloguri ce mi se par interesante si aruncarea unor comentarii pe ici-colo 😀

    off, lenea e cucoana mare

  14. ps: nu te superi daca bag pe Facebook link cu postul asta !? 😀

  15. deloc 🙂

  16. Thanks, mai revin pe-aici.
    imi place ambientul 😀

  17. Tu iti faci studiile la universitatea din Valencia?

  18. emm..da
    iaca deam stii de nush unde 😀
    un’ sa ma ascund ?!..

  19. Shamelessly Atheist

    First of all, I am an educated man so you can drop the “crap” (pardon the expression) about being uneducated. I have studied both cosmology and evolution so again you do not have to talk down to me (I know that is one of your guys tactics, liberal progressives use the same methods, straight from Saul Alinksy).

    I try not to use technical terms when I write (I know them) so that people who speak in laymen’s terms will understand. I do not feel insecure about myself, thinking that I have to impress people by using words and terms that they do not understand. (that is another tactic that you guys use, instead of actually explaining an issue you just answer people’s questions with “its very complicated (too complicated for you to understand because you do not have out intellect, yet we cannot explain it in simple terms, so just believe us) or you just talk over people with jargon that no one understands).

    “radioactive decay” is your argument. What is decaying? Where did that come from? Who/what caused it? As far as “virtual particles”, static electricity, does the electricity just appear out of nowhere? No, there was a cause of it that allowed it to be set in motion, even if it appears spontaneously.

    “Christianity being nonsense” is your opinion, and being your opinion does not make correct. You want to reject Christianity and religion so any information that you receive from science will be interpreted through your worldview. You are biased so your “proof” is just your interpretation of the evidence. So you have the conclusion set and you seek evidence to arrive to your conclusion (rejecting what does not line up with your conclusion, whether the evidence is right or wrong).

    What claim in Christianity is unfounded? Again you have your opinion that you present as fact (just like your understanding of scientific evidence). You are once again blinded by your bias and no matter what the evidence is your interpret it to prove your pre-set conclusion.

    Problem not solved. You still do not know where the energy came from. Who created it and set it into motion? (or do we have to believe that energy came from nothing?). Your argument will always hit this wall.

    Where did the space itself come from? (or once again did it appear out of nothing?)
    We know the event has a starting point (so it is not infinite, if it were infinite then there would be no starting point).

    Where did the time and space come from? Until you can answer this without (infinity or just appearing then your argument has no meaning).

    So, when someone has a different opinion from you then it is a waste of time. What a great way to view the world. What if no one disagreed with the geocentric view of the world?

    God explains the origin of the universe quite well but you are so biased that you will not even consider that option even with tangible evidence for it.

    Science knows that there way a big bang (as the Bible teaches) and during that bang, time space and matter came into existence. I have written about that if you would bother to read a little.

    Who is being irrational? I consider your argument while you will not even consider mine. I have proof that you ignore you do not have proof yet your continue on in your argument. So irrationality is seen very clearly on your part. I have a secular education (I studied biology in a secular setting so I know your side of the argument, in fact I used to believe it until I realized how biased it is, the fact that it is more based on a worldview than on actual science.


Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s