[Fencepost88]

Re: Homeschool Science Lessons: Proving atheists wrong with science

mentally handicapped? I'm not the one who saw a bunch of pretty numbers and assumed that the entire article was correct merely because the calculations were beyond my own grasp of maths. And if I'm reading correctly that post was only about the fact that I didn't read the name of the person who was talking to me. For that you spout a torrent of abstract questions at me, in which I'm pretty sure you tried to call my mother a whore whilst avoiding actually saying it. And I'm the one who belongs in an institution? You seem to be a very troubled and hostile man, just the sort of soul God needs to take mercy on oh and since I'm apparently your son, how did you tell the difference between my mother and a whore?

[FaithInMySoul]

Re: Homeschool Science Lessons: Proving atheists wrong with science

oops dreadfully sorry didymus, didn't read poster name, assumed you were the same guy from before having a dig at me. getting a little passionate here, feeling a little hostility from people, I didn't even say anything wrong. I'm disagreeing with the words of a human being who has butchered mathematics and simple logic, not the word of God.

Listen here son, you mentally handicapped folks should not be allowed to post on the internet, ya hear! You go on about mixing up people on the internet, how do you tell your mother from the whores selling their souls to the devil? How do you know the difference between satan and God? I thought they kept your kind locked up in some kind of institution. God have mercy on your soul!

[Fencepost88]

Re: Homeschool Science Lessons: Proving atheists wrong with science

oops dreadfully sorry didymus, didn't read poster name, assumed you were the same guy from before having a dig at me. getting a little passionate here, feeling a little hostility from people, I didn't even say anything wrong. I'm disagreeing with the words of a human being who has butchered mathematics and simple logic, not the word of God.

[Fencepost88]

Re: Homeschool Science Lessons: Proving atheists wrong with science

only read the first Harry Potter, not a big fan tbh. I have read the bible tho, cover to cover, when I was younger obviously. I do plan to read it again soon though. see that's what I do, read something before I judge it's content. that way I now what I'm judging, never in my life have I picked up a bible (or any book for that matter) looked at it briefly then said 'too many words, probably written by a fool.' Admittedly I have read things with many words that I have regretted reading like the article in the original post. and as people seem to not want to read the post where I disproved the entire article I shall sumarise it thus.

1. The article does not prove atheists wrong, nor doe it do so with science
2. The entire argument is based on the estimated amount of water currently on earth
3. The entire argument is based on the estimated amount of people currently on earth
4. The article neither proves nor disproves that the earth has been around for 6000 or 3 billion years
5. This article being incorrect neither proves nor disproves Christianity or atheism

and if you want a really short summary
The article in the original post is a completely meaningless misuse of maths but it does not matter that it is incorrect because that does not make anyone except the author wrong.

[Didymus Much]

Re: Homeschool Science Lessons: Proving atheists wrong with science

...nicely put, how many words are there in the bible?...

Less than in Harry Potter, but I bet you've read that.

Seriously, read it. 2 books/day, you'll be done in a month, and then you'll KNOW what the Bible actually says, instead of taking people's word for it.

[Brother Harold Porter]

Re: Homeschool Science Lessons: Proving atheists wrong with science

Brother Harold, please tell me you read more than just the first few lines and didn't just abandon reading because I'm an agnostic, I did not attempt to disprove Christianity throughout that entire post. It was only an assessment of the article this thread is based on and the reasons I believe it does not support christian beliefs.

My friend, those are your words. "I don’t know the facts of how the world works".

Anything beyond that would simply be your personal conjecture and guesswork. Please tell me this makes sense?

Now, if you can set aside the time and afford us the common courtesy of reading the entire thread, you will find that any issues or concerns you have with the topic have been soundly refuted.

Kindly make efficient use of God's precious bandwidth.

In Christ

[Fencepost88]

Re: Homeschool Science Lessons: Proving atheists wrong with science

Brother Harold, please tell me you read more than just the first few lines and didn't just abandon reading because I'm an agnostic, I did not attempt to disprove Christianity throughout that entire post. It was only an assessment of the article this thread is based on and the reasons I believe it does not support christian beliefs.

[Fencepost88]

Re: Homeschool Science Lessons: Proving atheists wrong with science

So you thought making the font BIGGER would help?

I split it up a bit also

[Brother Harold Porter]

Re: Homeschool Science Lessons: Proving atheists wrong with science

Sorry about that, I didn't preview before I posted. Have cleaned it up a bit and corrected some mistakes I had made that I noticed. any better?

I am an agnostic and my belief is that I don’t know the facts of how the world works, came into being, how old it is etc.

Yes, the paragraphs helped, but I've taken it a step further and summarized it for you.

In Christ

[Mary Etheldreda]

Re: Homeschool Science Lessons: Proving atheists wrong with science

So you thought making the font BIGGER would help?

[Fencepost88]

Re: Homeschool Science Lessons: Proving atheists wrong with science

Ecclesiastes 5:3
For a dream cometh through the multitude of business; and a fool's voice is known by multitude of words.

YIC

Jack

nicely put, how many words are there in the bible? don't know about you but I judge a message by the quality of it's words not the quantity.

[Fencepost88]

Re: Homeschool Science Lessons: Proving atheists wrong with science

Sorry about that, I didn't preview before I posted. Have cleaned it up a bit and corrected some mistakes I had made that I noticed. any better?

Firstly I’d like to ask that this post be taken as what it is, an analysis of the original source posted at the beginning of this thread. As much as possible I am trying to remain unbiased, I am not trying to denounce Christianity/promote atheism or visa versa. I am an agnostic and my belief is that I don’t know the facts of how the world works, came into being, how old it is etc.

However the article posted at the beginning of this thread is a ridiculous waste of time for anyone to use to prove or disprove anything. Starting at the title ‘Proving Atheists Wrong With Science’ It’s a very snappy title, very eye grabbing and I would be intrigued to read anything that actually attempted to do what the title says, but it is in fact just the first of many meaningless pieces of language used throughout. Not all atheists are necessarily scientists, just as not all Christians dispute science (or at least don’t dispute some of it’s more basic less blasphemic principles). This article contains no science, which it is claiming to use to prove ‘atheists’ wrong; it is all mathematics, over simplified mathematics at that.

The entire argument proposed in the article can be dismissed just by more accurately wording the first statement made thus; ‘ The estimated amount of water on Earth at this current time is 1.386x10^21.’ Now if you look at this sentence again having read the entire article you notice the first fatal flaw, all the calculations of how much water would, should, could be left given certain periods of time have been made by making deductions from the current amount of water, it means nothing except maybe that we will have consumed 9 times the world’s water in 3 billion years if all factors remain the same. Basically if I gave you a 2 litre bottle of water that had 50ml of water left in it told you I had been drinking 1ml a day from it and asked you to tell me when I put water in it you couldn’t because you do not know how much water was originally in the bottle, you could however tell me that I was going to run out of water in 50 days.

The next two statements are some estimates, the first is probably one of the most rational figures used in the entire article as it is stated to be an estimate based on the optimal drinking quantity per day (also probably the only piece of science) although I do argue with the employment of the term use, consume would of probably been a more adequate word to use.

Next up the 6 billion people on earth, again same argument as the quantity of water on earth, if I employed the same bottle experiment and told you 5 people had drunk from it today, you wouldn’t know how many people had drunk from it in previous days. Next we get to the agenda of the article writer, in 6000 years based on the figures used above we would of only used 0.0012% of the water on earth. Well apart from the fact that the figures provided and the maths used doesn’t prove that as I have already stated, even if it did, it would only prove that this is a possibility, and would leave the possibility of the world having existed for up to 80000 times that (allowing for a 96% consumption of water). Please note I’m not saying that the calculations I just made are an accurate aging of the planet follow what I’m saying and don’t assume I’m trying to claim to know anything for certain.

Next statement asks us to compare to what ‘atheists’ say (again the author means scientists) that ‘life’ has existed on the planet for 3 billion years, strange jump from human population to life there, and the only mention of life as a whole lest we realise how ridiculous an argument this is, now I’m not going to sit here and do the math or anything but I think it is fairly safe to assume that if all life were taken into consideration the percentage of water consumed would be considerably higher.

The argument continues, taking only human consumption in calculations. So we would of drunk 9.5 times the amount of water on the planet. Well we would of drunk an amount of water equivalent to 9.5 times the amount of water on the planet, nowhere in this argument does it disprove the possibility that there was 9.5 times the amount of water on the planet 3 billion years ago (again I’m not saying there was, merely highlighting the lack of any actual argument or proof in this article).

Finally the logical part of the article comes to an end claiming that it is impossible for us to have drunk 9.5 times the amount of water on earth, to which I have one question. How is it impossible? Name one scientist, atheist, Christian, or anyone in the entire history of man who has said that once water enters the body it is gone forever or will never again be water fit for use. This is the point in the argument where actual science would disprove this ‘impossibility’ but I’m not going to go into the science of it, like I said, trying to remain unbiased, but I’m pretty sure that no matter what your beliefs you can conclude some possible way of the water on earth being used any number of times over.

The final part of the article I personally would just like to disregard, it is simple goading, an insult from the author.

So what do I conclude from this article, nothing. Because that it is all it is it does not and could not prove that the world has been around for 6000 or 3 billion years, I do not claim to know whether either answer is correct I’m merely exposing the ridiculousness of using this argument as proof or disproof of either.

Once I had finished reading the article when I first found it last night I was genuinely shocked that the author could believe this was an intelligent argument, to the point that I would not be surprised if I were to discover it was a farce, more than likely at the expense of Christians rather than to confirm their beliefs. I don’t know for sure though, I could not find the original source of the article instead I found this thread where I could not really find much opinion on the article itself, more people taking one point from the article and saying it disproves atheism or disproves Christianity, which again it doesn’t do, even if you’re wrong about the age of the planet does that automatically mean that the entirety of what you believe is false

thankyou to all those who took the time to read this and much more thanks to all those who read this and realise the true point I am trying to make.

[Zechariah Smyth]

Re: Homeschool Science Lessons: Proving atheists wrong with science

Ecclesiastes 5:3
For a dream cometh through the multitude of business; and a fool's voice is known by multitude of words.

YIC

Jack

Amen, Brother Jack.

I think we might need a "Going Yappity Yap Yap Yappity Yap Yap Yappity Yap Yap Yappity Yap Yap Yappity Yap Yap Yappity Yap Yap Yappity Yap Yap Yappity Yap Yap Yappity Yap Yap Yappity Yap Yap Yappity Yap Yap Yappity Yap Yap Yappity Yap Yap Yappity Yap Yap Yappity Yap Yap" infraction.



YiC,

Zech

[Jack O'fagan]

Re: Homeschool Science Lessons: Proving atheists wrong with science

Firstly I’d like to ask that this post be taken as what it is, an analysis of the original source posted at the beginning of this thread. As much as possible I am trying to remain unbiased, I am not trying to denounce Christianity/promote atheism or visa versa. I am an agnostic and my belief is that I don’t know the facts of how the world works, came into being, how old it is etc.
However the article posted at the beginning of this thread is a ridiculous waste of time for anyone to use to prove or disprove anything. Starting at the title ‘Proving Atheists Wrong With Science’ It’s a very snappy title, very eye grabbing and I would be intrigued to read anything that actually attempted to do what the title says, but it is in fact just the first of many meaningless pieces of language used throughout. Not all atheists are necessarily scientists, just as not all Christians dispute science (or at least don’t dispute some of it’s more basic less blasphemic principles). This article contains no science, which it is claiming to use to prove ‘atheists’ wrong; it is all mathematics, over simplified mathematics at that. The entire argument proposed in the article can be dismissed just by more accurately wording the first statement made thus; ‘ The estimated amount of water on Earth at this current time is 1.386x10^21.’ Now if you look at this sentence again having read the entire article you notice the first fatal flaw, all the calculations of how much water would, should, could be left given certain periods of time have been made by making deductions from the current amount of water, it means nothing except maybe that we will have consumed 9 times the world’s water in 3 billion years if all factors remain the same. Basically if I gave you a 2 litre bottle of water that had 50ml of water left in it told you I had been drinking 1ml a day from it and ask you to tell me when I put water in it you couldn’t because you do not know how much water was originally in the bottle, you could however tell me that I was going to run out of water in 50 days. The next two statements are some estimates, the first is probably one of the most rational figures used in the entire article as it is stated to be an estimate based on the optimal drinking quantity per day (also probably the only piece of science) although I do argue with the employment of the term use, consume would of probably been a more adequate word to use. Next up the 6 billion people on earth, again same argument as the quantity of water on earth, if I employed the same bottle experiment and told you 5 people had drunk from it today, you wouldn’t know how many people had drunk from it in previous days. Next we get to the agenda of the article writer, in 6000 years based on the figures used above we would of only used 0.0012% of the water on earth. Well apart from the fact that the figures provided and the maths used doesn’t prove that as I have already stated, even if it did, it would only prove that this is a possibility, and would leave the possibility of the world having existed for up to 80000 times that (allowing for a 96% consumption of water). Please note I’m not saying that the calculations I just made are an accurate aging of the planet follow what I’m saying and don’t assume I’m trying to claim to know anything for certain. Next statement asks us to compare to ‘atheists’ (again the author means scientists) say that ‘life’ has existed on the planet for 3 billion years, strange jump from human population to life there, and the only mention of life as a whole lest we realise how ridiculous an argument this is, now I’m not going to sit here and do the math or anything but I think it is fairly safe to assume that if all life were taken into consideration the percentage of water consumed would be considerably higher. The argument continues, taking only human consumption in calculations. So we would of drunk 9.5 times the amount of water on the planet. Well we would of drunk an amount of water equivalent to 9.5 times the amount of water on the planet, nowhere in this argument does it disprove the possibility that there was 9.5 times the amount of water on the planet 3 billion years ago (again I’m not saying there was, merely highlighting the lack of any actual argument or proof in this article). Finally the logical part of the article comes to an end claiming that it is impossible for us to have drunk 9.5 times the amount of water on earth, to which I have one question. How is it impossible? Name one scientist, atheist, Christian, or anyone in the entire history of man who has said that once water enters the body it is gone forever or will never again be water fit for use. This is the point in the argument where actual science would disprove this ‘impossibility’ but I’m not going to go into the science of it, like I said, trying to remain unbiased, but I’m pretty sure that no matter what your beliefs you can conclude some possible way of the water on earth being used any number of times over. The final part of the argument I personally would just like to disregard, it is simple goading, an insult from the author. So what do I conclude from this article, nothing. Because that it is all it is it does not and could not prove that the world has been around for 6000 or 3 billion years, I do not claim to know whether either answer is correct I’m merely exposing the ridiculousness of using this argument as proof or disproof of either. Once I had finished reading the article when I first found it last night I was genuinely that the author could believe this was an intelligent argument, to the point that I would not be surprised if I were to discover it was a farce, more than likely at the expense of Christians rather than to confirm their beliefs. I don’t know for sure though, I could not find the original source of the article instead I found this thread where I could not really find much opinion on the article itself, more people taking one point from the article and saying it disproves atheism or disproves Christianity, which again it doesn’t do, even if you’re wrong about the age of the planet does that automatically mean that the entirety of what you believe is false

thankyou to all those who took the time to read this and much more thanks to all those who read this and realise the true point I am trying to make.

Ecclesiastes 5:3
For a dream cometh through the multitude of business; and a fool's voice is known by multitude of words.

YIC

Jack

[Brother Harold Porter]

Re: Homeschool Science Lessons: Proving atheists wrong with science

thankyou to all those who took the time to read this and much more thanks to all those who read this and realise the true point I am trying to make.

I tried, but my eyes lose focus and I get faint trying to read this.