[makarovmw3]

Re: Homeschool Science Lessons: Proving atheists wrong with science

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqDWbknpiVk

[edmund]

Re: Homeschool Science Lessons: Proving atheists wrong with science

Someone asked a question way back on page 4 which was ignored by absolutely everyone.


"After we drink water, were does it vanish to?"

The user was then banned for asking this abusive question.


Maybe by 'finite supply of water' what is meant is that the amount is constant? It is not increasing or decreasing?

[ScienceBePraised]

Re: Homeschool Science Lessons: Proving atheists wrong with science

So you joined here to defend the Nazis and their atrocities? Are you another Kraut?

Why do you want to exterminate the Joos?

Nope, just joined to point out the historical inaccuracy you posted. You seem to have twisted this into me being a Nazi sympathiser though.

There's a lot of hateful language being used on this forum. Just had a private message from the tolerant Pastor Ezekiel calling me "Atheist scum". Why are you so angry? If I believed that God was with me, watching over me and I had a place in Heaven after I died, I'd be pretty happy.

BACK ON TOPIC: "Proving atheists wrong with science"

Science isn't your strong point, so cherry picking some scientific facts to disprove other scientific facts/theories is fundamentally flawed. Also quoting the Bible doesn't cut it as an argument for people who understand the Scientific Method - "systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses". The last bit of that I feel is the most important, modification of hypotheses, we can further our understanding, disprove formerly widely held ideas. We don't have all the answers, we may never have all the answers, but that's what makes science so interesting.

I'll probably be booted off after this post, so fundamentalist Christians, stick to your "It's true because the Bible says it's true" logic. Please do not besmirch the glorious name of science with your ignorance.

YiS

[Thomas Dalton]

Re: Homeschool Science Lessons: Proving atheists wrong with science

So...you a trying to provide evidence that cannot be backed up with anything scientific because "lolnowehatescience"

Then tell me , where the "atheists" you fear the most the ones who advanced with technology , arent your kids healthy because of the hospitals that the ATHEISTS you fear the most build and researched ? arent you clothed because of the research that the ATHEISTIC people did ? arent you on the internet because someone who loved Satan made it because "Oh boy with the internet im going to turn people into satan " ?

Its funny how people USES sandbox ( created by ATHEISTS ) and makes his little girls wear something uh...errm...i dont know ? MADE BY THE DEVIL SPAWNS ?

also , can you tell me the water´s properties ? now dont use anything scientific because its devilish , ok ?

Evidence pretty please? I'm quite sure that not all of the people who build hospitals and do research are atheists. Misguided by Satan to worship Satan instead of True Christianity, maybe, but religious or agnostic nevertheless.

That they are not True Christians who would even treat a gay does mean I would never visit a hospital, mind you. I fear I might get infected by the AIDS, since you never know who slept in your bed before you were hospitalized. Luckily, until now, Faith Healing has been enough for me.

[Jedediah]

Re: Homeschool Science Lessons: Proving atheists wrong with science

Please do not besmirch the glorious name of science with your ignorance.

Oh, so now we're the ignorant ones? Sure, whatever, Mister My-Grandpa-Was-A-Gorilla and we're all just here by accident.

Look, son. There are two types of science (True and false-secular), just as there are two types of people (the Saved and the Lost). True Science™ yields conclusions that derive from and/or corroborate the Word of God as given in the King James Authorized Version ©1611. False-secular "science" only serves to lead people away from Jesus' kind offer of Redemption.

I Timothy 6:20-21
O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science, falsely so called,
which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.

So unless for some perverse reason, you just want to go to hell for all eternity, I recommend a serious reevaluation of the faith you place in secular monkey-worship. It's not too late to start your own personal relationship with Jesus.

[Mary Etheldreda]

Re: Homeschool Science Lessons: Proving atheists wrong with science

BACK ON TOPIC: "Proving atheists wrong with science"

Science isn't your strong point, so cherry picking some scientific facts to disprove other scientific facts/theories is fundamentally flawed.

The irony makes me giggle. Atheist scientists cherry pick all the time!
"Oh, the carbon dating process is great!"
"Oh wait, it doesn't work so well."
"Oh wait, it can only be used here and there when it proves what we want it to prove."

[Rev. M. Rodimer]

Re: Homeschool Science Lessons: Proving atheists wrong with science

Then tell me , where the "atheists" you fear the most the ones who advanced with technology , arent your kids healthy because of the hospitals that the ATHEISTS you fear the most build and researched ?

Um, you mean the Catholic hospitals? Funded and administered by those "atheist" Catholic bishops?

arent you clothed because of the research that the ATHEISTIC people did ?

Eli Whitney? What evidence do you have that he was an atheist? He married a prominent evangelist's granddaughter, one would think that'd be frowned upon were he not a Christian.

arent you on the internet because someone who loved Satan made it because "Oh boy with the internet im going to turn people into satan " ?

Um, it's not possible to turn people into Satan, any more than it is possible to turn you into Lady Gaga.

Its funny how people USES sandbox ( created by ATHEISTS ) and makes his little girls wear something uh...errm...i dont know ? MADE BY THE DEVIL SPAWNS ?

I don't even know what you're yammering about here. Sandboxes were created by atheists? Can you prove this?

You're one of those 4chan retards, aren't you?

[Fencepost88]

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.

[Mary Etheldreda]

Re: Homeschool Science Lessons: Proving atheists wrong with science

Oh My Word! What in tarnation IS this post?

I thought I was having a seizure but I knew that couldn't be because I LOVE Jesus and He loves ME!

[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.

[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

[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

[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.

[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.

[Mary Etheldreda]

Re: Homeschool Science Lessons: Proving atheists wrong with science

So you thought making the font BIGGER would help?