Fweethawt Posted September 18, 2015 Share Posted September 18, 2015 "You know, like the male and female that became one flesh, but instead of male and female, they were one proton and one electron that form one particle of mass,named Atom, instead of Adam." -- Justus Oh, ya'juss gotta keep goin' to the good part where 'Eve' is actually a biblical abbreviation for 'Eve'olution! Don't kid yourself, Justus. The idea of Adam = atom and Eve = evolution didn't originate within your mind. I remember reading that somewhere a long time ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
disillusioned Posted September 18, 2015 Share Posted September 18, 2015 I'm confused. Is the question why water exists at all, or why it exists in all 3 states on this particular planet? Actually, it doesn't matter. Go back to high school. I'll take that to represent you don't know how science explain how water originated on this planet. If you went to High School and don't know then maybe you should consider your own advice. I will be taking my own advice and going back to high school later today, and pretty much every day for the rest of my career if everything goes according to plan. Unfortunately for me, it seems that I'll now have to tell my students that I'm not fit to teach them science anymore, since some guy on the internet is questioning my knowledge. Maybe I should also just burn my degrees while I'm at it. This might be a decent way to begin a class discussion on exothermic reactions. I'm still not sure what question you are asking. The question of how water molecules form can be fairly simply answered. So can the question about why we have water in all three states here on Earth. Both are things you should have learned in high school. At the very least, you should not have graduated high school without the tools to use google to find the answers. I can answer either question, or both. So can many other people on these boards. But I'm not sure what you're asking, and frankly, I'm also suspicious of your motives in asking. Nevertheless, I will answer your question if you can form it coherently, and explain why you want to know. Otherwise I feel like I'd be wasting my time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted September 18, 2015 Share Posted September 18, 2015 Disillusioned, To find out if further dialog with Justus will be a waste of time for you, why not request the following from him? That he provide links to ALL the instances (in the 248 posts he's made in this forum) where he did the following. 1. Where he openly and freely admitted to being wrong about something. 2. Where he openly and freely accepted correction from another member. 3. Where he politely thanked another member for putting him right. 4. Where he changed his view on something, because of points 1 thru 3. How he responds (or fails to) will tell you all you need to know about further dialog with him. Thanks, BAA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted September 18, 2015 Share Posted September 18, 2015 Oh come on guys, you know J is trolling. Play if you find it fun but recognize it is a game to him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ravenstar Posted September 18, 2015 Share Posted September 18, 2015 There's water on the Moon. How did it get there? hmmmm..... http://www.space.com/7328-official-water-moon.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator florduh Posted September 18, 2015 Super Moderator Share Posted September 18, 2015 So explain water on the knee. I don't see it mentioned in the Bible so I have no idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted September 18, 2015 Share Posted September 18, 2015 So explain water on the knee. I don't see it mentioned in the Bible so I have no idea. http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/69653-today-i-learnedthe-thread/#.VfxdFd9VhBc Posted Yesterday, 09:03 PM End3 : Today I learned that I have bursitis in my knee. End's a Christian, believes in his Bible and he has a knee problem, Florduh. Maybe that's close enough for him to explain 'water on the knee' ...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Furball Posted September 18, 2015 Share Posted September 18, 2015 Wonder what would be more difficult, growing vegetables in temperatures exposed to breeze periods of freezing conditions or plants in the atmospheric controlled environment in nitrogen rich terra on Mars? How bout you Dude, your hand steady enough to type yet? After noah's ark opened it's doors, what I am wondering what would be more difficult: finding plants to feed the herbivores after god destroyed all plant life on earth, or finding animals to feed the carnivores after god killed all life that had breath in it. The lack of understanding something is not evidence for god, it's evidence that you lack understanding. You make an excellent point if the interpretation presented was true, yet if the days of man are limited to 120 years, then Noah would not have been alive so therefore the interpretation is a fallacy to begin with. If you don’t believe what is written, that man [male or female] shall not live by bread alone but by every word that proceeded from the mouth of the LORD, so did it mislead you or you misread it... The lack of understanding something is not evidence for god, it's evidence that you lack understanding. But ironically, the lack of understanding is sufficient evidence that there is no God. . Your response was quite baffling. Could you please, in english, tell me what the herbivores and carnivores ate when they immediately came off the ark? Since god killed everything, what did they eat? Also, how did penguins get from antarctica to the middle east to get on the ark? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
disillusioned Posted September 18, 2015 Share Posted September 18, 2015 Oh come on guys, you know J is trolling. Play if you find it fun but recognize it is a game to him. Of course he is. No question about it. Hence my suggestion that he go back to school. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Furball Posted September 19, 2015 Share Posted September 19, 2015 Why is it everytime i ask them to give me a direct answer, they bail out on me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted September 19, 2015 Share Posted September 19, 2015 Why is it everytime i ask them to give me a direct answer, they bail out on me. People only give answers when they have answers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Furball Posted September 19, 2015 Share Posted September 19, 2015 so did it mislead you or you misread it... It did not mislead me nor did i misread it. Myself with the rest of the grown ups would like you to act like an adult and answer our direct questions with direct answers. It seems to me that when the christians (self proclaimed) ask us questions, we oblige them by giving them direct answers, but when we ask them questions, they never return the favor. If your man made religion is so true, then why can't you answer direct questions with direct answers? Why do you keep going silent when confronted with the tough questions? If you are asked the most basic questions about your religion, and you cannot provide even a shred of an answer, maybe you ought to ask yourself why that is. Think about it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdelsolray Posted September 20, 2015 Share Posted September 20, 2015 So what is the Scientific explanation for the origin of water on Earth? The origin of water anywhere in the known universe comes from primordial hydrogen and oxygen (which is not primordial but was formed within most stars during their normal lifetime). Of course, the hydrogen and oxygen needed to be close to each other and certain conditions needed to be present to allow them to form the molecule H2O. Thus, for example, there was no water in the early universe. This is because there was no oxygen in the early universe. As to how water ended up on Earth, there are a few scientific hypotheses/theories. Each would require that hydrogen and oxygen exist locally. Each require that those two elements combined (due to the appropriate conditions) to form water. Each acknowledges that our solar system contains elements created in earlier stars, or created due to the death of earlier stars. Each acknoledges that water exists in many parts of the solar system. They differ is some ways as to the timing of the formation of water, to the location of the water in the early solar system and to a few other things. Do you have anything scientific to add to this discussion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted September 20, 2015 Share Posted September 20, 2015 So what is the Scientific explanation for the origin of water on Earth? The origin of water anywhere in the known universe comes from primordial hydrogen and oxygen (which is not primordial but was formed within most stars during their normal lifetime). Of course, the hydrogen and oxygen needed to be close to each other and certain conditions needed to be present to allow them to form the molecule H2O. Thus, for example, there was no water in the early universe. This is because there was no oxygen in the early universe. As to how water ended up on Earth, there are a few scientific hypotheses/theories. Each would require that hydrogen and oxygen exist locally. Each require that those two elements combined (due to the appropriate conditions) to form water. Each acknowledges that our solar system contains elements created in earlier stars, or created due to the death of earlier stars. Each acknoledges that water exists in many parts of the solar system. They differ is some ways as to the timing of the formation of water, to the location of the water in the early solar system and to a few other things. Do you have anything scientific to add to this discussion? Maybe you should ask Justus to define how he's using the word, 'scientific' in his question, Sdelsolray? After all, here... http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/69525-gods-ways-are-not-our-ways-vs-the-knowledge-of-good-and-evil/page-6#.Vf6c-99VhBc ...in post # 105, Justus writes this. "Fortunately, true science wasn’t founded upon ‘best fit’ concept as you described but rather upon principles which they are fixed and unalterable which govern and regulate the universe and nature we live in, man cannot just simply make up to fit, nor do they mutate to create exceptions." Which suggests that his understanding of what science is, is radically different from ours - the accepted and highly successful understanding, used by the global scientific community. Until there's agreement upon what science is, I'd say there are just two chances of any sensible dialog with him on this issue. Slim and fat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironhorse Posted September 21, 2015 Share Posted September 21, 2015 There are several theories on the origin of the abundance of water on earth, but not a scientific fact that has been proved. http://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronomy-news/origin-of-earths-water-01022015/ "Ours is the only planet with abundant liquid water on its surface, and life (as we know it) wouldn't be possible without it. While Mars might have been warmer and wetter very early in its history, and Venus might have had an initial infusion of water that it later lost, somehow we lucked out and continue to splash with abandon." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted September 21, 2015 Share Posted September 21, 2015 There are several theories on the origin of the abundance of water on earth, but not a scientific fact that has been proved. http://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronomy-news/origin-of-earths-water-01022015/ "Ours is the only planet with abundant liquid water on its surface, and life (as we know it) wouldn't be possible without it. While Mars might have been warmer and wetter very early in its history, and Venus might have had an initial infusion of water that it later lost, somehow we lucked out and continue to splash with abandon." Science does not prove anything, Ironhorse. It explains to the best fit of the existing evidence. (The S&T article does not talk about proof!) . . . Months ago you asked me why I always describe scientific issues as supported by evidence instead of being proven. I told you why and it seems that you've ignored me or rejected my given reason or simply forgotten that we've been here before. . . . Will we be back here before Xmas? With you, once again making the error of thinking that science proves things? . . . Probably. A closed mind can only be opened by it's owner. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironhorse Posted September 21, 2015 Share Posted September 21, 2015 "Science does not prove anything, Ironhorse. It explains to the best fit of the existing evidence. (The S&T article does not talk about proof!)" ~BAA Science can prove and verify many things as absolute fact in our world and universe. You disagree? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdelsolray Posted September 21, 2015 Share Posted September 21, 2015 "Science does not prove anything, Ironhorse. It explains to the best fit of the existing evidence. (The S&T article does not talk about proof!)" ~BAA Science can prove and verify many things as absolute fact in our world and universe. You disagree? Please provide one example, just one. And, of course, explain how "science" proves and verifies it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted September 22, 2015 Share Posted September 22, 2015 I'm with sdelsolray, Ironhorse. Prove just one thing absolutely with science. (Not math) No fudging. No equivocation. No, "I disagree." Absolute 100% proof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted September 22, 2015 Share Posted September 22, 2015 But before you do so, please read this warning, IH. . . . You should think very, very carefully before going down this 'absolute proof' road, my friend. That's because an absolute proof is, by definition - fixed, permanent and unchanging. It cannot be sidestepped, overruled, reinterpreted, argued against, outflanked, undermined or questioned and is totally unaffected by personal choice or personal belief. Once established, an absolute proof causes the statement, "I don't agree" to become a total rejection of that proof. An absolute proof leaves no room for anything other than complete acceptance of it or complete rejection of it. It is black and white. There is no room for faith, when it comes to an absolute proof. So... are you quite sure you want to do this? It's your call. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StillLooking Posted September 22, 2015 Share Posted September 22, 2015 Science can prove and verify many things as absolute fact in our world and universe. You disagree? I disagree with this statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midniterider Posted September 22, 2015 Share Posted September 22, 2015 "Science does not prove anything, Ironhorse. It explains to the best fit of the existing evidence. (The S&T article does not talk about proof!)" ~BAA Science can prove and verify many things as absolute fact in our world and universe. You disagree? "Proof" You used a trigger word, IH. Now you're screwed. Saying "science proves things" is equivalent to saying "Ford is better than Chevy" elsewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator florduh Posted September 22, 2015 Super Moderator Share Posted September 22, 2015 Saying "science proves things" is equivalent to saying "Ford is better than Chevy" elsewhere. Does anybody really say that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duderonomy Posted September 23, 2015 Share Posted September 23, 2015 To be fair to IH (and only the FSM knows why I would want to be) not too long ago I would have said science proves things. This could be a terminology issue. I'm still learning myself, and the more I learn, the more I realize I don't know much. I hope that IH takes advantage of a little free science education while he's here, but I doubt he will. One would think that after reading BAA for a while, for example, IH would at least have the humility to persue getting some terms (as in words or phrases that have an exact meaning) sorted out, and then proceed with the discussion. Or at least ask for links, so he could read and discover on his own. It's what a sincere non-cowardly person that had something of substance they wanted to add would do, after all, Christian or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironhorse Posted September 23, 2015 Share Posted September 23, 2015 So as long as I have been posting my belief in the Christian faith here, it has been dismissed because it cannot be verified by science or evidence. Over and over I have been asked for proof. Now I'm being told by many of you that science cannot prove anything. "Saying "science proves things" is equivalent to saying "Ford is better than Chevy" elsewhere." No, that would be expressing an opinion, not a fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts