92 billion light-years in diameter and only 13.7 billion years old????

a reply to: John333

I've got a feeling you've ignored probably half of what's been posted in this thread. Also, you lack of understanding of science is comical.

Science isn't, as has been explained a few times already, infallible.

a reply to: John333

I think you're on the wrong board. This is a science board. There is the Origins and Creationism board which is more suited to your arguments. The lame, lazy and the crazy tend to hang out there.

originally posted by: John333

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: John333

I've got a feeling you've ignored probably half of what's been posted in this thread. Also, you lack of understanding of science is comical.

Science isn't, as has been explained a few times already, infallible.

and i find your comment so useless that i will ignore your future comments. how about that.

we all have our opinions

So now we ignore people on a DISCUSSION board?

And how is science NOT being infallible an opinion. It's an actual fact. Something you've yet to come up with yet.

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: John333

So attraction is love? I think you need to look up the definition of attraction. Then look at the part which deals with 2 items (rather than beings) being attracted to each other.

I did think of the lyrics "All you need is love" when I read it though.

Love is the law. love is the whole of the law. love is the reason why atoms bond to form molecules. love is the reason that elements have united to order in a manner that creates and sustain physical life. a carbon atom must love 2 oxygen atoms to become a carbon dioxide molecule. a mason must love bricks together to form a wall.

any force or form of metaphorical representation of uniting what was once separated is love under mystical teaching. in the same sense.. what was chaos is formed to order out of love. the force of attraction that causes unifying. it is the law of operation of the entire physical universe.

a reply to: John333

The page you posted a link to mentions 'creation scientists'. That's a contradiction in terms. What they actually meant was 'theologians who misunderstand or openly twist science to fit their preconceived religious biases'.

a reply to: John333

a reply to: John333

Evidence. Where is it? Where's the lab data? Where's the experiments? Where are the publications?

There are none.

originally posted by: John333

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: John333

So attraction is love? I think you need to look up the definition of attraction. Then look at the part which deals with 2 items (rather than beings) being attracted to each other.

I did think of the lyrics "All you need is love" when I read it though.

Love is the law. love is the whole of the law. love is the reason why atoms bond to form molecules. love is the reason that elements have united to order in a manner that creates and sustain physical life. a carbon atom must love 2 oxygen atoms to become a carbon dioxide molecule. a mason must love bricks together to form a wall.

any force or form of metaphorical representation of uniting what was once separated is love under mystical teaching. in the same sense.. what was chaos is formed to order out of love. the force of attraction that causes unifying. it is the law of operation of the entire physical universe.

Really? REALLY?! Seriously????

I think science for beginners is a book you need to find in the library pretty quick.

originally posted by: John333

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: John333

The page you posted a link to mentions 'creation scientists'. That's a contradiction in terms. What they actually meant was 'theologians who misunderstand or openly twist science to fit their preconceived religious biases'.

no ur a dummy. science was created by religion. and the scientific method was also created by religion.

u guys have no history of ur own. so pls.. stop riding our d!cks and acting like u own the place.

Words fail me. You really do have no idea about modern science, do you?

a reply to: John333

Once again this is a science board. The conversation belongs on the Origins and Creationism board.

Answers in Genesis is crackpot religion. It's a cult. You're free to believe anything you want. The rest of us carry on.....

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: John333

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: John333

The page you posted a link to mentions 'creation scientists'. That's a contradiction in terms. What they actually meant was 'theologians who misunderstand or openly twist science to fit their preconceived religious biases'.

no ur a dummy. science was created by religion. and the scientific method was also created by religion.

u guys have no history of ur own. so pls.. stop riding our d!cks and acting like u own the place.

Words fail me. You really do have no idea about modern science, do you?

nope.. u dont. u have no idea. modern science is the same it was 5000 yrs ago. in development. proving what is already known by the spirit. u guessworkers.. dont have a pot to piss in because u have no idea how predictions were made to devise experiements. ur copycats. followfashions. u cant solve a unique problem urselves. u waste time in science. in fact id say.. u contribute most to science's stagnation.

a reply to: John333

Yeah, bad science, BAD!

Because we all know that without science we'd have computers, phones, TVs, cars, planes, cures for diseases and countless other things.

You know that thing you're using to post on here? You guessed it, science developed it.

***ENOUGH***

Any further T&C violations, will result in a posting ban of no less than 72 hours. If you CANNOT discuss things with tact, then please do not discuss them at all.

This is also a reminder that any ATS member who makes wild claims and then claims to have verifiable proof of those claims will be asked to provide it. Failing to do so can result in a banning of your account for HOAXING the ATS community.

Do not reply to this post.

~Tenth
ATS Super mod

originally posted by: John333

nope.. u dont. u have no idea. modern science is the same it was 5000 yrs ago. in development. proving what is already known by the spirit. u guessworkers.. dont have a pot to piss in because u have no idea how predictions were made to devise experiements. ur copycats. followfashions. u cant solve a unique problem urselves. u waste time in science. in fact id say.. u contribute most to science's stagnation.

Science ask questions about nature and the universe to which it does not know the answer.

Science devises specific answers to those questions (hypotheses) and then sets out to create ways to test those hypotheses in order to provide some verifiable evidence that those hypotheses might be true -- at which point a hypothesis becomes a theory that other scientists will further test in order to further refine that theory, or even find that the theory is not correct.

So in which part of that process do you say a problem lies?

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: John333

nope.. u dont. u have no idea. modern science is the same it was 5000 yrs ago. in development. proving what is already known by the spirit. u guessworkers.. dont have a pot to piss in because u have no idea how predictions were made to devise experiements. ur copycats. followfashions. u cant solve a unique problem urselves. u waste time in science. in fact id say.. u contribute most to science's stagnation.

Science ask questions about nature and the universe to which it does not know the answer.

Science devises specific answers to those questions (hypotheses) and then sets out to create ways to test those hypotheses in order to provide some verifiable evidence that those hypotheses might be true -- at which point a hypothesis becomes a theory that other scientists will further test in order to further refine that theory, or even find that the theory is not correct.

So in which part of that process do you say a problem lies?

Because god isn't involved.

I had a run in a few years back with a "creationist scientist". To say it was interesting would be an understatement. And not in a good way.