Why TOE is not accepted

Here are 2 really really simple questions1) List what you consider to be the true sciences (notice I ask about Discipline not particular theories)2) give 3 examples of where the application of modern (post 1940s) "creation science" has provided an innovation or some other concrete form of scientific progress ((note I'm not asking here for examples of scientists who believed in Biblical Creation, rather for how the application of that belief led to a scientific breakthrough). This is two lists I ask for - LISTS, we can get into commentary later.This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 31-Jul-2005 05:11 PMThis message has been edited by Charles Knight, 31-Jul-2005 05:18 PMThis message has been edited by Charles Knight, 31-Jul-2005 05:39 PM

very good point - got a better wording? this could make a quite good OP you know...

quote:

---

Sorry, I like the word "prove" and it's quite accurate for many things. Certainly we can prove things. We prove them all the time. Guess the distance from where you are sitting to a spot opposite you. We can prove if you are right or wrong by measuring it. That's proof, not mere plausibility. Various scientists in history proved many things, how the blood circulates, the fact that the earth revolves around the sun, the cause of sickness by "germs" and how to protect ourselves from them, that water doesn't get hotter after it reaches the boiling point, and lots of stuff like that.

---

Faith - you are one of the most hopeless cases I have ever seen in regards to the sciences. Are you currently banned in the science forums? If not, I'm really going to have to press for such a ban to be put in place.This is a general comment to other members:Is it really worth the effort of trying to debate Faith about science when she cannot move away from her strawman understanding of science? I think Percy proposes that some people are just a total lost cause in some areas - I think that we just have to accept that faith is one of those This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 31-Jul-2005 06:59 PM

I'm going to try and explain this to you in a way that you may understand.It's like someone has read the bible and at the end of it concluded that it was a book about people on mars.Please don't reply it's just not constructive - I just have to conclude that you are not worth the bandwidth in regards to discussion of science. Your english is clearly but you are just as lost as Poor Philip.This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 31-Jul-2005 07:03 PM

You both have it back to front.The problem as they see it (without every actually bothering to..you know...find out anything about science) is that we don't understand science. How can we understand science - our anwsers don't match those in the bible!

Speaking of "peer-review" - this is what you have to agree with before you can get published in the leading creationist journal "creation technical journal".

quote:

---

The account of origins presented in Genesis is a simple but factual presentation of actual events and therefore provides a reliable framework for scientific research into the question of the origin and history of life, mankind, the Earth and the universe.

---

quote:

---

By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.

---

quote:

---

You commit this fallacy if you claim that your worldview will soon prevail because the evidence is in the making - your victory is just round the corner. Pseudosciences do this all the time.

---

SLOT88 Situs Judi Slot Online Terpercaya No 1 di Indonesia

quote:

---

This is a common trick used by pseudoscientists. Astrologers, parapsychologists and many other brands of pseudoscience have been claiming for decades that their recognition as a science is just around the corner.

---

SLOT88 Situs Judi Slot Online Terpercaya No 1 di Indonesia

quote:

---

The Appeal to Force is committed when the arguer resorts to force or the threat of force in order to try and push the acceptance of a conclusion. It is often used by politicians, and can be summarised as "might makes right". The force threatened need not be a direct threat from the arguer.

​

For example:

​

"... Thus there is ample proof of the truth of the Bible. All those who refuse to accept that truth will burn in Hell."

---

No it's there - just go to the great debate forum and scroll down.It's just as Jazzen describes it.

Clark here's a great example of the powerful work that creationist scientists are doing:

quote:

---

The April 1997 issue of Discover magazine had a pretty good April Fool's joke about some Neandertal musical instruments that had supposedly been discovered in Germany. It was an unlikely collection, featuring bagpipes, a tuba, a triangle and a 'xylobone', along with a cave painting of marching musicians. In September 2000 the Institute for Creation Research fell for it and featured Marvin Lubenow presenting this evidence in one of their radio programs. I pointed that out on this website about a month later, and the ICR quickly apologized and retracted the claim. However, no erroneous argument ever completely disappears from creationist literature. I've recently noticed the April Fool article cited again in an article by Brad Harrub on the Answers in Genesis website (update: the citation has now been removed). Harrub also thinks that the Java Man skullcap belongs to a gibbon - even though AIG has admitted that this is a discredited argument that creationists shouldn't use any longer. Harrub's article was also published in AIG's 'peer-reviewed scientific journal', the Technical Journal. What is AIG's peer-review process like, if clangers like these can get through it?

---

Paleoanthro Weblog

I thought they were couched in nonsense and crackly asides - but that's just me.

---

And the youth, looking upon him (Jesus), loved him and beseeched that he might remain with him. And going out of the tomb, they went into the house of he youth, for he was rich. And after six days, Jesus instructed him and, at evening, the youth came to him wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the Kingdom of GodSt. Mark chapter 10 (between verses 34 and 35 in the standard version of the bible)

Step AWAY from the textbook...put down the measurement tools...

Xenu - Wikipedia

quote:

---

They were captured by Xenu's forces using an "electronic ribbon" ("which also was a type of standing wave") and sucked into "vacuum zones" around the world. The hundreds of billions of captured thetans were taken to a type of cinema, where they were forced to watch a "three-D, super colossal motion picture" for 36 days. This implanted what Hubbard termed "various misleading data" (collectively termed the R6 implant) into the memories of the hapless thetans, "which has to do with God, the Devil, space opera, etcetera". This included all world religions, with Hubbard specifically attributing Roman Catholicism and the image of the Crucifixion to the influence of Xenu. The interior decoration of "all modern theaters" is also said by Hubbard to be due to an unconscious recollection of Xenu's implants. The two "implant stations" cited by Hubbard were said to have been located on Hawaii and Las Palmas in the Canary Islands.

​

In addition to implanting new beliefs in the thetans, the images deprived them of their sense of identity. When the thetans left the projection areas, they started to cluster together in groups of a few thousand, having lost the ability to differentiate between each other.

---

It's obvious - Randman,Faith and others were presented with a different movie to the rest of us - they cannot accept TOE because they saw a different in-flight movie on the way down from space.See we don't need to mention science in this fora - just scientology.

quote:

---

I figured out that it COULDN'T happen, not that I couldn't figure out how it happened.

---

Oh well that's it then - you got it right and everyone else got it wrong. You should get this stuff published.

quote:

---

Abstract: after examining the item for a few hours, I could not work out anyway that such a thing could be the product of evolution.Therefore it could not occur and was impossible.

---

You don't even need the standard 250-400 words needs for an abstract! You should get onto Creation Technical journal, they are always looking for material like this.