What are the questions science cannot answer?

You are stealing my question! I offered this crowd that Creationism rests on a 100% scientific premise of 'cause and effect', but everyone screamed RELIGIOUS MYTH! They didn't even say which part is myth.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That may be because the "Cause" being supernatural, divine, unfalsifiable and unprovable wasn't scientific, bonehead.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Person 1: "How did this happen?"
Person 2:"GODDIDIT!"
Person 2: "Golly gee whiz, I shore am scientifical!"
Person 1: [facepalm]

Only someone as special as you, IamJoseph, could think that was scientific.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

you are putting your words in my mouth...
and value is assigned by the reader..
what is your point here? or were you just trying to drop your opinion in?

this sounds like someone elses words..

actually i was reffering to you,,i see an intelligence in your posts so i argue with you..tried to teach you a little consideration/common sense..

 

wow..don't piss off the moderator.

 

It's like gazing in awe at fireworks.

 

The part about the Big Magician In The Sky.

 

It may be difficult to measure which is most influential or believed, over a long period or within an era. And in estimating which is which and what, we must also consider our own homogenistic purview as inflicting biases that may not be accurate either.

There are many sources of influence by actual people who lived, yet the myopia -- whether intentional, by anyone, or not -- insulates people from knowing both facts and truths as to the reality that has been, and continues to be lived by real people.

Also, some traditions have been oral, as were those that are in print today.

 

On the question of how you would explain origins to a primitive society 3,000 years ago, assuming you had the proper scientific facts at your disposal.

Easy.

"At the very beginning, there was a great flash of light, and it was hot beyond imagining. And the first things to appear were stars, brighter than anything that can be seen today. After two generations of stars were born, and died, came that which we see in the sky at night today, so far away that they appear simply as point of light. Our sun is a star. And close to the sun the world came into existence, to move around the sun thereafter. When another world and our world collided, the moon was formed. The world was hot and nasty, but slowly cooled. When it was cool, the first living things appeared. They were very, very small. As time passed, the first life changed slowly into new forms, and some of the new ones were much larger. Eventually, all the living things we know today came into being. And towards the last of them, came man and woman."

Now if Genesis were to say that, I would be most impressed. Sadly, it does not. Instead, we see a primitive creation story with no scientific merit.

 

I like your red type, it makes your warning even more warningful.

What I say and maintain, there is no NAME older than 5770 available to prove speech - one of the greatest anomalies for those pushing speech. Please retract in red type also - otherwise I will complain to you.


I have never said lies thus how can I repeat it. In fact on some 20 occassions no one has retracted their own negations despite not having any evidences to back it up: "THERE IS NO ONE IN THE UNIVERSE" and "I TOLD YOU SO" does not apply. Colorful tirades are also not responses. You would be better to attend to those who flood your message banks and check their previous responses - otherwise you will end up with only those who are wearing the same color ties.

Of note also, there are pages and pages of false historical statements in other threads - and not a whimper from anyone - not even in bold red type warnings from your good self. Those who fail in history are most probably lousy in science too. You also failed to caution a poster who falsely presented a non-alphabetical, non-book as a counter to an alphabetical book, and repeats his "I TOLD YOU SO" jargon!

I will respond re cows - just to embarrass you. Re the pig: who presented any evidence of another animal boasting both a split hoof and one which chews the cow - which post - by whom? - you never said: I challenge you to do so now.

Obviously, this forum is in balistic shock someone is taking them on with a different views. This is rampant in a host of institutions today!

 

What caused God?

 

It does say that. I will explain this in the text - after I recieve some responses from the monitor what I challenged him. Why should I educate for nothing!

 

first off I have read genisis it doesn't say anything of the sort and their are moderators on this site not monitors. why you thiunk this site is moderated by lizards is anyone's best guess but I assure you its not. lizards aren't very good typers

 

It does - I will respond to this new one when I get a response from Monitor in Red. You are hardly a credible explainer of a book you call distored but never show where! For you, the same source also says there was a temple in Jerusalem - and the Christians laugh when you leave the room. And no monitors question those who deny this.

No history - no science - both of these are equal faculties which determine credibility.

 

No it doesn't

what lizard in red?

Yes no history no science pretty much sums you up

 

For anyone who wants to argue the wording of Genesis but does not have a bible, it is all on :

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis 1&version=NIV

A vast treasurehouse of pure, unscientific garbage awaits for you to point out the errors.

 

You looked - and you never found - this:

"At the very beginning, there was a great flash of light?

What, according to your reading, was the first thing in Genesis?

But you are wrong even there. Before the great flash of light there has to be something else which must happen first, from a scientific POV. Guess what, Mr. Brainiac who cannot even read his own first statement?

 

Joe

The very first thing the bible say is : In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth.

In the light of what we now know from good science, that is a seriously inaccurate statement. Even leaving out the potential argument about the word 'God' and 'created'.

Correct is " In the beginning came the Big Bang. And reality consisted of a quark/gluon plasma. After a time, there were photons, and sub atomic particles, which eventually reverted to hot hydrogen gas. Only after 10 million years did the first stars appear."

The 'beginning' was 13.7 billion years ago. The Earth did not condense out of gas and dust until 4.7 billion years ago.

Thus, in the beginning neither the heavens (stars) or the Earth were created.