Let The Creatard Shitting of Bricks Begineth

[snowtracks]

[quote='snowtracks' pid='818144' dateline='1418543858']

[God, angels exist, and any microbes found from outside earth are the result of earth's early asteroidbombardment./]
This statement is nearly incomprehensible and a complete misreading of the article that you provided. There were no microbes, but rather prebiotic molecules present in the asteroids tested which were not even the same asteroids referred to in the article. It's no wonder you arrive at unsupported conclusions if you cannot understand what you read.

the subject changed, try to stay still up.

[Minimalist]

So whatever science discovers, God gets moved behind it with a sign saying, "I did that! I just forgot to mention it."

The God of The Gyps.

[SteelCurtain]

God, angels exist, and any microbes found from outside earth are the result of earth's early asteroidbombardment.

This statement is nearly incomprehensible and a complete misreading of the article that you provided. There were no microbes, but rather prebiotic molecules present in the asteroids tested which were not even the same asteroids referred to in the article. It's no wonder you arrive at unsupported conclusions if you cannot understand what you read.

It's cute that you think he read the article...

[Godscreated]

I noted 2 interesting words in that news release.
The word "May" and the word, "Could".
Seems those words come up frequently in dissertations about origins too.
I wonder why?

You wonder why?

OK, lets pretend I'm holding a rubber ball enclosed in my fist.
I ask two people what the color they think the ball is. I'll give 2 clues, it's cool and it's common.

Person A says "Blue is a cool color. And it is a common color. And I have seen blue rubber balls before. The ball is blue. I'm completely certain of this."
Person B says "Blue is a cool color. And it is a common color. And I have seen blue rubber balls before. So it may be blue. It could even likely be blue."

Person A, even if they turn out right, will come out looking like an idiot, because given the information, it's impossible to know for certain what color the ball is. Could have ended up being purple or green, among other colors.

Given your statement, I assume when asked a question you never answer in possibilities.
Like, if someone handed you a box and asked "How much do you think this weighs?" You'd answer "20 pounds." Not, around 20 pounds, or more than 10 pounds, or etc....

None of that means you have a ball in your hand or that it's rubber, like many things scientist want so badly to prove regardless if it's true, deception has been part of their science.

GC

[Minimalist]

Stick to your fucking bible, G-C. Anything more complex than See Spot Run is over your head.

[Esquilax]

None of that means you have a ball in your hand or that it's rubber, like many things scientist want so badly to prove regardless if it's true, deception has been part of their science.

GC

Are you even aware that much of the modern world, including the long life you lead, the computer you're typing on, the electricity lighting the room you're in, and the internet you're transmitting your thoughts on, came about through science? Is all of that a "deception" too, regardless of how well it's working?

How do you decide what sciences are real, and which are lies? Is it just what you can personally benefit from, versus what you'd prefer not to be true because of your pre-existing beliefs? If it's not, then evidently you have some method of determining this that doesn't just rely on your personal opinions, and thus some evidence or justification for those conclusions you reach on behalf of that method, yes?

Care to show them?

[robvalue]

Why the fuck would scientists want to prove what isn't true? There is nothing to be gained by that.

Also, you clearly have no understanding of the field of scientific enquiry. To put something forward as a credible theory, it first goes through extremely critical evaluation. It's the job of these people to hunt down any tiny inconsistency or problem. It would take an actual conspiracy, science wide, for demonstrably made up things to be "proven". Then they would lose all credibility as a whole, because a child could come along and disprove what they say they've proved.

Science wants things that work. And it has an amazing track record.

Science deals with what is real, and testable. Religion deals in made up, unfalsifiable and therefor worthless horse shit. All progress, except perhaps a transition between hitting each other over the head with rocks and not so much, is down to science and not religion. If you dislike science, best get off your computer, your phone, stop using your car, get out of your house... Stop using critical thinking skills to not bump I to things...

---

If someone has detailed, airtight evidence of a scientific theory being wrong, all you have to do is bring it forward. If you are correct, then science will adjust.

If you bring bullshit however, science will ignore you.

[Exian]

You wonder why?

OK, lets pretend I'm holding a rubber ball enclosed in my fist.
I ask two people what the color they think the ball is. I'll give 2 clues, it's cool and it's common.

Person A says "Blue is a cool color. And it is a common color. And I have seen blue rubber balls before. The ball is blue. I'm completely certain of this."
Person B says "Blue is a cool color. And it is a common color. And I have seen blue rubber balls before. So it may be blue. It could even likely be blue."

Person A, even if they turn out right, will come out looking like an idiot, because given the information, it's impossible to know for certain what color the ball is. Could have ended up being purple or green, among other colors.

Given your statement, I assume when asked a question you never answer in possibilities.
Like, if someone handed you a box and asked "How much do you think this weighs?" You'd answer "20 pounds." Not, around 20 pounds, or more than 10 pounds, or etc....

None of that means you have a ball in your hand or that it's rubber, like many things scientist want so badly to prove regardless if it's true, deception has been part of their science.

GC

Are you saying you won't believe something unless you see it with your own two eyes? You're right; how can we even know the ball is in his hand? Take his word for it? I like your thinking, GC.

Although, we can't prove the ball isn't in his hand, maybe we ought to believe him anyhow...

[Esquilax]

If someone has detailed, airtight evidence of a scientific theory being wrong, all you have to do is bring it forward. If you are correct, then science will adjust.

Not only that, but paradigm shifting discoveries that overturn readily accepted scientific theories are the sorts of things Nobel Prizes and big wodges of grant money are made of. Theists of a certain stripe often trot out this idea that all of science is merely a conspiracy to keep the status quo and keep down religion, but in doing so they ask us to believe that not a single scientist in possession of this (apparently!) easily attainable evidence is at all enticed by the prospect of material success, nor of going down in history as one of the great minds.

The entire thing is laughable on the face of it, but I can see the appeal of such conspiracy theories from the perspective of those with no actual evidence to their position. They get to recast their whole situation so that they're these bold truth holders, whom everyone secretly knows is one hundred percent correct. It's like being your own Mary Sue.

[Simon Moon]

finding meteoritic trace amounts of these chemical compounds are tantamount to finding gold in sea water. just another nasa ploy to keep program funding's flowing, they're playing you like fiddle and you don't even know it.

Of course...

Because anything that contradicts your Bronze and Iron Age texts has to be wrong by default.

What a great built in protection you have for your beliefs.