Two! Four! Six! Eight! JaySecrets Prevaricates!

[Fuzzy1975]

Translation... I am tired of laying out the clear evidence of kind and having you ignore it because it doesn't fit your bias, even though your bias has all kinds of problems and no actual evidence.

You can't answer the history of Corn, and I have a bias??? I understand how corn developed. It didn't need a God.

It's not an information problem for you.

I have all the information needed to formulate an opinion on evolution.

You decided you don't want there to be a Creator, so you have to have evolution. No amount of evidence will convince you otherwise.

Well you're correct here, no amount of bullshit from you about Creationism is going to change my mind. To change my mind I need scientific evidence, that can be repeated by others. You have shown me zero scientific evidence. Now where is that fucking upside down tree that spans millions of years of fossils....oh wait, it doesn't exist....

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Posted the pictures and the videos showing all of that and then some. You choose not to look. You want to be blind.

I never saw the link. Perhaps reposting it might help. I've only asked you three times for your evidence. It's not like I follow you and your bullshit posting. If I didn't comment,then I never saw it.

 

[John_von_Neumann]

There is no way, with the rate of expansion of the universe, with human population, this animal population, with the amount of salt buildup in the sea, with the pressure that makes oil gush, with all kinds of observable proofs, that the universe is ancient. I have posted some of the evidences on here earlier. The Bible actually makes an interesting statement here. It says that God stretched out the universe (a lot like a poetic way of describing an expanding universe), and if God spoke the universe into being, "And God said.... And there was" is exactly what we would expect a Big Bang to look like.

While young Earth creationism is ridiculous, I do appreciate that you took the time to reply. So thanks for that.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

with the pressure that makes oil gush,

lmfao.........oil gushing.......where? It's never "gushed"......

 

[ll74]

You are beginning with the presupposition of evolution before you ever get to that statement. You aren't starting with , "what do we actively observe", you are starting with, "corn evolved from somewhere". You start with a No Creator bias.

This is why you fail. You don't understand how science actually works. You observe things to come up with a theory. You don't say " I see evolution, so let's prove it"

You do start with "corn came from somewhere" and then theorize and create experiments to reinforce the theory.

 

[JaySecrets]

lmfao.........oil gushing.......where? It's never "gushed"......

They are were literally called gushers at one point.

 

[JaySecrets]

lmfao.........oil gushing.......where? It's never "gushed"......

https://www.google.com/search?q=pic...e&ie=UTF-8#sbfbu=1&pi=pictures of oil gushers

Guess all these pictures of gushers are fakes too

 

[JaySecrets]

Your perspective is wrong. I hope that puts that to rest for you.

My point, regardless of that, is that you copied and pasted all of that biographical data.

When I have a person who has the audacity to claim to know that sources are unqualified, at that point, since he is glad to slander a man far more qualified than he is to speak on the subject, I provide the proof of qualifications. No, my perspective isn't wrong. It's science. Real science that simply does exactly what the fathers of modern science saw as the very basis of real science: following the information the Designer placed in His creation to point back to Him.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

When I have a person who has the audacity to claim to know that sources are unqualified, at that point, since he is glad to slander a man far more qualified than he is to speak on the subject, I provide the proof of qualifications. No, my perspective isn't wrong. It's science. Real science that simply does exactly what the fathers of modern science saw as the very basis of real science: following the information the Designer placed in His creation to point back to Him.

By definition that’s the opposite of science.

 

[JaySecrets]

By definition that’s the opposite of science.

Idiots like Isaac Newton, Robert Boyle, Francis Bacon, Charles Babbage, Blaise Pascal, Georges Lemaitre, Roger Bacon, and Gregor Mendel would be surprised to hear that.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Idiots like Isaac Newton, Robert Boyle, Francis Bacon, Charles Babbage, Blaise Pascal, Georges Lemaitre, Roger Bacon, and Gregor Mendel would be surprised to hear that.

No they wouldn’t. They understand what science is, it’s YOU who doesn’t understand what science is.

 

[JaySecrets]

No they wouldn’t. They understand what science is, it’s YOU who doesn’t understand what science is.

They wrote what they were doing and why. Their Christianity was the cornerstone of the modern scientific method and they said so. This isn't even debatable. You stand in opposition against the very ones who codified the modern scientific method and gave us the building blocks science is based on today.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

They wrote what they were doing and why. Their Christianity was the cornerstone of the modern scientific method and they said so. This isn't even debatable. You stand in opposition against the very ones who codified the modern scientific method and gave us the building blocks science is based on today.

Please provide a cite where Bacon wrote that the scientific method is proving that God exists. I’ll wait.

 

[JaySecrets]

Please provide a cite where Bacon wrote that the scientific method is proving that God exists. I’ll wait.

I was hoping you would ask... Been compiling on Docs so I can give you a list of what all of them said about God, creation, and scientific method...

Isaac Newton (1642-1726/27) was an English polymath and key figure in the Scientific Revolution and Enlightenment who believed that science and faith were intertwined. His theism and science influenced each other in several ways:

• God's power
• Newton believed that the universe was a manifestation of God's infinite power, and that God intervened in the world and history. For example, he believed God prevented the stars from falling into each other and may have prevented the universe's motion from decaying due to friction.
• Nature and scripture
• Newton believed that God wrote both the Book of Nature and the Book of Scripture, and that the knowledge revealed in each was harmonious. He also believed that nature and scripture both displayed divine simplicity.
• Science as a portal
• Newton believed that science was a way to access God's mind, and that his study of the natural world was motivated by his belief in a Creator who created the world in an orderly way. For example, he believed that physics showed how God set up the world, while scripture and prophecy showed how God acted in history.

Robert Boyle (1627—1691) was a Christian scientist who believed that science and religion could coexist and support each other. His faith motivated his scientific work, and he saw studying nature as a religious duty. Boyle was a pioneer in combining natural theology, the idea that God's attributes can be seen in the natural world, with empirical scientific inquiry. He believed that conflicts between science and the Bible were due to mistakes in science or incorrect interpretations of scripture. Boyle also praised God for his scientific discoveries and encouraged others to do the same.

Boyle's views on science and religion were presented in his lectures and writings, and they influenced others long after his time. His work helped to establish a connection between Christian faith and experimental science.


https://creation.com/francis-bacon


Charles Babbage (1791-1871), known as the father of the computer, was an Anglican Christian who believed that science and the Bible were compatible. He believed that scientific methods could be used to better understand and interpret the Bible, and that the study of nature could help people understand God's wisdom and goodness. Babbage's scientific expertise spanned many fields, and he was also known for his contributions to natural theology and apologetics.


https://answersingenesis.org/creati...-creation-scientists-blaise-pascal-1623-1662/


https://biologos.org/articles/georg...-could-conceive-the-beginning-of-the-universe


https://crev.info/scientists/roger-bacon/


https://answersingenesis.org/creation-scientists/gregor-mendel-no-darwinian/


Here is the actual history of the founders of modern scientific method. What they said they believed. What their bios show them to have believed about Christianity or at least creationism and science. Where I am no using a link, those are AI searches on the subject. Hardly accusable of bias. The others, whether or not you like the sources, are great bios on the men. What you claim and what they said are quite the opposite.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

I was hoping you would ask... Been compiling on Docs so I can give you a list of what all of them said about God, creation, and scientific method...

Isaac Newton (1642-1726/27) was an English polymath and key figure in the Scientific Revolution and Enlightenment who believed that science and faith were intertwined. His theism and science influenced each other in several ways:

• God's power
• Newton believed that the universe was a manifestation of God's infinite power, and that God intervened in the world and history. For example, he believed God prevented the stars from falling into each other and may have prevented the universe's motion from decaying due to friction.
• Nature and scripture
• Newton believed that God wrote both the Book of Nature and the Book of Scripture, and that the knowledge revealed in each was harmonious. He also believed that nature and scripture both displayed divine simplicity.
• Science as a portal
• Newton believed that science was a way to access God's mind, and that his study of the natural world was motivated by his belief in a Creator who created the world in an orderly way. For example, he believed that physics showed how God set up the world, while scripture and prophecy showed how God acted in history.

Robert Boyle (1627—1691) was a Christian scientist who believed that science and religion could coexist and support each other. His faith motivated his scientific work, and he saw studying nature as a religious duty. Boyle was a pioneer in combining natural theology, the idea that God's attributes can be seen in the natural world, with empirical scientific inquiry. He believed that conflicts between science and the Bible were due to mistakes in science or incorrect interpretations of scripture. Boyle also praised God for his scientific discoveries and encouraged others to do the same.

Boyle's views on science and religion were presented in his lectures and writings, and they influenced others long after his time. His work helped to establish a connection between Christian faith and experimental science.


https://creation.com/francis-bacon


Charles Babbage (1791-1871), known as the father of the computer, was an Anglican Christian who believed that science and the Bible were compatible. He believed that scientific methods could be used to better understand and interpret the Bible, and that the study of nature could help people understand God's wisdom and goodness. Babbage's scientific expertise spanned many fields, and he was also known for his contributions to natural theology and apologetics.


https://answersingenesis.org/creati...-creation-scientists-blaise-pascal-1623-1662/


https://biologos.org/articles/georg...-could-conceive-the-beginning-of-the-universe


https://crev.info/scientists/roger-bacon/


https://answersingenesis.org/creation-scientists/gregor-mendel-no-darwinian/


Here is the actual history of the founders of modern scientific method. What they said they believed. What their bios show them to have believed about Christianity or at least creationism and science. Where I am no using a link, those are AI searches on the subject. Hardly accusable of bias. The others, whether or not you like the sources, are great bios on the men. What you claim and what they said are quite the opposite.

That’s an epic fail, Bacon didn’t write any of that.
I’ll ask again, do you have anything that Bacon wrote?

 

[JaySecrets]

That’s an epic fail, Bacon didn’t write any of that.
I’ll ask again, do you have anything that Bacon wrote?

You get answers then pretend you didn't. It is your mom on here. I've watched you do it over and over again. You got your answers and you got the evidence of the worldview of devout Christian scientists who were the cornerstones of modern science. Deal with it. I don't have the energy to deal with your antagonist stupidity. Go over to the local grade school. I'm sure they will have great interest in the maturity of your thinking, arguments, and logic. I on the other hand am an adult who has actually studied and read for himself, and understands the classic rules of debate. You are a waste of my time. Goodbye.

 

[YDB95]

You get answers then pretend you didn't.

The answers did not include an answer to the question that was actually asked. He didn't ask about any of the scientists you mentioned, he asked about Bacon.

 

[Bray123]

The thoughts & theories of bronze and iron age peoples are not science, even when written down 500 years later.

If a theory cannot be discarded after reviewing new evidence, it's superstition. Science is constantly reviewed and adjusted/discarded/rewritten to allow for discoveries, which is why the poorly educated superstitious peoples are still unable to cope with what happened during Covid (including the development of vaccines).

 

[Fuzzy1975]

https://www.google.com/search?q=pictures+of+oil+gushers&oq=pictures+of+oil+gushers&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIHCAEQIRigATIHCAIQIRigATIHCAMQIRigATIHCAQQIRigATIHCAUQIRigATIHCAYQIRifBTIHCAcQIRifBTIHCAgQIRifBdIBCDkxODNqMGo3qAIZsAIB&client=ms-android-charter-us-rvc3&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8#sbfbu=1&pi=pictures of oil gushers

Guess all these pictures of gushers are fakes too

No those are all real.

Now get me some similar proof about the below

There is no way, with the rate of expansion of the universe, with human population, this animal population, with the amount of salt buildup in the sea, with the pressure that makes oil gush, with all kinds of observable proofs, that the universe is ancient. I have posted some of the evidences on here earlier. The Bible actually makes an interesting statement here. It says that God stretched out the universe (a lot like a poetic way of describing an expanding universe), and if God spoke the universe into being, "And God said.... And there was" is exactly what we would expect a Big Bang to look like.

And I might agree.

There was no "big bang". It is a very poor choice of words for describing when the Universe "came into being".

 

[coati]

That’s an epic fail, Bacon didn’t write any of that.
I’ll ask again, do you have anything that Bacon wrote?

Bacon's last words to God were uttered on the frying pan:

"My God, why hath thou forsaken me?"

 

[Fuzzy1975]

I was hoping you would ask... Been compiling on Docs so I can give you a list of what all of them said about God, creation, and scientific method...

Isaac Newton (1642-1726/27) was an English polymath and key figure in the Scientific Revolution and Enlightenment who believed that science and faith were intertwined. His theism and science influenced each other in several ways:

• God's power
• Newton believed that the universe was a manifestation of God's infinite power, and that God intervened in the world and history. For example, he believed God prevented the stars from falling into each other and may have prevented the universe's motion from decaying due to friction.
• Nature and scripture
• Newton believed that God wrote both the Book of Nature and the Book of Scripture, and that the knowledge revealed in each was harmonious. He also believed that nature and scripture both displayed divine simplicity.
• Science as a portal
• Newton believed that science was a way to access God's mind, and that his study of the natural world was motivated by his belief in a Creator who created the world in an orderly way. For example, he believed that physics showed how God set up the world, while scripture and prophecy showed how God acted in history.

Robert Boyle (1627—1691) was a Christian scientist who believed that science and religion could coexist and support each other. His faith motivated his scientific work, and he saw studying nature as a religious duty. Boyle was a pioneer in combining natural theology, the idea that God's attributes can be seen in the natural world, with empirical scientific inquiry. He believed that conflicts between science and the Bible were due to mistakes in science or incorrect interpretations of scripture. Boyle also praised God for his scientific discoveries and encouraged others to do the same.

Boyle's views on science and religion were presented in his lectures and writings, and they influenced others long after his time. His work helped to establish a connection between Christian faith and experimental science.


https://creation.com/francis-bacon


Charles Babbage (1791-1871), known as the father of the computer, was an Anglican Christian who believed that science and the Bible were compatible. He believed that scientific methods could be used to better understand and interpret the Bible, and that the study of nature could help people understand God's wisdom and goodness. Babbage's scientific expertise spanned many fields, and he was also known for his contributions to natural theology and apologetics.


https://answersingenesis.org/creati...-creation-scientists-blaise-pascal-1623-1662/


https://biologos.org/articles/georg...-could-conceive-the-beginning-of-the-universe


https://crev.info/scientists/roger-bacon/


https://answersingenesis.org/creation-scientists/gregor-mendel-no-darwinian/


Here is the actual history of the founders of modern scientific method. What they said they believed. What their bios show them to have believed about Christianity or at least creationism and science. Where I am no using a link, those are AI searches on the subject. Hardly accusable of bias. The others, whether or not you like the sources, are great bios on the men. What you claim and what they said are quite the opposite.

Show us where any of those great minds ever proved there was a God? None did, they followed the Science, believing at the end,the science would prove God.

Even Einstein said "God does not play dice with the Universe" , but never could show there was a God.

They are examples of Scientists who follow the evidence. Religion is faith, they knew that.

Your Creationists have Religion as "fact" and try and prove this as true and will manipulate or disregard proven Science to make their claims fit their preconceived view of what the answer should be.

 

[ll74]

Show us where any of those great minds ever proved there was a God? None did, they followed the Science, believing at the end,the science would prove God.

Even Einstein said "God does not play dice with the Universe" , but never could show there was a God.

They are examples of Scientists who follow the evidence. Religion is faith, they knew that.

Your Creationists have Religion as "fact" and try and prove this as true and will manipulate or disregard proven Science to make their claims fit their preconceived view of what the answer should be.

This last part is quite succinct and accurate.

 

[John_von_Neumann]

When I have a person who has the audacity to claim to know that sources are unqualified, at that point, since he is glad to slander a man far more qualified than he is to speak on the subject, I provide the proof of qualifications. No, my perspective isn't wrong. It's science. Real science that simply does exactly what the fathers of modern science saw as the very basis of real science: following the information the Designer placed in His creation to point back to Him.

 

[Bray123]

Here is a demonstration of the science behind evolution using the example of the cordless mouse.



By cutting open the packets in this way, eventually the cordless mouse evolved and that is why we have them today.

 

[ll74]

I think JS is on vacay everyone