We have all noticed your lack of comprehension. Perhaps there are some meds you can take.
Thermodynamics and "Open" Systems
- Thread starter bob b
- Start date
We have all noticed your lack of comprehension. Perhaps there are some meds you can take.
Does Granville Sewell himself believe in the Genesis creation story?
If he doesn't he should.
Many times people grow in their understanding over a long period of time.
That was my experience. Perhaps it will be his, assuming that he is not already there.
One important step is to recognize that evolution is bad science.
SUTG
New member
We all know that you prefer your just-so stories.
Yes, they seem to be far superior to evolutionary just-so stories.
Bob showed how he grew in understanding a few years ago by critiquing some elementary algebra in this forum. In so doing, he showed he couldn’t do elementary algebra correctly.
Bob showed how he grew in understanding a few years ago by postulating a scenario with some simple statistics. Then several people showed his math was nonsense.
Bob showed how he grew in understanding a few years ago when he tried to rotate the earth to explain Joshua’s long day. Except he ignored the field of vector analysis in so doing.
Bob showed how he grew in understanding a few years ago when he alluded to Carl Sagan mocking the idea that there might be collisions in the solar system, but it was pointed out that Sagan strongly asserted that such collisions were inevitable.
The list goes on. Can anyone show a single example in the thousands of posts bob b has made in which he clearly demonstrated that he has grown in understanding non-trivial principles of science?
And bob b is competent to recognize bad science?
This says it all.
Since he rejects evolution he has a good start, but some shy away from Genesis, probably because it contains some material that appears on the surface to be mythological.
Some years ago Bob Enyart engaged in a debate with Eugenie Scott and because I was familiar with the tactics she used in debating evolution was able to advise Bob that she would try to switch the topic, Science and Evolution, over to a discussion of Genesis and Theology.
Bob reluctantly took my advice and as a result stuck like glue to the topic and "cleaned her clock" in the debate.
It appears to be mythological because it is.
It was a propaganda tool to convince the naive how easy it was for random mutations to create order.
Undermining a purely materialistic worldview by resorting to an argument based on the scientific evidence should not be equated with an argument against evolution itself. I see this as one flaw in your logic.
Flipper
New member
I'm sorry that Eugenie Scott isn't very good at debating, or wasn't prepared for Bob Enyart's steamroller approach.
However, science isn't hashed out in debate halls (or court rooms). It is settled in laboratories, in post-field-work write ups, in the scientific journals, and in reaching a consensus in scientific opinion. It is in these areas that creationism is falling far and sadly short.
However, science isn't hashed out in debate halls (or court rooms). It is settled in laboratories, in post-field-work write ups, in the scientific journals, and in reaching a consensus in scientific opinion. It is in these areas that creationism is falling far and sadly short.
She wasn't prepared to discuss the scientific evidence which allegely supports evolution.
But that is nothing new. Nobody wants to do that. They would rather attack the Bible.
I think your ability to comprehend and understand is a bit befuddled. Those you see here as "attacking the Bible" are more often just pointing out the fact that a literal interpretation of Genesis is either ignorant or dishonest.
Whether it is a fact or not, it is still an attack on the bible. Your putting "attacking the Bible" in quotes shows your inability to comprehend and understand.
Okey dokey.
I'll make it plain then.
A literal reading of Genesis is simply incorrect, wrong and makes not a whit of sense, even if you believe in the Christian God.
I suspect you can comprehend and understand that. If not, talk with bob b, cause you are both on the same wave length, one which is clearly out of phase with the real world.
You don't understand that when you claim scientific support for an idea, you actually have to have the science behind the claim. It also means that if you don't have the scientific support you claim, you should reject the idea. That is where evolution is - even if you don't want to believe in YEC, you should, at least if you were an honest scientist, reject evolution.
There is NO reason, based on the evidence, to reject evolution. Learn some science from a source other than a YEC/creationist web site. There are hundreds of thousand, if not tens of millions of scientific studies that support evolution. There is no evidence that supports YEC or special creation just a few thousand years ago.
How you can claim otherwise simply amazes me. You have your head in the sand or simply lack basic reading comprehension skills.