Send a Message
to Ron May

Comments

24

Joined

Nov 19, 2012

Ron May Profile

Forums Owned

Recent Posts

Evolution Debate

Creation/Evolution Debate

Science We often hear that science is capable of proving anything and everything. Is that really true? Does science have limits to it's deductive abilities? Yes, there are limits to what science and the scientific method can prove. Mathematics and Logical Truths Science cannot prove mathematics or logic. These are presumptions to the scientific method. Science presumes them to be true and has not proven them to be true. For instance, take away logic and mathematics and try to prove them scientifically, try to prove logic to be true without using logic. The Metaphysical Science can't prove the metaphysical. One of the more talked about metaphysical elements is the supernatural. Science deals with nature. The super-natural is outside of nature and therefore by definition outside the abilities of science to take a look at it. Ethical Beliefs Statements of value and morality cannot be proven. Example: It cannot be shown by science if the scientists mutulating Jews in the Nazi concentration camps were doing anything evil, or not. Asthetic Judgements The beauty of nature or art is a human judgement and cannot be determined by science. Science can suggest what we find to be beautiful, but it cannot determine why. The Scientific Method Science cannot prove the scientific method itself. It presumes it. How can something use it's own process to prove it's own process? It can't. That would be circular reasoning. So... If we are to have a good understanding of what is happening, on we need to know the limitations of our methods. To wrap our minds around something we need to know some of the ins and outs. To hear something scientific and believe it, we need to know what it's based on. Religion as defined by a set of beliefs, science often is as much a religion as any religion out there. Many areas scientists explore are areas where there is little or no knowledge or supporting material. So, to fill in those gaps, scientists make assumptions and presumptions which they use to draw up conclusions and theories, but the general public is not generally aware of these assumptions and presumptions. Many of these assumptions and presumptions are based on naturalism and materialism. These are belief systems about the universe that contradict the belief systems of Christians, Muslims, Jews, and many others, but they are all belief systems. They all contain a huge number things we can't know, test or prove. In the end, to draw conclusions on the most intriguing questions of life, like why are we here and where did we come from, we all need to make assumptions, scientists do, they just prefer not to talk about them. Most scientists won't even admit that some science is faith based, in the scientific world that is a topic that is completely off limits.  (Nov 24, 2012 | post #1012)

Evolution Debate

Creation/Evolution Debate

In the USA, atheists live in one of the few places where all religions are allowed, even Atheism, the religion of nothing. They are free worship nothing, believe in nothing, free to have nothing, free to live for nothing, and free to die with nothing, but that is not good enough for the atheists, they want to make sure nobody else has anything either. You will often find them injecting themselves into discussions about religion, and since they believe in nothing, have nothing to offer, they only spout vile language, insults, and hatred, like spoiled brats seeking the attention of adults. Atheists replace their own empty lives of nothing with hatred. They hate Christians, they hate Jews, they hate America, they even hate themselves. They especially hate anyone who does not instantly accept their bitter mantra of nothing. They try to claim the image of patriots following the rule of "Separation between church and state" as if they are some sort of noble Constitutionalists , but the fact is there is no such rule in the Constitution. Their lies are transparent and pathetic... They are simply filled with vile hatred! Imagine a group crossing a desert and they will soon die without water. They send out scouts, the first scout returns with the good news that he has found water and will lead the group to it, the second scout returns reporting he has found nothing, then he tries to convince the group to ignore the other scout and follow him. Why would he do that? We should be very careful who we trust and follow. In the end, atheists not only have nothing, they are nothing... For eternity... Christians call it hell. Even so, While God honors the atheist's free-will decision of rejection, God continues to love atheists as he does all sinners, until their fate is sealed by death.  (Nov 24, 2012 | post #950)

Evolution Debate

Creation/Evolution Debate

Comets Brought Life to Earth Scientists have sent probes to planets and moons in our Solar System for years to find other life, what have they found? Nothing! In fact, the images returned show one thing in common, the absolute desolation that is in stark contrast to the abundant, thriving life right here on earth. Can you say Garden of Eden :) Now evolution scientists are speculating that life evolved long, long ago in a place far, far away. Sound familar? Check the Star Wars series of movies. They continue to speculate that this life, that originated in a place and time that can't be observed, was transported to earth on comets, or even better, life MUST HAVE originated in these icy lumps of gravel themselves. Life in Comets http://www.astrobi o.net/pressrelease /2432/life-in-come ts Did Comets Make Life on Earth Possible? http://news.nation algeographic.com/n ews/2003/10/1002_0 31002_cometstudy.h tml Now it seems that since the primordial soup theory is failing, evolution scientists are desperately searching for new places of origin and if these places are far, far away and long, long ago, so much the better, since that seems to relieve the burden of proof. Anything imaginable is acceptable as long as you don't imagine a loving God who created our magnificent universe. Got some time to waste? Check out this vid, Alien Planet, the graphics are great, the scientists are the top names in the world, but science? You decide. Video: Alien Planet http://www.youtube .com/watch?v=BNLfN e12BKE So, where do they get all this malarkey? This drama is supposedly motivated by real science missions, such as the NASA Origins Program and the NASA/JPL Planet-Finder Mission, as well as the European Space Agency's Darwin Project. "Alien Planet" is a cosmic expedition with Stephen Hawking, Michio Kaku, Jack Horner, Craig Venter, and George Lucas. I wonder how long it will be before "Duck Dodgers in the 24th and a Half Century" will be classified as evolution science? *MUST HAVE - Apparently this is accepted by ALL evolutionists as absolute proof of anything and everything when they have no real evidence. Examples: "life MUST HAVE evolved in the oceans," or "dinosaurs MUST HAVE evolved into birds." Of course MUST HAVE can be turned on it's head when evolutionists feel the need to deny an evident truth such as Intellegent Design (ID).  (Nov 21, 2012 | post #782)

Evolution Debate

Creation/Evolution Debate

What are the Odds? The fine tuned Universe is the proposition that the conditions that allow life in the Universe can only occur when certain universal fundamental physical constants lie within a very narrow range, and at very high odds. For instance, the ripples in the universe from the original Big Bang event are detectable at one part in 100,000. If this factor were slightly smaller, the universe would exist only as a collection of gas, no planets, no life. If this factor were slightly larger, the universe would consist only of large black holes. Obviously, no life would be possible in such a universe. Another finely tuned constant is the strong nuclear force, the force that holds atoms together. The Sun "burns" by fusing hydrogen, and higher elements, together. When the two hydrogen atoms fuse, 0.7% of the mass of the hydrogen is converted into energy. If the amount of matter converted were slightly smaller, 0.6% instead of 0.7%, a proton could not bond to a neutron, and the universe would consist only of hydrogen. With no heavy elements, there would be no rocky planets and no life. If the amount of matter converted were slightly larger, 0.8%, fusion would happen so readily and rapidly that no hydrogen would have survived from the Big Bang. Again, there would be no solar systems and no life. The number must lie exactly between 0.6% and 0.8%. Fine Tuned Parameters for the Universe http://beyondthebi ble.net/Articles/f inetune.htm Evidence shows that the constants of physics have been finely tuned to a degree that is far beyond human engineering. This fine tuning demands an explanation. Scientists and the Design of the Universe http://beyondthebi ble.net/Articles/f inetunequotes.htm The degree to which the constants of physics must match a precise criteria for our universe and life to exist is such that a growing number of agnostic scientists have concluded that there is some sort of design behind it, today that number is about 40%. The next time someone tries to convince you that ALL scientists deny ID, direct them to this link. Video: Privileged Planet http://www.youtube .com/v/zj7F9gkFNi4 ?fs=1&autoplay =1 Take an unforgettable journey to the deepest reaches of the universe and discover the significance of the planet we call home. This powerful documentary examines the extraordinary array of factors that make the Earth both a sanctuary for life and an ideal platform to discover the design and purpose of the cosmos.  (Nov 21, 2012 | post #780)

Evolution Debate

Creation/Evolution Debate

Hi Zone, maybe there is someone here who can carry on a discussion :) I'll check out your link as time allows, I like that stuff. "Our inability to answer a question is not support for your god in any way." Nor does that inability disprove God in any way, science cannot disprove God :) I also accept that the Bible cannot prove or disprove evolution, the Bible is not a scientific journal, it wasn't meant to be. The Bible answers why we are here not how we are here, the creation in Genesis is simply a starting point for those interested in the why. From where I sit there is much more to human knowledge than just hard science and God created science along with math, logic, ethics, philosophy, aesthetics, metaphysics and a host of others. I do find Genesis to be a pretty good plain language description of the Big Bang, even though it is a few thousand years old. Do you like youtube? Video: Alien Planet http://www.youtube .com/watch?v=BNLfN e12BKE Where do they get all this malarkey? This drama is supposedly motivated by real science missions, such as the NASA Origins Program and the NASA/JPL Planet-Finder Mission, as well as the European Space Agency's Darwin Project. "Alien Planet" is a cosmic expedition with Stephen Hawking, Michio Kaku, Jack Horner, Craig Venter, and George Lucas. Ex-atheist shares why he left the lie of Atheism http://www.youtube .com/watch?feature =player_embedded &v=Xhr88HZtkmE  (Nov 20, 2012 | post #714)

Evolution Debate

Creation/Evolution Debate

The singularity in the description of black holes is a mathematical singularity, or a point where a physical theory breaks down. This does not necessarily mean that physical infinities exist, it may mean simply that the theory is incapable of describing the situation properly. Have a nice day :)  (Nov 20, 2012 | post #712)

Evolution Debate

Creation/Evolution Debate

Really? "Primordial soup" is a term introduced by the Soviet biologist Alexander Oparin. In 1924, he proposed the theory of the origin of life on Earth through the transformation, during the gradual chemical evolution of molecules that contain carbon in the primordial soup. Biochemist Robert Shapiro has summarized the "primordial soup" theory of Oparin and Haldane in its "mature form" as follows: 1.The early Earth had a chemically reducing atmosphere. 2.This atmosphere, exposed to energy in various forms, produced simple organic compounds ("monomers "). 3.These compounds accumulated in a "soup", which may have been concentrated at various locations (shorelines, oceanic vents etc.). 4.By further transformation, more complex organic polymers – and ultimately life – developed in the soup. Moving goal posts? How about Darwinism morphing into Neo-Darwinism? Neo-Darwinism What evolution scientists did find was that species did not appear in the fossil record spread out evenly over time as Darwin theorized, but rather new species appeared in clumps. This was named "punctuated equilibrium," meaning in a short amount of time, many new species appear, then for long periods of time very few new species appear on the earth for the first time. According to Neo-Darwinism, evolution is driven by chance. Chance mutations make small changes in DNA, bigger changes come from recombination, a genetic process in which longer strands of DNA are swapped, transferred, or doubled. These two processes, mutation and recombination, create new meaning in DNA by LUCKY ACCIDENTS. Lucky accidents? Really? One problem with this story is that it is implausible. It is the same as saying that a great work of literature, such as Moby Dick, could emerge from lesser pre-existing books, if there were enough typos and swapping of paragraphs along the way. Well, this lucky accident theory belongs right in there with the entire universe popping into existence from nothing, without cause, and the theory that life sprang into existence, without cause, from a bunch of chemicals in a primordial soup. Interesting but false... Given enough time a thousand monkeys typing at random on a thousand typewriters will eventually produce the complete works of William Shakespeare.  (Nov 20, 2012 | post #697)

Evolution Debate

Creation/Evolution Debate

Not too much different than what Darwin said... When Darwin wrote about natural selection in "Origin of Species," he noted that the actual fossil record did not support this theory. Darwin thought that future discoveries would vindicate his theory. He was wrong, here is how he explained it... "The geological record is extremely imperfect and this will to a large extent explain why we do not find intermediate varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory." Today, about 120 years later, the fossil record has been greatly expanded, we now have millions of fossils representing over a quarter of a million species and we have fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time, and even when new ones are found, they are frequently controversial and seem to be more of a figment of someone's imagination than a transitional species.  (Nov 20, 2012 | post #693)

Evolution Debate

Creation/Evolution Debate

My, my, such anger and hatred, is that part of your evolution science training? Does it work? Are you actually able to convince people you are a genius with that stuff? Maybe something is missing in your life :) The Big Bang theory and all the current science does not say the "universe came from nothing." Really? So where do you and "all the current science" say it came form? I looked up that "fool" thing for you... For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse; for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools... (Romans 1:19-22)  (Nov 20, 2012 | post #692)

Evolution Debate

Creation/Evolution Debate

The Scientific Method The scientific method is a process for experimentation that is used to explore observations and answer questions. Scientists use the scientific method to search for cause and effect relationships in nature. In other words, they design an experiment so that changes to one item causes something else to vary in a predictable way. Where did life come from? The common evolutionist answer is that it arose from a chance combination of atoms and molecules in a primordial soup. Let's examine that using the scientific method. These are the universally recognized six steps of the scientific method... 1. Ask a Question 2. Do Background Research 3. Construct a Hypothesis 4. Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment 5. Analyze Your Experimental Data and Draw a Conclusion 6. Communicate Your Results Now let's use the scientific method to determine the origin of life. 1. Ask a Question - What is the origin of life? 2. Do Background Research - Research the characteristics of the earliest known life. 3. Construct a Hypothesis - Life evolved from matter and energy in a primordial soup. 4. Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment - Create a primordial soup and zap it with energy. 5. Analyze Your Experimental Data and Draw a Conclusion - Hmmmm... No new life observed. 6. Communicate Your Results - Life MUST have evolved from non-life in a primordial soup! WHAT? Life MUST have evolved? Yup, even though the conclusion does NOT match the results, evolutionists move right on to the next step, teaching their unproven conclusions in the classroom. "must have" = Apparently this is accepted by ALL evolutionists as absolute proof of anything and everything when they have no real evidence. Examples: "life must have evolved in the oceans," or "dinosaurs must have evolved into birds." Of course "must have" can be turned on it's head when evolutionists feel the need to deny an evident truth such as Intellegent Design (ID).  (Nov 20, 2012 | post #686)

Evolution Debate

Creation/Evolution Debate

The Universe and Frogs You awaken sitting in a room and see it has furniture, chairs, tables, lamps, books and all sorts of stuff. Some of the stuff is close enough that you can touch and examine it. You wonder, where did all this stuff come from? Almost everyone would conclude that someone put the stuff there. Few, if any, would conclude the stuff sprang into existence from nothing. We are born into a universe and see it has galaxies, stars, planets, moons and all sorts of stuff. Some of the stuff is close enough that we can touch and examine it. We wonder, where did all this stuff come from? Many would conclude that someone put it there. Many others would conclude the universe sprang into existence from nothing. Why the difference? Is it the scope of the universe compared to the room? Is it the vast difference in the complexity? Maybe it is the distrust that the creator could have the knowledge and ability to fill the universe as compared to the room. There is certainly something that causes people to accept nothing when considering the creation of the Universe. Also, whatever it is, it is only in the mind of the individual, no matter if we believe in God, or not. In the room, on a table is a pocket watch. Being curious we examine the watch, we open it up and take it apart and examine all the little gears, springs and parts. Do we conclude someone made the watch and put it on the table or do we imagine that the watch assembled itself from available dust and sprang into existence? Almost everyone would conclude that someone made the watch and put it on the table. In the Universe, in a pond, is a frog. Being curious we examine the frog, we take it to our lab and open it up, take it apart and examine all the little organs, muscle, tissue, and parts. Do we conclude someone made the frog or do we imagine that the frog assembled itself from a primordial soup and sprang into existence? Many would conclude that someone made the frog while many others would conclude the frog assembled itself from a primordial soup. Of course with the frog we are talking about the original frog, some sort of life form, but why the difference in conclusions? Again, no matter what the conclusion, it is only in the mind of the individual, and has no bearing whatsoever on the truth. In the end it is a personal choice, do I opt for nothing and eternal death, or do I check out the possibility of eternal life as a free gift from a loving God who created me and the universe? http://beyondthebi ble.net/  (Nov 20, 2012 | post #682)

Evolution Debate

Creation/Evolution Debate

Nope... It's just me :) Do you have a problem with macro-evolution and micro-evolution? species: a subdivision of a genus considered as a basic biological classification and containing individuals that resemble one another and may interbreed There is a difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution, micro-evolution is variation within a single species, and what Charles Darwin observed and wrote about. Darwin wrote about finches changing color, beak type, and other changes due to the needs of survival under different conditions, "Survival of the fittest," very good science. In the end, no matter what the change, the finches remained finches, but then Darwin went on to include "natural selection" which is macro-evolution, and describes how one species changes into another requiring new genetic information and new genetic material... A bear changing into a whale for instance. A little more about Darwin... Before Charles Darwin, in 1795, James Hutton, a Scottish physician, proposed the theory of gradualism which holds that profound change is the cumulative product of slow but continuous processes. The theory meant that a high percentage of fossils would be "transitional " species, meaning species which were "between " two other species. Because evolution was supposed to have happened slowly, in small steps, large numbers of transitional species were a requirement for the theory. When Darwin wrote about natural selection in "Origin of Species," he noted that the actual fossil record did not support this theory. Darwin thought that future discoveries would vindicate his theory. He was wrong, here is how he explained it... "The geological record is extremely imperfect and this will to a large extent explain why we do not find intermediate varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory." Today, about 120 years later, the fossil record has been greatly expanded, we now have millions of fossils representing over a quarter of a million species and we have fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time, and even when new ones are found, they are frequently controversial and seem to be more of a figment of someone's imagination than a transitional species.  (Nov 20, 2012 | post #665)

Evolution Debate

Creation/Evolution Debate

Would You Believe? Remember Agent Maxwell Smart? Here, Smart has been captured by the villainous Mohammed Khan... Smart: Would you believe I have you surrounded by the entire 17th Mounted Bengal Lancers. Khan: No. Smart: Would you believe the First Bengal Lancers? Khan: I don't believe you. Smart: How about Gunga Din on a donkey? Scientist: Would you believe that I know everything? Christian: No. Scientist: Would you believe that life evolved from a primordal goo? Christian: I don't think so. Scientist: How about that Hippos evolved into Whales? Sometimes evolutionists take the smallest pieces of evidence and stretch them out into a theory to see how much the public will believe. Several hundred years ago, the explorer Samual Hearne saw bears swimming and catching salmon and so naturally he concluded that bears were the ancestors of whales. Charles Darwin accepted this in his book, "Origin of Species." Modern scientists continue in the tradition with new theories which they hope will be more believable, namely the evolution of bears/hyenas/hippo s to whales (there seems to be quite a bit of dissension between bears, hyenas, and hippos). They have produced nice charts with animal skeletons arranged by size and appearance to show the progression from bears/hyenas/hippo s to whale. The problem is that almost NONE of the bones that are critical to the change exist in reality. Some of what they have to tie these together are, Pakicetus inner ear bones, Ambulocetus nose bones, and Dorudontine, there is no evidence whatsoever that would indicate how the rear limbs and bony tail of this last step "evolved " into a whale fluke made mostly of cartilage. Hippo to Whale Chart http://beyondthebi ble.net/Images/hip powhale.jpg Theories like this may have some merit but the overall evidence is so skimpy that these learned scientists might as well be doing a Maxwell Smart "Would you believe" bit.  (Nov 19, 2012 | post #593)

Evolution Debate

Creation/Evolution Debate

LOL You are truly pathetic.  (Nov 19, 2012 | post #587)

Top Stories

Is homosexuality a sin?

Hömösëxüälïty is a sin if you believe the Bible, (and possibly the Quoran) For non-believers it may or may, or may not be ïmmöräl, since they seem to be able to rationalize almost anything, abortion, hömösëxüälïty, euthanasia, freeloading, and etc. Better question is why does government continue to license sämë-sëx-märrïägë? Licensing was originally to protect the health of society from the effects of ïncëst and etc. When sämë-sëx-märrïägë is licensed that is obviously out the window. The real problem is when they want to teach ALL children how great bütt-sëx and södömy is along with a whole list of other perversions. Keep it out of schools, let JPs join who they want and Churches join who they want. New York Inches Closer to Legalizing Bestiality and High School Homosexual Recruitment... http://christwire. org/2011/06/new-yo rk-inches-closer-t o-legalizing-besti ality-and-high-sch ool-homosexual-rec ruitment/  (Nov 19, 2012 | post #78926)