| So many believers have been brow beat (bullied) into believing everything science says. Why? Because science has all this evidence, and support mechanisms for their theories. But the truth be known, it all amounts to only being about 50-80% true. And I can remember being taught that science was a work towards truth, yet over a 100 years have passed, and not one theory has crossed over to that goal. So what does that tell us? That science was never meant for finding truth, and never was. I was lied to in school. And if you want to see how much more on how science deceives us, and lies to us. Click on this link: Shame of evolution. |
Those who debate these issues on forums know that science believers loves to ask questions that creationist can't answer. But yet when asked that same type of a unanswerable question, they re-frame to either ignoring it, calling it a straw-man, or resort to personal attacks (name calling, you can't spell, your grammer is bad, etc...). This is their excuse of not wanting to admit that they don't know. When I asked one science believer about when theories were going to become absolute truth, he said:
| Regardless of absolutes or not, the broad scope of the scientific method is absolutely the only method of finding valid information. |
What this actually is saying: Everyone else is lying that does not use the "scientific method" (his god). This comment not only proves they are single minded, but that truth itself is also beyond their comprehension. They will often say that the creationist, and believers in God in general, are closed minded. But that comment, plus others like it, show who is really closed minded. For they will use any word possible that makes their information sound true, such as valid, fact, etc... but when it comes to actually being what they would like to say it is, it will always fall short. Why? Because, as I've been told a 100 times: that's not how science works. And that statement could not be more valid in describing how a theory will never become what it was never intended to be. Which is truth.
Side note: When I walk through a book store. I often have to wonder what the difference is between science and science fiction. For one admits to not being true, while the other admits it can never becomes true.
So in secret, they discuss these theories and how true they are. With in their own circles of course. Because when said in public forums etc..., they would have to prove it. And that is a situation they can never win. So the word truth, and it's meaning, are avoided as if it were some type of plague. And in a way, it is. Why? Because absolute truth makes the science believer realize reality. And in theories, there can be no room for actual reality. This is why it is taught that there are no absolutes, which is a mild way of actually saying there is no truth. Once they get you to believe this, then anything that is not absolute (a lie) can be taught to you. And if this is what has to be done before science can be understood, what does that tell you?
Science is: Theories=no absolutes. No absolutes=lies. Because if truth were really what science wanted to find, then absolutes would not be a problem, but a reachable goal. But teaching there are no absolutes makes you realize that truth behind being an absolute is never on the mind of those who believe in theories. So what does that make a theory? An excuse to promote an unprovable idea as truth. Even though the word "truth" is never used.
So if actual truth, is what science is truly after, then a absolute of some sort should be a goal. Not a word that no longer has meaning (redefining truth). Don't believe me? Ask a evolutionist what a absolute is in what he believes. The answer you'll get is an actual excuse for believing what he does. And you'll also find that a evolutionist cannot give you an actual definition of a absolute because to believe evolution it cannot be a part of that believe system.
