What is science? – by Godless Teen

January 2, 2013 in Fun, General

In other news, my friends at Answers in Genesis recently posted an article for kids entitled, “What is Science?“. Within, it teaches kids of the conspiratorial plot by scientists to indoctrinate children into believing evolution, through a form of science known as “origins science”, science dealing with the past.

Answers in Genesis- a well-known, international, large scientific body which has been known for uncovering many new scientific discoveries in the past- states that:

However, operational science has limitations. It can’t, for example, tell us where fish came from, when the rock formed in the first place, or how the bones of the creature came to be fossilized. Operational science deals with the world of today. It involves testing and repeating experiments.

Origins science deals with the past. Origins or historical science is used to reconstruct events that have happened in the past, using principles such as causality (for every effect, there must be a cause) and analogy (if this is the way it happens today, then perhaps it happened like this in the past). Of course, the best method of reconstruction is to rely on the account of an accurate eyewitness.

What a great explanation! Now I know why scientists say that it’s impossible that I gave birth to that one baby elephant last month, but I know it’s true because I saw it firsthand! Those “scientists”… More like conspirators!

Indeed, this explains a great deal of things that I know are true but that scientists say cannot be. I know how many times Doctor Who has saved us in the past from complete and utter annihilation, but nobody believes that he even exists! But I’ve seen him at those events; my eyewitness account is far greater than this utter nonsense of “causality” and “analogy”.

Of course, it must be pointed out that AiG science also has its own limitations. For example, how do you know that I’m not lying about the past? Well, the best answer would be, because there was another eyewitness there to confirm that I’m not lying. But how do we know that that eyewitness isn’t lying either? By having another eyewitness there to say that the previous eyewitness wasn’t lying, as well. But how do we know that that eyewitness isn’t lying either? By having another eyewitness there to say that the previous eyewitness wasn’t lying, as well. But how do we know that that eyewitness isn’t lying either? By having another eyewitness there to say that the previous eyewitness wasn’t lying, as well. But how do we know that that eyewitness isn’t lying either? By having another eyewitness there to say that the previous eyewitness wasn’t lying, as well. But how do we know that that eyewitness isn’t lying either? By having another eyewitness there to say that the previous eyewitness wasn’t lying, as well. But how do we know that that eyewitness isn’t lying either? By having another eyewitness there to say that the previous eyewitness wasn’t lying, as well. But how do we know that that eyewitness isn’t lying either? By having another eyewitness there to say that the previous eyewitness wasn’t lying, as well. But how do we know that that eyewitness isn’t lying either? By having another eyewitness there to say that the previous eyewitness wasn’t lying, as well. But…

However, logic aside, AiG’s discovery is a once-in-a-lifetime, earth-shattering breakthrough in science. It no longer means that we should use methods like radioactive dating, tree rings, and other nonsensical methods to determine what is scientific and what is not. Rather, now we understand that people determine what has happened and what hasn’t! We now know that aliens have visited Earth and abducted people! We now know that Bigfoot exists! Wow- just think of all of the new discoveries that we can make!

Not only that, but there must be multiple histories as well, due to contradictions! For example, in Bart Ehrman’s book, Jesus Interrupted, he states that

…For example, in John’s Gospel, Jesus performs his first miracle in chapter 2, when he turns the water into wine (a favorite miracle story on college campuses), and we’re told that “this was the first sign that Jesus did” (John 2:11). Later in the chapter we’re told that Jesus did “many signs” in Jerusalem (John 2:23). And then, in chapter 4, he heals the son of a centurion, and the author says, “This is the second sign that Jesus did” (John 4:54). Huh? One signs, many signs, and then the second sign?

But now we know that, because eyewitness accounts are the best methods of reconstructing the past, that there must have been multiple pasts, and this supposed “contradiction” is just a hoax by Ehrman! We now know that, instead, in one past, Jesus turned water into wine and then healed the son of the centurion, whereas, in the other, he just performed many signs in Jerusalem. Wow, I wish I had known this a while ago- I’ve just been converted to Christianity!

Unfortunately, AiG’s article fails to say exactly why science can’t reconstruct the past, but, remember, when you’re dealing with True Science by AiG (TM), logic needs not exist. Anyways, have we ever had an eyewitness to see that logic exists?

Please leave a reply!

%d bloggers like this: