Scientists piece together human ancestry [Archive] - Page 2

Catcher

05-28-2009, 10:25 PM

Since the earth's magnetic field is decaying at an exponential rate, its strength would have been unrealistically high 25,000 years ago. Thus, Earth is less than 25,000 years old.

The size of the Mississippi River delta divided by the sediment accumulation rate gives an age of less than 30,000 years.

The largest stalactites and flowstones could have formed in about 4400 years.

The oldest coral reef is about 4200 years old .

The oldest tree in the world is 4300 years old .

The oldest historical records go back less than 6000 years .

The existence of short period comets means that the universe is less than 10,000 years old. Comets and meteoroids only last from 10,000-15,000 years before they are blown apart by the solar wind.

There are no fossil meteorites in the geologic record. If the latter were laid down over billions of years we would expect to find at least a few fossil meteorites in the geologic strata. Therefore, the geologic record was deposited rapidly.

The volume of lava on earth divided by its rate of efflux yields only a few million years. The earth is not billions of years old.

If we divide the amount of various minerals in the ocean by their influx rate we get only a few thousand years of accumulation. Therefore, the earth is young.

Modern textbooks, in effect, tell us that FROGS+TIME = PRINCE.

Evolution is merely a theory.

Evolution is a religion, not part of science.

Those who believe the earth is billions of years old will typically try to discredit one of the above arguments and then mistakenly think that they have successfully proven the entire list wrong.
If the universe is not billions of years old, then we need not bother with the other arguments supporting evolution.

:wakeup

I really don't give a rats ass if this is a copy and paste will one of you Darwin worshipers address some of these issues? Can Blake put down his Troll zapper for 5 minutes and answer the post?

Desert Plains

05-29-2009, 02:24 AM

I have read this whole topic and my scores show:

Phenomanul 6

Blake -4

BacktoBasics 4

z0sa 5

phyzik 4

The Power Hour. 10

mouse 10

Joe Chalupa 3

Lurkers 20

Earth

05-29-2009, 02:30 AM

Do I really look 4 Billion years old? Even a million sounds bad, you guys are not helping my low self esteem.

Laker Lanny

05-29-2009, 02:54 AM

4 Billion years, I thought it was 5 Billion, anyone have a youtube link that shows the real date?

Blue Jew

05-29-2009, 03:16 AM

What I don't get is why God would wait 4 Billion years just to listen to........

Ji_seEvRpBU

Phenomanul

05-30-2009, 02:50 PM

Even though it violated the speed of light at that moment the speed of light is still measurable now. So you're telling me that the current standard of measurement doesn't matter? I'm talking after the fact not at the moment of birth.

Yeah... it's measureble because we know it to be a constant that can't be exceeded... except somehow we also have to admit to the fact that this velocity was once breached...

Look honestly, pin-pointing the exact age of the Universe is less important to me than acknowledging that it was driven by an Intelligent, Purposeful, Creator... whether Earth is 100,000 years old, 4.6 billion years old or whether or not the Universe is 13 billion years old is less consequential to me than admitting that the Universe was created with our creation in mind -- completely against the notion in the Copernican Principle that suggests that the probability of finding other life bearing (sentient producing) planets is high since the universe is vast...

What good is that tidbit of knowledge (the universe's age) if we take the "Why", and the "Who" out of the equation??? Earlier I was alluding to the physical constants that govern our universe (such as strong and weak forces, the speed of light, the energy density ratio, Plank's constant, the gravitational constant etc...) Do you realize just how finely tuned those constants are??? Most people are rarely confronted by that question... or its implications...

Take the strong force for example... if it were any stronger by even a billionth of a percent, hydrogen would not have been the big bang's most abundant product (discounting dark matter)... without gaseous hydrogen stars would not have formed... and without stars, heavier elements would not have been produced... For that matter, the carbon/oxygen ratio produced by stars is a perfect match with the requirements of life... that ratio would dramatically increase to 30,000:1 for that very same change to the strong force, instead of the 8:1 ratio we observe today. And if the strong force were any weaker atoms would not have coalesced to begin with...

Fact is, there are way too many factors that point to the notion that the Universe, Earth and life are beyond uniqueness... If the configuration of our universe produced by the Big Bang had resulted from chance alone the odds would have been highly stacked against creating the exact mix of physical constants that would be conducive to the existence of life. Any other configuration of those constants (about 15 major constants and 15 minor constants) would have produced a detrimental impact towards the creation and sustainability of life. And yet our exact mix is what was produced by the Big Bang... This odds-defying combination is more than mere coincidence and a reason why many astronomers are the first to tell you that the universe had to be created...

Unfortunately, people would rather listen to the likes of Carl Sagan or Richard Dawkins, in order to boost their own disbelief rather than to accept what is plainly obvious... at least to most other astronomers and physicists... Or they would rather buy into the multiverse notion before admitting that the Universe was intricately designed... even though proof for such a theory (multiverse) is not even testable...

BTW sorry that I couldn't answer your reply in a timely manner... I had surgery yesterday...

scientology

05-30-2009, 03:07 PM

..
Look honestly, pin-pointing the exact age of the Universe is less important to me than acknowledging that it was driven by an Intelligent, Purposeful, Creator... .

You make a good point but the truth is as long as the non believers can say the earth is more than 10,000 years old it makes the Bible out to be all lies.

But they go a step further they say the earth is 4 Billion years old so no matter what you say it makes no sense on why a creator would wait so long to create man and thus they will always have scoreboard on you.

It's like you trying to tell me how to build a truck and my great grandfather was Henry Ford you will always be beneath me on that subject.

Bottom-line the atheist have their bases covered.

Let them have their fun in the Sun we can laugh at them later on Judgment day. :tu

Blake

05-30-2009, 11:40 PM

Yeah... it's measureble because we know it to be a constant that can't be exceeded... except somehow we also have to admit to the fact that this velocity was once breached...

Look honestly, pin-pointing the exact age of the Universe is less important to me than acknowledging that it was driven by an Intelligent, Purposeful, Creator... whether Earth is 100,000 years old, 4.6 billion years old or whether or not the Universe is 13 billion years old is less consequential to me than admitting that the Universe was created with our creation in mind -- completely against the notion in the Copernican Principle that suggests that the probability of finding other life bearing (sentient producing) planets is high since the universe is vast...

What good is that tidbit of knowledge (the universe's age) if we take the "Why", and the "Who" out of the equation??? Earlier I was alluding to the physical constants that govern our universe (such as strong and weak forces, the speed of light, the energy density ratio, Plank's constant, the gravitational constant etc...) Do you realize just how finely tuned those constants are??? Most people are rarely confronted by that question... or its implications...

Take the strong force for example... if it were any stronger by even a billionth of a percent, hydrogen would not have been the big bang's most abundant product (discounting dark matter)... without gaseous hydrogen stars would not have formed... and without stars, heavier elements would not have been produced... For that matter, the carbon/oxygen ratio produced by stars is a perfect match with the requirements of life... that ratio would dramatically increase to 30,000:1 for that very same change to the strong force, instead of the 8:1 ratio we observe today. And if the strong force were any weaker atoms would not have coalesced to begin with...

Fact is, there are way too many factors that point to the notion that the Universe, Earth and life are beyond uniqueness... If the configuration of our universe produced by the Big Bang had resulted from chance alone the odds would have been highly stacked against creating the exact mix of physical constants that would be conducive to the existence of life. Any other configuration of those constants (about 15 major constants and 15 minor constants) would have produced a detrimental impact towards the creation and sustainability of life. And yet our exact mix is what was produced by the Big Bang... This odds-defying combination is more than mere coincidence and a reason why many astronomers are the first to tell you that the universe had to be created...

Unfortunately, people would rather listen to the likes of Carl Sagan or Richard Dawkins, in order to boost their own disbelief rather than to accept what is plainly obvious... at least to most other astronomers and physicists... Or they would rather buy into the multiverse notion before admitting that the Universe was intricately designed... even though proof for such a theory (multiverse) is not even testable...

BTW sorry that I couldn't answer your reply in a timely manner... I had surgery yesterday...

so in your opinion, is the purposeful "Creator" the same God of the Bible? and if so, is that Bible truly the word of God?

Blake

06-01-2009, 02:40 PM

so in your opinion, is the purposeful "Creator" the same God of the Bible? and if so, is that Bible truly the word of God?

Phenomanul

06-01-2009, 07:33 PM

Did I stumble upon a broken record...??? Don't change the crux of the argument...

I'm simply expounding on the improbable odds that the universe required to produce life. Intelligent minds have found more than enough intertwined perfection in Creation to attribute such findings to mere coincidence alone... Others here would rather suggest that belief in a Grand Designer is beyond reproof, and cannot stem from intellectual logic...

Learned men and women, do in fact, believe in GOD despite all the naysayers who would wish to convince the world that only dumb, ignorant, people are capable of such beliefs... That agenda of theirs unfortunately, has been bought by the masses...

MiamiHeat

06-01-2009, 07:57 PM

Isis, Amun-Ra-Osiris, and Horus all ruled the planet for over 5,000 years.

Why are they not worshipped now?

Because they are fake? mythologies? For over 5,000 years, they ruled humanity.

Think about that when you talk about your god. Things change, religions change. It's all man-made.

MannyIsGod

06-01-2009, 08:04 PM

Not knowing how the universe started =/= proof that there MUST be a creator. And if it was, doesn't the creator need a creator and so on?

rolled up $20

06-01-2009, 08:56 PM

MiamiHeat is in trouble now, Manny in da house!

:tu

rolled up $20

06-01-2009, 08:57 PM

the dude is Money :wakeup

Blake

06-01-2009, 09:27 PM

Did I stumble upon a broken record...??? Don't change the crux of the argument...

Did I ask such a difficult question? Do I really need to open a new thread to ask:

"in your opinion, is the purposeful "Creator" the same God of the Bible? and if so, is that Bible truly the word of God?"

Phenomanul

06-01-2009, 10:24 PM

Did I ask such a difficult question? Do I really need to open a new thread to ask:

"in your opinion, is the purposeful "Creator" the same God of the Bible? and if so, is that Bible truly the word of God?"

No... not difficult at all...

I simply refuse to answer it based on our previous exchanges... You enjoy insulting others who don't share your perspective - I get it... and you've never conceded an argument if and when others point out that you've constructed an incomplete/inaccurate/irrelevant or biased argument. By now you should know that conceding an argument and conceding the discussion are not the same thing.

So if I recognize a futile pattern when I see one.... why waste my time indulging your insincere requests?

Besides, my escatological beliefs were never the focal point of my argument; so why bring them up?? No need to open up another thread...

Phenomanul

06-01-2009, 10:54 PM

Not knowing how the universe started =/= proof that there MUST be a creator. And if it was, doesn't the creator need a creator and so on?

I didn't state it quite that way Manny.... I don't validate my belief in GOD with anything remotely close to 'scientific' proof... I've stated that much on several occasions; specifically that my own belief in GOD has come on terms of faith alone...

What I did point out as mind-blowing, was an oft' overlooked concept about the very nature of our universe... One which stands out because it seems that the physical properties which govern our Universe are honed specifically so that life could exist. The physical constants are so finitely tuned... that one must at least accept the notion that the emergence of life was made possible only because they are configured the way they are... Infintessimal changes to several of these constants would have resulted in a Universe void of atoms, stars, and ultimately life...

But you're right... that observation alone doesn't prove that GOD created the Universe... Logically, however, it does challenge the notion that chaotic probability alone was behind it all... In fact, the staggering odds involved has basically forced outspoken atheist astronomers and physicists to place their unwavering faith on finding proof for the existence of a multiverse or validation for other theories along those lines...

Lastly, every time I enter these discussions it's been to dissuade the notion that only "uneducated ignoramus" believe in GOD. Many prominent thinkers, both in our past and the present, hold deeply religious views at their core.

Ultimately, I'm also compeled to point out that Science has not settled the GOD question... no matter what anyone says to the contrary. You'd be surprised to know how many people think that Science has answered the "GOD question"... not realizing of course, that the tool is grossly mismatched for the task.

tlongII

06-01-2009, 11:41 PM

I didn't state it quite that way Manny.... I don't validate my belief in GOD with anything remotely close to 'scientific' proof... I've stated that much on several occasions; specifically that my own belief in GOD has come on terms of faith alone...

What I did point out as mind-blowing, was an oft' overlooked concept about the very nature of our universe... One which stands out because it seems that the physical properties which govern our Universe are honed specifically so that life could exist. The physical constants are so finitely tuned... that one must at least accept the notion that the emergence of life was made possible only because they are configured the way they are... Infintessimal changes to several of these constants would have resulted in a Universe void of atoms, stars, and ultimately life...

But you're right... that observation alone doesn't prove that GOD created the Universe... Logically, however, it does challenge the notion that chaotic probability alone was behind it all... In fact, the staggering odds involved has basically forced outspoken atheist astronomers and physicists to place their unwavering faith on finding proof for the existence of a multiverse or validation for other theories along those lines...

Lastly, every time I enter these discussions it's been to dissuade the notion that only "uneducated ignoramus" believe in GOD. Many prominent thinkers, both in our past and the present, hold deeply religious views at their core.

Ultimately, I'm also compeled to point out that Science has not settled the GOD question... no matter what anyone says to the contrary. You'd be surprised to know how many people think that Science has answered the "GOD question"... not realizing of course, that the tool is grossly mismatched for the task.

I have no idea what you're talking about here and I don't think you do either. I would advise you against incoherent blabbering when attempting to make an argument.

MiamiHeat

06-02-2009, 12:14 AM

lol

Susan Boyle

06-02-2009, 01:21 AM

I have no idea what you're talking about here and I don't think you do either. I would advise you against incoherent blabbering when attempting to make an argument.

To bad he's not a dog or a bull then you could just shoot or drown him since all animals are beneath you.

Phenomanul

06-02-2009, 02:25 AM

I have no idea what you're talking about here and I don't think you do either. I would advise you against incoherent blabbering when attempting to make an argument.

:lol

Look tlongII, You don't have to agree with me, but you certainly don't have the grounds to come at me with that approach.

Don't confuse the logical construct of my arguments... with your own lack of subject-matter comprehension...

I've studied these topics extensively and can converse about them on any given level (having within the past 10 years attained multiple degrees at M.I.T. and having conversed on this very subject with world renown astronomers and physicists kind of gives me that leverage)... So if you don't understand what I'm talking about, do yourself a favor and read up on the subject before re-attempting to discredit my position... especially after that lackluster attempt to do just that with nothing but 'hot air'...

Let me restructure the argument so that I can summarize it, considering it had been threaded along several posts...

Altogether there are about 30 physical constants whose values current theory is unable to predict as dependent variables... They are givens: they simply have the value that they have. This list includes the speed of light, the strength of the Weak and Strong nuclear forces, various parameters associated with electromagnetism (Cuulomb's, Planck's constants, energy density ratio), the strength of gravity, etc... The chance that all of these constants produced by the Big Bang would 'take on' the values necessary to result in a stable universe capable of sustaining complex life forms is almost infintesimal... And yet, those are exactly the parameters that we observe today - our Universe is wildly, staggeringly, improbable. If we couple that observation with other chance factors such as the Universe's critical expansion rate, and the asymmetry of matter/anti-matter production, we find that the existence of the Universe as we know it rests upon a knife edge of improbability.

You may rightly object at this point that this argument is a bit circular: the Universe had to have parameters associated with this kind of stability or we would not be here to comment upon it... This general insight is referred to as the Anthropic Principle: the idea that our Universe is uniquely tuned to give rise to humans... It has been a source of much wonder and speculation since it was fully appreciated just a few decades ago...

Essentially, there are three possible responses to the Anthropic principle (I'll quote it directly from one of my books since it's getting late...):

1) There may be an essentially infinite number of universes, either occurring simultaneously with our own or in some sequence, with different values of the physical constants, and maybe even different physical laws. We are however, unable to observe the other universes... We can exist only in a universe where all the physical properties work together to permit life and consciousness. Ours is not miraculous, it is simply an unusual product of trial and error. This is called the "multiverse" hypothesis...

2) There is only one Universe, and this is it. It just happened to have all the right characteristics to give rise to intelligent life. If it hadn't, we wouldn't be here discussing this. We are just very, very, very lucky.

3) There is only one Universe, and this is it. The precise tuning of all of the physical constants and physical laws that make intelligent life possible is not an accident, but reflects the action of the one who created the Universe in the first place....

On a side note... it must really bother you to accept the fact that Science hasn't squashed the GOD question once and for all... Hate to break it to you, but that question will forever remain controversial.

french bread

06-02-2009, 06:49 AM

I have no idea what you're talking about here and I don't think you do either. I would advise you against incoherent blabbering when attempting to make an argument.

Translation: I am going to pull a Miamiheat and get out of having to debate any further.

LnGrrrR

06-02-2009, 07:54 AM

:lol
On a side note... it must really bother you to accept the fact that Science hasn't squashed the GOD question once and for all... Hate to break it to you, but that question will forever remain controversial.

Science will never and can never answer this question, just like it couldn't answer the question "Which is the best painting of all-time?" or "What is the best meal?"

Blake

06-02-2009, 08:17 AM

No... not difficult at all...

I simply refuse to answer it based on our previous exchanges...

if you were as confident in your answer as you seem to be in your other answers, you would have no problem

You enjoy insulting others who don't share your perspective - I get it... and you've never conceded an argument if and when others point out that you've constructed an incomplete/inaccurate/irrelevant or biased argument. By now you should know that conceding an argument and conceding the discussion are not the same thing.

quit changing the subject.

I don't insult others who don't share my perspective. I insult others that make stupid arguments that are based on their own lousy biased opinions instead of facts.

So if I recognize a futile pattern when I see one.... why waste my time indulging your insincere requests?

Besides, my escatological beliefs were never the focal point of my argument; so why bring them up?? No need to open up another thread...

because you have clearly used words that would imply a religious nature.

JoeChalupa

06-02-2009, 08:18 AM

Science will never and can never answer this question, just like it couldn't answer the question "Which is the best painting of all-time?" or "What is the best meal?"

I concur.

I had a lively debate over the weekend with my niece about religion and how she doesn't understand how I can believe in "the greatest story ever told". Interesting discussion.

Blake

06-02-2009, 08:22 AM

I didn't state it quite that way Manny.... I don't validate my belief in GOD with anything remotely close to 'scientific' proof... I've stated that much on several occasions; specifically that my own belief in GOD has come on terms of faith alone...

What I did point out as mind-blowing, was an oft' overlooked concept about the very nature of our universe... One which stands out because it seems that the physical properties which govern our Universe are honed specifically so that life could exist. The physical constants are so finitely tuned... that one must at least accept the notion that the emergence of life was made possible only because they are configured the way they are... Infintessimal changes to several of these constants would have resulted in a Universe void of atoms, stars, and ultimately life...

But you're right... that observation alone doesn't prove that GOD created the Universe... Logically, however, it does challenge the notion that chaotic probability alone was behind it all... In fact, the staggering odds involved has basically forced outspoken atheist astronomers and physicists to place their unwavering faith on finding proof for the existence of a multiverse or validation for other theories along those lines...

Lastly, every time I enter these discussions it's been to dissuade the notion that only "uneducated ignoramus" believe in GOD. Many prominent thinkers, both in our past and the present, hold deeply religious views at their core.

Ultimately, I'm also compeled to point out that Science has not settled the GOD question... no matter what anyone says to the contrary. You'd be surprised to know how many people think that Science has answered the "GOD question"... not realizing of course, that the tool is grossly mismatched for the task.

this type of post is why I'm asking if you believe the Bible is legit.

Blake

06-02-2009, 08:24 AM

I've studied these topics extensively and can converse about them on any given level (having within the past 10 years attained multiple degrees at M.I.T. and having conversed on this very subject with world renown astronomers and physicists kind of gives me that leverage)...

:lol:lol:lol

and yet you are getting owned by scrubs at a Spurs message board.

did you study with Dr. Gerald Schroeder?

tlongII

06-02-2009, 09:25 AM

:lol

Look tlongII, You don't have to agree with me, but you certainly don't have the grounds to come at me with that approach.

Don't confuse the logical construct of my arguments... with your own lack of subject-matter comprehension...

I've studied these topics extensively and can converse about them on any given level (having within the past 10 years attained multiple degrees at M.I.T. and having conversed on this very subject with world renown astronomers and physicists kind of gives me that leverage)... So if you don't understand what I'm talking about, do yourself a favor and read up on the subject before re-attempting to discredit my position... especially after that lackluster attempt to do just that with nothing but 'hot air'...

Let me restructure the argument so that I can summarize it, considering it had been threaded along several posts...

Altogether there are about 30 physical constants whose values current theory is unable to predict as dependent variables... They are givens: they simply have the value that they have. This list includes the speed of light, the strength of the Weak and Strong nuclear forces, various parameters associated with electromagnetism (Cuulomb's, Planck's constants, energy density ratio), the strength of gravity, etc... The chance that all of these constants produced by the Big Bang would 'take on' the values necessary to result in a stable universe capable of sustaining complex life forms is almost infintesimal... And yet, those are exactly the parameters that we observe today - our Universe is wildly, staggeringly, improbable. If we couple that observation with other chance factors such as the Universe's critical expansion rate, and the asymmetry of matter/anti-matter production, we find that the existence of the Universe as we know it rests upon a knife edge of improbability.

You may rightly object at this point that this argument is a bit circular: the Universe had to have parameters associated with this kind of stability or we would not be here to comment upon it... This general insight is referred to as the Anthropic Principle: the idea that our Universe is uniquely tuned to give rise to humans... It has been a source of much wonder and speculation since it was fully appreciated just a few decades ago...

Essentially, there are three possible responses to the Anthropic principle (I'll quote it directly from one of my books since it's getting late...):

On a side note... it must really bother you to accept the fact that Science hasn't squashed the GOD question once and for all... Hate to break it to you, but that question will forever remain controversial.

What a bunch of garbage! :lol I thought you argued previously that Earth was the only place in the universe where we would find complex life? Make up your mind! Look, I have no problem with the argument that something (God?) could have created the universe. The thing I disagree with is people thinking that the Bible explains everything. That is patently ridiculous. We have no idea how the universe began. However, we must continue the search for answers. Some day in the distant future we may find the answer.

Richard Cranium

06-02-2009, 09:39 AM

http://i40.tinypic.com/jgqk2p.jpg

Ed Helicopter Jones

06-02-2009, 10:13 AM

Everyone knows that humans were the result of aliens injecting monkeys with their DNA. Had that not happened the human race wouldn't exist. This "evolution" theory of some 47 million year old mini-monkey is worthless.

Susan Boyle

06-02-2009, 10:36 AM

The following is why you can't argue with TlongII he contradicts himself over and over ........

I have no problem with the argument that something (God?) could have
created the universe

What a bunch of garbage!

Make up your mind!

I have no problem with the argument that something (God?) could have
created the universe

I disagree with is people thinking that the Bible explains everything. That is patently ridiculous.

However, we must continue the search for answers. Some day in the distant future we may find the answer

What a bunch of garbage!

I have no problem with the argument that something (God?) could have
created the universe

I disagree with is people thinking that the Bible explains everything. That is patently ridiculous.

Make up your mind!

What a bunch of garbage!

I have no problem with the argument that something (God?) could have
created the universe

Blake

06-02-2009, 10:52 AM

The following is why you can't argue with TlongII he contradicts himself over and over ........

I don't think there's any need to point out why you can't argue with a troll.

Phenomanul

06-02-2009, 11:04 AM

:lol:lol:lol

and yet you are getting owned by scrubs at a Spurs message board.

Only in your mind, Blake... only in your twisted angered mind.

I would advise against taking tlongII's approach, either you refute the argument, or counter the observation with a logical explanation of your own.... don't think for one second that blowing a bunch of hot air and insulting me will actually gain you any ground in the argument...

The worst part is having to witness your continual resolve to pat yourself on the back at 'my expense'... when you simply haven't had the grounds to do so...

Again... believe what you want...

Blake

06-02-2009, 11:16 AM

Only in your mind, Blake... only in your twisted angered mind.

I'm not "angered".

That's funny. :lol

I would advise against taking tlongII's approach, either you refute the argument, or counter the observation with a logical explanation of your own.... don't think for one second that blowing a bunch of hot air and insulting me will actually gain you any ground in the argument...

what argument? That the earth is less than some thousands of years old?

I don't have to argue anything. The common consensus in the scientific community is my argument.

You name dropped MIT and according to the scientists at YOUR school, they've been saying the universe is 15 billion years old since at least 1990.

November 14 | 1990

A New Yardstick and Clock for the Cosmos

by Eugene F. Mallove

The universe is like the "average" child: if you know her size, you know
her age, and vice versa. That is because the universe, like a growing
child, has stretched its space ever larger since it began expanding from
a point-like origin some fifteen billion years ago.

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/tt/1990/nov14/23834.html

The worst part is having to witness your continual resolve to pat yourself on the back at 'my expense'... when you simply haven't had the grounds to do so...

Again... believe what you want...

The worst part is you patting yourself on the back for thinking youre smarter than real scientists that do real research on the subject.

You wont answer my question because you know that it leads to another question you know you have no answer for.

I believe you are an idiot. You believe what you want.

MannyIsGod

06-02-2009, 11:24 AM

Ok - I keep seeing proof that science can't explain things completely and thats not something I'm going to dispute. But where is the tangible proof of a creator?

Blake

06-02-2009, 11:30 AM

Ok - I keep seeing proof that science can't explain things completely and thats not something I'm going to dispute. But where is the tangible proof of a creator?

there's no proof of anything.

the problem here is that science for all practical purposes has proven that the earth and the universe are billions of years old, but literal Bible honks can't wrap their head around that because the Earth was supposed to have been created in "7 days".

Phenomanul

06-02-2009, 11:31 AM

if you were as confident in your answer as you seem to be in your other answers, you would have no problem...

Yeah... I'm confident that your approach hasn't changed... again, no need to waste my time with insincere requests...

quit changing the subject.

I don't insult others who don't share my perspective. I insult others that make stupid arguments that are based on their own lousy biased opinions instead of facts.

According to you... which would make your criteria rather subjective.

Restated: "I don't insult others who don't share my perspective. I insult others that make stupid arguments that are based on their own lousy biased opinions instead of mine."

because you have clearly used words that would imply a religious nature.

Sometimes these things do... that's kind of the point. The existence of the Big Bang begs the question of what came before that (Manny alluded to this earlier), and who or what was responsible. It certainly demonstrates the limits of Science as no other phenomenon has done... The consequences of the Big Bang Theory for theology are profound. For faith traditions that describe the Universe as having been created by GOD from nothingness (ex nihilo) this is an electrifying, if somewhat expected outcome. Does such an astonishing event as the Big Bang fit the definition of a miracle?

The sense of awe created by these realizations has caused more than a few agnostic scientists to sound downright theological... In God and the Astronomers, the astrophysicist Robert Jastrow concludes the book with this statement:

At this moment it seems as though Science will never be able to raise the curtain on the mystery of creation. For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries...

Either way, the Big Bang cries out for a divine explanation. It forces the conclusion that nature had a defined begining. And Science itself is incapable of finding any further clues... (for that matter we've only managed to find physical evidence of the Big Bang explosion 300,000 years after the event in question...)

Blake

06-02-2009, 11:39 AM

Yeah... I'm confident that your approach hasn't changed... again, no need to waste my time with insincere requests...

right......which is why you are taking the time to reply to my other comments.....

why not just put me on ignore?

:lol

According to you... which would make your criteria rather subjective.

Restated: "I don't insult others who don't share my perspective. I insult others that make stupid arguments that are based on their own lousy biased opinions instead of mine."

wrong. It's not my opinion that the universe is billions of years old.

I've been quoting real sources like the one above from MIT (your school). You've been quoting out of your ass.

Sometimes these things do... that's kind of the point. The existence of the Big Bang begs the question of what came before that (Manny alluded to this earlier), and who or what was responsible. It certainly demonstrates the limits of Science as no other phenomenon has done... The consequences of the Big Bang Theory for theology are profound. For faith traditions that describe the Universe as having been created by GOD from nothingness (ex nihilo) this is an electrifying, if somewhat expected outcome. Does such an astonishing event as the Big Bang fit the definition of a miracle?

The sense of awe created by these realizations has caused more than a few agnostic scientists to sound downright theological... In God and the Astronomers, the astrophysicist Robert Jastrow concludes the book with this statement:

Either way, the Big Bang cries out for a divine explanation. It forces the conclusion that nature had a defined begining. Science itself is incapable of finding any further clues... (for that matter we can only find physical evidence of the Big Bang explosion 300,000 years after the event in question...)

so you respond in this manner for at least the 4th time, so I'm asking for the 4th time: "In your opinion, is the same Creator you believe in the one that created the Bible?"

simple question....... but apparently you are too smart to answer it. Good move on your part.

Phenomanul

06-02-2009, 11:56 AM

I'm not "angered".

That's funny. :lol

You're right... you just like insulting people because it gets you off...

That's worse... because it shows that you enjoy getting off of others. It exposes that insecurity complex of yours...

what argument? That the earth is less than some thousands of years old?

:lol

That's not even my argument... I gave my opinion on Earth's age, but said that such a belief would have to be backed by a supernatural evidence trail for which we have no specific discovery tools... I then said that what was more important was acknowledging the that possibility of a Creator was plausible given our current findings...

I don't have to argue anything. The common consensus in the scientific community is my argument.
That's such a copout and you know it... :toast

You name dropped MIT and according to the scientists at YOUR school, they've been saying the universe is 15 billion years old since at least 1990.

I know what the scientists at my school say... and not all of them feel that way. But that right there is the problem, you and others feel that all academic scientists must abandon the belief in GOD... In your minds, their right to retain such beliefs, somehow voids them of their voice in such matters... that somehow their knowledge base disappears if they also believe in a Creator... that they have no basis to refute others' arguments because they have somehow been handicapped by a belief in GOD.

That line of reasoning is conveniently stupid.

The worst part is you patting yourself on the back for thinking youre smarter than real scientists that do real research on the subject.

That is your problem... I've said no such thing... In fact those scientists would be the first to corroborate what I just explained above... their conclusions may be different, based on their own experience... but ultimately they know that Science is incapable of giving them the answer they hope for... and why they continue to search for other explanations.

You wont answer my question because you know that it leads to another question you know you have no answer for.

I won't answer it because it is irrelevant to the flow of this argument. I can't help that you fail to see that...

I believe you are an idiot. You believe what you want.

Some more 'hot air' I see....

The Power Hour.

06-02-2009, 12:23 PM

why not just put me on ignore?

May be the best post you ever posted at ST!

Phenomanul

06-02-2009, 12:25 PM

wrong. It's not my opinion that the universe is billions of years old.

No... it is your opinion that my belief in GOD somehow voids all of my arguments. We won't get anywhere until you are able to discern the difference between my arguments and my explicitly stated theistic opinions.

I've been quoting real sources like the one above from MIT (your school). You've been quoting out of your ass.

Put up or shut up... point out exactly what I've said that can't be backed by our current scientific knowledge base. I've been pretty clear on what my opinions are...

I've stated that my belief in GOD is not derived from the data. Nonetheless our scant data on origins has beckoned many questions... many are inherently unanswerable and others still carry theological implications... Unlike you, I'm not afraid to admit that much...

so you respond in this manner for at least the 4th time, so I'm asking for the 4th time: "In your opinion, is the same Creator you believe in the one that created the Bible?"

simple question....... but apparently you are too smart to answer it. Good move on your part.

I'm smart enough to know that no scientific observation can reach the level of absolute proof on the existence of GOD... but I'm OK with it... I also know that it bothers you to admit that the above statement also opens the door for the plausibility of GOD's existence. Apparently, you can't deal with this schism.

Phenomanul

06-02-2009, 12:31 PM

I have to step out...

Peace....

tlongII

06-02-2009, 12:36 PM

I would advise against taking tlongII's approach, either you refute the argument, or counter the observation with a logical explanation of your own.... don't think for one second that blowing a bunch of hot air and insulting me will actually gain you any ground in the argument...

Of course you would. Apparently you are insulted easily.

The Power Hour.

06-02-2009, 12:52 PM

Ok - I keep seeing proof that science can't explain things completely and thats not something I'm going to dispute.

The same science that told people for 100s of years it takes millions of years to produce stalactites? And yet many where found in underground tunnels made in the 50s that science?

or the same science that told people for 100s of years it takes millions of years to petrify something, and yet many scientist have found petrified Cowboy boots,hat,pickles,and even the trees from mt saint Helen's just a few years back, that science?

Or the same science from the 40s and 50s that claimed smoking tobacco was good for you, that science? You want to talk about asbestos and radiation? they both were at one time said to be good for you.

How about the science that can't make a leaf with all there Superior knowledge? Can't cure Cancer, and can't explain where all the bees have gone. And these are the same scientist that tell you what exactly went on 4 Billion years ago? :lmao

But where is the tangible proof of a creator?Don't be in such a hurry to find out I am sure when you die you will meet him. Have you ever asked how hard to duplicate and how complex the human eye is?

http://www.lighthouse.org/images/complex_eye_500.jpg

http://converyoptometrists.com/images/eye.jpg

Man is progressing more and more each century, we went from small one man plane to the space shuttle in 100 years, we went from early pioneers that used opium to cure TB and polio, to now being able to clone humans and animals in only 100 years. Soon we might be able to create our own solar system?

And after all you have been presented in life you still have the nerve think it all this came about came from space dust and monkeys fucking?

:lmao

You Darwin worshipers may the most ignorant species of any known solar system.

z0sa

06-02-2009, 01:45 PM

there's no proof of anything.

Bullshit. There's imminent design all around you. Whether you choose to ignore that design (including labeling it's creation "by chance") is up to you.

clambake

06-02-2009, 02:00 PM

all around us......witches, warlocks, invisible men.........and especially...demons.

unibrow

06-02-2009, 02:13 PM

there's no proof of anything.
.

There is proof of assholes look in the mirror!

Blake

06-02-2009, 02:40 PM

You're right... you just like insulting people because it gets you off...

That's worse... because it shows that you enjoy getting off of others. It exposes that insecurity complex of yours...

naw, I just enjoy a good debate........but when I can't get one, I enjoy putting people like you that brag about 10 degrees from MIT in their place.

:lol

That's not even my argument... I gave my opinion on Earth's age, but said that such a belief would have to be backed by a supernatural evidence trail for which we have no specific discovery tools... I then said that what was more important was acknowledging the that possibility of a Creator was plausible given our current findings...

yeah, you based your opinion on the age of the earth on "what we know of the sun"

I'm wondering why you are the only one to take the sun into account for the age of the earth.

Of course, you also said that the age of the universe is < 100,000 years.

That's such a copout and you know it... :toast

If you are going to disregard real scientific evidence, please provide your own scientific findings.

I know what the scientists at my school say... and not all of them feel that way.

I know what they say too. Let me know if you want me to post what the other MIT scientist, Dr Gerald Shroeder has to say about the age of the universe.

But that right there is the problem, you and others feel that all academic scientists must abandon the belief in GOD... In your minds, their right to retain such beliefs, somehow voids them of their voice in such matters... that somehow their knowledge base disappears if they also believe in a Creator... that they have no basis to refute others' arguments because they have somehow been handicapped by a belief in GOD.

That line of reasoning is conveniently stupid.

your assumption that that is my line of reasoning is conveniently stupid.

I've never once said anywhere that I don't believe in God.

The only thing I've said over and over again is that you are an idiot, and you keep confirming that with every post.

That is your problem... I've said no such thing... In fact those scientists would be the first to corroborate what I just explained above... their conclusions may be different, based on their own experience... but ultimately they know that Science is incapable of giving them the answer they hope for... and why they continue to search for other explanations.

You said you have 10 degrees from MIT and that the universe is <100,000 years old.

It's a fact that it's billions of years old.

You didn't say it outright, but any idiot except for you can see that you are trying to imply that you are smarter than the average cosmic scientist.

I won't answer it because it is irrelevant to the flow of this argument. I can't help that you fail to see that...

we're off topic already, but don't let that stop you from not answering a simple question.

Some more 'hot air' I see....

I'm sure as soon as you get back, we'll see some more.

Blake

06-02-2009, 02:43 PM

May be the best post you ever posted at ST!

Feel free to do so!

Blake

06-02-2009, 02:50 PM

There is proof of assholes look in the mirror!

there is proof of lame trolls look at this thread!

step up to the mike

06-02-2009, 02:54 PM

I know what they say too. Let me know if you want me to post what the other MIT scientist, Dr Gerald Shroeder has to say about the age of the universe.

MIT? Dude we would settle for GED. :lmao

Last Comic Standing

06-02-2009, 02:56 PM

all around us......witches, warlocks, invisible men.........and especially...demons.

I take it you just came from the Free Quattro Razor topic

Blake

06-02-2009, 02:57 PM

No... it is your opinion that my belief in GOD somehow voids all of my arguments. We won't get anywhere until you are able to discern the difference between my arguments and my explicitly stated theistic opinions.

:lol

No, your opinion that the universe is < 100,000 years old voids much of whatever credibility you think you have.

I'm still wondering why you won't give an explicit opinion on the Bible........which does have to do with this thread since many are contending 'young earth' theories based on the book of Genesis.

Put up or shut up... point out exactly what I've said that can't be backed by our current scientific knowledge base. I've been pretty clear on what my opinions are...

you've said that the earth and universe are only thousands of years old.

Put up or shut up.

I've stated that my belief in GOD is not derived from the data. Nonetheless our scant data on origins has beckoned many questions... many are inherently unanswerable and others still carry theological implications... Unlike you, I'm not afraid to admit that much...

great. So what's your opinion on the Bible?

I'm smart enough to know that no scientific observation can reach the level of absolute proof on the existence of GOD... but I'm OK with it... I also know that it bothers you to admit that the above statement also opens the door for the plausibility of GOD's existence. Apparently, you can't deal with this schism.

I'm ok knowing that science will never prove God's existence either.

Apparently you can't answer a simple question: "What's your opinion on the Bible?"

MannyIsGod

06-02-2009, 02:58 PM

Either way, the Big Bang cries out for a divine explanation. It forces the conclusion that nature had a defined begining. And Science itself is incapable of finding any further clues... (for that matter we've only managed to find physical evidence of the Big Bang explosion 300,000 years after the event in question...)

Yeah no. The Big Bang theory may impose more questions, but your statement here is the exact statement every people has used to justify their use of a divinity to explain the unknown. The Big Bang theory no more implies a divine presence than a sunrise implied the existence of Apollo.

Blake

06-02-2009, 02:58 PM

MIT? Dude we would settle for GED. :lmao

For you mouse, I'd settle for literacy.

Blake

06-02-2009, 03:01 PM

Bullshit. There's imminent design all around you. Whether you choose to ignore that design (including labeling it's creation "by chance") is up to you.

really? Is that why believing in God is called "faith"?

you lose.

step up to the mike

06-02-2009, 03:06 PM

For you mouse, I'd settle for literacy.

post something worth reading.

Blake

06-02-2009, 03:09 PM

post something worth reading.

what do you want to learn today?

Illuminati

06-02-2009, 03:09 PM

really? Is that why believing in God is called "faith"?

You don't have fath in Darwin's theories?

you lose.

this is all just a game to you isn't it?

step up to the mike

06-02-2009, 03:11 PM

what do you want to learn today?

How a stubborn,bitter, naive God hating redneck like yourself has a girlfriend. start with that.

Blake

06-02-2009, 03:17 PM

You don't have fath in Darwin's theories?

there are some flaws in Darwin's theories to be sure, but based on observations of microrganisms that adapt and "evolve" to their surroundings, I don't think macroevolution on some level is really that much of a stretch to believe in.

Unless you literally believe in the 7 day theory, do you really have a problem believing that God created the process called 'evolution'?

this is all just a game to you isn't it?

I'm on a personal quest for truth in the world, but this is definitely fun....

Does it really get much better than owning some dude that says he has 10 degrees from MIT? I'm not sure...... :lol

Blake

06-02-2009, 03:22 PM

How a stubborn,bitter, naive God hating redneck like yourself has a girlfriend. start with that.

although I'm slightly stubborn, I'm not bitter, naive, God hating nor redneck.

I'm also apparently good looking enough for her.

Daniel Plainview

06-02-2009, 03:39 PM

Blake 1
Jesus freaks 0

Phenomanul

06-02-2009, 06:15 PM

:lol

No, your opinion that the universe is < 100,000 years old voids much of whatever credibility you think you have.

I'm still wondering why you won't give an explicit opinion on the Bible........which does have to do with this thread since many are contending 'young earth' theories based on the book of Genesis.

you've said that the earth and universe are only thousands of years old.

Put up or shut up.

You honestly can't tell the difference from what I said... fortunately it remains unchanged in this very thread... I said that for anyone to buy into my opinion that the earth was <100,000 years old we would have to find supernatural evidence... which obviously Science is incapable of obtaining...

I'm pretty sure I clearly stated it was only an opinion... and I'm also sure that I said I was OK with the age of Earth being 4.6 billion years or with the Universe being 13.6 billion years as long as we also acknowledged that the possibility that the Universe was Created was still a valid line of reasoning... Go back and look it up...

And yeah... I'll put up: Blake is a liar.

great. So what's your opinion on the Bible?

Why, so that you can use my biblical opinions to ridicule me? To be a Clambake redux? So that you can deceitfully suggest that I am trying to pass them off as my scientific arguments for this discussion??? No thank you. You've repeatedly demonstrated your inability to discern the difference between the two arenas, such wretched behavior is beyond reproof... and all because you can't admit that the uniqueness of this universe defies all probabilities.

I'm ok knowing that science will never prove God's existence either.

Well then we're getting somewhere... too bad you left it as a footnote, on an otherwise offensive post.

As for your vapid declaration that I stated I obtained 10 degrees from MIT... seriously dude what the hell??? :wtf

You lying piece of trash... NOW I know it really must bother you to have to hear the arguments from someone that knows what they're talking about... You can't be nearly as dismissive as you've always been... at least not without due cause. You can't shield your lack of comprehension by saying "well that's what the scientific community believes"...

Show me where I said I graduated with 10 degrees... and when you find it... I'll leave this place for good. I only brought it up because tlongII questioned my authority on such matters... If I was trying to brag about it... trust me, you would have known that fact long before this thread was created...

Your giddyness at taunting that figure, while attempting to portray me as some conceited jerk is quite unfounded... actually, it is founded... founded solely on your made up lie...

You've sunken to a new low... Your sniveling behavior is exposing you for what you really are....

All the while... you haven't presented anything remotely close to counter the observation that the staggering improbability of our Universe makes us wildly unique... just some "cut'n'paste" quote from one of the professors at M.I.T expounding on the Universe's age... Oooooh and I hear you're threatning me with another quote... please... get a clue.

....This is fun...

I'm glad you think so... Just be sure to keep the same attitude when whatever semblance of credibility you have is shredded to bits after I'm done exposing your blatant ignorance... Or do you forget having said that that the Sun doesn't expend any mass (hydrogen fuel)??? :lmao

Larry Dallas

06-02-2009, 07:49 PM

You all don't know Jack!!

Blake

06-03-2009, 12:50 AM

You honestly can't tell the difference from what I said... fortunately it remains unchanged in this very thread... I said that for anyone to buy into my opinion that the earth was <100,000 years old we would have to find supernatural evidence... which obviously Science is incapable of obtaining...

I'm pretty sure I clearly stated it was only an opinion... and I'm also sure that I said I was OK with the age of Earth being 4.6 billion years or with the Universe being 13.6 billion years as long as we also acknowledged that the possibility that the Universe was Created was still a valid line of reasoning... Go back and look it up...

and I'm pretty sure I clearly stated that your opinion that the universe is <100,000 years old pretty much voids any credibility you think you have.

The universe is billions of years old. It has been proven as such. There is no "I'm ok with that fact as long as........blah blah....."

It's a fact. period.

And yeah... I'll put up: Blake is a liar.

yeah.....I'll put it back up: you're an idiot.

Why, so that you can use my biblical opinions to ridicule me? To be a Clambake redux? So that you can deceitfully suggest that I am trying to pass them off as my scientific arguments for this discussion??? No thank you. You've repeatedly demonstrated your inability to discern the difference between the two arenas, such wretched behavior is beyond reproof... and all because you can't admit that the uniqueness of this universe defies all probabilities.

Why would I ridicule you for your biblical opinions?

You are obviously insecure in your beliefs. You should get that checked out.

Well then we're getting somewhere... too bad you left it as a footnote, on an otherwise offensive post.

offensive post? how?

yeah I'll put up: You are lying.

As for your vapid declaration that I stated I obtained 10 degrees from MIT... seriously dude what the hell??? :wtf

I misquoted you on accident.

You said "
I've studied these topics extensively and can converse about them on any given level (having within the past 10 years attained multiple degrees at M.I.T. and having conversed on this very subject with world renown astronomers and physicists kind of gives me that leverage)... So if you don't understand what I'm talking about, do yourself a favor and read up on the subject before re-attempting to discredit my position... especially after that lackluster attempt to do just that with nothing but 'hot air'...

beh. 2 or 10......it doesn't change the fact that you were trying to throw around some intellectual weight by degree dropping.

you could have simply corrected me instead of calling me a liar. seriously, what the hell is wrong with you???

You lying piece of trash... NOW I know it really must bother you to have to hear the arguments from someone that knows what they're talking about... You can't be nearly as dismissive as you've always been... at least not without due cause. You can't shield your lack of comprehension by saying "well that's what the scientific community believes"...

:lol wow. It must bother you that you are getting your ass handed to you by someone that doesn't have near the expertise you say you do.

Show me where I said I graduated with 10 degrees... and when you find it... I'll leave this place for good.

you said "multiple degrees over 10 years from MIT while hanging with a bunch of intellectual badasses. Please stay.

I only brought it up because tlongII questioned my authority on such matters... If I was trying to brag about it... trust me, you would have known that fact long before this thread was created...

It's obvious why you brought it up. You were trying to brag about it... trust me.

Your giddyness at taunting that figure, while attempting to portray me as some conceited jerk is quite unfounded... actually, it is founded... founded solely on your made up lie...

no, you portrayed yourself as some conceited jerk all on your own.

You've sunken to a new low... Your sniveling behavior is exposing you for what you really are....

you called me a liar and sniveling in one post. hooray for you.

All the while... you haven't presented anything remotely close to counter the observation that the staggering improbability of our Universe makes us wildly unique... just some "cut'n'paste" quote from one of the professors at M.I.T expounding on the Universe's age... Oooooh and I hear you're threatning me with another quote... please... get a clue.

you haven't presented anything to counter the fact that the earth and universe are billions of years old other than your multiple degreesfrom MIT .

Ooooohh I'm sensing another sniveling shot.

I'm glad you think so... Just be sure to keep the same attitude when whatever semblance of credibility you have is shredded to bits after I'm done exposing your blatant ignorance... Or do you forget having said that that the Sun doesn't expend any mass (hydrogen fuel)??? :lmao

what exactly am I ignorant of? I thought I cleared up what I said about the Sun expending mass pretty thoroughly.

5th time: "in your opinion, is the Bible the spoken word of God?"

feel free to say "yes" or "no" or "I believe parts are, some aren't" or anything of the like.

You can go on these rants about how I'm a liar and brag about your connections at MIT, yet you can't answer one simple question?

seriously dude, what the hell???

911

06-03-2009, 01:36 AM

Blake 2

Phenomanul (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=104) 3

Blake

06-03-2009, 08:18 AM

9-11 truth: 1
mouse: 0

Phenomanul

06-03-2009, 01:06 PM

Frankly Blake... you're not worth my time... and if you had been as smart as you claim to be....you would have known that mouse doesn't really believe anything his trolls are posting... he just likes stirring the fold.

Troll

06-03-2009, 01:10 PM

frankly blake... You're not worth my time... And if you had been as smart as you claim to be....you would have known that mouse doesn't really believe anything his trolls are posting... He just likes stirring the fold.

+100

Blake

06-03-2009, 02:46 PM

Frankly Blake... you're not worth my time...

but you just wanted to stop in and say hello.

and if you had been as smart as you claim to be....

where did I claim to be smart?

ok, I'll put up: Phenomanul is a liar. (He's also an idiot.)

If you were as smart as you claim to be, this board wouldn't be worth your time.

You would also have no problem showing evidence of a young earth that would easily refute the findings of geologists, astronomers and any other scientist worth a damn.

you would have known that mouse doesn't really believe anything his trolls are posting... he just likes stirring the fold.

I've read mouse's posts for a little more than 7 years, going back to some EZ board days, as well as the old WOAI feedback zone with Duel and Parker, etc.

I know with some certainty that he doesn't believe in evolution, but is more than certain of a huge conspiracy concerning the events of 9/11......

now him being a real Mavs fan is something I'm not sure about.....I'm thinking he's just pissed probably because Pop may have called him a loser when mouse used to be a frequent caller during the Don and Walter days of STSA.

so what's your opinion of the Bible? Is it real? ...... (in your opinion)

Phenomanul

06-03-2009, 03:07 PM

Blake is on your ignore list

Bliss...

Phineas J. Whoopee

06-03-2009, 03:09 PM

Blake is on your ignore list

Bliss...

wuss..........

Blake

06-03-2009, 03:19 PM

Blake is on your ignore list

Bliss...

aww.....and I didn't even get to ask him what a guy with multiple degrees from MIT and superior cosmic knowledge does for a living in Corpus Christi.

beh, he wouldn't have answered any way.

Steve Perry

06-03-2009, 03:22 PM

Blake is on fire today! I may have to break out my Alex Jones on his ass!

Mulchie

06-03-2009, 03:24 PM

Blake is on fire today! I may have to break out my Alex Jones on his ass!

About time somebody got fired up!!!

Blake

06-03-2009, 03:29 PM

Blake is on fire today! I may have to break out my Alex Jones on his ass!

Whoopee!

Phineas J. Whoopee

06-03-2009, 03:32 PM

Whoopee!

What!?!?

Blake

06-03-2009, 03:35 PM

What!?!?

Whoopee!

Transporter

06-03-2009, 03:51 PM

About time somebody got fired up!!!

Rule # 62 Darwin's father was Satan!

MiamiHeat

06-03-2009, 03:56 PM

Blake is on your ignore list

Bliss...

never thought you and I would have something in common. i put him there some time ago, what took you so long lol

Blake

06-03-2009, 04:07 PM

never thought you and I would have something in common. i put him there some time ago, what took you so long lol

that makes 3 in the last year off the top of my head...

I really am on fire.

:lol

Re-Animator

06-03-2009, 05:02 PM

never thought you and I would have something in common. i put him there some time ago, what took you so long lol

Do you also close your ears when they cuss on South Park?

Goliadnative

10-22-2009, 10:03 AM

Primate fossil called only a distant relative (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091021/ap_on_sc/us_sci_controversial_fossil)

BacktoBasics

10-22-2009, 10:06 AM

Primate fossil called only a distant relative (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091021/ap_on_sc/us_sci_controversial_fossil)I subconsciously put the over/under at 10:30 am for that article to pop up. Good work.

Of course this changes everything....

z0sa

10-22-2009, 10:09 AM

I subconsciously put the over/under at 10:30 am for that article to pop up. Good work.

Of course this changes everything....

Didn't I just relate to you (in a different thread) how many secular, mainstream authorities shot down the grandiose exaggerations about Ida only for you to call my source biased and angry?

BacktoBasics

10-22-2009, 10:40 AM

Didn't I just relate to you (in a different thread) how many secular, mainstream authorities shot down the grandiose exaggerations about Ida only for you to call my source biased and angry?I do think your source was biased...it was. For the millionth time my point wasn't whether or not it changed history.....my point wasn't to lend credibility to the find or its early reportings. The point was that many of the anti-evolutionists spend more time ignoring or fighting against historical findings than actually paying them the attention they deserve.

Its like auto-pilot with you guys. These people are like the Rush Limbaughs of the world. Dude spends all his energy fighting Obama rather than use his intelligence and power to make things better. One track mind against evolution.

z0sa

10-22-2009, 10:56 AM

I do think your source was biased...it was.

Right. So even though it said everything correctly and without a creationist tilt, it's biased because ...?

Didn't you essentially accuse me of making stuff up by specifically asking for the links?

BacktoBasics

10-22-2009, 11:03 AM

Right. So even though it said everything correctly and without a creationist tilt, it's biased because ...?

Didn't you essentially accuse me of making stuff up by specifically asking for the links?Did I accuse you of making stuff up? Its biased because that entire site you linked me to was based in modern day religion and their beliefs. Great job calling it right. Just because something is right doesn't mean its not biased or founded in biased beliefs. It/he ended up being right, give him a star and move on. Should we now trust in everything written on that site?

I distinctly remember a site that called the McDyess signing nearly a day before it was official. (hoopshype) I think. Just because they're right doesn't automatically give them credibility.

z0sa

10-22-2009, 11:19 AM

Blah blah.

Ready to admit you're a hypocrite for calling my source biased, slanted and angry while readily accepting everything you were told by the "unbiased" mainstream scientific media?

BacktoBasics

10-22-2009, 11:28 AM

Blah blah.

Ready to admit you're a hypocrite for calling my source biased, slanted and angry while readily accepting everything you were told by the "unbiased" mainstream scientific media?
No.

I'll admit that your bias source turned out to be right about something. Doesn't make me a hypocrite.

You'll get nothing else from me.

z0sa

10-22-2009, 12:15 PM

No.

I'll admit that your bias source turned out to be right about something. Doesn't make me a hypocrite.

You'll get nothing else from me.

hyp⋅o⋅crite /ˈhɪpəkrɪt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [hip-uh-krit] Show IPA

–noun 1. a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.

You support and base conclusions off sources that are proven to repeatedly exaggerate and falsify implications of evidence. Additionally, you ignore and insult opposing perspectives, even when they are proven to be accurate, because they are "biased" and therefore untrustworthy.

That's not hypocrisy?

BacktoBasics

10-22-2009, 12:43 PM

hyp⋅o⋅crite /ˈhɪpəkrɪt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [hip-uh-krit] Show IPA

–noun 1. a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.

You support and base conclusions off sources that are proven to repeatedly exaggerate and falsify implications of evidence. Additionally, you ignore and insult opposing perspectives, even when they are proven to be accurate, because they are "biased" and therefore untrustworthy.

That's not hypocrisy?No its opinion

Define Opinion:

a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty

I always said that I was open minded I always said that I was willing to listen to the other side but that I had formed an opinion based on both sides of the argument, biased or not. My book has never closed and is always open to new interpretations.

You mistake sarcasm, attitude and opinion for hypocrisy.

BlackSwordsMan

10-22-2009, 12:44 PM

see god does exist!

z0sa

10-22-2009, 12:45 PM

No its opinion

Define Opinion:

a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty

I always said that I was open minded I always said that I was willing to listen to the other side but that I had formed an opinion based on both sides of the argument, biased or not. My book has never closed and is always open to new interpretations.

You mistake sarcasm, attitude and opinion for hypocrisy.

If you hadn't of smuggly asked for links, I'd believe you. But you did. And I gave you some from a creationist website only for you to belittle me despite the strong material.

You're a hypocrite but it's okay. I get that shit all the time - my sources will never be good enough for you because they don't share share your bias.

BacktoBasics

10-22-2009, 12:58 PM

If you hadn't of smuggly asked for links, I'd believe you. But you did. And I gave you some from a creationist website only for you to belittle me despite the strong material.

You're a hypocrite but it's okay. I get that shit all the time.Had you provided me a link from a more neutral site I wouldn't have said anything to you about it. I still read your site. I still read your link. I still didn't call him a fraud. I merely pointed out that it was from a site with a non-scientific agenda.

You're arguing semantics because you want to rub it in my face. Which is fine only that I never said your link was bad info. Never said it was unfounded facts. Just questioned it as a scientifically un-biased approach to research. Questioned their motives and...how could I not.

I formed an opinion. Sorry.

If it makes you feel better. Your guy was right.

If it makes you feel better. You can call me a hypocrite but I'm not going to acknowledge that for you personal benefit because I don't agree with it. All I ever said was that guys like that (creationist types) should attempt to look at things more for face value of a significant find rather than look at it as an attempt to discredit the other side. Misdirected energy with no purpose.

BacktoBasics

10-22-2009, 01:00 PM

hyp⋅o⋅crite /ˈhɪpəkrɪt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [hip-uh-krit] Show IPA

–noun 1. a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.

You support and base conclusions off sources that are proven to repeatedly exaggerate and falsify implications of evidence. Additionally, you ignore and insult opposing perspectives, even when they are proven to be accurate, because they are "biased" and therefore untrustworthy.

That's not hypocrisy?I also don't think it was "smug" of me to ask for links considering you just rattled off a bunch of googled shit. Is it really that insulting to ask where your info comes from? Last I checked it wasn't unreasonable to want to see what the other side is reading.

Your just defensive.

z0sa

10-22-2009, 01:13 PM

Had you provided me a link from a more neutral site I wouldn't have said anything to you about it.

That statement has problems. Why can't you just have an open mind? Besides, what I gave you is better than linking neutral sites in that it presents an argument against the actions of so called "Ida apologists." The main problem it highlighted was that highly influential entities like the Discovery Channel, with a large audience, perpetuated at best a strong exaggeration.

Where's your outrage for this?

I still read your site. I still read your link. I still didn't call him a fraud.

Who's preaching semantics now?

I merely pointed out that it was from a site with a non-scientific agenda.

I disagree completely. In fact, that (Science Against Evolution) is one of my favorite sites because it has a unifying creationist science concept (including 75 creationist theses), and rarely ventures outside of the natural evidence for a different interpretation. If there's an "unbiased" creationist site, that one is it. Because of an unfounded presupposition, you simply assumed it was "non-scientific".

And this begs the question: who are you to decide what is scientific? When the creationist scientists who contribute/run these websites make statements and question evidence, isn't real science occurring just like when mainstream science questions itself?

You're arguing semantics because you want to rub it in my face.

Like I said earlier, if I bought what you've been telling me thus far today, I'd have never even brought it up and probably wouldn't consider you a hypocrite. But then, you approached the idea of non-creationist scientists writing off Ida almost voraciously and followed up with a predictable response when I linked a creationist site that contained the valid information.

Which is fine only that I never said your link was bad info. Never said it was unfounded facts. Just questioned it as a scientifically un-biased approach to research.

It isn't biased against science or conflicting views. It simply questions the actual science itself.

I formed an opinion. Sorry.

I understand you formed an opinion. Because of how you formed it ... ah nevermind. WGAF. If you're just going to deny deny deny and keep moving the goal posts, fuck it.

BacktoBasics

10-22-2009, 01:22 PM

Where's your outrage for this?

I have argued time and time again that the Discovery channel is a massively biased media outlet. Particularly when it comes to Christianity. I agree with you that there's a lot of sensationalized views on a range of topics coming out of there.

I said your guy was right. I said I read the link.

I'm not going to bow down to a creationist site because they're view on one discovery turned out to be relatively accurate. Seriously man you won a battle not the war.

z0sa

10-22-2009, 01:25 PM

I also don't think it was "smug" of me to ask for links considering you just rattled off a bunch of googled shit. Is it really that insulting to ask where your info comes from?

I couldn't respond in time, and you worded it in a way that made you come off that way.

Last I checked it wasn't unreasonable to want to see what the other side is reading.

When you question the integrity of the source without reason ..

z0sa

10-22-2009, 01:32 PM

Seriously man you won a battle not the war.

Like I said, WGAF. mainstream media and science will continue perpetrating lies, and you won't give a damn until our next origins topic, at which time the newest finding X will be the new shit and more infallible proof you are right, and I am wrong.

Carry on.

BacktoBasics

10-22-2009, 01:40 PM

Like I said, WGAF. mainstream media and science will continue perpetrating lies, and you won't give a damn until our next origins topic, at which time the newest finding X will be the new shit and more infallible proof you are right, and I am wrong.

Carry on.How many fucking times do I have to say it? How many, seriously, before you fucking understand? I don't think every single finding is the next definitive proof of evolution over creation. All I ever said is that any finding should be looked at as "significant" (from both sides) to the understanding of where and how we came about.

WGAF?

We all do.

z0sa

10-22-2009, 01:51 PM

How many fucking times do I have to say it? How many, seriously, before you fucking understand? I don't think every single finding is the next definitive proof of evolution over creation. All I ever said is that any finding should be looked at as "significant" (from both sides) to the understanding of where and how we came about.

Other than being well-preserved, what is significant about Ida?

WGAF?

We all do.

I'd say the vast majority of people don't give a fuck, honestly. Why should we? Humans will never escape our solar system, or at absolute earth-shakingly best, galaxy no matter what theories you juxtapose. There's an overwhelming chance any life out there that would prove our religions horribly wrong exists in another galaxy, the closest of which is millions of light years away. You can't go faster than the speed of light, and even that's fucking incredibly fast and unimaginably hard to prepare for, so we are stuck in this solar system for the rest of our existence as humans before the earth inevitably a) burns up b)gets thrown out of the milky way by a predicted galactic collision or c) baby jesus allah and tom cruise come down and save us.

mouse

10-22-2009, 01:57 PM

This is exactly why I created AD (alternative Design) We don't support Evolution and we don't used the Bible or creationism to make our points.

We merely feel there is something else out that could be responsible for life on planet earth or in this solar system. We also believe there could very well be life in their solar systems. Another words we are open minded but not totally ignorant. We try to make our points w/o all the school yard insults but have no problem pulling out the Alternative Design smack bat when needed.

Our main goal is to get the lies out of the text books(something we all should support) and maybe give the students another view on how we came about without them having to only worship Darwin.

As long as the text books show the holes and gaps in evolution and admit carbon dating and Fossils don't prove evolution, and there is no real scientific fact that proves the earth is 4 billion years old and that evolution is a fact when really it's just a religion just like creationism. Then we can all move froward and work together in finding out the truth.

Mark Allen
founder of AD Alternative Design.