Microbe Wakes Up After 120,000 Years

[z0sa]

assumptions?

What would you call his assertions?

if it wasn't for the Bible, nobody would really assume that the Earth was only 5-10k years old.

Nobody believes the earth is 5000 years old. No one. We all agree there. Very few believe it is 10,000.

Less than 50,000 is a decent number.

And the only reason people began assuming 'deep time' occurred because of a book as well - Origin of Species. Without deep time, evolution would be basically impossible, so they decided deep time must have occurred. How is this methodology any different than assuming the earth is young because of a holy book? In fact, until some time after Darwin's theory was published, a young earth was the only model of earth.

[Blake]

In fact, until some time after Darwin's theory was published, a young earth was the only model of earth.

you really think geologists, physicists and astronomers all make sure their calculations of the earth's age are consistent with Darwin's model before they publish their findings?

fyi, the young earth model was mostly proposed by the church leaders before Darwin's time.

you have no clue what you are talking about as usual.

[z0sa]

you really think geologists, physicists and astronomers all make sure their calculations of the earth's age are consistent with Darwin's model before they publish their findings?

You think they don't? That's 90% of research dumbass - making sure it coincides with the rest of the field's body of work. Only in rare cases does a finding occur which does not correlate with others.

fyi, the young earth model was mostly proposed by the church leaders before Darwin's time.

There weren't scientists before 1900? Because that's around the time scientists started seriously theorizing deep time occurred.

Oh, you really didn't know that? That multiple scientists before Darwin had differering origins concepts from the church? That scientists eve after Darwin, using his theory, still tried to correlate it with a young earth?

I know why. You're a pompous jackass.

I have no clue what I'm talking about as usual.

If you did, you would know how huge correlating your research with others is in any field of study, especially these types.

[Blake]

You think they don't? That's 90% of research dumbass - making sure it coincides with the rest of the field's body of work. Only in rare cases does a finding occur which does not correlate with others.

no, they don't look at Darwin's model to formulate their theories.

There were plenty of models from geolgists and physicists that came along before Darwin that had the Earth aged into the millions.

There weren't scientists before 1900? Because that's around the time scientists started seriously theorizing deep time occurred.

wrong. deep time models came around the early to mid 1800s.

Oh, you really didn't know that? That multiple scientists before Darwin had differering origins concepts from the church? That scientists eve after Darwin, using his theory, still tried to correlate it with a young earth?

I know why. You're a pompous jackass.



If you did, you would know how huge correlating your research with others is in any field of study, especially these types.

you're an ignorant idiot.

debating things with you is pointless.

[z0sa]

no, they don't look at Darwin's model to formulate their theories.

They did for quite some time.
Which is the point I am making.
Good job missing the point entirely.

Science is not one discovery by itself, ignorant one. One discovery is the sum total of every discovery before it equalling more than its parts.

There were plenty of models from geolgists and physicists that came along before Darwin that had the Earth aged into the millions.

Whether the earth is billions of years old or just tens of thousands, their efforts were hopelessly wrong.

wrong. deep time models came around the early to mid 1800s.

How was I wrong? I said it wasn't until 1900 that a NEED for deep time occurred. And, again, these deep time models were incredibly inaccurate. You can't use them as evidence due to their inconsistencies.

i'm an ignorant idiot.

Obviously. You don't even know about scientists working together to make discoveries, across entire fields of study in different parts of the world, and from different time periods where different discoveries were made. You fail.

debating things with you is pointless.

son, you do absolutely no debating, in any thread.

You make your points while disregarding others'. That's not a debate, that's you in your little world thinking you know it all.

[Dr. Gonzo]

Does that make the microbe the messiah?

[jman3000]

120,000 year old microbe >>>>> Messiah

[jman3000]

A hole just opened up and I'm now in the depths of . Son of a .

[Dr. Gonzo]

120,000 year old microbe >>>>> Messiah

I don't know man. Was the microbe nailed to a cross and poked with a spear?

[Blake]

They did for quite some time.
Which is the point I am making.
Good job missing the point entirely.

Science is not one discovery by itself, ignorant one. One discovery is the sum total of every discovery before it equalling more than its parts.



Whether the earth is billions of years old or just tens of thousands, their efforts were hopelessly wrong.



How was I wrong? I said it wasn't until 1900 that a NEED for deep time occurred. And, again, these deep time models were incredibly inaccurate. You can't use them as evidence due to their inconsistencies.




Obviously. You don't even know about scientists working together to make discoveries, across entire fields of study in different parts of the world, and from different time periods where different discoveries were made. You fail.



son, you do absolutely no debating, in any thread.

You make your points while disregarding others'. That's not a debate, that's you in your little world thinking you know it all.

naw, you just side step my question or point with an off topic blurb.

keep on thinking the world < 100,000, dumbass.

[z0sa]

naw, you just side step my question or point with an off topic blurb.

Just because you have no idea how to debate, nor an idea of what cons utes one, doesn't mean I ever stopped.

keep on thinking the world < 100,000

more "my opinion is better than yours" .

Can't say I expected more from someone whose entire goal in any given thread is to state what he has to say and call people stupid for disagreeing.

[Blake]

What would you call his assertions?



Nobody believes the earth is 5000 years old. No one. We all agree there. Very few believe it is 10,000.

Less than 50,000 is a decent number.

And the only reason people began assuming 'deep time' occurred because of a book as well - Origin of Species. Without deep time, evolution would be basically impossible, so they decided deep time must have occurred. How is this methodology any different than assuming the earth is young because of a holy book? In fact, until some time after Darwin's theory was published, a young earth was the only model of earth.

it's pointless to debate with you because your facts are wrong.

What part of "people were already assuming 'deep time' before Darwin" don't you understand?

you are an idiot. If you need proof of that, let me know.

[Blake]

Can't say I expected more from someone whose entire goal in any given thread is to state what he has to say and call people stupid for disagreeing.

you mean the same way you called pppp a bag for his opinion?

now you're a hyopcrite and an idiot. congrats.

[z0sa]

it's pointless to debate with you because your facts are wrong.

My facts aren't wrong. Indeed, your misinterpretation of them casts its own shadow.

What part of "people were already assuming 'deep time' before Darwin" don't you understand?

No one assumed deep time back then, it was nothing more than an obscure theory with no mainstream scientific backing. Deep time IS assumed today because of the popularity of Darwin's theory. Period. Nothing you can say or misinterpret will change these truths.

I am an idiot. I prove it everyday.

Which is why I don't ignore anyone, especially self-centered egotistical s like yourself. It's rather comical, even humorous, and watching you attempt to easily write off my arguments is even funnier. You're out of your league debating these issues with me.

[z0sa]

you mean the same way you called pppp a bag for his opinion?

now you're a hyopcrite and an idiot. congrats.

You consistently miss point after point. Your prediction and critical thinking skills are strangely unhoned.

"pp" said only in the US is this an issue - he never presented an opinion, instead stating it factually including a bolding of the word 'only'. There's tons of proof against said argument.

Even without proof and using only your own slight human knowledge, it is impossible to speak for 5.5 billion people as sharing your 'opinion.'

Hence why he is a .

[clambake]

i planted all the fossils.

[Rappin Granny]

Blake 2

Z0sa 5

[ShoogarBear]

ShoogarBear 34,407
elpimpo 17,174

[jman3000]

I don't know man. Was the microbe nailed to a cross and poked with a spear?

Being dead for 120,000 years and coming back is a lot more impressive than being dead 3 days and coming back.

Check mate.

[E20]

Anybody here like the smell of their pubes?

[Blake]

Being dead for 120,000 years and coming back is a lot more impressive than being dead 3 days and coming back.

Check mate.

naw. lemme know when the microbe can turn water into wine.

[Wild Cobra]

Anyone who actually studies the Bible knows the Torah does not have it at 6,000 years old. Adam in the beginning of Genesis means "mankind" and wasn't the proper name variant "Adam" as until the stories of Adam and Eve. The Earth was created in six timeframes, not specified as days. It's the poor translations of all english version Bibles that are in error.

There are two different Chaldean words used between the two "Adams" of the english translations. The geneology of Adam measures back to the few thousand years, but mankind existed long before the Adam that Jehovah took care of.

[Blake]

Anyone who actually studies the Bible knows the Torah does not have it at 6,000 years old. Adam in the beginning of Genesis means "mankind" and wasn't the proper name variant "Adam" as until the stories of Adam and Eve. The Earth was created in six timeframes, not specified as days. It's the poor translations of all english version Bibles that are in error.

There are two different Chaldean words used between the two "Adams" of the english translations. The geneology of Adam measures back to the few thousand years, but mankind existed long before the Adam that Jehovah took care of.

what's your point?

[pppp]

you mean the same way you called pppp a bag for his opinion?

now you're a hyopcrite and an idiot. congrats.

You consistently miss point after point. Your prediction and critical thinking skills are strangely unhoned.

"pp" said only in the US is this an issue - he never presented an opinion, instead stating it factually including a bolding of the word 'only'. There's tons of proof against said argument.

Even without proof and using only your own slight human knowledge, it is impossible to speak for 5.5 billion people as sharing your 'opinion.'

Hence why he is a .

Well thank you.

I'm not judging anyone, I'm not saying it's good or bad, I'm only stating a fact. Why do u feel the need to attack me?

I actually travel around the world all year (i'm an internal auditor - I travel around the world 9/10 months a year). How often have you gotten out of Texas in the last 10 years? I'm no geopolitics expert, but that's my humble observation...

Among industrialized countries (US, Japan, Germany, China, UK, France, Italy, Spain, Canada,...) ONLY IN THE US IS THIS ISSUE SO PRESENT and it is fascinating....

[pppp]

(...) There's tons of proof against said argument.

Enlight me....

Even without proof and using only your own slight human knowledge, it is impossible to speak for 5.5 billion people as sharing your 'opinion[/B].'

Hence why he is a .

See that's the point: It's not an opinion or a judgment (good or bad). It's just an observation:

"Evolution", "Age of earth", etc. IS NOT such a hot issue as it is in the US in ANY other "industrialized" country. And that's a fact man.