Reply With Quote
mouse, you keep saying 4 billion years ago. It is actually closer to 4.5 billion years ago. Just a heads up...
Why not just round it off to 5 Billion?
Because the same man is not an expert in how that mechanism might work.
That same man, however, did tell you it dates back to 150-100 BC though because that's what that same man does for a living.
exactlyCome on already stop the bull .
mouse, you keep saying 4 billion years ago. It is actually closer to 4.5 billion years ago. Just a heads up...
Why not just round it off to 5 Billion?
Because there's no scientific basis for doing so.
And how did he find out this information a book? It's one thing to study old tools used in the BC era when you have the tool in your hand and you have many manuscripts of people who used such a tool.
But where is the manuscript of when the big bang took place that supports your theory of the earth being a ball of hot soup that cooled off after a few billion years then we crawled out of the slime grew legs swung from trees and became human? How do you become an expert on something your speculating about?
You want to tell me 2000 years ago men used to sit down to pee I may believe you. But don't try and tell me what took place billions of years ago save that for the Sheeple of the club.
Man, what people say in the heat of the moment tends to really reveal what is going on in their heads.
People who really, truly, "don't care about the Bible" don't tend to use phrases like "Jesus haters".
People who really, truly, "don't care about the Bible" don't tend to use phrases like "Darwinists" or "Darwin lovers".
Psychologists and linguists make much of how people self-identify with groups and prove group iden y by using certain phrases, and in this case that is rather telling.
As with any creationist, you are disingenuious about your true motives.
I think, based on this, you are not attempting to further good science. You are attempting to disprove evidence that contradicts the literal interpretation of the Bible you believe in.
That you aren't honest about that, also says volumes.
People like you don't want "alternative solutions" in textbooks. You want them scrubbed of anything that might vaguely hint at contradicting this belief in the literal interpretation of the Christian Bible. You would be perfectly happy if the book of Genesis was the only version of natural history taught in schools, without any mention of the alternative evidence showing the universe being billions of years old.
Are you sure? Are you saying Scientist are never wrong?
Take a deep breath: Believe it or not, scientists are not always right. We really put them up on a pedestal, though, don't we? We quote scientists as experts, buy things if they're "scientifically proven" to work better ... but scientists are human, too. It's just not fair to expect perfection out of them, is it? But come on, can't we at least ask for a reasonable level of competency?
Some examples.......................
The Earth Is the Center of the Universe
Chalk it up to humanity's collectively huge ego. Second-century astronomer Ptolemy's (blatantly wrong) Earth-centered model of the solar system didn't just stay in vogue for 20 or 30 years; it stuck around for a millennium and then some.
It wasn't until almost 1,400 years later that Copernicus published his heliocentric (sun-centered) model in 1543. Copernicus wasn't the first to suggest that the we orbited the sun, but his theory was the first to gain traction.
Ninety years after its publication, the Catholic Church was still clinging to the idea that we were at the center of it all and duking it out with Galileo over his defense of the Copernican view. Old habits die hard.
Germs in Surgery
Laugh or cry (take your pick), but up until the late 19th century, doctors didn't really see the need to wash their hands before picking up a scalpel.
The result? A lot of gangrene. Most early-19th century doctors tended to attribute contagion to "bad air" and blamed disease on imbalances of the "four humors" (that's blood, phlegm, yellow bile and black bile, in case you weren't familiar).
"Germ theory" (the revolutionary idea that germs cause disease) had been around for a while, but it wasn't till Louis Pasteur got behind it in the 1860s that people started listening. It took a while, but doctors like Joseph Lister eventually connected the dots and realized that hospitals and doctors had the potential to pass on life-threatening germs to patients.
DNA: Not So Important
DNA was discovered in 1869, but for a long time, it was kind of the unappreciated assistant: doing all the work with none of the credit, always overshadowed by its flashier protein counterparts.
Even after experiments in the middle part of the 20th century offered proof that DNA was indeed the genetic material, many scientists held firmly that proteins, not DNA, were the key to heredity. DNA, they thought, was just too simple to carry so much information.
It wasn't until Watson and Crick published their all-important double-helical model of the structure of DNA in 1953 that biologists finally started to understand how such a simple molecule could do so much. Perhaps they were confusing simplicity with elegance.
you want more?
That's your opinion you missed my point.
I use Darwin lovers , just like I use Bush lovers, coach Pop lovers...whats your point?People who really, truly, "don't care about the Bible" don't tend to use phrases like "Darwinists" or "Darwin lovers".
You can put your religious spin on this it won't work all your doing is stalling time since you know no matter what you show me i will shoot it down.Psychologists and linguists make much of how people self-identify with groups and prove group iden y by using certain phrases, and in this case that is rather telling.
As with any creationist, you are disingenuious about your true motives.
I think, based on this, you are not attempting to further good science. You are attempting to disprove evidence that contradicts the literal interpretation of the Bible you believe in.
That you aren't honest about that, also says volumes.
People like you don't want "alternative solutions" in textbooks. You want them scrubbed of anything that might vaguely hint at contradicting this belief in the literal interpretation of the Christian Bible. You would be perfectly happy if the book of Genesis was the only version of natural history taught in schools, without any mention of the alternative evidence showing the universe being billions of years old.
I showed you many examples of how your Science gets wrong. I showed you how the text books lie. You want to play armchair psychiatrist go right ahead, I will move on to others who stick with the facts.
Of course science can and will be wrong. Unlike you, however, it always bases it's estimates on the best data and research available to it at the time.
(as an interesting aside that doesn't relate to the discussion, Ptolemy's astronomical theory was extremely more accurate than Galileo's)
So you have loop hole? Anyone else is wrong they are full of . Your scientist are wrong it's (well given the data at the time)
what kind of punk ass is that? You guys need to move on to another debate, maybe health care or Gays in the military, something your well educated on before I really get going and pull out some not even Eisenstein can explain away.
please. "Punk ass" from the guy who can't concede he's wrong and hides his ignorance in streams of babble, cut-and-paste, hearsay, youtube... don't make me go on: this is one of my stronger subjects.
You purport to be so well educated in science and it's shortcomings, yet you also wear your pronounced lack of education or intellectual honesty as a badge of honor, to the point that you're scarcely able to understand even the most elementary examples presented to you, much less how they systematically explode your premises and assumptions. Just the fact that you think anyone is saying that science is always right reveals what a nitwit you are. Like I said, science may be wrong, but it always bases it's conclusions on the best evidence available. What do you base your conclusions on when you throw out science? Nonsense you pull out of your clown ass.
I know you troll to entertain yourself and I honestly appreciate the distraction on slow days at work, but don't you think it's depressing that any serious conversation you take part -- whatever the topic -- in ultimately ends with your interlocutors expressing pity for you, the endless hours you log on this board, and your subsistence on corn-nuts, beer, and pills?
The religious spin is all yours.
You are right to a point. As dishonest as you may or may not be about your ultimate motivations, they are irrelevant to how wrong you are about the science.
You do that all on your own.
That is the way science works. Theory, experiment, then accept or reject the theory.
This is called a "null hypothesis" by the way.
That human understanding of the universe and the way it works in the past has been wrong does not mean that our understanding is inherently incorrect today.
That is really, really, REALLY flawed logic.
"You were wrong in the past when you said this revolver had a bullets in it. I pointed it at my head and pulled the trigger and it just went 'click', so I can do that repeatedly without worrying about it."
That argument is, by the way, yet another example of an "ad hominem" logical fallacy.
Science is, and does, come up with the best explanation to fit observed data.
That is what makes it so much better than a literal interpretation of Genesis, and that is why we can say with as much certainty as is possible to muster:
The universe, and the Earth are billions of years old.
It is the collection and summation of thousands and thousands of experiments by people over literally hundreds of years, all of which independently come to the same conclusion. It is a vast weight of evidence that you have yet to, despite your bravado, dent at all.
Against all of this data, the best you have is half-truths and logical fallacies.
what makes 2000 years different for you than 4.5 billion years?
I am using my keyboard on another pc let me finish so I can get back to.
And by the same token, what makes life ex nihilo and authored by a anthropomorphic deity less absurd than the idea that life/energy exists or is potential in all matter and that all matter has existed forever?
take your time.
Intelligent design seems less absurd because we as humans create and design things all the time. We also have never witnessed abiogenesis in action.
Occam's razor seems to point to ID, imo.
On a level, I agree that makes more sense intuitively, but the fact is we don't actually make anything, we just re-shape and re-arrange it. In that way, we have nothing in common with God, if I'm being clear.
Nothing in common with the God of the Bible, I'm guessing.
It depends on your belief of what God is or who the intelligent designer(s) is.
Touché.
You are such a ing dip . I am not "tooting my horn" about my education, I'm suggesting you get one so that you understand the evidence. That way you wouldn't make such an arse of yourself by suggesting that scientists are "making it up".
As for not having the "class or patience" to debate people on the forum, I certainly do, but I don't see the point when most of those who pretend they are "debating" know very little about the evidence. What is the point in "debating" someone who is regurgitating questions that have already been settled?
I am not arguing that science is perfect and all-knowing - it certainly is NOT, it's a process of progressively testing and re-testing ideas and evidence to gain a better understanding of the physical world. But if you are going to ignore what is self-evident to those who actually know what they are talking about (ie. the thousands of scientists across the planet studying whatever topic it may be), then I don't see the point in "debating" you.
I also really appreciate the fact that you accuse me of having no class yet in just about every post you slate my country and call me a sexual. Real class, mouse, just ing top class.
As for this:
"Why can't you and your super intelligent buddies add the pictures of the subway and say in some cases stalac es can form in just 40 years? "
Can't you read? I already said they can form very quickly, in 40 years if you like, and I don't think you'll find a chemist or geologist who would disagree, so what the are you talking about?
If you want some starting points when talking about the age of the earth, learn about:
*radiometric dating (radioactive decay series, half-lives and concentrations of stable end products of a range of elements - over 40 different techniques used and they all come up with similar results)
*studies of rock strata (most of the planet has been mapped kms deep - England is especially interesting, as is the south cast of NSW)
*studies of geographical features (eg. mountain ranges, different kinds of valleys)
*fossils (how, for example, do you explain aquatic fossils in strata in the middle of continents, and even in the strata found in mountain ranges, if you believe in a young earth?).
There is so much physical, observable evidence out there and you seem to love to ignore it. Good luck with that.
BTW, thank you admiralsnackbar, that is an eloquent expression of exactly what I've been trying to say. Spot ing on.
I would think that abiogenesis is less of a stretch than an unseen "creator", personally. YMMV.
Poor guy he is just now getting online, he has a 633MHZ PC with 64 mb of ram.
He is an old guy like me, he knows his electric and plumbing but he is messy.
He is re-wiring the whole house there is Sheetrock dust and pink insulation all over the place. These guys are messy as .. Why would you just tear up all the walls and ceilings all you have to do is cut out the section you need to run the wire. I have been using the PC in the main office and I try not to have ST or my favorite torrent site on the screen. I kinda want them to think I am busy working.
Here are a few pics.
Instead of crawling through the attic they made a shortcut.
Anyway let me try and clean my room so I can pick up where I left off proving you Darwin lovers wrong.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
