|
Author
|
Topic: How did the Aborigines get to Australia?
|
Larni
Member (Idle past 149 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: 09-16-2005
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
Message 52 of 226 (646304)
01-04-2012 6:47 AM
|
Reply to: Message 51 by Portillo
01-04-2012 6:21 AM
|
|
Re: About boats...
Or call it Science vs Magic.
The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong. Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 51 by Portillo, posted 01-04-2012 6:21 AM | | Portillo has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 53 by Portillo, posted 01-04-2012 6:55 AM | | Larni has not replied |
|
Larni
Member (Idle past 149 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: 09-16-2005
|
|
|
Message 68 of 226 (647742)
01-11-2012 4:31 AM
|
Reply to: Message 66 by Portillo
01-11-2012 3:57 AM
|
|
Re: Public vs Scientific Controversy
Why then do people prefer to chat here rather than on an evolution forum? Seems like there would be alot less stress in your life if you didnt have to deal with creation. Unless of course this place is a creationist rehabilitation center. For some I guess it is. But what is there to debate on a pure evo site? Everyone is pretty much on the same page. What I enjoy is reading the crazy things that some people write (often starting with 'I'm not a scientist but') and reading the replies (often from people with appropriate credentials) which are very informative (I've learnt SO much since coming here, all those years ago).
It seems like there is an agreement that the marsupials got to Australia from other countries. Then how do you account for there being no native placental mammals in Australia? Edited by Larni, : Punctuation
The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong. Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 66 by Portillo, posted 01-11-2012 3:57 AM | | Portillo has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 70 by caffeine, posted 01-11-2012 4:41 AM | | Larni has replied |
|
Larni
Member (Idle past 149 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: 09-16-2005
|
|
|
Message 71 of 226 (647748)
01-11-2012 5:44 AM
|
Reply to: Message 70 by caffeine
01-11-2012 4:41 AM
|
|
Re: Australian placentals again
That's interesting. I knew about bats but I did not know rodents were there, too. I thought they came over with people. You live and learn, eh? Edited by Larni, : Apelli k
The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong. Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 70 by caffeine, posted 01-11-2012 4:41 AM | | caffeine has not replied |
|
Larni
Member (Idle past 149 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: 09-16-2005
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 80 of 226 (648087)
01-13-2012 6:17 AM
|
Reply to: Message 77 by Portillo
01-13-2012 3:58 AM
|
|
Re: Public vs Scientific Controversy
Research shows that there is skepticism in other countries. Did you know the average reading age in the UK is about 9 years? And we all know that less the less educated tend towards skepticism of science.
The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286 Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 77 by Portillo, posted 01-13-2012 3:58 AM | | Portillo has not replied |
|
Larni
Member (Idle past 149 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: 09-16-2005
|
|
|
Message 84 of 226 (648098)
01-13-2012 7:37 AM
|
Reply to: Message 82 by Chuck77
01-13-2012 6:50 AM
|
|
Run away continents.
Do you have any idea the amount of heat the continents moving to where they are from one land mass in a few thousand years would generate? Does giving things a bit of thought before posting sound even remotely like a good idea?
The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286 Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 82 by Chuck77, posted 01-13-2012 6:50 AM | | Chuck77 has not replied |
|
Larni
Member (Idle past 149 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: 09-16-2005
|
|
|
Message 121 of 226 (648379)
01-15-2012 4:21 AM
|
Reply to: Message 114 by Chuck77
01-15-2012 3:44 AM
|
|
Re: Dates, evidence, and opinions
Hi Chuck. Can you provide some evidence that supports the idea that there was but one land mass before the flood in the the 4500 year time frame?
The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286 Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 114 by Chuck77, posted 01-15-2012 3:44 AM | | Chuck77 has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 123 by Chuck77, posted 01-15-2012 4:25 AM | | Larni has replied |
|
Larni
Member (Idle past 149 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: 09-16-2005
|
|
|
Message 131 of 226 (648413)
01-15-2012 3:06 PM
|
Reply to: Message 123 by Chuck77
01-15-2012 4:25 AM
|
|
Re: Dates, evidence, and opinions
If there is no evidence for a great flood what on Earth makes you think that the bible is correct?
The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286 Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 123 by Chuck77, posted 01-15-2012 4:25 AM | | Chuck77 has not replied |
|
Larni
Member (Idle past 149 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: 09-16-2005
|
|
|
Message 139 of 226 (652620)
02-15-2012 4:51 AM
|
Reply to: Message 138 by Portillo
02-15-2012 3:55 AM
|
|
Re: Dates, evidence, and opinions
Sounds like evidence for flooding to me. When you make the leap from flood to Fludd(tm) what evidence are you using to inform that decision? All the best. Edited by Larni, : No reason given.
The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286 Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 138 by Portillo, posted 02-15-2012 3:55 AM | | Portillo has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 155 by Portillo, posted 07-30-2012 4:03 AM | | Larni has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2