Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 61 (9042 total)
112 online now:
AZPaul3, Phat (AdminPhat), Pollux (3 members, 109 visitors)
Newest Member: maria
Post Volume: Total: 886,022 Year: 3,668/14,102 Month: 288/321 Week: 104/44 Day: 20/26 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1214
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 515 of 1486 (815021)
07-14-2017 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 514 by RAZD
07-13-2017 6:45 AM


Re: marc9000 afraid to address the issue of the age of the earth?
Well marc, it is the topic on this thread: will you continue to avoid the issue or will you attempt an actual argument about defending your perception of the age of the earth?

I have no set perception about the age of the earth - I never have. It's not important to me. It's not going to effect how I live my life, how I interact with other people, establishing the date I'm going to die, or how I make decisions concerning how I try to please God in living out the plan he has for my life.

Some notable creationists like Ken Ham do have a firm belief in a young earth. Like much of what passes for "science", it's not observable science. Anything that's not observable science comes up short in being testable and falsifiable enough to be without controversy. The reams of material you've come up with, (and continue to come up with, I see) has been amassed for over a hundred years by scientists who first came to a conclusion, (the earth MUST be old for Darwinism to work) then choose evidence that supports that conclusion, and ignores evidence that doesn't.

We live in a world of re-arrangement. That's all humans can do, they can't create material, and they can't destroy material. The only thing anyone can do is re-arrange material that's already here. We can do some pretty profound re-arrangements, like changing something in such a way that we can't change it back. (like burning something, etc) But the material is not destroyed. We live in a world of ONE time dimension, and three space dimensions.

Few people seem to think that humans are capable of understanding all of reality. The endlessness of space, the meaning of life and all of that. I've seen a few at forums like this say something like; "we don't know it all yet, but we're going to figure it all out someday if we could get rid of all these science blocking Christians", or something similar. But they're a tiny minority, and have no proof that they're intellectually superior to everyone else.

A very basic of Christianity is that there is more than one time dimension and three space dimensions that God operates/has operated in. And yet whenever the scientific community addresses something non-observational, it is always assumed that it must fit the paradigm of re-arrangement, of one time and three space dimensions. The scientific community doesn't immediately clash with Christianity or the supernatural, it just goes past it. The clash part usually comes soon after.

Some who claim to be Christians try to bend and shape Christianity to conform with what the godless scientific community claims, if it takes issue with a traditional Christian belief. As if to say, "if there's a choice between the supernatural and re-arrangements that humans can understand, then the human understandable part has to be given preference.

If we were to ask a science guy like Bill Nye what percentage of reality can humans not be capable of understanding versus what we can understand, he'd probably say we can understand...80 to 90% of all of reality. Only 10 or 20% to go. As I consider only re-arrangement in just about everything we can do or comprehend, I'd almost have to reverse those percentages - I believe there's A LOT about all of reality that humans have no chance of ever being able to comprehend.

To try to jam pack all of reality into a re-arrangement realm isn't just an easily reversed minor mistake - it's WRONG. It's far worse than just a trip to nowhere, it's a wrong road that can continue to lead to more and more wrong conclusions, with society destroying consequences. Today's liberalism is a good example.

If God did use his ability to use more than one time dimension and three space dimensions to create the earth and the universe, ALL this time and energy spent on speculation that naturalistic processes blundered along for billions of years to do the same thing more than just a gigantic waste, it's VERY detrimental to all of human existence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 514 by RAZD, posted 07-13-2017 6:45 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 516 by Coyote, posted 07-14-2017 4:33 PM marc9000 has not yet responded
 Message 517 by Pollux, posted 07-15-2017 2:51 AM marc9000 has not yet responded
 Message 518 by RAZD, posted 07-15-2017 8:05 AM marc9000 has responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1214
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 520 of 1486 (815064)
07-15-2017 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 518 by RAZD
07-15-2017 8:05 AM


Re: that wasn't so hard now, was it?
marc9000 writes:

I have no set perception about the age of the earth - I never have. ...

So you don't know, don't care. Fascinating.

Why is it fascinating? You don't understand that people have diverse views and interests? Life is short, mine is quite full, there are no huge voids in my life because I don't spend time on non-observational science that isn't provable. I'm only in this thread because you invited me. I am curious about a few things though, I hope you can lose a little of the anger and address them. After I address a few dates from your link;

quote:
By the early 20th Century...... In 1911......In 1921....... in 1927

Darwin's book "Origin of Species" was written in 1859. All the above dates come shortly after that. Meaning that the interest in an old earth increased greatly with the publication of that book.

And one of the things we rearrange is our understanding of the age of the earth based on testable empirical objective evidence. We've been doing that for thousands of years, and getting better at it.

I was only referring to material, not little philosophical cuties about "rearranging understanding".

Arranging our understanding based on objective empirical evidence has proven to be much superior to achieving practical applications compared to emotional opinion or fantasy, especially as the evidence keeps getting stronger.

You are the one who quickly went from "howling with laughter" to sputtering with rage in our last discussion. Those who promote an old earth for political reasons can hardly consider themselves exempt from emotion.

marc9000 writes:

If we were to ask a science guy like Bill Nye what percentage of reality can humans not be capable of understanding versus what we can understand, he'd probably say we can understand...80 to 90% of all of reality. Only 10 or 20% to go. ...

Well I won't claim to talk for Bill, but my opinion is that the answer is the other way around, that we currently are not capable of understanding most of reality. But that capability increases the more we find what we do understand.

You missed my question completely, let me try again. I referred to what humans are CAPABLE of understanding. It has nothing to do with building new knowledge on previous information. Do you believe that humans, at any time in the future, are CAPABLE of understanding the endlessness of space, as one example?

The methods and results and data presented here are available for review and criticism and testing -- and creationists have tried, and failed, to show the methods are wrong. The best they can do is lie about the results to delude the gullible into rejecting reality.

Since I don't have FIVE YEARS to read through it all, could I get a summary about one thing that I seldom ever see addressed? What percentage of these dating methods show only old material, (old rocks, etc) without showing proof for a life-as-we-know-it friendly climate? It would be possible for the earth's core and crust and all of that to be old, without evidence that the earth has been going around the sun with similar temperatures that we have today for millions of years. Life is fragile, temperature-wise. There's no species on earth that can survive long at all outside its narrow temperature range.

It's been awhile, but every so often we get warnings on the news that yet another of the man-made satellites orbiting the earth is coming in for a crash landing. I guess we don't hear about it when one loses its gravity grip and drifts away. What would happen if we had a NASA guy say, "uh folks, we have a little evolution problem - it seems that our data on satellites shows that it's not possible for a satellite, or a planet, to orbit something more than 10,000 or 20,000 times without drifting away or being drawn in. I only know one thing that would happen for sure - he'd lose the top two thirds of his head in an unfortunate shaving accident before his discovery would see the light of day. There really is politics involved in scientific study.

marc9000 writes:

I have no set perception about the age of the earth - I never have. ...

After all, if you stay ignorant then you can believe anything.

How ignorant are you about world history? About socialism and tyrants? About Biblical teaching on morality? About finances and national debt? If you stay ignorant of those subjects, you'll believe anything Bernie Sanders tells you. I'm 62 and I've been to funerals of several people that were younger than me. Do you have any priorities, or is the age of the earth everything your life is about? Working, paying taxes, living a life, these are all things that automatically take care of themselves for you? I'm not trying to change the subject, I'm trying to get across to you, as I have for others here for the past several years, that science isn't the only source of knowledge. Maybe one more terrorist attack, maybe a financial crash that the U.S. has never seen before, will wake a few more people up to that fact.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 518 by RAZD, posted 07-15-2017 8:05 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 521 by Coyote, posted 07-15-2017 3:22 PM marc9000 has responded
 Message 522 by edge, posted 07-15-2017 4:45 PM marc9000 has not yet responded
 Message 523 by RAZD, posted 07-15-2017 4:49 PM marc9000 has responded
 Message 535 by Pressie, posted 07-17-2017 5:04 AM marc9000 has responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1214
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 528 of 1486 (815115)
07-16-2017 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 521 by Coyote
07-15-2017 3:22 PM


Re: that wasn't so hard now, was it?
marc9000 writes:

...non-observational science that isn't provable.

This one line alone shows you have little understanding of science and how it works.

First, NOTHING IN SCIENCE IS PROVED OR PROVABLE. Sorry for the caps, but this is far from the first time I've had to post this, as creationists either don't listen or don't accept what science is and how it actually functions.

You've possibly seen the oval shaped "DUPONT" emblem at some point in your life, it's a large, long-time company. Most of the times I've seen it, it has the little one-line description under it; "The Miracles Of Science". Here's a link to one of their main pages;

http://www2.dupont.com/...ourced_Materials/en_US/vision.html

quote:
DuPont strives to be the world's most dynamic science company, creating sustainable solutions essential to a better, safer, healthier life for people everywhere. DuPont believes it can deliver on this vision with uncompromised performance from renewable resources, while minimizing its operational impact on the environment. As an ingredient supplier with unparalleled experience and expertise in science and technology, DuPont has the unique ability to have far-reaching impact on virtually every major industry — helping grow shareholder value, while contributing to social and environmental progress worldwide.

This is traditional science. It's been around longer than "war against Christianity" science. The type of science Dupont and many other free-market companies do is 100% testable, repeatable, observable, and falsifiable. War-against-Christianity science ALWAYS misses one or more of those 4. I see your source for definitions is from NASA, a company that is mostly government funded, whose work is almost never testable, or falsifiable.

Events of the past aren't repeatable, and aren't observable, so there are 2 that are missing from this thread's claims of an ancient earth. That only leaves testable and falsifiable, and since there are claims of correlation in some of the data in the claim of an old earth as RAZD outlined, then AED's (ancient earth Darwinists) can rightfully claim some testability. Falsifiability should be present in most of AED's claims as well, but it usually isn't for one main reason - all the anger and emotion that AED's put forward whenever their war-against-Christianity "science" is questioned. The instant anger that went up with the release of Darwin's Black Box back in the 1990's is one of many examples.

So we have 2 distinct types of science, the kind Dupont does that benefits mankind and is accountable to free markets, and there's the type that AED's and NASA does, science for amusement and politics, because it seldom has nuts-and-bolts benefits for mankind. I'm sure there are several here who will tell me there's a bridge between these 2 types of science - I actually had an AED on another forum long ago tell me that without the knowledge of a multi-billion year old earth, we would have no idea how to purify water. I'm sure there have been countless hundreds of AED'S in government funded labs who have made a case for this type of claim, and I don't have the time or interest to face a gang of AED'S about it.

Science is involved in medicine, pharmaceuticals, electricity, chemicals, and many other things that are proved and provable. It seems those in the 'war-against-Christianity' division of science are starting to forget that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 521 by Coyote, posted 07-15-2017 3:22 PM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 534 by Coyote, posted 07-16-2017 6:16 PM marc9000 has responded
 Message 536 by Pressie, posted 07-19-2017 10:34 AM marc9000 has responded
 Message 537 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-19-2017 11:10 AM marc9000 has responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1214
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 529 of 1486 (815116)
07-16-2017 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 523 by RAZD
07-15-2017 4:49 PM


Re: that wasn't so hard now, was it?
marc9000 writes:

Do you believe that humans, at any time in the future, are CAPABLE of understanding the endlessness of space, as one example?

Can you define what quantity of knowledge that is? In order to be able to ascertain what proportion humans will eventually be able to understand, don't you need to know that?

Quantity? What does that mean, lay out every question that there is concerning unresolved questions? One would be where material/matter came from. I realize science has put forward a theory, that 13 billion years ago there was a big bang that arose from an area the size of the head of a pin, and it contained all the material in the universe. Then in the next breath they'll mock Christians for believing in "magic".

I'd like to know how space can be endless. The human mind can't comprehend how it can be, neither can it comprehend how it can't be. If we were to build a spaceship that could travel at 1000 parsecs per hour, and get us to the edge of our galaxy, or to the edge of the "observable universe", what would be there? A big wall with a sign that say's "THE END, TURN BACK NOW!" If so, what's on the other side of that wall? More galaxies? Wouldn't we have to admit that if space is completely endless, that there would have to be an endless number of earths exactly like this one, same number of blades of grass, grains of sand, that this one does? And all the slightest variations, anything we could imagine. One where dogs or cats rule, and humans go around barking and meowing. Or an earth exactly like this one in every way, except that on that one's EvC, Razd would be the YEC, and marc9000 would be the AED?

If that were true, wouldn't there be civilization somewhere that would be advanced enough to come here, with a spaceman who looked just like Bernie Sanders, and started commanding us how to live our lives?

I choose not to believe "endlessness". I believe in the definition that the Bible gives us.

So your question was silly.

There's nothing silly about questioning the wisdom of fitting all of reality into what might be a very limited re-arrangement realm. If there is more than one time dimension, (the belief of 2 or more is basic to all of Christianity) could the AED worldview provide impressive evidence to deny a second time dimension's existence, even though that evidence would actually turn out to be all wrong?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 523 by RAZD, posted 07-15-2017 4:49 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 533 by RAZD, posted 07-16-2017 5:54 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1214
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 530 of 1486 (815117)
07-16-2017 3:28 PM
Reply to: Message 525 by jar
07-15-2017 5:10 PM


Re: Loses its Gravity Grip?
I understand it is not quite germane to the topic but it is also so amazingly outlandish that I cannot possible not acknowledge it as perhaps the funniest thing a creationist has said here since the days of WillowTree.

So you don't understand the concept of the moon slightly drifting away from earth? You've never heard of a satellite crashing into earth's atmosphere?

Tell me something Christian, do you believe there is more than one time-dimension?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 525 by jar, posted 07-15-2017 5:10 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 532 by jar, posted 07-16-2017 5:04 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1214
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 531 of 1486 (815118)
07-16-2017 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 526 by Minnemooseus
07-15-2017 5:10 PM


Re: One link is to satire site
I suspect the Ken-Ham's-grandfather-riding-a dinosaur allegation might have more to it than we're being told also. But I'm not going to worry about researching it. Ken Ham isn't the only representative of Christianity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 526 by Minnemooseus, posted 07-15-2017 5:10 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1214
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 538 of 1486 (815393)
07-19-2017 7:55 PM
Reply to: Message 534 by Coyote
07-16-2017 6:16 PM


Re: Another falsehood
marc9000 writes:

Events of the past aren't repeatable, and aren't observable, so there are 2 that are missing from this thread's claims of an ancient earth.

Absolutely false.

So they're "absolutely" repeatable and observable, but not "provable"? Because earlier, you said this;

Coyote writes:

NOTHING IN SCIENCE IS PROVED OR PROVABLE.

Do you think I could show you that companies like DuPont, who do real science, really do scientific things that are provable?

Just as one example: radiocarbon dating can be used on anything that was once living, up to about 50,000 years.

That means that, for example, I can date hundreds of marine shells from a particular Indian site. And, in many sites I can date those shells from discrete layers, dating several layers to determine whether they are superimposed, as undisturbed middens should be. And I can do this with hundreds of different sites. My colleagues around the world push this into the hundreds of thousands of sites. This satisfies both the not repeatable and not observable claims made by creationists.

Are they provable? Is your previous all caps statement actually false?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 534 by Coyote, posted 07-16-2017 6:16 PM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 542 by Coyote, posted 07-19-2017 8:06 PM marc9000 has responded
 Message 549 by JonF, posted 07-20-2017 10:30 AM marc9000 has not yet responded
 Message 550 by ringo, posted 07-20-2017 12:08 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1214
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 539 of 1486 (815394)
07-19-2017 7:57 PM
Reply to: Message 535 by Pressie
07-17-2017 5:04 AM


Re: that wasn't so hard now, was it?
Anyway, marc9000, isn't it amazing that exploration and mining companies were the people and organisations initiating and funding research on how to exactly determine the age of rocks? Seems like it helped them doing what they do best; finding and taking minerals out of the ground and sell those products for a profit (I nearly wrote Prophet)? They use old earth models. Makes normal people think; doesn't it?

Yes, if we didn't have atheism, we would have no idea how to dig things out of the ground and use them. I've heard it all before.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 535 by Pressie, posted 07-17-2017 5:04 AM Pressie has not yet responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1214
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 540 of 1486 (815395)
07-19-2017 8:02 PM
Reply to: Message 536 by Pressie
07-19-2017 10:34 AM


Re: that wasn't so hard now, was it?
Actually, I didn't need to watch my parents having sex to have me. DNA does the trick.

There's no disagreement between YEC's and AED's on how life is pro-created. But there is disagreement on between them on how old the earth is, what the supernatural is capable of if it isn't bound by one time and three space dimensions.

Do you have any idea what science is, marc9trillion?

I'm learning. I see that;

Coyote writes:

NOTHING IN SCIENCE IS PROVED OR PROVABLE.

Do you agree with that statement? If you do, I'd like to show you a few things DuPont does - I might have the mistaken idea that DuPont does science.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 536 by Pressie, posted 07-19-2017 10:34 AM Pressie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 551 by Pressie, posted 07-21-2017 6:46 AM marc9000 has responded
 Message 552 by RAZD, posted 07-21-2017 7:05 AM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1214
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 541 of 1486 (815396)
07-19-2017 8:05 PM
Reply to: Message 537 by New Cat's Eye
07-19-2017 11:10 AM


Re: that wasn't so hard now, was it?
Riiiight.... that's why nobody has ever been convicted of murder.

I don't believe court systems absolutely prove things, they just come to the best conclusion they can based on the information they have. Worldviews aren't involved to the same extent.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 537 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-19-2017 11:10 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 546 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-20-2017 8:45 AM marc9000 has responded
 Message 548 by RAZD, posted 07-20-2017 9:28 AM marc9000 has responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1214
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 543 of 1486 (815398)
07-19-2017 8:41 PM
Reply to: Message 542 by Coyote
07-19-2017 8:06 PM


Re: Another falsehood
Does DuPont use the scientific method? Does DuPont prove things? Was your statement wrong?

Do you think I can show you scientific things that DuPont proves?

Edited by marc9000, : Took out trollish sentence.

Edited by marc9000, : Added one more question


This message is a reply to:
 Message 542 by Coyote, posted 07-19-2017 8:06 PM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 544 by Coyote, posted 07-19-2017 8:45 PM marc9000 has not yet responded
 Message 545 by jar, posted 07-19-2017 9:25 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1214
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 553 of 1486 (815612)
07-21-2017 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 546 by New Cat's Eye
07-20-2017 8:45 AM


Re: that wasn't so hard now, was it?
marc9000 writes:

I don't believe court systems absolutely prove things,

Nobody absolutely proves things.

In 'pure science', things are proved. If DuPont uses pure science to determine to try a new chemical formula in one of its paint products to improve its performance, and it's performance is observed to be improved, then that scientific experiment was proven.

marc9000 writes:

they just come to the best conclusion they can based on the information they have.

You mean like science?

Not pure science. Just theoretical science, often atheistic science.

marc9000 writes:

Worldviews aren't involved to the same extent.

What does worldviews have to do with it?

EVERYTHING. What to study, how thorough to study it, what desired conclusions have already been reached, etc.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 546 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-20-2017 8:45 AM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 558 by edge, posted 07-21-2017 11:20 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1214
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 554 of 1486 (815613)
07-21-2017 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 547 by edge
07-20-2017 9:16 AM


Re: Another falsehood
jar writes:

Yes DuPont uses the scientific method often but does not use the scientific method to prove things.

Exactly. Dupont is not in the business to 'do science'.

It's not? With the slogan of "The Miracles of Science"?

At some point, it becomes engineering. In this case, chemical engineering.

"At some point", within DuPont's many methods, including science. (pure science) Not the atheist-promoting kind.

quote:
DuPont’s vision has always been to apply world-class science to enable a better, safer, and healthier life for people everywhere. Today, we are helping our customers find solutions to some of the world’s most pressing needs, by enabling safer, more nutritious food; creating high-performance, cost effective and energy efficient materials; and increasingly delivering renewably sourced bio-based materials and fuels. All of our business call upon our world-class science and technology, a deep understanding of commercial value chains and market knowledge to deliver value-added solutions. This total system of innovation continually renews our portfolio, creates new product lines, and transforms markets to deliver results for our customers, employees and shareholders. 

http://www.dupont.com/...science/science-and-technology.html

You'll notice there was nothing there about wasting a lot of time and effort in agonizing over the age of the earth.

Some more from that link;

quote:
Our world class science draws on a rich mix of deep scientific disciplines to address significant market opportunities both within and across our businesses.  Broadly speaking, these disciplines fall under chemistry, materials science, biology, and engineering. DuPont science includes deep, world-class capabilities and sub-disciplines such as organic chemistry, polymer chemistry, microbiology, molecular biology, and process engineering that are frequently brought together within and across businesses to advance new technologies and create valuable new outcomes for our customers.

(bolded mine) If you and others here don't think DuPont is in the business to do science, shouldn't the scientific community sue them for claiming they do?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 547 by edge, posted 07-20-2017 9:16 AM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 557 by edge, posted 07-21-2017 11:15 PM marc9000 has responded
 Message 560 by RAZD, posted 07-22-2017 5:48 AM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1214
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 555 of 1486 (815615)
07-21-2017 8:02 PM
Reply to: Message 548 by RAZD
07-20-2017 9:28 AM


Re: that wasn't so hard now, was it?
marc9000 writes:

I don't believe court systems absolutely prove things, they just come to the best conclusion they can based on the information they have. Worldviews aren't involved to the same extent.

You just described science ... it doesn't "absolutely prove things," it just comes to the best conclusion it can based on the information it has.

Often after starting with a pre-determined conclusion, heavily influenced by a worldview.

Explaining results as errors in one system with some made up cockamamie creationist conception does not explain the consilience with the same results from other systems, and explaining results as errors in another system with some other made up cockamamie creationist conception does not explain the consilience with the same results from other systems, and this inability to explain the congruence and consilience in results is why cockamamie creationist conceptions have failed to explain reality in a way that incorporates ALL the objective empirical facts/evidence. ...

Except when the creationist conception considers the possibility of another time dimension. Something the human mind can't comprehend. And as I alluded to earlier, if we try to mistakenly jam-pack all of reality into ONLY what we can understand, the possibilities of going off on a wrong tangent and having it quickly snowball into a whole lot of wrongs is understood by those who don't think humans are perfect, who don't think humans are gods.

The earth is really old. Get used to it.

I don't need to get used to it, I live in the present. The only reason you would suggest that I get used to it is to make it easier for me to accept future liberal political commands that are associated with its "knowledge". That's what the scientific community's brand of science is all about, isn't it?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 548 by RAZD, posted 07-20-2017 9:28 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 561 by RAZD, posted 07-22-2017 6:02 AM marc9000 has responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1214
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 556 of 1486 (815616)
07-21-2017 8:05 PM
Reply to: Message 551 by Pressie
07-21-2017 6:46 AM


Re: that wasn't so hard now, was it?
It would help you if you knew the basics about basic science before trying to "prove" that science is wrong...

I don't try to prove science is wrong. I just sometimes question the promotion of certain theoretical kinds of science which only exist to promote the atheist worldview, and liberal politics.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 551 by Pressie, posted 07-21-2017 6:46 AM Pressie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 559 by edge, posted 07-21-2017 11:26 PM marc9000 has responded
 Message 562 by Tangle, posted 07-22-2017 6:16 AM marc9000 has responded
 Message 572 by Pressie, posted 07-24-2017 6:39 AM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021