God is quite busy
- Started
- Last post
- 301 Responses
- designbot0
Well I'm no scientist...and I'm pretty sure you are not either. I'll fully admit I could be wrong.
But I don't think we can even comprehend numbers like 67 million years. 67,000,000! For more than one dinosaur to have been discovered with flesh and possible organs left in tact seems like a very far stretch that they can be this old. I admit I am no expert, but doesn't this at least make you question that science could possibly be wrong about the age of the dinosaurs, and consiquently, the earth?
- mikotondria30
What do you mean - you're pretty sure I'm no scientist either ?
Do you mean you think that I don't, or couldn't make a living doing 'something scientific', or that I haven't studied some aspects of science professionally, or performed scientific research, or at least have an intimate knowledge or understanding of anything remotely scientific ? It's such a nebulous statement as to be meaningless.
I have studied paleontology and mineralogy at an advanced level, yes, and I maintain an active interest in the cutting edges of these and other scientific disciplines - your ad hoc farmhouse notions of the scale of geological time have no bearing at all on the methodologies of dating these remarkable fossils. It does, for all the world, sound like you are a client asking 'why has only the logo and one page been done after one week' on their branding project.
Without wishing to seem rude, I hope, your technical ignorance is spilling over into a broader self-deluding ignorance that other people must also be as deluded as yourself.
If after developing a theory on how old these fossils are, designing an experiment to asses your theory, performing this experiment and having your methods and results reviewed by a competent selection of your peers and other experts, you conclude that these items are indeed ' - like nowhere near 67million years old ' or some other such figure that you have decided is outside the scale of human comprehension, then we will all listen to you. Until that day, sir, please let the grown ups talk. Good day.- give that man a pint. Drinks on me.********
- *buys mikotondria3 drink for doing the heavy lifting in this thread.TheBlueOne
- This is something more profound than chest beating? This proves nothing.gramme
- its a polite way of saying 'you don't know what youre talking about and you know it'.mikotondria3
- to me or designbot? Or both?gramme
- give that man a pint. Drinks on me.
- mikotondria30
and, fyi - 67million is the amount of pixels on 52 screens of a 1280*1024 monitor.
And honestly, I didn't mean to appear meanly-rude to you personally, I've always enjoyed your wit and wisdom on this site for many years, and I guess I need to try to be less like Keith Olbermann, whom I think is great.
- make that half a pint********
- *can I get a vodka tonic ? (Cheap vodka, premium tonic - yeh, that's how I roll)mikotondria3
- vodka is vodka, 80 proof is just fine, chilled? nothing easier.********
- make that half a pint
- ukit0
Science gave us the world we live in, the car you drive, the computer you are reading this on, electricity, TV, porn, QBN, digital music, etc etc. Maybe it's time to give science some props for once instead of dismissing it.
- teleos0
I believe in a very old earth and universe. I also believe the Biblical record of origins. The conflict model espoused here is not the only available model. This is a highly nuanced issue.
- teleos0
This issue is not so much "when" as it is "what".
- not half as interesting as 'how'.mikotondria3
- I agree. Especially in light of the bankruptcy of Darwinian mechanisms.teleos
- hahaha, honestly that made me laugh out loud. You just don't give it up, haha :)mikotondria3
- Affluenza0
Who invented God anyway?
- sheep********
- He always was. "I AM" is one of the names he gave himself.gramme
- Well THAT'S convenient of him to say.TheBlueOne
- innit?gramme
- init();whiteout
- sheep
- gramme0
If anyone is really interested, I can post one of the more convincing essays I've ever seen on Creationism. It was written by a buddy of mine, who happens to be a biologist. I'll warn you though, it's super long.
- YEC's make some great points. Truly compelling stuff - starlight equations, appearance of age, etc...teleos
- which is why i remain sympathetic to their position, even if I kindly disagree.teleos
- sarcasm? I thought you were an OEC kinda guy.gramme
- Ah nvrmind, just saw your second post.gramme
- why all the effort? the contortions? the nuances? Ok then, explain miracles and resurrections.********
- there is no science available for those particular fantasies never mind "heaven"********
- that stuff has nothing to do with science. It's all metaphysical, of course.gramme
- Furthermore, because the existence of such things cannot be scientifically proven, why are they automatically fantasies?gramme
- Crouwl8cY0
I kneed a Bib not a Bible
- teleos0
Darwinian mechanisms have been shown impotent in doing anything beyond trivial adaptive change (and even in these trivial cases it's speculative that it's Natural Selection acting on random variation). Experiments with thousands of generations of Drosophila and the Malaria virus have demonstrated this. Throwing deep time at the issue doesn't help anything. All the probabilistic resources in the history of the universe aren't going to purchase you specified information, which is replete throughout all life. Darwinian mechanisms may have some minor explanatory power with regard to survival of the fittest, but not arrival of the fittest. There must be a top-down information source. Where do we KNOW specified information and complex functional machinery come from? A mind.
The best option on the table for origin and development of all phyla on this planet is: front-loading. The evidence points to some kind of front-loaded "uber cell". All the information was present from the very beginning. This harmonizes with the evidence: ancient urchins that have been found have all of the genetic information for limbs and digits, just unexpressed. Why? How does that fit into a Darwinian framework? It doesn't. How does the abrupt appearance of fully formed body plans, organs and novel cell types fit into a Darwinian framework without any clear gradualistic pattern of intermediate forms? It doesn't. Yet it fits right in line with a design based paradigm. Programmers code in information in the form of packages called "functions" which are triggered by events at a later time. All the information was there, it wasn't cobbled together by the magical chance worshiper formula of Natural Selection + Random Mutations. NS+RM does not produce specified information, it destroys. It ensures extinction.
Tired 19th century steamboat era explanations which reflect the intellectual fad of time, will no longer do. Darwinism is dead in the water. We have new data. Out with the old.
- A mind? or THE MIND OF THE UNIVERSE!********
- cute. Tell me more about this mind of the universe.teleos
- despite being articulate, you are obviously not a biologist, evidenced by your complete lack of understanding of the issuespifflink
- i hope you are in any government office or in a position to affect public policyspifflink
- *aren't, sorryspifflink
- unfortunately, chances are someone who believes this dogma is though. sigh.spifflink
- A mind? or THE MIND OF THE UNIVERSE!
- designbot0
Hey Miko, well thanks for the response....I think ;)
I do think maybe you need to have a beer and relax a bit..haha seriously. There is no reason to get personal with any of this...even if that means some serious restraint. Even though we may heavily disagree, I don't take that to the level of thinking any less of you as a fellow human being.
I feel like we are debating on a microscopic issue in regards to the grand scheme of things. As I pointed out earlier the "young earth" belief that most Christians adhere to is simply what we gather from reading the accounts in genesis and other books in the Bible...the Bible never explicitly says this. It sounds like at the very least you have done some of your own studying and research, which I can definitely respect. On the flip side there many seasoned scientists with PHD's and other credentials who hold to the "young earth". That is to say, you may have some credit on your side, but there are folks much more qualified who would disagree with you. So I don't think just because you have more experience in science with your hands-on experiments takes anything away from the things I've said. Seems a little arrogant don't you think?
It would be like if I designed some hideous looking website and the client told me "we really do not like this, it looks dated, sloppy, and is confusing to navigate" and I replied "well I am the professional Web Designer here...please don't try and talk to me, the 'grown up', about design when you don't know anything about it"
They can base their response on other available "data" or well designed websites done by others and be effective at getting a good site in return.
see what I'm saying?
- ^ I understand design may not be the best parallel as it is subjective to a degree, but I still think my illustration makes my point.designbot
- point.designbot
- no making a shitty website would point to the fact that you aren't a 'grown up' no matter how much you wanted to bespifflink
- and there isn't a degree really that says 'i am awesome at web design' whereas there are degrees in these academic subjectsspifflink
- subjectsspifflink
- ********0
Know then that I fear Thee
not. Know that I too have lived in the dreary wilderness, where I
fed upon locusts and roots, that I too have blessed freedom with
which thou hast blessed men, and that I too have once prepared to
join the ranks of Thy elect, the proud and the mighty. But I
awoke from my delusion and refused since then to serve insanity.
I returned to join the legion of those who corrected Thy
mistakes. I left the proud and returned to the really humble, and
for their own happiness. What I now tell thee will come to pass,
and our kingdom shall be built, I tell Thee not later than
to-morrow Thou shalt see that obedient flock which at one simple
motion of my hand will rush to add burning coals to Thy stake, on
which I will burn Thee for having dared to come and trouble us in
our work. For, if there ever was one who deserved more than any
of the others our inquisitorial fires--it is Thee! To-morrow I
will burn Thee. Dixi'."
- designbot0
"Where is your wise man? Where your expounder of the Law? Where your investigator of the questions of this present age? Has not God shown the world's wisdom to be utter foolishness?"
- robco0
two words for yall:
KENT HOVIND
- gramme0
Zounds, my head hurts. I need a beer. Who's with me?
*metal_leg: sorry I acted like a dick toward you in some notes.
- Let's do it :)designbot
- You live in Missouri? Thought you were in North Carolina?designbot
- Nah, I wish I was in NC... I used to surf every year down in Cape Hatteras when I lived in MDgramme
- Ahh I see. I was in KC, MO for a few years. I actually really dig it there....except the humidity.designbot
- Love the old abandoned buildings you can find all over ....got some nice photos while I was there.designbot
- gramme - once again, no worries. I respect your passion.metal_leg_will
- That's all foam gramme...sheesh:-)ukit
- Don't worry, it will micro-evolve into a gorgeous head :Dgramme
- GeorgesII0
God has to be a designer.
- ********0
It is only the Godless who deny us heaven on earth.
