Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

101 evidences for a young age of the earth...and the universe
CMI ^ | June 4, 2009 | Don Batten, Ph.D.

Posted on 06/04/2009 8:50:17 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts

101 evidences for a young age of the earth...and the universe

Can science prove the age of the earth?

There are many different categories of evidence that the cosmos and the earth are much younger than is generally asserted today...

(Excerpt) Read more at creation.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: creation; evolution; fools; goodgodimnutz; intelligentdesign; science
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-163 next last
To: GourmetDan

“Unless a population size grows at least somewhat steadily, it’s completely worthless to try to use population size as a way of measuring time.”
Are you saying the article tried to do that? Show me where.”

—Here is what the article said:
“Human population growth. Less than 0.5% p.a. growth from six people 4,500 years ago would produce today’s population. Where are all the people? if we have been here much longer?”

—Why ask “where are all the people?” unless you’re assuming that a population is usually growing? Why is it even an issue?

“”And while it is true that agricultural societies usually grow, sometimes rapidly, such things aren’t generally seen in non-agricultural societies.”
Did the article say that? Where was that said?”

—Unless it was assuming that the human population was usually growing during pre-agricultural times, there would, again, be no reason to ask “where are all the people”. And the “where are all the people” is a link to here:
http://creation.com/where-are-all-the-people
which has a section which asks “What if people had been around for one million years?”. It also argues against the Australian Aborigines as having been around for 60k years (a nonagricultural people) based on the fact that they only numbered about 300k people.


101 posted on 06/04/2009 12:31:12 PM PDT by goodusername
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: blowfish

Remember, you can’t spell “Creationist” without C-R-E-T-I-N


102 posted on 06/04/2009 12:32:46 PM PDT by Kozak (USA 7/4/1776 to 1/20/2009 Reqiescat in Pace)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: qam1
And that's why that 0.5% is meaningless, made up number.

Isn't the 0.5% number just the answer to this question: What average growth rate would be needed to have a population grow from 8 (4 males and 4 females) individuals to the present world population in 4500 years?

Isn't this calculation just a response to critics who suggested that the world population could not increase by 6.5 billion people in 4500 years? Rather than a scientific fact, the growth rate seems to be offered more as a plausibility statement to suggest the author's hypothesis was at least reasonable. Accepting that the exponential growth argument is plausible doesn't mean that someone has to accept the rest of the creationist argument.

I sense that you are inferring a lot more about this calculation than was meant.

103 posted on 06/04/2009 12:43:42 PM PDT by CommerceComet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

Old Earth propaganda have nothing to do with science.
Wrong , it has everything to do with science. There are generally accepted proven facts. Why must people insist that 7 days meant real 24 hours days in the Bible. 7 was used as a symbolic number. It’s the MESSAGE of the bible that is important not particular numbers. What is somewhere in the Bible it mentioned flat earth. Would you have to believe in a flat earth JUST because people in those days believed it was so ?People didn’t know science then ..that’s all there is ..


104 posted on 06/04/2009 12:52:16 PM PDT by sonic109
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor; Claud
That you fail to receive the facts while reading not withstanding.

Well obviously you are Mr. Bible-Scholar and are above all of us. I'm just not sure we are reading the same bible.

"So when they had come together, they asked Him, "Lord, will You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?" He said to them, "It is not for you to know times or seasons which The Father has fixed by His own authority. But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be My witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria and to the end of the earth." And when He had said this, as they were looking on, He was lifted up, and a cloud took Him out of their sight. And while they were gazing into heaven as He went, behold, two men stood by them in white robes, and said, "Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into heaven? This Jesus, Who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw Him go into heaven." Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is near Jerusalem." (Acts 1:6-12 RSV)

"It is not for you to know times or seasons which The Father has fixed by His own authority.

Oh okay, now I see what you're talking about. He is obviously talking about Yom Kippur. /s

105 posted on 06/04/2009 12:54:28 PM PDT by Mind Freed ("Every man has the right to be a fool 5 minutes a day. Wisdom is not exceeding the limit.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: sonic109
Why must people insist that 7 days meant real 24 hours days in the Bible. 7 was used as a symbolic number. It’s the MESSAGE of the bible that is important not particular numbers. What is somewhere in the Bible it mentioned flat earth. Would you have to believe in a flat earth JUST because people in those days believed it was so ?

I believe in the infallibility of Scripture. So I would insist 7 days meant 7 days if I could be convinced that's what the author intended. But Jewish and Christian scholars for 2000 years have been wondering about that "day" and speculating there is more to that day than meets the eye--and this is before modern cosmology. So I see no reason to force a literal interpretation on it.

God created the world, and He told us how through both Scripture and science. Any contradiction between the two must be only apparent, due to our limited understanding.

106 posted on 06/04/2009 1:09:12 PM PDT by Claud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: varmintman

Thanks Varmintman :o) Speaking of varmints, you wouldn’t happen to know the best way to get rid of moles would you? They’re tearing up my backyard!


107 posted on 06/04/2009 1:30:16 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEaVaW5Mhlk&feature=related


108 posted on 06/04/2009 1:40:43 PM PDT by varmintman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

This isn’t a news item yet you posted this creationist propaganda in News/Activism. Shouldn’t this be in Religion or Chat? And the material isn’t even factually correct, but just fanciful musings wihtout grounding in reality and is even self-contradicting.


109 posted on 06/04/2009 1:43:47 PM PDT by doc30 (Democrats are to morals what an Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goodusername
"—Why ask “where are all the people?” unless you’re assuming that a population is usually growing? Why is it even an issue?"

OK, so the article didn't say that. That's what I thought.

"—Unless it was assuming that the human population was usually growing during pre-agricultural times, there would, again, be no reason to ask “where are all the people”."

OK, so the article didn't say that either. That's what I thought.

"It also argues against the Australian Aborigines as having been around for 60k years (a nonagricultural people) based on the fact that they only numbered about 300k people."

These statements addressed your issue, "Now there is no way that a mere 300,000 people had exhausted the plenty of this large country so as to account for a long period of very low population growth. If we allow for one-third of the land area as desert, it means that there was only one person for every 18 square kilometres (7 square miles) of habitable land area—hardly overpopulated, even for a subsistence existence."

110 posted on 06/04/2009 2:43:04 PM PDT by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Claud
"LOL...no my friend, I believe the Scriptures. I believe ALL of them...so that means when I get two passages that don't seem to jive I try to figure out what the heck is going on instead of sweeping one of them under the rug to fit a pet theory."

LOL...no my friend, you don't believe the Scriptures and you certainly don't believe ALL of them. When you get two passages that don't seem to jive according to man's word, you jigger the Scriptures rather than question man's word.

"Again, I think your dismissal of the exegetical problems here is cavalier. If we are talking about a source of light other than the sun, then what was this source of light? And were its evening and morning periods longer or shorter than the 24 hours we are used to with the sun?"

I think your focus on supposed exegetical problems is the log in your own eye while focusing on the speck in mine. The Scriptures don't say what the light source was. Speculation is irrelevant unless naturalism is the goal. And speculating that evening and morning were longer or shorter is only necessary if conforming Scripture to man's word is your goal. Otherwise a straightforward reading is perfectly fine.

"And that's the problem. You seem to have equated, in your mind, your own personal reading with the "straightforward", plain, and obvious reading. I don't think you have any authority to make such a determination."

'My own personal reading' was the same as that used in Exodus 20 and by believers for hundreds of years until man saying that the earth was older than 6,000 years became popular. Then it somehow became 'my own personal reading' to those who accept man's word over God's Word. I don't think you have any authority to make such a determination.

111 posted on 06/04/2009 2:51:00 PM PDT by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: doc30

Don’t spoil their part with facts.


112 posted on 06/04/2009 2:55:16 PM PDT by Wacka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: Travis T. OJustice

Yes, you could say that. It’s still a known fact that plenty of people in the scientific community are signing on to it.


113 posted on 06/04/2009 2:57:50 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (Obama is mentally a child of ten. Just remember that when he makes statements and issues policy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: magritte

>>GGG is a parody poster...posts totally outrageous silly things, then responds to post in over-the-top cliches and non-sequiters...he’s a hoot when you understand his purpose here on FR...magritte
<<

If it wasn’t against the rules, that would be my sig. (lol)


114 posted on 06/04/2009 3:04:10 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (Communism comes to America: 1/20/2009. Keep your powder dry, folks. Sic semper tyrannis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: sonic109

The Bible goes out of its way to show that the days of creation were normal days. The proof is spread throught the Bible, and given by numerous writers. We finally have the Lord himself stating the same.

Only a denier of the truth of God’s word would even wish to make them anything else.

There is nothing that science has revealed that would indicate that the world is any older than the information in God’s word indicates. All dating ‘clocks’ are based in assumptions that have no provable basis. The assumptions are the creations of those that reject God’s word. You cannot call that science; its deception.


115 posted on 06/04/2009 3:05:21 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (The beginning of the O'Bummer administration looks a lot like the end of the Nixon administration)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: qam1
"And that's why that 0.5% is meaningless, made up number."

You misunderstand the point of the number. It's an argument against those who say it is impossible for 8 people after the flood to reach current population levels today. If the growth rate needed to get from 8 post-flood people to the current population level was higher than is plausible you would be calling the number 'proof' that it couldn't happen. But because it is absolutely plausible, suddenly it becomes 'meaningless'.

"You can start at anytime, with any number of people (well at least 2) and draw a straight line to today and claim that's the average growth rate. That's not science, that starting with an answer you want and making the data fit."

Yeah, you could do that and if the average growth rate required was too high you would be claiming that it was 'proof' that it couldn't happen. What's not science is saying that it is impossible for 8 people to reach current population levels since the Flood. It's clearly quite plausible.

"Global warming Proponents do the same exact thing when they pick a cold year(s) as the start of their data."

No they don't do 'the same exact thing'. No one is arguing that it is impossible to reach the current temperature from a previous temperature in a certain number of years. You make a faulty argument by equating two unrelated claims.

116 posted on 06/04/2009 3:07:58 PM PDT by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Claud
"I indeed reject prophecies that spring out of the idiosyncratic interpretations of men and not the consensus of the universal Church"

Had there been a "universal church" as such operating in the world, the Lord would not have had reason to write his letters the the seven churches.

All we have is his written word, and the Holy Spirit working in and through each of us; the Body of Christ. There is no "universal church;" that is the nicolaitan evil that the Lord cautioned against in the letters to the churches.

117 posted on 06/04/2009 3:12:35 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (The beginning of the O'Bummer administration looks a lot like the end of the Nixon administration)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: theknuckler_33

Nah, Letterman would undoubtedly NOT be a creationist, he’s a liberal. Like Hissy-Fit Matthews.

Most if not all libs are evo-cultists.


118 posted on 06/04/2009 3:15:11 PM PDT by tpanther (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for g!ood men to do nothing---Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Kozak
"Remember, you can’t spell “Creationist” without C-R-E-T-I-N"

You also can't spell 'evolutionist' without V-I-O-L-E-T.

119 posted on 06/04/2009 3:15:46 PM PDT by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

>>Your reading skills are hopelessly inadequate. Evolution, and Old Earth propaganda have nothing to do with science. <<

Translation: “My (e/s’) inability to understand and grasp evolution and a multi-billion-year old earth means I cannot understand science.”

Thanks, e/s for ringing in and cluing everyone in on how “special” you need to be. God doesn’t like tricksters, but that is between you and Him.


120 posted on 06/04/2009 3:17:51 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (Communism comes to America: 1/20/2009. Keep your powder dry, folks. Sic semper tyrannis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan

>>Let me guess, you are really a Christian and are posting this stuff to make the atheists look bad.<<

The irony ... the irony...


121 posted on 06/04/2009 3:18:54 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (Communism comes to America: 1/20/2009. Keep your powder dry, folks. Sic semper tyrannis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Mind Freed
"Well obviously you are Mr. Bible-Scholar and are above all of us."

Nice try! How many of you are there in "us?"

Your twisting of the facts and reliance on misapplied sarcasm tells much about your character.

122 posted on 06/04/2009 3:19:06 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (The beginning of the O'Bummer administration looks a lot like the end of the Nixon administration)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: CottShop

Hey, here is an idea: link scientific sites as opposed to WWN-related sites.

Just an idea.

Of course, maybe this post happened before your post. Since time dilates according to how much brew you have chugged. Or something.


123 posted on 06/04/2009 3:21:29 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (Communism comes to America: 1/20/2009. Keep your powder dry, folks. Sic semper tyrannis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: tpanther

Are you still back-door apologizing for your vote for obama?

Dude, we almost forgive you.

But please don’t do it again.


124 posted on 06/04/2009 3:24:04 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (Communism comes to America: 1/20/2009. Keep your powder dry, folks. Sic semper tyrannis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

>>Your twisting of the facts and reliance on misapplied sarcasm tells much about your character.<<

The irony... the irony...


125 posted on 06/04/2009 3:24:41 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (Communism comes to America: 1/20/2009. Keep your powder dry, folks. Sic semper tyrannis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

So you are God’s appointed trickster?

Interesting! - It sheds new light on your bizzare presence here.

As for evolution, there really is nothing there to grasp. All one needs to understand is that as it became apparent that their dreams were mathematically impossible, those that sought a creation without a creator imagined up more and more time for their impossible dream to happen.

But impossible is still impossible. Statistical improbability is actually an inadequate term to describe the dream of evolution.


126 posted on 06/04/2009 3:25:30 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (The beginning of the O'Bummer administration looks a lot like the end of the Nixon administration)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

The irony in your head-ery?

You are a pathetic pile of “unmentionable”


127 posted on 06/04/2009 3:28:46 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (The beginning of the O'Bummer administration looks a lot like the end of the Nixon administration)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

>>So you are God’s appointed trickster?

Tsk tsk tsk — your attempting to sway people into lies is not going to go well in the afterlife.

>>Interesting! - It sheds new light on your bizzare presence here.<<

The irony... the irony...

>>As for evolution, there really is nothing there to grasp. All one needs to understand is that as it became apparent that their dreams were mathematically impossible, those that sought a creation without a creator imagined up more and more time for their impossible dream to happen.<<

I always enjoy the standard “I don’t understand something so I will knock it with nonsense” defense. It cracks me up (as it no doubt does so many observers of this thread).

So, was it your mama or your daddy or both that made you feel you had to become “special” in denying simple science? Because I can understand how you use God rather than worshiping Him to aggrandize yourself.

BTW — you should see a doctor about that mole on your cheek.

>>But impossible is still impossible. Statistical improbability is actually an inadequate term to describe the dream of evolution.<<

Thanks for telling everyone in the Internet how little you know. It saves me a LOT of time.

:)


128 posted on 06/04/2009 3:32:12 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (Communism comes to America: 1/20/2009. Keep your powder dry, folks. Sic semper tyrannis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

>>You are a pathetic pile of “unmentionable”<<

And you are classic case of the “Christian who really uses Christianity as a badge of self-importance.”

Keep it coming — you dig your hole deeper post by post.

:)


129 posted on 06/04/2009 3:34:17 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (Communism comes to America: 1/20/2009. Keep your powder dry, folks. Sic semper tyrannis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Isn’t it possible that God created the cosmos millions of years ago?


130 posted on 06/04/2009 3:34:38 PM PDT by GSWarrior
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GSWarrior

Not according to God’s Word, the Bible. I think you might find the following quite interesting, while at the same time showing you how a creation scientist might interpret such a question.

http://creation.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter5.pdf

All the best—GGG


131 posted on 06/04/2009 3:38:40 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

Oh c’mon, ‘dumb, anyone that’s been on FR for 2 days understands you’re the zerrhoid sir-project-alot.


132 posted on 06/04/2009 3:56:45 PM PDT by tpanther (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for g!ood men to do nothing---Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Without sounding blasphemous, the Bible has been edited too many times by man, IMHO. Anyway, why not let the mystery be?


133 posted on 06/04/2009 4:01:16 PM PDT by GSWarrior
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: tpanther

>>Oh c’mon, ‘dumb, anyone that’s been on FR for 2 days understands you’re the zerrhoid sir-project-alot.

And everyone on FR knows you are a obama-supporting libtard who is trying desperately to convince people that you made the “right” decision.


134 posted on 06/04/2009 4:02:47 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (Communism comes to America: 1/20/2009. Keep your powder dry, folks. Sic semper tyrannis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: GSWarrior

>>Isn’t it possible that God created the cosmos millions of years ago?

Billions — and that is what people who understand science agree upon, irrespective of their theological bent.


135 posted on 06/04/2009 4:05:23 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (Communism comes to America: 1/20/2009. Keep your powder dry, folks. Sic semper tyrannis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

Hissy Fit Matthews? Is that you?


136 posted on 06/04/2009 4:49:44 PM PDT by tpanther (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for g!ood men to do nothing---Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: GSWarrior

Either you believe it is the Word of God or you don’t. If you don’t, then I understand why you would be incredulous. However, creationists do believe the Bible in matters of doctrine, theology, salvation, morals, history, etc. Thus, if the Bible says such and such happened at a given time, then the bible-believing Christian believes that whatever evidence remains from said happening will fit with the biblical description of the same.

PS Did you give the link I sent you a quick read? What did you think of Einstein’s General Relativity/Time Dilation allowing for the Earth to be thousands of years old, and distant stars to be billions of years old, and yet both owe their existence to the SAME creation event???


137 posted on 06/04/2009 4:57:16 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: goodusername
And while it is true that agricultural societies usually grow, sometimes rapidly, such things aren't generally seen in non-agricultural societies.

Not quite correct.

Simplifying (but not as redicuously as Creationists do) there have been three levels of growth

Then along comes Morris and take "one quarter of the last" as "reasonable" just because it creates the answer he wants without any analysis of what is actually happening and why. (much like a AGW believer)
138 posted on 06/04/2009 4:57:18 PM PDT by Oztrich Boy (a competent small government conservative is good enough for government work)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

Comment #139 Removed by Moderator

To: GodGunsGuts

>>Either you believe it is the Word of God or you don’t. If you don’t, then I understand why you would be incredulous. However, creationists do believe the Bible in matters of doctrine, theology, salvation, morals, history, etc. Thus, if the Bible says such and such happened at a given time, then the bible-believing Christian believes that whatever evidence remains from said happening will fit with the biblical description of the same.<<

Either you are “special” or you are capable of understanding subtleties and nuances about the Bible that Biblical scholars have been debating for thousands of years. Real scholars and not people who use the Bible to make up for mommy and daddy’s bad parenting skills.


140 posted on 06/04/2009 5:05:12 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (Communism comes to America: 1/20/2009. Keep your powder dry, folks. Sic semper tyrannis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

Are you a Bible-believing, born again Christian, FreeDumb?


141 posted on 06/04/2009 5:06:41 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

>>Are you a Bible-believing, born again Christian, FreeDumb?<<

I was born into the Church and am very much a Christian. Unlike you, I believe God wants us to love one another.

I have said this many times.

The fact I understand the Bible better than you also does not make your simplistic interpretation correct, any more than it makes your complete misunderstanding of science correct.


142 posted on 06/04/2009 5:10:09 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (Communism comes to America: 1/20/2009. Keep your powder dry, folks. Sic semper tyrannis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003
==Unlike you, I believe God wants us to love one another.

LOL! You sure have a strange way of showing it.

==The fact I understand the Bible better than you also does not make your simplistic interpretation correct, any more than it makes your complete misunderstanding of science correct.

LOL2!!!...this coming from a guy who brags about how many pages it was necessary to tear out of the Bible before he could believe what remained! You are something else, FreeDUmb.

143 posted on 06/04/2009 5:22:36 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

>>LOL! You sure have a strange way of showing it.

One has only 2 cheeks — after that it is Moneychanger time.

>>this coming from a guy who brags about how many pages it was necessary to tear out of the Bible before he could believe what remained! You are something else, FreeDUmb.<<

Your inability to even understand the Bible comes out. Mommy and daddy did a heck of a number on you, didn’t they? But if you have a direct quote (you can check with that gay dude who cyber-stalks me) of me “ripping pages from the Bible” I would love to see it.

The fact I understand nuances and the fact the Bible was authored in many languages and has been badly misunderstood by many is certain;y not “ripping pages.”

But, not to worry — you are special. Even if mommy and daddy don’t think so.


144 posted on 06/04/2009 5:37:33 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (Communism comes to America: 1/20/2009. Keep your powder dry, folks. Sic semper tyrannis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003; editor-surveyor

You got me ‘dumb... I forgot...you’ve been trying to get yourself banned but can’t even manage to do THAT right!

LOL...my bad...carry on!


145 posted on 06/04/2009 7:43:06 PM PDT by tpanther (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for g!ood men to do nothing---Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: tpanther

>>You got me ‘dumb... I forgot...you’ve been trying to get yourself banned but can’t even manage to do THAT right!<<

Reminding the outside world that there are many Conservatives who understand and practice science AND are Christians is not “trying to get banned.” My mistake was misunderstanding how the religion forum should be approached and used.

Making it clear that Luddites who don’t understand science do so because they are trying to be “special” (probably from daddy and mommy issues) is the point that must be made.

Ignorance is NOT a Conservative Value.

>>LOL...my bad...carry on!<<

Your bad — in so many ways.


146 posted on 06/04/2009 7:58:03 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (Communism comes to America: 1/20/2009. Keep your powder dry, folks. Sic semper tyrannis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

Comment #147 Removed by Moderator

To: freedumb2003; tpanther
"and that is what people who understand science agree upon"

Mr. Dumb, you keep using this phrase, or one similar, quite frquently. Are you speaking of journalists, or pundits?

Who do you think "understands science?" Do you have the slightest idea what the word science means?

I ask this because you seem to be of the erroneous belief that consensus can play a part in science. Back in 1975-76 when I was working on the rebuttal to the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Peripheral Canal, we had assembled a group of the very best real scientists in the state to analyze the assertions that the report contained. Biologists, Ichthyologists, Estuarine Sediment Engineers, mostly from local colleges and universities.

My goal was in a general way to establish a consensus in each area, and thereby present a basis for doubt on every assertion of the report. It turned out to be a difficult undertaking, because by their nature real scientists reject any attempt to get them committed to consensus. Even for such an important cause as preventing the destruction of the Califoenia Delta.

You, on the other hand, as an observer seem to see consensus in every basket. Your vision seems to need correction.

148 posted on 06/04/2009 8:18:32 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (The beginning of the O'Bummer administration looks a lot like the end of the Nixon administration)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

>>you keep using this phrase, or one similar, quite frquently. Are you speaking of journalists, or pundits? <<

No, scientists.

>>Who do you think “understands science?” Do you have the slightest idea what the word science means?<<

Scientists and those of us who understand science.

>>I ask this because you seem to be of the erroneous belief that consensus can play a part in science. Back in 1975-76 when I was working on the rebuttal to the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Peripheral Canal, we had assembled a group of the very best real scientists in the state to analyze the assertions that the report contained. Biologists, Ichthyologists, Estuarine Sediment Engineers, mostly from local colleges and universities.<<

And yet, you learned nothing from this assemblage. How sad.

>> My goal was in a general way to establish a consensus in each area, and thereby present a basis for doubt on every assertion of the report. It turned out to be a difficult undertaking, because by their nature real scientists reject any attempt to get them committed to consensus. Even for such an important cause as preventing the destruction of the Califoenia Delta.<<

And yet, you cannot even fathom the simplest of scientific principles. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

>>You, on the other hand, as an observer seem to see consensus in every basket. Your vision seems to need correction.<<

I understand the diversity in science. And I understand the very real argumentation in the scientific community. But the argumentation is not about the ToE fundamentals.

Except for the very tiny number of non LS “scientists” who put theology over science.

You appear to be the latter, but this is the chance for you to clear your name.


149 posted on 06/04/2009 8:27:15 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (Communism comes to America: 1/20/2009. Keep your powder dry, folks. Sic semper tyrannis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

As I thought, you understand nothing.

You just hope that some gullible fools will bite on your ignorant foolishness.


150 posted on 06/04/2009 8:38:47 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (The beginning of the O'Bummer administration looks a lot like the end of the Nixon administration)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-163 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson