Worlds most retarded state senator (of today)

[Damocles]

To start with, I don't continue to do that.

Second, the 1st paragraph above tops any BS essay I wrote in high school when I hadn't studied the topic. It basically says nothing.

You either believe the earth is 6,000 years old & reject science, or not.

I do not believe that it is an either/or prospect and have explained why earlier in this thread.

The belief that this is black and white is what you use to continue to reject the intelligence of all persons who believe in a young earth rather than listen to them. I think such assumption is beneath you, but then I may have had a higher opinion of you than I should have.

 

[zappasguitar]

the age of the earth is not a 100% fact, that is wrong, as ib1 even pointed out, the age of the earth has in fact been revised....numerous times

i don't care if it is by one year, that alone means it is not 100% fact

Are you really implying that because the age of the Earth has been revised in the past, that it might actually be 6,000 years old?

 

[zappasguitar]

You missed this part ..

What is 100% fact is that the Earth is not 6,000 years old.

.. but you defend that bullshit.

.. amazing

Truly, there are none so blind as those who will not see.

 

[Onceler]

I do not believe that it is an either/or prospect and have explained why earlier in this thread.

The belief that this is black and white is what you use to continue to reject the intelligence of all persons who believe in a young earth rather than listen to them. I think such assumption is beneath you, but then I may have had a higher opinion of you than I should have.

That's a lazy answer, that relies almost solely on a personal attack.

The earth is billions of years old. To accept a notion that the earth is 6,000 years old is rejecting the science on the topic.

There really isn't any gray area here. You either believe & accept the science on the age of the earth, or you don't. We're not talking about people saying it's 2 billion years when science says it's 3+. We're talking about people saying 6,000 years.

 

[Damocles]

That's a lazy answer, that relies almost solely on a personal attack.

The earth is billions of years old. To accept a notion that the earth is 6,000 years old is rejecting the science on the topic.

There really isn't any gray area here. You either believe & accept the science on the age of the earth, or you don't. We're not talking about people saying it's 2 billion years when science says it's 3+. We're talking about people saying 6,000 years.

It isn't a "lazy" answer. Simply repeating that you have to believe one or the other just shows that you either haven't read or cannot contemplate things outside your own belief system. It is quite literally a truth. I thought you capacity was larger than that, you have demonstrated that what I believed about you was wrong.

He thrusts his fists against the post and still insists he sees the ghosts...

Anyway, it is basically like me having a conversation with a young-earther and explaining that science does not conflict and showing this idea to them, then they say, "No. It has to be one or the other..." When I began the conversation I didn't begin with the idea that they were cemented in their ideation, but once I realize that they are incapable of contemplating an idea different than their current belief system it becomes unnecessary to continue the conversation. You and I are at that point now. No idea outside your cemented belief can exist. It must be "this" or "that" no "other" can exist.

It doesn't, it isn't, and they do.

Are you saying that such a being could not possibly have the capacity to make 3,000,000,000 effective years pass in whatever time frame the being wished?

 

[Onceler]

It isn't a "lazy" answer. Simply repeating that you have to believe one or the other just shows that you either haven't read or cannot contemplate things outside your own belief system. It is quite literally a truth. I thought you capacity was larger than that, you have demonstrated that what I believed about you was wrong.

He thrusts his fists against the post and still insists he sees the ghosts...

Anyway, it is basically like me having a conversation with a young-earther and explaining that science does not conflict and showing this idea to them, then they say, "No. It has to be one or the other..." When I began the conversation I didn't begin with the idea that they were cemented in their ideation, but once I realize that they are incapable of contemplating an idea different than their current belief system it becomes unnecessary to continue the conversation. You and I are at that point now. No idea outside your cemented belief can exist. It must be "this" or "that" no "other" can exist.

It doesn't, it isn't, and they do.

Are you saying that such a being could not possibly have the capacity to make 3,000,000,000 effective years pass in whatever time frame the being wished?

Such a being, if he/she existed, could. But he/she could also make a flat earth appear round. We could really be tiny fish living in a puddle. Santa Claus could definitely exist, as could the Easter Bunny & the tooth fairy. Cats could secretly be ex-KGB agents who sprout wings & fly at night.

Like I said, if someone wants to argue that the existence of such a being negates science, they can, and it can be the debate-ender of any factual conversation. However, that belief IS exclusive of science & what is accepted as scientific fact.

This is kinda fun. You have your heels dug in, like you usually do, but I definitely sense that you wish you hadn't started on this one...

 

[Damocles]

Such a being, if he/she existed, could. But he/she could also make a flat earth appear round. We could really be tiny fish living in a puddle. Santa Claus could definitely exist, as could the Easter Bunny & the tooth fairy. Cats could secretly be ex-KGB agents who sprout wings & fly at night.

Like I said, if someone wants to argue that the existence of such a being negates science, they can, and it can be the debate-ender of any factual conversation. However, that belief IS exclusive of science & what is accepted as scientific fact.

This is kinda fun. You have your heels dug in, like you usually do, but I definitely sense that you wish you hadn't started on this one...

If someone "wants" to argue that the hollow earth "theory" is real they can, but it doesn't change that one can believe that science is valid and that God could do this at the same time.

One does not exclude the other.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Are you really implying that because the age of the Earth has been revised in the past, that it might actually be 6,000 years old?

yes, i don't know exactly how old this is and neither does anyone else...while evidence seems to strongly indicate it is older, i cannot say for certain and neither can you exactly how old the earth is. bashing someone because they choose not to accept some scientific evidence is silly.

 

[maineman]

yes, i don't know exactly how old this is and neither does anyone else...while evidence seems to strongly indicate it is older, i cannot say for certain and neither can you exactly how old the earth is. bashing someone because they choose not to accept some scientific evidence is silly.

gravity is fiction! I chose not to accept it! Don't anyone DARE bash me for that idiotic stance. yurt says so.

and yurt.... you never DID explain why you had me banned for two days for supposedly posting personal information about YOU, when you also claim that you are NOT the guy that I posted information about? Is that explanation coming anytime soon?

 

[Socrtease]

Again, please read what I said.

I don't know if that is what this lady believes, nor do I care. I am not defending this lady, I don't know her from Adam. My point is that the belief that all people who believe in such an age thinks of it the same way or suddenly rejects the scientific method is a fallacious belief based on assumption rather than knowledge.

Would this be the Adam from 6000 +/- years ago?

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

gravity is fiction! I chose not to accept it! Don't anyone DARE bash me for that idiotic stance. yurt says so.

and yurt.... you never DID explain why you had me banned for two days for supposedly posting personal information about YOU, when you also claim that you are NOT the guy that I posted information about? Is that explanation coming anytime soon?

still at it i see....gee, from the guy who runs to jimmy when people posted pictures of you and your church on another board when you claim it is not you....liar and i don't ban anyone, take it up with damo...i didn't realize you could discuss moderate action on the board like this....amazing

let it go, i told you to stop obsessing over me....it doesn't matter if it is me or not...you are still posting information you believe is me...that you, of all people, are going down this road is disgusting. this only proves you're nothing but a liar, a stalker and you really need help.

let it go

 

[Damocles]

Would this be the Adam from 6000 +/- years ago?

Sure, if you want it to be. I don't care what Adam you use, it isn't like she's a pal of mine and I need to defend her. I'm not. It may very well be she is one of those closed minds I was speaking of before that say, "No. It must be either science or Genesis 1:1!" and therefore unable to listen to another idea.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

the age of the earth is not a 100% fact, that is wrong, as ib1 even pointed out, the age of the earth has in fact been revised....numerous times

i don't care if it is by one year, that alone means it is not 100% fact

The probability of it being revised to 6k at any conceivable point in the future is so low it's not worthy of serious consideration by any rational individual.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Or they could argue that an all-powerful being could make time shift and pass more quickly making it seem as if billions of years passed in what for him was just 6 days.

But heck, let's just pretend that the only option is the one that you can easiest refute because it makes you feel better.

Damo, you could come up with as many absurd special pleadings for this as there are stars, it doesn't make them any more worthy of serious consideration.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Yup. And God is always outside the "realm of science".

The reality is science is limited to what can be tested. God, being paranormal and outside testable influence would never be proved or disproved by science, He can't even really even be a Hypothesis.

Yeah, that's a special pleading as well.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

I agree that science is not the only source of knowledge. But to claim the earth is 6,000 years old requires a suspension of belief in science. Yes, there have been adjustments in the numerical age of the earth. But that is not any help for the people who believe the earth is 6k years old.

The equivelent would be to have a discussion between biologists about how many separate species of finches there are. One would are there are 76 and another offered evidence that there are 70 separate species. And a third declares (with evidence) that there are 81 species. The person who has read a religious text then declares that there are only 9 separate species of finch.

Science isn't the "only" method of gaining knowledge, but it is, in general, a pretty damn good one that is superior to pretty much any other method anyone has ever come up with. If science says something, it's pretty safe to bet your money on that position being true.

At least, compared to any other form of knowledge, your going to come out winning a ridiculously large amount of times more.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

uh, no....it is not. this argument though has been hashed out repeatedly on this board and it will go in circles again. it is not 100% fact....

It is 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% fact.

What other piece of knowledge that is so improbable would be considered likely by so many people? The fact is, rationality has nothing to do with this. It's simply their silly emotional connection to fundamentalist Christianity. By pretending that this has anything to do with whether or not it is fact or not you do serious violence to your argument.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Except that isn't what I said. IMO, one could take science as the way to see "how" God did it. Using that method one can see that it took Billions of years of evolution to cause the creation of humans. If one was to read their Bible literally one could still reconcile a 10,000 year old Earth, or even one that is only 6,000 years old simply by understanding that God could "age" anything. He wanted to create man, not bore himself to tears.. He just speeds it all up and viola!

Yes, God does offer an infinite amount of possibilities to invent special pleadings out of thin air. But there's a reason a special pleading is a logical fallacy.

It's like with Carl Sagan's invisible magic dragon. No matter what method you come up with to test if the dragon's actually there, he just comes up with off the top of his head a reason that won't work. He can do this forever. That's called a special pleading. And that's how god works.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

The probability of it being revised to 6k at any conceivable point in the future is so low it's not worthy of serious consideration by any rational individual.

so science has never been wrong....about anything

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

so science has never been wrong....about anything

Yes, that was my argument. Thanks for summarizing. All you had to do was take out everything I said and insert some fallacy which had absolutely nothing to do with my argument... excellent summarizing skills.

If science were wrong about something, that new thing would become science. That's how science works. Hypothesis, testing, evidence, theory, rinse, wash, repeat... no belief is to sacred to be violated. That's why science is that best theory of knowledge.