Just me I guess, but not specifically how it made Christianity look.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Evolution & Creationism are both Faith & Supernatural based
- Thread starter Patriottechsan
- Start date
He could refute his own "atheist agenda" argument by simply casting his eyes slightly to the right and noticing that you (and others) are theists. So much for logic and common sense.
He mentions logic and common sense, but he forgot to bring any of his own to the--really can't call it a discussion, since those attempts only come from our side--the thread.
Patriottechsan
Member
I typed in this for a search and got this answer My search was this question
Can something be statistically impossible Here is the answer and this is why I said 10 to 50th He also refers to Talk Origins number article numbers
"A statistical impossibility is a probability that is so low as to not be worthy of mentioning. Sometimes it is quoted as 10−50'>10−50
although the cutoff is inherently arbitrary. Although not truly impossible the probability is low enough so as to not bear mention in a rational, reasonable argument.
In some cases that arise in Gedanken experiments in thermodynamics, the probabilities can be approximately 10−Avogadro's number">10−Avogadro's number
, that is, 10−1023'>10−1023, give or take a few billion orders of magnitude.The standard framework of probability theory attempts to assign to each outcome X'>X a number P(X)'>P(X) between 0'>0 and 1'>1, which we call the probability of the outcome. The higher the number, the more likely that outcome is to occur. Depending on context, a sufficiently small value of P(X)'>P(X)
will correspond to something being improbable, but there's no inherent threshold between improbable and likely.
General probability theory does not have a good way of making sense of "impossible" or "necessity". Having a probability of 0'>0
does not mean something cannot happen, and having a probability of 1'>1 does not mean that something must happen. To explain this with a metaphor from geometry, consider the notion of area. The area of nothing is 0'>0
, but so is the area of a single point. In that sense, the notion of area cannot distinguish between nothing and that which is "infinitely small".
Similarly, when trying to applying probability theory to problems that have infinitely many outcomes, the probability of an event can be zero even if it is possible, so long as there are infinitely many other possibilities that are just as likely (or some similar situation). When it comes down to it, the real number line does not have infinitely small numbers, and since probability theory uses real numbers, these events can only be assigned a probability of 0'>0"
Honestly I am shocked at how out of touch you are in grasping this obvious connection. You can't just start with evolution where you want to. Why? Because you as evolutionist want to explain ORIGINS from a purely NATURALISTIC method. So you are forced to start from the start which means you have to start from inanimate objects you claim started from the Big Bang and then created chemicals ie primordial soup and from that came life. That primordial soup and its supposed chemicals had to come from inanimate objects and energy you have to explain the origin of and you have a theory on how that happened. Yet you can't reproduce it in a lab by experiments skipping all that and going straight to the chemicals with energy.. Then the issue you have is all the chemicals you claim were made had an energy source go through them to form the first cell which had to form RNA/DNA because without it no cell can live since they are the brain or software that runs the whole life of the "simple" cell. Then it gets worse for you. That simple cell Darwin counted on has proven to be more and more complex as time keeps going on. Then you have the problem of Chirality which evolution can't explain and math odds again prove a huge hurdle you keep ignoring. You can't just ignore what is inconvenient for you. Then just pass it off with just so stories. That is what the left is doing and gets away with it due to the liberal biased press. Which is just like Lewontin admitted is the tolerance of the biased science community lowering the standards and allowing it due to its biased agenda.
Yet since you keep claiming by even articles I used from evolutionary sites that at least admit it is statistically very difficult yet mislead by many things they say. Because that life is so unstable when in contact with oxygen etc. Plus with all you claim to know that makes it easy to explain how it was made. With all you ID minds you still can't produce one cell on your own. Miller- Usery experiment is a proven fraud Regardless you can't make life yourself in a controlled environment knowing all you need to know. Yet you teach as fact when even Talk Origins admits to so so many theories and so many unknowns and problems. But you mislead students as my other articles have validated and shown how and the motives. Plus how you intentionally miss that each succeeding step even evolutionary if you will is a fight all over for those same odds to occur soon enough to join what just happened before it dies off. Each successive step is against incredible odds as it builds up. Why you refuse to see what is so obvious is a real shame. It just makes the overall odds more and more improbable. I taught this in HS, Probabilities, etc and why you don't grasp this is astounding. I'd actually like to see how he got his factors from to use to calculate. Yes some of it is in and of itself impossible to figure because of the unknowns. But the knowns and the number of reactions that have to take place to get where it has to go is mindboggling. Do you realize 10 to 80th power is number of atoms in this Universe. So 10 to 50th or more is more than 1/2 or 5/8 of atoms in universe to get just right once. Much less each successive time again and again and again and in enough time to continue per evolutionary theory. That makes it grow exponentially. It makes the odds so low it isn't worth mentioning as one article said.
But you just keep lying to yourself and refusing to see what is so plainly obvious. Geez your own scientist have admitted they have to remind themselves daily of the bias it has evolved and is not FUNCTIONALLY DESIGNED. How much plainer can it get?
As has been stated earlier. When someone is determined to believe the lie despite all the proof of it. No additional evidence will matter regardless. Since you refuse to be honest with yourself and as always blame the messenger instead of those that perpetrated the fraud on you. There is nothing I can do to help.
And yes it does follow exactly as the Bible says in Romans chapter 1:20 to end of chapter. I will link it just in case. I know you will deny it but it matters not. Im not debating you about the Bible itself that would be a whole different thread and different place. This has always been good vs bad science only. But I admit the brainwashing and propaganda they have done has been done effectively but it is such a shame. It has caused so many to believe in horrific science and such a fraud. It is heartbreaking.
4. Study and Exposition of Romans 1:18-32 | Bible.org
I love talking but there comes a time when even as the Bible says that the people have rejected to the point is it time to just move on. I hope someday you learn like the former evolutionary scientist did that I work with did.
If in Dallas sometime. There are opening a museum this fall you ought to see even if out of curiousity. Just to enjoy and or ask questions of the actual good science (scientist) you don't think we have that has been done by former evolutionary scientist. Take care!
.
Can something be statistically impossible Here is the answer and this is why I said 10 to 50th He also refers to Talk Origins number article numbers
"A statistical impossibility is a probability that is so low as to not be worthy of mentioning. Sometimes it is quoted as 10−50'>10−50
although the cutoff is inherently arbitrary. Although not truly impossible the probability is low enough so as to not bear mention in a rational, reasonable argument.
In some cases that arise in Gedanken experiments in thermodynamics, the probabilities can be approximately 10−Avogadro's number">10−Avogadro's number
, that is, 10−1023'>10−1023, give or take a few billion orders of magnitude.The standard framework of probability theory attempts to assign to each outcome X'>X a number P(X)'>P(X) between 0'>0 and 1'>1, which we call the probability of the outcome. The higher the number, the more likely that outcome is to occur. Depending on context, a sufficiently small value of P(X)'>P(X)
will correspond to something being improbable, but there's no inherent threshold between improbable and likely.
General probability theory does not have a good way of making sense of "impossible" or "necessity". Having a probability of 0'>0
does not mean something cannot happen, and having a probability of 1'>1 does not mean that something must happen. To explain this with a metaphor from geometry, consider the notion of area. The area of nothing is 0'>0
, but so is the area of a single point. In that sense, the notion of area cannot distinguish between nothing and that which is "infinitely small".
Similarly, when trying to applying probability theory to problems that have infinitely many outcomes, the probability of an event can be zero even if it is possible, so long as there are infinitely many other possibilities that are just as likely (or some similar situation). When it comes down to it, the real number line does not have infinitely small numbers, and since probability theory uses real numbers, these events can only be assigned a probability of 0'>0"
Honestly I am shocked at how out of touch you are in grasping this obvious connection. You can't just start with evolution where you want to. Why? Because you as evolutionist want to explain ORIGINS from a purely NATURALISTIC method. So you are forced to start from the start which means you have to start from inanimate objects you claim started from the Big Bang and then created chemicals ie primordial soup and from that came life. That primordial soup and its supposed chemicals had to come from inanimate objects and energy you have to explain the origin of and you have a theory on how that happened. Yet you can't reproduce it in a lab by experiments skipping all that and going straight to the chemicals with energy.. Then the issue you have is all the chemicals you claim were made had an energy source go through them to form the first cell which had to form RNA/DNA because without it no cell can live since they are the brain or software that runs the whole life of the "simple" cell. Then it gets worse for you. That simple cell Darwin counted on has proven to be more and more complex as time keeps going on. Then you have the problem of Chirality which evolution can't explain and math odds again prove a huge hurdle you keep ignoring. You can't just ignore what is inconvenient for you. Then just pass it off with just so stories. That is what the left is doing and gets away with it due to the liberal biased press. Which is just like Lewontin admitted is the tolerance of the biased science community lowering the standards and allowing it due to its biased agenda.
Yet since you keep claiming by even articles I used from evolutionary sites that at least admit it is statistically very difficult yet mislead by many things they say. Because that life is so unstable when in contact with oxygen etc. Plus with all you claim to know that makes it easy to explain how it was made. With all you ID minds you still can't produce one cell on your own. Miller- Usery experiment is a proven fraud Regardless you can't make life yourself in a controlled environment knowing all you need to know. Yet you teach as fact when even Talk Origins admits to so so many theories and so many unknowns and problems. But you mislead students as my other articles have validated and shown how and the motives. Plus how you intentionally miss that each succeeding step even evolutionary if you will is a fight all over for those same odds to occur soon enough to join what just happened before it dies off. Each successive step is against incredible odds as it builds up. Why you refuse to see what is so obvious is a real shame. It just makes the overall odds more and more improbable. I taught this in HS, Probabilities, etc and why you don't grasp this is astounding. I'd actually like to see how he got his factors from to use to calculate. Yes some of it is in and of itself impossible to figure because of the unknowns. But the knowns and the number of reactions that have to take place to get where it has to go is mindboggling. Do you realize 10 to 80th power is number of atoms in this Universe. So 10 to 50th or more is more than 1/2 or 5/8 of atoms in universe to get just right once. Much less each successive time again and again and again and in enough time to continue per evolutionary theory. That makes it grow exponentially. It makes the odds so low it isn't worth mentioning as one article said.
But you just keep lying to yourself and refusing to see what is so plainly obvious. Geez your own scientist have admitted they have to remind themselves daily of the bias it has evolved and is not FUNCTIONALLY DESIGNED. How much plainer can it get?
As has been stated earlier. When someone is determined to believe the lie despite all the proof of it. No additional evidence will matter regardless. Since you refuse to be honest with yourself and as always blame the messenger instead of those that perpetrated the fraud on you. There is nothing I can do to help.
And yes it does follow exactly as the Bible says in Romans chapter 1:20 to end of chapter. I will link it just in case. I know you will deny it but it matters not. Im not debating you about the Bible itself that would be a whole different thread and different place. This has always been good vs bad science only. But I admit the brainwashing and propaganda they have done has been done effectively but it is such a shame. It has caused so many to believe in horrific science and such a fraud. It is heartbreaking.
4. Study and Exposition of Romans 1:18-32 | Bible.org
I love talking but there comes a time when even as the Bible says that the people have rejected to the point is it time to just move on. I hope someday you learn like the former evolutionary scientist did that I work with did.
If in Dallas sometime. There are opening a museum this fall you ought to see even if out of curiousity. Just to enjoy and or ask questions of the actual good science (scientist) you don't think we have that has been done by former evolutionary scientist. Take care!
.
Patriottechsan
Member
I typed in this for a search and got this answer My search was this question
Can something be statistically impossible Here is the answer and this is why I said 10 to 50th He also refers to Talk Origins number article numbers
"A statistical impossibility is a probability that is so low as to not be worthy of mentioning. Sometimes it is quoted as 10−50'>10−50
although the cutoff is inherently arbitrary. Although not truly impossible the probability is low enough so as to not bear mention in a rational, reasonable argument.
In some cases that arise in Gedanken experiments in thermodynamics, the probabilities can be approximately 10−Avogadro's number">10−Avogadro's number
, that is, 10−1023'>10−1023, give or take a few billion orders of magnitude.The standard framework of probability theory attempts to assign to each outcome X'>X a number P(X)'>P(X) between 0'>0 and 1'>1, which we call the probability of the outcome. The higher the number, the more likely that outcome is to occur. Depending on context, a sufficiently small value of P(X)'>P(X)
will correspond to something being improbable, but there's no inherent threshold between improbable and likely.
General probability theory does not have a good way of making sense of "impossible" or "necessity". Having a probability of 0'>0
does not mean something cannot happen, and having a probability of 1'>1 does not mean that something must happen. To explain this with a metaphor from geometry, consider the notion of area. The area of nothing is 0'>0
, but so is the area of a single point. In that sense, the notion of area cannot distinguish between nothing and that which is "infinitely small".
Similarly, when trying to applying probability theory to problems that have infinitely many outcomes, the probability of an event can be zero even if it is possible, so long as there are infinitely many other possibilities that are just as likely (or some similar situation). When it comes down to it, the real number line does not have infinitely small numbers, and since probability theory uses real numbers, these events can only be assigned a probability of 0'>0"
Honestly I am shocked at how out of touch you are in grasping this obvious connection. You can't just start with evolution where you want to. Why? Because you as evolutionist want to explain ORIGINS from a purely NATURALISTIC method. So you are forced to start from the start which means you have to start from inanimate objects you claim started from the Big Bang and then created chemicals ie primordial soup and from that came life. That primordial soup and its supposed chemicals had to come from inanimate objects and energy you have to explain the origin of and you have a theory on how that happened. Yet you can't reproduce it in a lab by experiments skipping all that and going straight to the chemicals with energy.. Then the issue you have is all the chemicals you claim were made had an energy source go through them to form the first cell which had to form RNA/DNA because without it no cell can live since they are the brain or software that runs the whole life of the "simple" cell. Then it gets worse for you. That simple cell Darwin counted on has proven to be more and more complex as time keeps going on. Then you have the problem of Chirality which evolution can't explain and math odds again prove a huge hurdle you keep ignoring. You can't just ignore what is inconvenient for you. Then just pass it off with just so stories. That is what the left is doing and gets away with it due to the liberal biased press. Which is just like Lewontin admitted is the tolerance of the biased science community lowering the standards and allowing it due to its biased agenda.
Yet since you keep claiming by even articles I used from evolutionary sites that at least admit it is statistically very difficult yet mislead by many things they say. Because that life is so unstable when in contact with oxygen etc. Plus with all you claim to know that makes it easy to explain how it was made. With all you ID minds you still can't produce one cell on your own. Miller- Usery experiment is a proven fraud Regardless you can't make life yourself in a controlled environment knowing all you need to know. Yet you teach as fact when even Talk Origins admits to so so many theories and so many unknowns and problems. But you mislead students as my other articles have validated and shown how and the motives. Plus how you intentionally miss that each succeeding step even evolutionary if you will is a fight all over for those same odds to occur soon enough to join what just happened before it dies off. Each successive step is against incredible odds as it builds up. Why you refuse to see what is so obvious is a real shame. It just makes the overall odds more and more improbable. I taught this in HS, Probabilities, etc and why you don't grasp this is astounding. I'd actually like to see how he got his factors from to use to calculate. Yes some of it is in and of itself impossible to figure because of the unknowns. But the knowns and the number of reactions that have to take place to get where it has to go is mindboggling. Do you realize 10 to 80th power is number of atoms in this Universe. So 10 to 50th or more is more than 1/2 or 5/8 of atoms in universe to get just right once. Much less each successive time again and again and again and in enough time to continue per evolutionary theory. That makes it grow exponentially. It makes the odds so low it isn't worth mentioning as one article said.
But you just keep lying to yourself and refusing to see what is so plainly obvious. Geez your own scientist have admitted they have to remind themselves daily of the bias it has evolved and is not FUNCTIONALLY DESIGNED. How much plainer can it get?
As has been stated earlier. When someone is determined to believe the lie despite all the proof of it. No additional evidence will matter regardless. Since you refuse to be honest with yourself and as always blame the messenger instead of those that perpetrated the fraud on you. There is nothing I can do to help.
And yes it does follow exactly as the Bible says in Romans chapter 1:20 to end of chapter. I will link it just in case. I know you will deny it but it matters not. Im not debating you about the Bible itself that would be a whole different thread and different place. This has always been good vs bad science only. But I admit the brainwashing and propaganda they have done has been done effectively but it is such a shame. It has caused so many to believe in horrific science and such a fraud. It is heartbreaking.
4. Study and Exposition of Romans 1:18-32 | Bible.org
I love talking but there comes a time when even as the Bible says that the people have rejected to the point is it time to just move on. I hope someday you learn like the former evolutionary scientist did that I work with did.
If in Dallas sometime. There are opening a museum this fall you ought to see even if out of curiosity. Just to enjoy and or ask questions of the actual good science (scientist) you don't think we have that has been done by former evolutionary scientist. Take care!
.
Can something be statistically impossible Here is the answer and this is why I said 10 to 50th He also refers to Talk Origins number article numbers
"A statistical impossibility is a probability that is so low as to not be worthy of mentioning. Sometimes it is quoted as 10−50'>10−50
although the cutoff is inherently arbitrary. Although not truly impossible the probability is low enough so as to not bear mention in a rational, reasonable argument.
In some cases that arise in Gedanken experiments in thermodynamics, the probabilities can be approximately 10−Avogadro's number">10−Avogadro's number
, that is, 10−1023'>10−1023, give or take a few billion orders of magnitude.The standard framework of probability theory attempts to assign to each outcome X'>X a number P(X)'>P(X) between 0'>0 and 1'>1, which we call the probability of the outcome. The higher the number, the more likely that outcome is to occur. Depending on context, a sufficiently small value of P(X)'>P(X)
will correspond to something being improbable, but there's no inherent threshold between improbable and likely.
General probability theory does not have a good way of making sense of "impossible" or "necessity". Having a probability of 0'>0
does not mean something cannot happen, and having a probability of 1'>1 does not mean that something must happen. To explain this with a metaphor from geometry, consider the notion of area. The area of nothing is 0'>0
, but so is the area of a single point. In that sense, the notion of area cannot distinguish between nothing and that which is "infinitely small".
Similarly, when trying to applying probability theory to problems that have infinitely many outcomes, the probability of an event can be zero even if it is possible, so long as there are infinitely many other possibilities that are just as likely (or some similar situation). When it comes down to it, the real number line does not have infinitely small numbers, and since probability theory uses real numbers, these events can only be assigned a probability of 0'>0"
Honestly I am shocked at how out of touch you are in grasping this obvious connection. You can't just start with evolution where you want to. Why? Because you as evolutionist want to explain ORIGINS from a purely NATURALISTIC method. So you are forced to start from the start which means you have to start from inanimate objects you claim started from the Big Bang and then created chemicals ie primordial soup and from that came life. That primordial soup and its supposed chemicals had to come from inanimate objects and energy you have to explain the origin of and you have a theory on how that happened. Yet you can't reproduce it in a lab by experiments skipping all that and going straight to the chemicals with energy.. Then the issue you have is all the chemicals you claim were made had an energy source go through them to form the first cell which had to form RNA/DNA because without it no cell can live since they are the brain or software that runs the whole life of the "simple" cell. Then it gets worse for you. That simple cell Darwin counted on has proven to be more and more complex as time keeps going on. Then you have the problem of Chirality which evolution can't explain and math odds again prove a huge hurdle you keep ignoring. You can't just ignore what is inconvenient for you. Then just pass it off with just so stories. That is what the left is doing and gets away with it due to the liberal biased press. Which is just like Lewontin admitted is the tolerance of the biased science community lowering the standards and allowing it due to its biased agenda.
Yet since you keep claiming by even articles I used from evolutionary sites that at least admit it is statistically very difficult yet mislead by many things they say. Because that life is so unstable when in contact with oxygen etc. Plus with all you claim to know that makes it easy to explain how it was made. With all you ID minds you still can't produce one cell on your own. Miller- Usery experiment is a proven fraud Regardless you can't make life yourself in a controlled environment knowing all you need to know. Yet you teach as fact when even Talk Origins admits to so so many theories and so many unknowns and problems. But you mislead students as my other articles have validated and shown how and the motives. Plus how you intentionally miss that each succeeding step even evolutionary if you will is a fight all over for those same odds to occur soon enough to join what just happened before it dies off. Each successive step is against incredible odds as it builds up. Why you refuse to see what is so obvious is a real shame. It just makes the overall odds more and more improbable. I taught this in HS, Probabilities, etc and why you don't grasp this is astounding. I'd actually like to see how he got his factors from to use to calculate. Yes some of it is in and of itself impossible to figure because of the unknowns. But the knowns and the number of reactions that have to take place to get where it has to go is mindboggling. Do you realize 10 to 80th power is number of atoms in this Universe. So 10 to 50th or more is more than 1/2 or 5/8 of atoms in universe to get just right once. Much less each successive time again and again and again and in enough time to continue per evolutionary theory. That makes it grow exponentially. It makes the odds so low it isn't worth mentioning as one article said.
But you just keep lying to yourself and refusing to see what is so plainly obvious. Geez your own scientist have admitted they have to remind themselves daily of the bias it has evolved and is not FUNCTIONALLY DESIGNED. How much plainer can it get?
As has been stated earlier. When someone is determined to believe the lie despite all the proof of it. No additional evidence will matter regardless. Since you refuse to be honest with yourself and as always blame the messenger instead of those that perpetrated the fraud on you. There is nothing I can do to help.
And yes it does follow exactly as the Bible says in Romans chapter 1:20 to end of chapter. I will link it just in case. I know you will deny it but it matters not. Im not debating you about the Bible itself that would be a whole different thread and different place. This has always been good vs bad science only. But I admit the brainwashing and propaganda they have done has been done effectively but it is such a shame. It has caused so many to believe in horrific science and such a fraud. It is heartbreaking.
4. Study and Exposition of Romans 1:18-32 | Bible.org
I love talking but there comes a time when even as the Bible says that the people have rejected to the point is it time to just move on. I hope someday you learn like the former evolutionary scientist did that I work with did.
If in Dallas sometime. There are opening a museum this fall you ought to see even if out of curiosity. Just to enjoy and or ask questions of the actual good science (scientist) you don't think we have that has been done by former evolutionary scientist. Take care!
.
For the nth time, evolutionary biologists are not explaining the origin of life.
If it is a creation museum, it is not science and they are not practicing science. It is pseudoscience. Learn what science is.
For once you have made an honest and accurate statement. You are not debating anyone. You are preaching your preconceived notions built on belief in theology and pseudoscience.
You must mean the Miller-Urey experiment. Usery [sic] is excessive interest on borrowing. Not that it matters as you continue to conflate life's origins with biological evolution. You are not fooling anyone with this ruse.
No one knows the answer to the origin of life. Not yet anyway. Demanding that it be by a particular mechanism has no bearing on the theory of evolution. All that can be said is that science must rely on explanations from the natural world, since there is no known evidence from outside of the natural world.
Isn't it interesting how the people you keep bashing have the courtesy to respond to you directly and treat you like a person, while you keep claiming the HIGH ROAD, but using the tactics of someone stuck in the mud and the muck? If you are going to claim to be Christian, maybe you should act like a Christian. As a Christian, myself, I find it shameful to see someone claiming the same religion, but using deception and irrational claims in defense of Christianity.
Of all the statements you have made since creating this thread, this one fits YOU more than anyone else who has participated here.
You have ignored other posters. You refuse to respond to anyone directly.
You have posted claims known to have been long refuted.
You have misinterpreted the words of others and refuse even to discuss the clarifications to your misinterpretation that others have provided.
You have consistently demanded that we bear your burden of proof.
You have bashed all the other participants of this thread relentlessly. You are doing it in the post I am responding too. None of the bashing is warranted, fair or relevant to supporting your claims.
Here is how it works, not that you will listen. You establish an argument by making your claims. You provide the evidence and reasoning in support of your claims. You LISTEN to what others say in response. You ask questions or request clarification where needed. You revise your position if necessary. You either accept or reject what others present counter to your claims and you provide the reasoning an evidence to support that. If you are honest, you will admit that you cannot support your claims and that you must either rethink things or reject them yourself.
You believe you are doing this. Let me assure you and clarify this for you. You have not done any of it except the first part of making claims.
Based on everything that you have provided, no one here would ever be convinced that you are capable of providing help. However unintentionally, you have convinced us all that you need it desperately.
Audie
Veteran Member
Gushing a Gish, he is.
I took your advice seriously and with open eyes, but in looking around, there are only a couple of people arguing in opposition to science right now and both of them could be twins. Of course, that generally seems to be the case, even if the opposition available here was in the thousands.
For me, it came down to addressing these two or forgetting about it for a while until a better representative came along. Then it dawned on me that that never has happened, so why should I expect to find a unicorn now.
Still, I wanted to express my appreciation for very sage advice.
I have read all of his posts. I would be surprised if anyone else said that they have not, but would understand, since you only need have read one or two and then they are repeated. Besides, how many times should a person have to read him calling them a fool and a liar and then have him not listen to them? I think we have been very open and tolerant well beyond what we received.
You mentioned something about dairy farming. Are you still in that business? When I saw Newcastle, my first thought was beer and my second thought was that you must be from England. I have since learned that there is a Newcastle in Australia and that must be your home then.
I have never been, but have wanted to go since I could understand language. My parents never made it either, but they talked about it a lot. For some reason, they both wanted to go. I can imagine a lot of reasons, I just do not recall theirs.'
I have met several scientists involved in cotton production in Australia and worked with a few of them, but never managed to convince anyone that I should go and they should pay.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
TLDR. Twice!
I grew up on a dairy and worked full time on it for a short while but didn't get on very well with my father. That was a long time ago, now I'm a retired, worked most of my life as a train driver moving coal from the mines to the port.
I'm about an hours drive from Newcastle, I put it because it's more likely people would have heard of it, I live in a little town called Karuah that has 2 sawmills, about half a dozen oyster farms and not much else.
I tried googling Smithville not long after I joined this thread but there are a few of them in the USA. My wife is American, from the SF Bay Area, I thought I remembered a Smithville from there but apparently not.
I am actually from the Missouri Ozarks. The Smithville part comes from another forum and I applied it as a joke, but since several people from that forum moved here, I kept the name for continuity and identification purposes. There is an actual Smithville in Missouri, but it is not in the Ozarks and I am not from there. The name of my home town I will hang onto for now, because friends are not the only people that moved over here when I left the last forum, but it would definitely give you a laugh. Though it is not so strange when considering the names often applied to places by the early settlers to the region.
I have met and worked with folks from Sidney, Toowoomba and Darwin. Probably from other places in Australia as well, but those are the places I remember specifically.
You are better placed to judge than I am, but your home sounds sort of idyllic from my perspective. This could be my bias of the grass being greener too, but it still sounds good to me. It looks like a nice little village from Google maps. Right on the coast too. That probably makes those oyster farms more practical.
Trains were a big deal to me when I was a kid. I still find them fascinating, though I know nothing but the most general about them. I remember my father telling me that he ran away from home when he was a kid and hitched a ride on the rails with some hobos. He was probably about 15. He had a much more adventurous life as a youth then I did.
Bear Wild
Well-Known Member
You
Your argument makes it seems like you are on the Texas Tech side of the house. Are any of your esteemed Dr. of science study evolution as their specialty?
This must be the refugee forum, there is a few from my old forum here too. I've heard of the Ozarks but don't know a lot about them
Sydney is about 4hrs drive, I hate it, too many people. Toowoomba and Darwin are a long way from me.
It suits me, I'm a massive introvert and there's not a lot of people. I have good neighbours but you can go weeks without seeing them. But if you want a social life there's not much here. Last year we had friends of my wife's daughter from Las Vegas stay here, they lasted 2 days, the last straw was when they wanted to go out and eat and I said you will have to do it no latter than 5.15pm because everything shuts at 6 lol.
The wife and I had the travel bug about 15 years ago, we did most of Australia on a motorbike and camping in a tent, did it for about 2 years before we got sick of it. She travels back to America a couple of times each year but these days I'm happy sitting around bird watching, woodworking or trying to find the meaning of life on the internet.
Patriottechsan
Member
As always you just ignore the oh so obvious because you know that once you admit to what I am saying it is a non starter for evolution and it is dead. So I've posted a link that if you read has multiple articles dealing with Origins but also esp abiogenesis etc and why it is so absolutely key to our discussion. Maybe he can say it in a way I can't to get you to understand. Although I have my doubts because it involves your "faith" in no God or atheism. Both are faith based mine and yours. Mine is more logical due to the evidence and your bad science. You are too invested in that bad science. So it makes it not about science its about your worldview. Which you are certainly entitled to. At least admit it and don't try to hide behind it as science when it isn't science its fraud science and bad science admitted to by your leaders of the past and present. You can peruse through the whole website if you so choose. Sadly I doubt you will. BTW adaptation is fine and proven. Not macro evolution which is a huge difference when you go from one species or kinds to another. Which I have discussed before. Like in roses, wheat, corn, dogs and cats etc. You can select certain traits and do genetics with them but you never will get a brand new species. They will always stay a rose, wheat, corn, dog and cat etc. You claim that is a step to forming new "kinds" or species but if so why can't mankind with all his brain do it now if "nature" without a intelligent brain did it already. Mutation forms of disease etc are not evolved "kinds' they are still what they were just adapted. Which btw this same site explains well too from this link and home page. Again doubt you will check to see what former evolution scientist have to say once they learned the truth.
Apologetics Press
Apologetics Press