Science IS religion

[Bob the Unbeliever]

You know in the alerts where it shows someone has posted and says "There may be more posts after this". In some cases it should say "There will be many more posts exactly like this one to follow"

<cue music>

 

[dad]

Is it your bible? Did YOU write it? No? Well, there you go then-- it is quite obvious you are as clueless about the bible, and what it means, as you are about everything else.

Run Awaaaaaayyyy!!!

Happy blah blah day.

 

[dad]

one can think of it as religious
Aha ... one CAN, but that implies that it is not a fact, and definitely not that it applies to all.
One can also think of it as Spirituality. Or do you think that "think of it as Religion" is of a higher order than "think of it as Spirituality"?

Conversely one (you in this case) can demonstrate that the beliefs are something more. We wait.

 

[dad]

Unless you were put into a compost heap...

Whatever dude. Are you questioning whether mammals can leave fossil remains now?

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

The only people that say that evolution claims to be the origin of life are creationists that persist in that straw man rather than the facts.

Filtering just those posts that repeat that straw man would eliminate the need to read almost 45% of the posts on this forum.

I only read where he's been quoted, or if he quotes me. I skim -- quickly-- the rest.

It only takes seconds, as he really says nothing original, new or interesting.

Saves boatloads of time, too. And not a little bit of sanity.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Destroying his heroes will definitely be outside his ray comfort zone.

I've been dying to use that one forever.

Epic! Brilliant! Salute!

 

[dad]

So, the earth was formed around 4500 years ago,

No. That was as stated probably around the time of the flood of Noah.

Here's a corruption of a quote found from that page:

"if the world was created around 4500 years ago with the appearance of being made billions of years ago, what is there to stop us from claiming it was made Thursday, around 4500 years ago?" **

The world does not look old, sorry. It looks young to me!

The only thing that taints the perspective is your religious beliefs from which you look at things through the belief colored glasses!

** i added the 4500 years part based on new data provided to us by dad. The original quote is talking about 6000 years.

For someone that can't even pay attention and misrepresents what was posted, don't expect anyone will cash your claim checks.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Happy blah blah day.

Run Awaaaaaayyyyyyy!!!!!!

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense, take 2

 

[dad]

I only read where he's been quoted, or if he quotes me. I skim -- quickly-- the rest.

It only takes seconds, as he really says nothing original, new or interesting.

Saves boatloads of time, too. And not a little bit of sanity.

Ostriches can be happy too. Cheer up.

 

[Darkstorn]

No. That was as stated probably around the time of the flood of Noah.


The world does not look old, sorry. It looks young to me!

The only thing that taints the perspective is your religious beliefs from which you look at things through the belief colored glasses!

For someone that can't even pay attention and misrepresents what was posted, don't expect anyone will cash your claim checks.

I think the point flew over your head. You're a classic last thursdayist. It's also "classic" that they usually have zero ability at comprehending the term when it's used against them.

It means what you keep saying. That's what last thursdayism is.

Omphalos hypothesis - Wikipedia

This is also the same thing.

"Some modern creationists still argue against scientific evidence in the same way. For instance, John D. Morris, president of the Institute for Creation Research wrote in 1990 about the "appearance of age":

When Adam was created, he no doubt looked like a mature adult, fully able to walk, talk, care for the garden, etc. When God created fruit trees, they were already bearing fruit. In each case, what He created was functionally complete right from the start—able to fulfill the purpose for which it was created. Stars, created on Day Four, had to be seen to perform their purpose of usefulness in telling time; therefore, their light had to be visible on Earth right from the start.[6]"

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Whatever dude. Are you questioning whether mammals can leave fossil remains now?

Fossils are normally extremely rare events-- the majority of creatures? Leave behind zero trace. Nada. Nothing.

If you had 1/10 of a clue? Or if you'd have read any one of my many links? You would know that.

Alas... the very un-factual bible? Says NOTHING -- repeat NOTHING about fossils of any kind.

Because it's authors? Did not understand where the Sun goes at night. They thought the earth was a flat plate... resting on 4 rocks or something.

Silly gits that they were...

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

No. That was as stated probably around the time of the flood of Noah.

Noah is 100% myth-- it cannot possibly have happened as written.

I have over 20 proofs that it is impossible, too-- wanna see'em?

Or?

Will you RUN AWAAAAAAAYYYYYYY.....

Answers to Creationist's nonsense, take 3

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Ostriches can be happy too. Cheer up.

Aaaah, but Ostriches? Are superior creatures-- they are smarter than all creationists, too.

Plus? They lay eggs, and they are delicious.

 

[dad]

For this context:

Descriptor of science.

Reading comprehension.



Your typing these words here is a testament to that being a false statement.



You are. Now you're even angrier after reading this post.



What you actually said: "Obviously you don't know anything about Spirituality the way I know about it."

That is a claim of my level of knowledge, not your level of spirituality. And my response is that you CANNOT know, therefore you have jumped the gun, and are making a false claim.



"Obviously you don't know anything about Spirituality the way I know about it."

Think about it. I don't think your spirituality is as deep as YOU think it is. You seem to be a student at best if you cannot disconnect yourself from things you accuse others of doing.



THREE emoticons? NONE would have been a lot more convincing.

Ah -- vandalizing threads out of some higher intellectual reason.

Ha. the old tactic of 'when you lose and have nothing to say, throw dirt all over a thread to make it interesting, and make a show that maybe you secretly know something, and are vandalizing thread and tossing insane insults because you are so clever'

Ha

Ever consider all you are doing is showing a sore loser attitude and true ignorance of the topics you run from?

 

[Darkstorn]

Plus? They lay eggs, and they are delicious.

And smarter than all creationists, too.

 

[Darkstorn]

Ah -- vandalizing threads out of some higher intelectual reason.

Ha. the old tactic of 'when you lose and have nothing to say, throw dirt all over a thread to make it interesting, and make a show that maybe you secretly know something, and are vandalizing thread and tossing insane insults because you are so clever'

Ha

Ever consider all you are doing is showing a sore loser attitude and true ignorance of the topics you run from?

The hell are you talking about?

Me responding to another poster is "vandalizing threads" and "tossing insane insults?"

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

... flood of Noah.

Never happened----- **BOOM**

Edited by It Ain't Nessacarily So

NOAH: Any ONE of the following proves NOAH'S Ark Story myth:

[1] A wooden boat made to bible specifications would have broken in half with the first three foot wave.
[2] A wooden boat that size without a rudder would founder and sink with the first set of five foot waves. The largest ships made of wood, by teams of shipbuilders, using better technology have been no longer than 300 feet. The Santa Maria was only 75 feet long. Genesis 6:15 puts the ark at 450 feet. It would be impossible for a ship this size to be made seaworthy, especially in light of the technology and the building team.
[3] There was only one hatch - in the top. How did they muck out the manure of five million species of animals?
[4] Once the salt water receded, where was the vegetation necessary for life? What did the carnivores eat until the planet was repopulated? How did the animals get back to their habitats without food or fresh water?
[5] What did the meat-eaters eat? Every time Noah fed the lions or the tigers, *poof* - another species of animal goes extinct.
[6] There is not enough water on the earth, to flood all the mountains, as specified in the Bible.
[7] If it did rain enough water [magic?] to cover all the mountains in only forty days, the rainfall would be as dense as actual water - like being in a waterfall, which would have destroyed Noah's wooden boat in minutes.
[8] Noah did not bring trees on board. Trees die when drowned. Once Noah opened his boat, he would have seen nothing but deadwood and mud. All the herbivores would starve within days.
[9] If the human race descended from Noah and his sons, we would see a genetic bottleneck in the human genome roughly 4,000 years back. Do we see this? No.
[10] The population of the world is too high if all humanity came from only four breeding pairs a few thousand years ago.
[11] A 450ft boat could not hold two or seven or whatever of every species. The number and variation of species of insects alone-- would have filled up the ark, hundreds of times over.
[12] Why are there ancient civilizations with continuous histories dating back to long before the generation of Noah? China and the Egyptians have such continuous histories, with no world sterilizing flood in them.
[13] Cave paintings in Europe are drawn in Charcoal. Immersion in water would have erased them. These are 15,000 years and older.
[14] If there were a global flood, you would see a universal, world-wide layer of compressed mud dating the that time. This is not the case.
[15] Putting enough fresh [rain] water into the salt oceans to cover the mountains, would dilute it to dangerous levels killing all marine life
[16] The number and variation of species of insects alone would have filled up the ark hundreds of times over. The number and variation of bird species including unique species from all the islands, would have filled up the ark multiple times over.
[17] How did animals get from Australia to the ark, or from the ark back to Australia? The animals living there now go back to pre-historic times, and most are unique to that continent. Koalas require special diets. How did Mr and Mrs Koala carry their food with them all the way from Australia?

 

[dad]

I think the point flew over your head. You're a classic last thursdayist. It's also "classic" that they usually have zero ability at comprehending the term when it's used against them.

Nothing flew anywhere. Your misquoting the age of earth and creation shows you can't even pay attention. Creation is no relation whatsoever to last thursdayism. Having people's life spans greatly reduced at some point in history is not either.

You seem unable to cope with the reality that some people simply do not blindly accept the assumptions science has accepted about nature in the past. You get confused with them denying your belief with them denying anything existed! Hilarious.

"Some modern creationists still argue against scientific evidence in the same way. For instance, John D. Morris, president of the Institute for Creation Research wrote in 1990 about the "appearance of age":

As you were repeatedly informed I do not share that belief.

When Adam was created, he no doubt looked like a mature adult, fully able to walk, talk, care for the garden, etc. When God created fruit trees, they were already bearing fruit. In each case, what He created was functionally complete right from the start—able to fulfill the purpose for which it was created. Stars, created on Day Four, had to be seen to perform their purpose of usefulness in telling time; therefore, their light had to be visible on Earth right from the start.[6]"

This is true. But that does equate to God planting false fossils or etc.

 

[dad]

Noah is 100% myth-- it cannot possibly have happened as written.

I actually have engaged in numerous threads on the issue and can say authoritatively that it happened exactly as the bible says, and science has NOTHING to say about it.

 

[dad]

The hell are you talking about?

Me responding to another poster is "vandalizing threads" and "tossing insane insults?"

The way we respond speaks for itself.

 

[Darkstorn]

Nothing flew anywhere. Your misquoting the age of earth and creation shows you can't even pay attention. Creation is no relation whatsoever to last thursdayism. Having people's life spans greatly reduced at some point in history is not either.

It actually shows how much i care for this topic.

But you did definitely miss the point, it wasn't the accuracy of the numbers, but the fact that your belief system itself only explains things away. Namely that *around* 6000 years ago(or whatever, really) things appeared fully formed & with "apparent age of millions of years to people who believe in the so-called "same state" idea."

Meaning all our evidence will be denied by default. Because in your mind you've decided they're all being deceived by satan.

This is a form of last thursdayism alias omphalism.

You seem unable to cope with the reality that some people simply do not blindly accept the assumptions science has accepted about nature in the past.

I've never seen anyone blindly accept the assumptions of science. I think it really IS up to you to show how every single person who accepts the findings of science is being deceived, or that they blindly accept anything. You just keep asserting it.

And asserting stuff is of course easy for a last thursdayist. They just assert last thursdayism too.

But i'm certainly not going to accept YOUR assumptions blindly. I asked you for any evidence, and you replied "it's obvious, you just don't want to see it." That's you demanding me to accept blindly.

You get confused with them denying your belief with them denying anything existed! Hilarious.

No. Criticism of last thursdayism isn't that they somehow believe nothing existed. It's criticism for the absurdity of the claim that all evidence is suspect.

As you were repeatedly informed I do not share that belief.

Yes, but that actually makes you a liar. Everything you say, is applicable for a last thursdayist. You're just too caught up on the fact that the name is absurd. It is. To show the absurdity of your position.

This is true. But that does equate to God planting false fossils or etc.

That's not what last thursdayism means only, it also includes people making claims that everyone who sees an age older than 6000 years, is being deceived by another force. You are just substituting your god for something else because of no reason whatsoever other than you disliking admitting that.

So, in your version, it's not god who deceives, it's everyone who disagrees with YOU being deceived.

Otherwise it's identical.

I do find you disagreeing with "apparent age" somewhat weird consider you like his explanation of it... But again, you've misunderstood: Last thursdayism isn't ALL about a deceiver god. You've substituted deceiver god for deceived people.