[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
Had he not had his one lucky guess you would not have heard about him and that is all that it was. [/quote]
Holy crap. You could say the same about Penicillin. Most of the greatest discoveries in history seem to be “by accident”.[/quote]
It’s a myth that Penicillin even exists. Alexander Fleming was a Catholic. He couldn’t have discovered penicillin by accident or by design. Everyone knows that science and religion are mutually exclusive.
For you all being so “open minded”, you tend to hate anyone with religious beliefs.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
Had he not had his one lucky guess you would not have heard about him and that is all that it was. [/quote]
Holy crap. You could say the same about Penicillin. Most of the greatest discoveries in history seem to be “by accident”.[/quote]
Dont forget chocolate chip cookies!
I’ve discovered if you take it with food, you’re all right. Otherwise, if you can’t get to a toilet pronto, you will probably have to change pants.
[quote]Sarev0k wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
Had he not had his one lucky guess you would not have heard about him and that is all that it was. [/quote]
Holy crap. You could say the same about Penicillin. Most of the greatest discoveries in history seem to be “by accident”.[/quote]
Dont forget chocolate chip cookies!
[/quote]
The invention of chocolate chip cookies was no accident.
They were invented by Satan to make me fat.
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
Had he not had his one lucky guess you would not have heard about him and that is all that it was. [/quote]
Holy crap. You could say the same about Penicillin. Most of the greatest discoveries in history seem to be “by accident”.[/quote]
It’s a myth that Penicillin even exists. Alexander Fleming was a Catholic. He couldn’t have discovered penicillin by accident or by design. Everyone knows that science and religion are mutually exclusive.[/quote]
I also hear Penicillin doesn’t actually work. It’s only labelled an anti-biotic out of ego.
[quote]Cheeky_Kea wrote:
Get away from her …you sloth!!
[/quote]
YES!!
I’ve missed your photoshop skills, CK
[quote]Sarev0k wrote:
298 million years old … wow… such an even number!
For you all being so “open minded”, you tend to hate anyone with religious beliefs. [/quote]
Lol @ pic. Bitch logic.
[quote]Sarev0k wrote:
298 million years old … wow… such an even number!
For you all being so “open minded”, you tend to hate anyone with religious beliefs. [/quote]
It’s most likely even worse than you think… she’s probably vegan.
There’s not much worse in life than an annoying vegan c**t.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
Had he not had his one lucky guess you would not have heard about him and that is all that it was. [/quote]
Holy crap. You could say the same about Penicillin. Most of the greatest discoveries in history seem to be “by accident”.[/quote]
Galileo was a troll, Christopher Columbus gave us Mrs. Doubtfire and Harry Potter after narrowly avoiding a DUI charge for crashing his pussy mobile into the Americas four times and Fleming left a yoghurt pot standing for too long. In his ignorance, Fleming tried to throw the culture away but in the nick of time it became self aware, and burst into a musical number to tell him what it should be used for. Whew! That was close!
…And Alexander Graham Bell dialled a wrong number.
For the record, my initial posts were (at least in my mind) specifically generated towards young earth creationists.
I honestly don’t care if you think that your version of god started the ball rolling. I do think that eventually there will be a better answer, but for now, roll with it.
I am very comfortably saying that I don’t know and that I have not seen a perfect answer for what started life, the universe and everything. I choose not to insert a god into that void. If you do, go with it.
42
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Christine wrote:
For the record, my initial posts were (at least in my mind) specifically generated towards young earth creationists…
[/quote]
Most likely because you, like many others, are clueless about young earth creationism. All you know about it is that a big ol’ pile of people strongly disagree with the concept. And of course, as an admitted atheist your belief system prohibits you from considering it. Because of that you have never educated yourself on it and know little to nothing about it but somehow think you’re qualified to comment on it.
Now for about the fifth time my comments were not about the promotion of YEC but rather to provoke the mockers to prove their intellectual wherewithal by getting them to wax eloquent on why radiometric dating methods were reliable and inerrant. Your failure to do so illustrates that you are one of the many who can mock but…that’s about it.
It’s easy to live a life where you’re just one of the crowd, aint it? Doesn’t take too much effort to drift down the stream.
[/quote]
Yes, all of us who read these forums know that you are an intellectual powerhouse.
Thank you for correcting those who have the mistaken belief that the world may be a tad bit older than your grand studies have concluded.
Also, thank you for editing my post. I really didn’t mean it when I said that I do not know how the whole process got started and that if you want to credit your version of god for that beginning, so be it.
I’m obviously a lemming and don’t know how to think.
I know some of you are experts on everything.
I, unfortunately (and apparently solely), am limited to how many concepts I can grasp and disciplines I can become an expert on at any one time. I do, therefore, rely on the wisdom on those who dedicate their lives to studying such disciplines. Do some of these people have agendas, yes. But of course those whom you choose to follow would never interpret data to suit their purposes. You are much smarter and than I to fall for such tactics.
^
Okay Push. You’re right.
Have a nice evening.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
My grand studies have concluded that the Appearance of Age theory gives a plausible explanation for a younger universe. Is it the correct one? I don’t know.[/quote]
[quote]
I never claimed to be an expert. I claimed that those who aren’t might want to open their minds a bit. For that matter a good expert is a person who opens his/her mind a bit.[/quote]
[quote]
I’ve studied both sides for most of my adult life. Both sides. You’ve (maybe) studied one.[/quote]
Push, just for clarification (and authentication) purposes, where did you do all of your studying? Also, what degree(s) and experience do you have in/on these fields/subjects?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
My grand studies have concluded that the Appearance of Age theory gives a plausible explanation for a younger universe. Is it the correct one? I don’t know.[/quote]
Wait, so which theory are you ACTUALLY hitching your wagon to after all your years of research? Are the dating methods incorrectly classifying all this shit as being much older than they actually are (seemingly, your position at the start of the thread) or are they giving the wrong readings in REALITY despite being correct based on the SCIENCE because God manipulated the universe to make it appear that way (seemingly, your position now that the Doc came in and dismissed your objections)?
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
Had he not had his one lucky guess you would not have heard about him and that is all that it was. [/quote]
Holy crap. You could say the same about Penicillin. Most of the greatest discoveries in history seem to be “by accident”.[/quote]
It’s a myth that Penicillin even exists. Alexander Fleming was a Catholic. He couldn’t have discovered penicillin by accident or by design. Everyone knows that science and religion are mutually exclusive.[/quote]
So, I’m allergic to a myth? Awesome!
