[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
schmichael, what happens to your hypothesis if the bible isn’t the word of God?[/quote]What happens to yours if it is?
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
schmichael, what happens to your hypothesis if the bible isn’t the word of God?[/quote]What happens to yours if it is?
[/quote]
Yeah well, that is not where your real challenge lies anyway.
What really is your problem if you want to convince anyone is the competition threatening negative consequences if you do not believe in their holy books.
Because it seems to me in order to have a chance of escaping eternal torment or be chained to rock or be reborn as a dung beetle I would have to choose whose is the most likeliest to be true.
You have competition, what is your USP?
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
schmichael, what happens to your hypothesis if the bible isn’t the word of God?[/quote]What happens to yours if it is?
[/quote]
If the bible had better supporting evidence it would still have to compete with all the other God hypotheses that exist on Earth. The default position is not believing any of them until supporting evidence is provided.
Presently, IMO, if you believe in the biblical God then there really isn’t any reason standing in your way to not believe in leprechauns, unicorns, Nessie(I can’t wait for schmichael to say that supports creationism), vampires, the Kraken, and a whole other multitude of myths and fairy tales.
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
schmichael, what happens to your hypothesis if the bible isn’t the word of God?[/quote]What happens to yours if it is?
[/quote]
If the bible had better supporting evidence it would still have to compete with all the other God hypotheses that exist on Earth. The default position is not believing any of them until supporting evidence is provided.
Presently, IMO, if you believe in the biblical God then there really isn’t any reason standing in your way to not believe in leprechauns, unicorns, Nessie(I can’t wait for schmichael to say that supports creationism), vampires, the Kraken, and a whole other multitude of myths and fairy tales.
[/quote]
Easy on the vampires there…next you’l be telling me the dead can’t walk the earth and that the zombie apocalypse will never happen. Hah!
[quote]schmichael wrote:
[quote]colt44 wrote:
[quote]colt44 wrote:
10 times ID has gone to court and ten times they have failed in this country.
[/quote]
Who cares? why is it that evolution requires legislation to protect it from scrutiny? no other scientific theory does. Oh, that’s right, evolution is “special”. Not in a good way though.
Is that right, emperor Charlie! Of course ID isn’t science is you get to define science prior to looking at the evidence. Of course, I couldn’t care less what your opinion of what is or isn’t science.
That is incredibly naive. What about the soft tissue, including blood vessel proteins and structures resembling cells, that has been recovered from dinosaur bone by Mary Schweitzer. The simple explanation is that the bone is not millions of years old but we can’t have that!!! In stead, let’s postulate that blood vessels can last for 200 MY!!!
[quote]colt44 wrote:
There is not a single scientific society that does not accept evolution.
One day, you might see the light kid…[/quote]
I have seen the light. I’m the one who has taken an honest look at both sides unlike you. You are adamant that creationism is wrong in spite of the fact that you know nothing about what it teaches.
[/quote]
You have NEVER, taken a look at both sides period. You are a creationist in search of information that suits your beliefs. Every website you read, every scientist you follow is a creationist.
How do you feel about atomic theory, gravity? WHy are you so concerned with Evolution? You can still believe in God if evolution is true, it wont hurt you I promise.
I have no desire to present anything to you because you are blinded by your creationist websites.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
True, I should have clarified.
You can still believe in God if Evolution is true, unless you’re Trib. 
[quote]colt44 wrote:<<< True, I should have clarified.
You can believe in Evolution and God all day long, unless you’re a Christian. :)[/quote]Your welcome
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
schmichael, what happens to your hypothesis if the bible isn’t the word of God?[/quote]What happens to yours if it is?
[/quote]
If the bible had better supporting evidence it would still have to compete with all the other God hypotheses that exist on Earth. The default position is not believing any of them until supporting evidence is provided.
Presently, IMO, if you believe in the biblical God then there really isn’t any reason standing in your way to not believe in leprechauns, unicorns, Nessie(I can’t wait for schmichael to say that supports creationism), vampires, the Kraken, and a whole other multitude of myths and fairy tales.
[/quote]
Easy on the vampires there…next you’l be telling me the dead can’t walk the earth and that the zombie apocalypse will never happen. Hah!
[/quote]
Oh yeah, I forgot about the part about zombies in the bible.
Thanks for reminding me.
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
schmichael, what happens to your hypothesis if the bible isn’t the word of God?[/quote]What happens to yours if it is?
[/quote]
If the bible had better supporting evidence it would still have to compete with all the other God hypotheses that exist on Earth. The default position is not believing any of them until supporting evidence is provided.
Presently, IMO, if you believe in the biblical God then there really isn’t any reason standing in your way to not believe in leprechauns, unicorns, Nessie(I can’t wait for schmichael to say that supports creationism), vampires, the Kraken, and a whole other multitude of myths and fairy tales.
[/quote]
Easy on the vampires there…next you’l be telling me the dead can’t walk the earth and that the zombie apocalypse will never happen. Hah!
[/quote]
I am arguing that if it happened…
How would we know?
[quote]schmichael wrote:
[That is incredibly naive. What about the soft tissue, including blood vessel proteins and structures resembling cells, that has been recovered from dinosaur bone by Mary Schweitzer. The simple explanation is that the bone is not millions of years old but we can’t have that!!! In stead, let’s postulate that blood vessels can last for 200 MY!!!
[quote]
Again just to prove you are gullible and get your information from purely creationist sources, here are some clips from Mary Schweitzer herself and from interviews.
"Meanwhile, Schweitzerâ??s research has been hijacked by â??young earthâ?? creationists, who insist that dinosaur soft tissue couldnâ??t possibly survive millions of years. They claim her discoveries support their belief, based on their interpretation of Genesis, that the earth is only a few thousand years old. Of course, itâ??s not unusual for a paleontologist to differ with creationists. But when creationists misrepresent Schweitzerâ??s data, she takes it personally: she describes herself as â??a complete and total Christian.â??
Q: Many creationists claim that the Earth is much younger than the evolutionists claim. Is there any possibility that your discoveries should make experts on both sides of the argument reevaluate the methods of established dating used in the field? Carl Baker, Billings, Montana
Schweitzer: Actually, my work doesn’t say anything at all about the age of the Earth. As a scientist I can only speak to the data that exist. Having reviewed a great deal of data from many different disciplines, I see no reason at all to doubt the general scientific consensus that the Earth is about five or six billion years old. We deal with testable hypotheses in science, and many of the arguments made for a young Earth are not testable, nor is there any valid data to support a young Earth that stands up to peer review or scientific scrutiny. However, the fields of geology, nuclear physics, astronomy, paleontology, genetics, and evolutionary biology all speak to an ancient Earth. Our discoveries may make people reevaluate the longevity of molecules and the presumed pathways of molecular degradation, but they do not really deal at all with the age of the Earth.
The followings is after testing what Mary found in the lab:
"
Spectroscopist John M. Asara of the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston then used technology developed to identify minute traces of proteins in tumors. He broke the collagen down into seven short fragments and analyzed the sequence of the 15 to 20 amino acids in each fragment.
Comparing those seven sequences to established genomes of modern species, they found three that matched chickens, one that matched a frog and another that matched a newt. The protein reacted to antibodies against chicken collagen.
The finding supports the theory that birds evolved from dinosaurs – an idea that until now has been largely based on comparing bone structures."
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
The mind is the great labeler; it takes that which is and assigns meaning and purpose to that which is. Without the mind there’s just that which is. I’ve told this before but I woke up once from a short slumber without me present. When my eyes opened my gaze fell on the clock on the wall. I didn’t recognize the clock nor did I realise that. There were no thoughts, there was no me to be aware of anything. I can only deduce this because there was passage of time; for nearly 15 minutes I stared at the clock not knowing what it was. The handle moved, sure, but nothing else.
After 15 minutes or so something snapped back into place and I realised I was going to be late. I knew something happened and that it was weird, but it also showed me that without the mind everything is meaningless.[/quote]
That sounds like an experience I had when I tried salvia. It was like my brain was rebooted, I didn’t know who I was, who was in front of me, then as I came to, I “realized my existence”, as I kept repeating. Felt like some sort of rebirth, as subjective as that may be.[/quote]
While I love psychedelics I won’t touch salvia with a 10 foot pole. Sounds like that was quite an experience Matty o-O[/quote]
Yes it was a, dare I say, spiritual experience.
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
The mind is the great labeler; it takes that which is and assigns meaning and purpose to that which is. Without the mind there’s just that which is. I’ve told this before but I woke up once from a short slumber without me present. When my eyes opened my gaze fell on the clock on the wall. I didn’t recognize the clock nor did I realise that. There were no thoughts, there was no me to be aware of anything. I can only deduce this because there was passage of time; for nearly 15 minutes I stared at the clock not knowing what it was. The handle moved, sure, but nothing else.
After 15 minutes or so something snapped back into place and I realised I was going to be late. I knew something happened and that it was weird, but it also showed me that without the mind everything is meaningless.[/quote]
That sounds like an experience I had when I tried salvia. It was like my brain was rebooted, I didn’t know who I was, who was in front of me, then as I came to, I “realized my existence”, as I kept repeating. Felt like some sort of rebirth, as subjective as that may be.[/quote]
While I love psychedelics I won’t touch salvia with a 10 foot pole. Sounds like that was quite an experience Matty o-O[/quote]
Yes it was a, dare I say, spiritual experience.[/quote]
Tried it once, thought “whoa, tastes like shit, I dont care whether it lets me grow wings” never tried it again.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
The mind is the great labeler; it takes that which is and assigns meaning and purpose to that which is. Without the mind there’s just that which is. I’ve told this before but I woke up once from a short slumber without me present. When my eyes opened my gaze fell on the clock on the wall. I didn’t recognize the clock nor did I realise that. There were no thoughts, there was no me to be aware of anything. I can only deduce this because there was passage of time; for nearly 15 minutes I stared at the clock not knowing what it was. The handle moved, sure, but nothing else.
After 15 minutes or so something snapped back into place and I realised I was going to be late. I knew something happened and that it was weird, but it also showed me that without the mind everything is meaningless.[/quote]
That sounds like an experience I had when I tried salvia. It was like my brain was rebooted, I didn’t know who I was, who was in front of me, then as I came to, I “realized my existence”, as I kept repeating. Felt like some sort of rebirth, as subjective as that may be.[/quote]
While I love psychedelics I won’t touch salvia with a 10 foot pole. Sounds like that was quite an experience Matty o-O[/quote]
Yes it was a, dare I say, spiritual experience.[/quote]
Tried it once, thought “whoa, tastes like shit, I dont care whether it lets me grow wings” never tried it again. [/quote]
I tried it via a lung, iIrc it was 30x
[quote]schmichael wrote:
That is incredibly naive. What about the soft tissue, including blood vessel proteins and structures resembling cells, that has been recovered from dinosaur bone by Mary Schweitzer. The simple explanation is that the bone is not millions of years old but we can’t have that!!! In stead, let’s postulate that blood vessels can last for 200 MY!!![/quote]
Again just to prove you are gullible and get your information from purely creationist sources, here are some clips from Mary Schweitzer herself and from interviews.
"Meanwhile, Schweitzer,s research has been hijacked by “young earth” creationists, who insist that dinosaur soft tissue couldn’t possibly survive millions of years. They claim her discoveries support their belief, based on their interpretation of Genesis, that the earth is only a few thousand years old. Of course, it,s not unusual for a paleontologist to differ with creationists. But when creationists misrepresent Schweitzer,s data, she takes it personally: she describes herself as “a complete and total Christian.”
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/...e/dinosaur.html
Q: Many creationists claim that the Earth is much younger than the evolutionists claim. Is there any possibility that your discoveries should make experts on both sides of the argument reevaluate the methods of established dating used in the field? Carl Baker, Billings, Montana
Schweitzer: Actually, my work doesn’t say anything at all about the age of the Earth. As a scientist I can only speak to the data that exist. Having reviewed a great deal of data from many different disciplines, I see no reason at all to doubt the general scientific consensus that the Earth is about five or six billion years old. We deal with testable hypotheses in science, and many of the arguments made for a young Earth are not testable, nor is there any valid data to support a young Earth that stands up to peer review or scientific scrutiny. However, the fields of geology, nuclear physics, astronomy, paleontology, genetics, and evolutionary biology all speak to an ancient Earth. Our discoveries may make people reevaluate the longevity of molecules and the presumed pathways of molecular degradation, but they do not really deal at all with the age of the Earth.
http://www.pbs.org/...weitzer-qa.html
The followings is after testing what Mary found in the lab:
"
Spectroscopist John M. Asara of the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston then used technology developed to identify minute traces of proteins in tumors. He broke the collagen down into seven short fragments and analyzed the sequence of the 15 to 20 amino acids in each fragment.
Comparing those seven sequences to established genomes of modern species, they found three that matched chickens, one that matched a frog and another that matched a newt. The protein reacted to antibodies against chicken collagen.
The finding supports the theory that birds evolved from dinosaurs – an idea that until now has been largely based on comparing bone structures."
Colt44 is welcome
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]schmichael wrote:
That is incredibly naive. What about the soft tissue, including blood vessel proteins and structures resembling cells, that has been recovered from dinosaur bone by Mary Schweitzer. The simple explanation is that the bone is not millions of years old but we can’t have that!!! In stead, let’s postulate that blood vessels can last for 200 MY!!![/quote]
Again just to prove you are gullible and get your information from purely creationist sources, here are some clips from Mary Schweitzer herself and from interviews.
"Meanwhile, Schweitzer,s research has been hijacked by “young earth” creationists, who insist that dinosaur soft tissue couldn’t possibly survive millions of years. They claim her discoveries support their belief, based on their interpretation of Genesis, that the earth is only a few thousand years old. Of course, it,s not unusual for a paleontologist to differ with creationists. But when creationists misrepresent Schweitzer,s data, she takes it personally: she describes herself as “a complete and total Christian.”
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/...e/dinosaur.html
Q: Many creationists claim that the Earth is much younger than the evolutionists claim. Is there any possibility that your discoveries should make experts on both sides of the argument reevaluate the methods of established dating used in the field? Carl Baker, Billings, Montana
Schweitzer: Actually, my work doesn’t say anything at all about the age of the Earth. As a scientist I can only speak to the data that exist. Having reviewed a great deal of data from many different disciplines, I see no reason at all to doubt the general scientific consensus that the Earth is about five or six billion years old. We deal with testable hypotheses in science, and many of the arguments made for a young Earth are not testable, nor is there any valid data to support a young Earth that stands up to peer review or scientific scrutiny. However, the fields of geology, nuclear physics, astronomy, paleontology, genetics, and evolutionary biology all speak to an ancient Earth. Our discoveries may make people reevaluate the longevity of molecules and the presumed pathways of molecular degradation, but they do not really deal at all with the age of the Earth.
http://www.pbs.org/...weitzer-qa.html
The followings is after testing what Mary found in the lab:
"
Spectroscopist John M. Asara of the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston then used technology developed to identify minute traces of proteins in tumors. He broke the collagen down into seven short fragments and analyzed the sequence of the 15 to 20 amino acids in each fragment.
Comparing those seven sequences to established genomes of modern species, they found three that matched chickens, one that matched a frog and another that matched a newt. The protein reacted to antibodies against chicken collagen.
The finding supports the theory that birds evolved from dinosaurs – an idea that until now has been largely based on comparing bone structures."
Colt44 is Your welcome
[/quote]
Your welcome for what,
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[/quote]
still love you
[quote]colt44 wrote:<<< still love you[/quote]Still waiting for an answer to what that means and why.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
No one looked at the Youtube vid I posted of a priest denouncing a catholic church riddled with homosexual perverts. There are more.
Why would anyone support these churches?[/quote]Um… this is the Bill Nye thread bub. Ya alright? Mouse got a mind of it’s own? Jesus can fix you ya know. ONLY Jesus.
[/quote]
Yer right, bro…I got a holt of dat dere Jesus drug…