vball10set;1147960 wrote:*Genesis

To their credit, they did spell that correctly in their research.

sleeper;1147939 wrote:I'd also like to see peer-reviewed academic research verified by a non-religious scientific institution proving that it's possible to hold 2 of every species(There are at least 3 million species) on the planet on a single boat, with their food, water, etc, out of their natural habitat, without eating each other(or ****ing each other) for 40 days.

This'll be good.

Search my past posts of which I KNOW you read because you responded.

If you search you will find how animals, food, etc could fit on a boat that size. Just like now, you then moved the goal posts and questioned how the animals were collected.

I will not repeat for the 10th time on this site how the animals could fit on the ark. You think you are smart so do a site search under my name. Heck I think I semi answered it earlier on this thread.

Keep going in circles sleeper, it makes you look real good.

sleeper;1147941 wrote:Really? Me being foolish? Yeah I'm the one who talks to an invisible man and actually tries to prove a supernatural being in a fiction novel is real and I'm the foolish one. :rolleyes:

Dynamite drop in vball.

Who here has tried to prove that God is real? Or are you just making up stuff as you go again?

sleeper;1147949 wrote:Also, I poked around on AiG's site and it included a lot of biblical references as "evidence".

Seriously, jmog are you actually convinced these people are actually peddling around for something other than a paycheck? It's EZ money. "Oh look, women were created from the Ribs of man(Genisis 4:14), that's incredible. God really is a powerful person." EZ.

Since you are so interested you should look at their more scientific publications which do go through scientific reasoning and not just Bible versus. I am sure the one you were reading was more for the non-scientific reader.

Religion was created so people could get "answers" to things that could not be explained. Clearly science wasn't advanced enough and people needed ways to understand things that could not be explained to them.

jmog;1148041 wrote:Search my past posts of which I KNOW you read because you responded.

If you search you will find how animals, food, etc could fit on a boat that size. Just like now, you then moved the goal posts and questioned how the animals were collected.

I will not repeat for the 10th time on this site how the animals could fit on the ark. You think you are smart so do a site search under my name. Heck I think I semi answered it earlier on this thread.

Keep going in circles sleeper, it makes you look real good.

I think we both have very different ideas of what "moving the goal posts means". For you, it means "You brought up another point that I cannot defend some I'm just going to say you moved the goal posts without actually having to respond to your request because my entire belief system is based on something that has never been and never will be proven." For me, it means "changing the validation of a certain idea or theory".

Thanks for providing no evidence, once again, to justify your erroneous beliefs. #sleeperwins again.

jmog;1148045 wrote:Since you are so interested you should look at their more scientific publications which do go through scientific reasoning and not just Bible versus. I am sure the one you were reading was more for the non-scientific reader.

I read enough to know these Phd's are laughing at the work they are publishing when they are being paid to tie it to religion somehow. In none of the research I read did a single conclusion validate any belief that is in the Bible. It seems the research is about global warming before we had advanced measuring equipment and then at the end they simply say "Yeah, and that could have caused the flood and animals, and god and what not".

It's lazy and comical that people eat this shit up because they have scientists with Phd's in astrophysics.

sleeper;1148055 wrote:I think we both have very different ideas of what "moving the goal posts means". For you, it means "You brought up another point that I cannot defend some I'm just going to say you moved the goal posts without actually having to respond to your request because my entire belief system is based on something that has never been and never will be proven." For me, it means "changing the validation of a certain idea or theory".

Thanks for providing no evidence, once again, to justify your erroneous beliefs. #sleeperwins again.

When it comes to the animals and how they were collected, I have said many times that there is no scientific reason, that is where the "faith" comes in. It would have to be an act from "God".

So no, it was not that I didn't have an answer or want to answer that, it was that you were given an answer and moved the goal posts.

jmog;1148058 wrote:When it comes to the animals and how they were collected, I have said many times that there is no scientific reason, that is where the "faith" comes in. It would have to be an act from "God".

So no, it was not that I didn't have an answer or want to answer that, it was that you were given an answer and moved the goal posts.

Must be nice to be unable to reach a valid conclusion and then simply chalk it up to "God did it". EZ.

So fraudulent. Do you use that logic when you publish research for NASA?

Also, if you think "moving the goal posts" is asking for a little more validation than "oh god did it, lulz" then you are delusional.

Any other cop outs you'd like to throw out there while you are at it"?

jmog: Our hypothesis is valid. As we predicted this sample experienced a change in temperature.
Rational scientist: According to the data that I have in front of me, the temperature of sample stayed the same despite the intervention of our stimuli. Our hypothesis is invalid.
jmog: You have to have faith that the sample's temperature changed. God did it.
Rational scientist: Link?
jmog: AiG.com
jmog: Prove me wrong.

I can only imagine how life at the office is for you.

sleeper;1148061 wrote:jmog: Our hypothesis is valid. As we predicted this sample experienced a change in temperature.
Rational scientist: According to the data that I have in front of me, the temperature of sample stayed the same despite the intervention of our stimuli. Our hypothesis is invalid.
jmog: You have to have faith that the sample's temperature changed. God did it.
Rational scientist: Link?
jmog: AiG.com
jmog: Prove me wrong.

I can only imagine how life at the office is for you.

That post/logic shows me you could have not possibly passed a high school science class.

jmog;1148117 wrote:That post/logic shows me you could have not possibly passed a high school science class.

:rolleyes:

Agreed. The logic you use to justify your erroneous beliefs wouldn't pass a high school science class. (And probably not English either with your terrible reading comprehension, I was using your own logic LOL)

So wait, Noah's Ark was real? :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

What's next Jonah living in the whale was also legit?

Automatik;1148121 wrote:So wait, Noah's Ark was real? :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

According to jmog, based on faith and some back of a napkin science. And he's a "scientist" who's been published in the NASA journal. Get real.

Yeah and I'd love to see how we all came from Noah's family tree as well. Are we all ancestors of Noah and is every human fucking one of their cousins? Also, in 6,000 years, how can one family reproduce enough children to spawn 7 billion people, all with the diversity of different races and lineage?

Sorry, jmog, you may be a "scientist" in your own little world, but you have lost all credibility. You've been called out, time to man up.

Automatik;1148121 wrote:So wait, Noah's Ark was real? :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

What's next Jonah living in the whale was also legit?

in before "but the bible says big fish.."

jmog;1147740 wrote:Here we go...

Can you give me a dating method that validates your claim?

Oh I see, you don't believe in radiometric dating or science at all. And since we have about 5000 years of recorded history to use that leaves 1000 years for humans to evolve from the very first life into humans and for humans to develop the ability to write and record history and such. Prove that. Or assuming you're even more retarded and don't believe in evolution give any shred of evidence at all that a magical/supernatural being intentionally created humans in the manner described in the Bible (I say that because you're surely Christian so that's the basis of your beliefs. If you were merely a theist but not any particular type you'd still have the difficult task of providing evidence that a deity created the world/man but it would be a bit easier since it wouldn't be as specific as any single religious belief).

Give me any method, at all, that validates your claim that the world is 6000 years old. And you can't use the Bible. Because there are thousands and thousands of peer reviewed articles detailing radiometric dating, fossil records, geologic records, etc, etc that support my claim that the earth is much older. I haven't seen any that support your claim that weren't published by Christians.

sleeper;1148122 wrote:And he's a "scientist" who's been published in the NASA journal. Get real.

Coming from a blowhard who alleges to "own" a McDonalds franchise, claims to have "graduated" from THE Ohio State University, all the while professing to make "twice as much" as everyone else on here, you sure have a lot of nerve "mocking" someone else's profession. Feel free to discuss.

IWP, you've moved the goal posts.

/jmog'd

vball10set;1148143 wrote:Coming from a blowhard who alleges to "own" a McDonalds franchise, claims to have "graduated" from THE Ohio State University, all the while making "twice as much" as everyone else on here, you sure have a lot of nerve "mocking" someone else's profession. Feel free to discuss.

Besides the "twice as much" comment, everything else is true.

Enjoy!

Although TBH, I'd be shocked if someone on here made more than me.

vball10set;1148143 wrote:Coming from a blowhard who alleges to "own" a McDonalds franchise, claims to have "graduated" from THE Ohio State University, all the while professing to make "twice as much" as everyone else on here, you sure have a lot of nerve "mocking" someone else's profession. Feel free to discuss.

What have you brought to the table in this thread?

sleeper;1148145 wrote:Besides the "twice as much" comment, everything else is true.

Enjoy!

So you are a blowhard then. :laugh:

I Wear Pants;1148137 wrote:Oh I see, you don't believe in radiometric dating or science at all. And since we have about 5000 years of recorded history to use that leaves 1000 years for humans to evolve from the very first life into humans and for humans to develop the ability to write and record history and such. Prove that. Or assuming you're even more retarded and don't believe in evolution give any shred of evidence at all that a magical/supernatural being intentionally created humans in the manner described in the Bible (I say that because you're surely Christian so that's the basis of your beliefs. If you were merely a theist but not any particular type you'd still have the difficult task of providing evidence that a deity created the world/man but it would be a bit easier since it wouldn't be as specific as any single religious belief).

Give me any method, at all, that validates your claim that the world is 6000 years old. And you can't use the Bible. Because there are thousands and thousands of peer reviewed articles detailing radiometric dating, fossil records, geologic records, etc, etc that support my claim that the earth is much older. I haven't seen any that support your claim that weren't published by Christians.

The problem with all these "peer reviewed articles" is that none of those "peers" were around when the world "started."

And...there are MANY debates about the radiometric dating, fossil records, geological records, etc. It doesn't take much research to find that there are MANY "peer reviewed articles" that show that they cannot pinpoint ANYTHING.

We'll never know how old the earth actually is. To me, there's no sense in even debating it because we don't know. We won't know. And it is a merry-go-round debate on who is right and who is wrong. In the end, we don't know. None of us were there. None of the scientists were there.