/sci/ - Science & Math

Lolwut? Everyone knows the name of the moon is Luna

>24 minutes
>Giving creationism more then 1 minute of your time

Doing it wrong, just because some sheep believe in it, doesn't mean you have to accept it.

>>>/x/9112885

>creation science evangelism

There is probably nothing factual in anything that is said, but I will take your bait, potential troll. I can't promise that I will watch the whole thing, though.
And, as a precursor, because I know this is going to come up later, why don't you look up some of the information yourself at
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/

>2011
>still thinks creationism is a valid "theory"

>>4120132
>unbiased
>ur dooing it rong

>>4120131
i was referring to a moment in the video

>>4120132
>then

>The video is to the left. It discusses evolution and creationism, in a way that you might not have heard it before.

Mfw you think Kent Hovind is new to us

Fuck OP. I couldn't even make it to 30 seconds.
>We believe the bible is literally true, and scientifically accurate in every single detail.

Goddamnit.
Probably, OP you are going to find the answers to your questions at the talkorigin website that I posted, with an indexed listing of creationist claims and the scientific evidence that directly refutes them.

>2:00 in. Still no presentation of any evidence as to why the earth is (in their opinion) not millions of years old. at least 3 times, they have mentioned their other series' and the title of the episode thing that discusses the age of the earth.

Started off bad. It's only getting worse, OP...

>>4120152
>cant open another tab and listen in the background
>cant sit still for five minutes

I honestly think creationists are bullshit, because they completely close themselves off to alternative explanations. But i think that evolutionists are equally bullshit because they dont believe in magic.

So fuck you, and stop being a faggot. Watch the damn video, ya dumb bitch.

>>4120162
ya you're skeptisicm is going to need to be equal to your patience, which people these days seem to lack.

>>4120128
Look. There is a lot of information out there. There's also a guy standing up and presenting some things he believes. You have the following options:

1) Take his word for it.
2) Take the scientists' word for it.
3) Figure it out for yourself.

A lot of people choose option (1). A much, much larger number of people choose option (2). If you're not happy with either of those options, then all you can do is (3).

Now, the question is, what the fuck do you expect to gain by coming to /sci/, which is obviously mostly in the option (2) crowd, and hoping they'll somehow throw out everything they know and believe and join the option (1) crowd?

>>4120165
>implying magic is real

>>4120165
forgot my sage

>>4120171
>do i even need to correct it? you already know that i made a typo. Its not that big of a deal, you know what i mean.

FFS should i even care that much?
Just proves internet is a bunch of grammar nazis that dont have anything intelligent to say, so we continuously attack words, rather than the content and ideas of the person writing them.

lolol

>/sci/ i want you to take 24 minutes out of your time and watch this video.
No. Why don't you transcribe the points for me if you want my opinion on them?

>>4120185
Yeah, no shit. It may only be 24 minutes, but it feels like it takes 24 years of your life by watching it. FUCK.

>>4120177
>>4120175
implying i said i believed in magic, but even if it did, do you think an evolutionist would believe in it?

perhaps it got rooted out of our genes over the course of a million years. so no evidence. lol

ehm seriously though im not defending this video, so much as i am just trying to get you to watch it. Remember when i said i was unbiased? You will never know if i actually believe this or not. I dont need to figure it out.

ehm..just wait untill he starts talking about the moon, and population, and then mammoths.

I honestly was always skeptical about CD, but hey its the gold standard.

>>4120185
>>4120188
....

....

OP is dumbfounded after reading this, and remembering this >>4120175

yeah..nope.

>first piece of 'evidence' presented at 3 minutes.
>it's a quote from the bible.

>talking about boats and coins
>arguing that the age of a chest with coins dated 1986 and 1990 has anything to do with the age of the coins.
>extending that argument to the earth, claiming the geological age of the earth is the younger of any of the dates.
>speaking in parables
>still not evidence

Seriously, OP?

>>4120211
focus more on watching the video, than trying to prove it wrong. You'll get shortsighted and miss a better point of the video.

>>4120197
>so no evidence.
Why believe in it then?

>>4120223
rather, you dont have to convince me.

>>4120197

>>4120128
>Video
Any theory or idea that is primarily presented in video form is probably wrong. It's much easier to fool people with sounds and images than it is with words. 9/11 conspiracy videos are another prime example of this.

>>4120197
see pic

>>4120223
make up your own summary of the video instead of asking people to watch that atrocity again.

>>4120224
Because agnosticism. Evolutionists are hyperfocused on what Does exist, they forget about things that may have existed, and cant say for sure either way. And when it comes to something that is scientifically plausible, but unable to be fully understood, like the human mind being able to extend outwards into the physical world...well we cant observe it, and we have no way of knowing if it was possible in the past...

Yet we hear stories as such in fantasies and historic/religious books, and also see the potential for it with medical analysis that the brain does in fact have a way of extending beyond the cranium, in the form of waves.

thats why.

then again, im just saying.

>>4120228
Thats quite an arbitrary statement. Is that how you come to all your conclusions?
Way to scientific method.

>>4120223
I am focused on the video.
I am not 'trying to prove it wrong'.
They said at the beginning of their little show "we have scientific evidence that the age of the earth is as old as it says in the bible"
So far, they have quoted the bible, talked about how their show talks about the age of the earth, and then demonstrated that they have absolutely zero understanding of geology.
If you start with a flawed premise, any conclusion you draw is going to be flawed. There is no "bigger picture" or "better point" in such a case. I could start out by telling you that the sky is actually red and not blue, and I'd probably be able to find some obscure quote from the bible that might back it up. Then, I could go on weaving this yarn about a metaphorical situation that would back up my pre-formed opinion, and it could be a beautiful story.
But it wouldn't make the sky appear any less blue than it ever does, given that it's not sunrise/sunset.
So, what they're saying might be interesting, but it's still a total load of bologna.

Took the bait, so here's your 7/10.
If you want to discuss the bible and interpretations of it, go to /lit/.

>>4120246
>too lazy
>didnt click

say what about doing thing?

>>4120246

That pic is horse shit. Sometimes people just have neutral questions.

You're probably the kind of person who thinks agnostics are "fence sitting pussies".

>"... on the Creation Today Show, where we believe the bible is literally true and scientifically accurate in every single detail, and we're not ashamed to say so."
Alright, 25 seconds in and they're already wasting my fucking time.

God told me to sage this thread who am I to resist.

>>4120255
you watched the whole video? still watching?

>>4120259
i can already tell based on other people's posts that the video is not worth my time
>>4120256
>is your mom a fag? theres this video i found that says she is, and it's backed up by a few quotes in the bible. i'm not sure whether it's true or not, so can you watch it for me? kthx
HEY, I'M JUST ASKING A QUESTION

I watched all of the video, it was pretty funny that the guy was serious. The part about galaxies was really funny hes just trying to fool people that do not know better

>>4120282
BUT THAT IS CONTRADICTORY OF /sci/'s general idea that you cant come to conclusions based on other peoples observances and you need to see it for yourself then make judgement to prove or disprovOHHH FUCK IT!!

Fuck you faggots!

>>4120293
That's no one's general idea.

>>4120293
but you're a troll trying to waste my time. your argument is invalid.

oh, if you want to get anything proven in the scientific community, you need to convince everyone else that your theory is correct, and back it with tons of evidence. if you asked any professor to see a video that references a bible, you'll get kicked out of his office in no time.

Carbon dating mammoths...

Am curious. How can the age be so vastly different, from one end to the other?

religious bullshit on /sci/ reported

>>4120303
Ok.

>>4120308
considering this isnt a religion versus science thread, i dont know what you're talking about.

Im asking you to look at this video with a scientific mind to see if it has any merit.

Stop being a bitch.

captcha related "Perhno disallowing"

>>4120255
did they talk about the finding of actual dinosaur bones, and not fossilized dinosaur bones?
did they talk about the fact that every organic compound that has ever been carbon dated shows C14?
did they talk about the fact that every major river in the world shows approx. 4500 years of sediment build up?
did they talk about how little dust there was on the moon?
did they talk about how little He is in the air?
did they talk about the ramifications of a massive global flood creating sedimentary layers of rock all at once?
did they talk about pictures drawn by men on cave walls thousands of years ago depicting accurate dinosaurs?
did they talk about the oldest human artifacts being only about 4000 years old?
did they talk about the cambrian explosion of life with no predecessors?
did they talk about diamonds having too much C14 in them?
did they talk about palladium blooms in granite?
did they talk about how the ocean isn't salty enough to be billions of years old?
did they talk about how little mud there is on the bottom of the ocean?
did they talk about how the growth of coral has severely slowed down in the past 50 years?

i can't watch the video at work, and am curious

>>4120293
welcome to the phenomenon known as hivemind

sorry you thought /sci/ would be different

>>4120316
It doesn't. It's religious bullshit.

>>4120316
see
>>4120246

they think the scientific view is:

humans have been here for millions of years

and

literal overcrowding is a problem


2 responses just to these things because its not worth my time watching the whole 25 minutes:

humans have been here 200k years

and

distribution of resources are a problem, not lack of physical space

>>4120316
>did they talk about the fact that every organic compound that has ever been carbon dated shows C14?
i guess that's why it's called CARBON-14 dating?

>>4120317
>>4120317
No they made no reference to the Flinstones either.

How can you have no time to watch the video, but manage to get away with writing that huge text barricade?

>>4120336
yes, and it's odd that a technique that cannot detect C14 in anything over 50,000 years old would come up positive in every single case

do you see how that is limiting, or shall i break out the crayons?

>>4120337
because it is not a lack of time, but a need for secrecy in the workplace, and hence, the lack of sound

>>4120337
they don't even understand basic principles of life and death. Saying that ridiculous number of people is what we should have on earth after a millions years

>>4120128
>Creationism

Shit fairytales are shit. The only fantatsy I watch is at the the movie theatures, and even then I still don't belive Harry Potter is real.

>>4120325
>>4120326
...the MAIN idea of the video, is a "looking at creationism with a scientific perspective".

Stop BEING A FAGGOT BITCH.

I wouldnt have brought it here, if it was simply about creationism, because i wasnt trying to create a religion versus science thread.!!

For fuck sake!

>>4120354
Stop being a passive aggressive troll bitch.

if you don't know that theres no merit behind creationist claims then you're retarded.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

>>4120128
>Creationist video

I'd rather stab myself.

>>4120352
that's odd. starting with either 2 people 6000 years ago, or 8 people 4500 years ago, and applying known population growth rates, you come up with pretty close how many people there are on the planet right now

science and math; useful unless they support creationism

>>4120354
>...the MAIN idea of the video, is a "looking at creationism with a scientific perspective".
No, it isn't. Stop lying.

>>4120354
no proper science contradicts the creation account in the bible; for the godless, that proposition is infuriating. knowing that they have only been exposed to those hypothesese that support the evolutionary timescale is scary to them. they like to think that nothing matters, that they are accidents, that nothing they do is their fault. it's ingrained in them from kindergarten.

however, if the world and the universe are young, say only about 6000 years old, then suddenly they are far more significant, and far rarer, then they would like to believe.

add a God who keeps track of all of your deeds, good and bad, and you have set the table for a truly horrific nightmare

the fact that it is true, and real, makes it worse

>>4120354
ok, troll attempt failed
>>4120346
because atoms go under exponential decay?

Biggest question of all ive got to ask here for all you /sci/entists.

Why arent you studying? Got nothing better to do? DO oyu even actually go to school?

Or do you just like to come here and talk about shit to make yourself feel smarter, and less sad about the fact that you will never be intelligent enough to speak openly, with civility about things that you may not necessarily believe in, with the purpose of denying it, just to validate and justify your own beliefs, or lack thereof!

I think i rest my case.

>>4120369
do you even understand the concept of a radioactive half-life, or am i just wasting my time?

>>4120370
can't tell if trolling or real inferiority and persecution complex.

>>4120369
Person only becomes a troll once they are called a troll.

Notice how i havent called any of you trolls, despite actually being trolls?

I aint even mad.

>>4120373
just /butthurt; being passive-aggressive doesn't always go as planned

>>4120373
100% unbiased and neutral. Im just laughing my ass off, because i know its true.

>>4120368
>the creation account in the bible
Which one?

>>4120354
>"looking at creationism with a scientific perspective"

Scientific perspective on creationism:
"IT IS BULLSHIT".

And it's Obvious Bullshit at that. It isn't even worthy of debate in the scientifc community anymore. Scientist don't debate the legitimacy of fucking fairytales.

\thread

>>4120378
>implying an entirely dispassionate view is possible

>>4120379
which one would you like to discuss? the 7 day chronological one, or the one expanding on the sixth day creation?

they are, in fact, the same, fyi

>>4120358
yeah because you know the population growth rate at every period throughout history

sage

>>4120354
1.) The galaxies are observably held together by dark matter. They do not spin faster closer to the center, and this fact causes another mystery on how the spirals are shaped.
2.) Jupiter isn't losing heat and Jupiter's strong gravitational pull is churning the insides of ganymede and other moons producing heat.
3.) the moon is receding at such a slow rate, the earth and moon will be eating by the expanding sun before we lose it.
4.) We still have comets because the sun isn't sitting still and we capture them in orbit moving through the galaxy.

>>4120358
>>4120358
>>4120358
huhehehehe Indeed. =D

thanks for the open minded reply.

inb4 the obvious
just another way to avoid the topic. lol

(i deserve that one)

>>4120390
not at all; you just take what is known, and apply it retroactively, and viola, it works

funny how the truth backs up the truth, and the lies fall apart

>>4120394
you are asserting a hypothesis, btw

unless you have a jar of dark matter stored away in the Oort cloud being guarded by the missing link, i will just dismiss you as non-scientific

>>4120368
proper science? or are you talking about the theory of evolution

theory of evolution only implies that all things came from a single organism, its has no actual theorem that states so

mind you that science is quite capable with religion, for example the greatest mathematicians
(Euler, Gauss, Newton, Liebnez) were devout christians and mind you that newton wrote more books about theology then physics

evolution is correct in modeling natural processes but it's implication that the universe came from an unknown source and that life was created at a fractional chance is not compelling when compared to Thomas Aquinas's arguement that God exists as a solution to the infinite regression problem

>>4120397
So you're not even going to bother considering or attempting to make up for the errors in estimation? Not very scientific.....

>>4120385
Well, you got your apologetics down, I'll give you that.

>>4120404
agreed. abiogenesis, spontaneous generation, and macroevolution are all non-scientific hypotheses to explain the presence of a universe with the assumption that there is no Creator

>>4120406
the errors? there is actually someone who did all the heavy lifting on this issue, i could find his study if you'd like. he attempted to correlate all the known war casualties, etc., which in and of itself is a daunting prospect.

i think the broader point is pretty clear; going from 2 to 7 billion in 6000 years requires a pretty reasonable growth rate

going from none to 7 billion in 40,000,000 years does not

>>4120317
oh um are we ignoring this?

>>4120403
Okay I can't show you dark matter but what of the observability of the uniform rotation of the galaxies. And no, you can't say its the holy spirit.

>>4120409
well, it's a subject near and dear to my heart, and it pains me to see it misunderstood, misapplied, and mistaken for fiction

>>4120404
no one claims evolution offers a complete explanation

you rely on argument from authority with your 'greatest mathematicians' reference

evolution doesn't imply anything about the ultimate source.

thomas aquinas' arguments for god are based on god as ultimate beginning with no logical progression to any other attribute . all you're left with is 'god' as a synonym for 'beginning'.

you are terrible at arguing.

>>4120425
>attempted
there you go, then failed. btw :P

>40,000,000

no one says this

>>4120430
did you ever wonder why the spiral galaxies are still shaped like spirals, if they've been whirling about for billions and billions of years?

why aren't they shapeless discs by now?

>>4120404
>Thomas Aquinas's arguement that God exists as a solution to the infinite regression problem

Shit argument is shit.
The idea that all systems are "casal" is fucking narrow minded and petty. Sure it made sense to Aquinas at the time, but we don't know much abotu "time" at the time. His argument is basically invalid now. (Only dumbasses who dont' udnerstand enough about time, fall for that bullshit)

>>4120432
its all conjecture. which is as reliable as fiction when it comes to modelling reality.

I've read OP's comments and apologetics. and I've read /sci/s response.

/sci/ wins
fail troll
poor argument


well done boys.

>>4120433
yes, people do present evolution as a proper candidate to explain where life came from. iirc, it begins with nothing, then a singularity (that contains all the energy and matter in the entire universe) that goes bang, then gasses, inorganic compounds, organic compounds, simple life, then us.

it is actually a way to describe the universe sans God, and if i did not know God, it would sound plausible to me that it indeed happened that way

with the existence of a Creator God saying, dude, I did it, that hypothesis is clearly wrong

and attempting to reconcile the Creator's Word with the evolutionary process doesn't work, either. theistic evolution is just as bogus as macroevolution

think about all the things there are, and then think about a being that could cause them all to come into existence in six days. then think that He wants to get to know you on a personal basis, but is a gentleman, and requires you to approach Him on His terms. then consider that being is Love; not that He is loving, which He is, but that He is Love.

then this other nonsense fades away into the pit of hell where it was born, from the father of lies

>>4120438
because its not the galaxies that are spinning.. its the entire universe, and the universe outside the universe that is spinning. and in between the galaxies is an unseen world, just like this one where another form of life exists. we cant see them, and they cant see us.

also.. just want everyone to know that this song is cool
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bV-hSgL1R74
kinda makes this thread surreal.

>>4120438
Yes, Every cosmologist wonders this. It doesn't follow classical mechanics and it's a great mystery. Just because they are spirals does not mean god did it. It means it's a phenomenon that we have yet to understand.

>>4120450
OP hasnt posted in a while. in fact, i havnet even defend the video. soo, i dont know what you're talking about.

>>4120451
abiogenesis is not evolution.


nice straw man. buts snow men this time of year

>>4120442
they kinda do. the peeps that say the universe is 14.3 billion years old say that humans have been around for about 40 million years

doesn't matter, tho; the guesses change with the wind, because they are based on people's imaginations

the only timeline we really have is the artifacts that have been left to us, with links to other artifacts, so that we can chase down a chain of time linked events and discover that nothing written prior to about 4000 BC exists

>>4120306
>>4120306
>>4120306

>>4120463
humans have been around for 200k years, idiot.

>>4120445
not really. it is revealed knowledge faithfully maintained by devoted believers. God actually talked to several people face to face, Moses and Paul being the two most prolific, and in their writings, you can see how He said that He did things

and nothing true contradicts that revelation

>>4120223
QUIT BEING SKEPTICAL AND YOU'LL BE A CREATIONIST GUISE. PERFECTLY RATIONAL

>>4120452
are you saying that spiral galaxies do not rotate on their axis?

>>4120470
> God actually talked to several people face to face,

prove it.

inb4 bible

>faithfully

faith = trust = hope

they hope it's true. doesn't mean it is.

>>4120471
be really skeptical, and see all of the information available, not just what has been spoonfed into you by evolutionists

when you love the truth, you can be as skeptical as you want, and never be let down. loving God and loving the truth are one and the same

>>4120475
haha creationists and apologists TOLD

>>4120459
the explanation seems to me to be that they are not as old as once thought

that they are about 6000 years old fits the facts, yes?

>>4120471
"it" was supposed to be "me".

whoops If you might recall, i told him to keep being skeptical. Nice way to somehow forget that.
Talk about being hyperfocused on something, particularly the idea of me making a thread, rather than the content of the thread.

WHOOOAAA lolol

>>4120152
>>4120152

i closed it as soon as he said that too.

>>4120478
>spoonfed by evolutionists

I'm one of these evolutionists you're talking about. And I'm not watching your video, because if it's of interest it's going to come to me through a more reputable source than 4chan.

>>4120462
you cannot have evolution without abiogenesis; if God did not create life, then life had to come from the unliving, a phenomenon never once observed or replicated, as old school science would demand

but new school science, well, we can just make shit up and sell books without one single experiment whatsoever, so long as our buddies agree, and, of course, we will agree with our buddy's ideas too

peer review = peer pressure

you didn't like it in high school, why do you like it in science?

>>4120306
you find the same problem with deer antlers, too; iirc, one deer had one side on its antlers that was thousands and thousands of years older than the other side of its antlers

>>4120469
you're about 194,000 years off, friend

>>4120489
>implying ideas can spread without people propagating it.
>implying media isnt shoving controlled opposition into your face anyway
>implying you havent heard of the bible

nice one!!

>>4120492
Lots of people accept god AND evolution. your argument is invalid.

and I dont think you actually know accurately what abiogenesis is

>>4120475
you are correct, my hope is in Jesus Christ

but hope does not mean what you think it means; having hope in Jesus is like having hope that this apple i drop in my office hits the ground

>>4120455

>>4120500
You don't get how social systems work?

I am not the decider of how it spreads. Other people will spread it regardless of me.

>>4120500
>>>implying media isnt shoving controlled opposition into your face anyway

conspiracy fag detected

>>4120481
exclude the basis for the statement, and then demand the basis for the statement?

that's what passes for science these days?

you would be wise to consider the bible a history book, and not a "fairy tale"

>>4120494
then how old was the deer?

Also, the video doesnt state if the tusks of the mammoth were examined. It just said front to back.

>>4120504
thats not hope at all. hope has nothing to do with any kind of degree of certainty. its nothing to do with certainty or uncertainty. l2dictionary

>>4120489
that's some other dude. i'm the dude that can't watch the video and wondered what was in it

>>4120510
the bible is proof people once wrote about conversations with god. its not proof that it actually happened. that much is taken on faith. trust. hope.

>>4120515
hope has in its makeup the object providing the hope

the object providing my hope is God

>>4120509
You honestly think that TWO news outlets with TWO vastly different viewer bases, owned originally by the same PARENT company isnt aimed at making conversation between themselves?

>>4120520
Of course it does. just like trust. having in its makeup the object doesn't make it any more likely that that object is what you say it is. it just means you hope it is.

>>4120503
i am really only interested in what the truth is, not what other people believe

but thanks for playing

>>4120524
if creationism had value. word would get out and it would actually be based on something substantial. its not therefore its not.

>>4120510
>consider the bible a history book

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

ROTFLMFAO!

A history book that contradict every other history book....LMFAO.
Should we consider Lord of the Rings a History Book as well? What about the Chronincals of Narna?

>>4120527
Thats irrelevant. I was not asserting argument ad populem

I was showing evidence to oppose the idea that evolution leads to this:

>if God did not create life, then life had to come from the unliving

>>4120538
The bible gives depictions of life from ancient times...

Yes, the bible is a history book.

-1/10

>>4120540
>>4120529
>>4120526
>>4120519
creationists and apologists told told and told once again

>>4120546
its proof people wrote about god. not proof that what they wrote about actually happened. you cannot refute this. you just have to take it on faith. trust. hope that it is true. because you're stubborn and weakminded and scared of OH NO A WORLD WITHOUT GOD. :SSS

>>4120554
And one more TOLD for goodluck. ha!


trolls consider yourselves DEFEATED!!!

>>4120513
dunno, but less than 6100 years

lulz

>>4120561
>implying that comment refutes the TOLDs:

>>4120557
>>4120547

>>4120519
it's hard to read how many times God told people what was going to happen in the future, sometimes hundreds of years in the future, sometimes thousands of years in the future, and think that somehow God did not have a hand in it

we are living in the end times, when many of the prophecies of Daniel and John the Revelator are coming true right before our eyes

strange days indeed

>>4120128
>my face when nobody knows the name of the moon
I don't know the name of a lot of things. I know its a moon and that's all that matters. People are born and raised hearing it called the moon.

It would be similar for yelling at someone for only calling The Republic of Iran simply Iran

>>4120565
>many of the prophecies of Daniel and John the Revelator are coming true right before our eyes

you actually believe this.


ahahahahaha. you have no basis

>>4120526
exactly. my hope and trust are in Christ Jesus

there is no more solid foundation than that

certainly not mankind's knowledge, which is incomplete at best, and completely wrong, or even deliberately wrong, in the worst cases

>>4120529
why do you think hundreds of millions of people know it to be true, then? and have known it for thousands of years?

no, it is quite recent that mankind has attempted to explain the universe in terms without God, and that has not led to any increase in wisdom, only an increase of knowledge, and of that, not all good, not at all

>>4120571
>there is no more solid foundation than that

haha it is no more solid a foundation than anything else.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchhausen_Trilemma


sorry to burst your bubble there sweetie. :P

>>4120538
no, just the bible. i would scrap any history book that directly contradicts the bible, though i have never personally run across one

>>4120510
>Write some fairtales for entertainment

>Dumb people in the future consider them historical texts

ISHYGDDT

>>4120570
You dont even know the prophecy in daniel, revelation, ezeikiel, isaiah, or malachi!!

You have no basis!

>>4120579

>>4120576
>hundreds of millions of people know it to be true

No. they dont 'know' it. they take it on faith. haha

>>4120580
what are they then?i bet none of it is happening now. haha

>>4120540
then you left out the part where people believe that God got evolution started by creating the universe, a la deism, the watchmaker theory, that is less true than evolution

at least we can see evolution changing things over time, i.e., longer beaks for droughts, etc. what we cannot see, and never will see, is life coming from non-life, or something coming from nothing.

>>4120565
Troll or fucking retarded.


2/10

>>4120565
> we are living in the end times

LOL! It's not the end of the world, Western oil-wasting dirtbag! It's the end of YOUR world. You're gonna be stranded in your suburbs while the nigger packs close in for the kill.

>>4120554
i would do everything in my power to avoid being in a place where God is not

you, on the other hand, merrily skip down the broad road to destruction

ponderous

>>4120591
>then you left out the part where people believe that God got evolution started by creating the universe, a la deism, the watchmaker theory, that is less true than evolution

No i didn't. this is the point *I* raised to refute your point. you've lost track of this conversation. you've trolled your last, son.

>>4120128
Giving any credibility to "magic" and "fairytales"

5/10

>>4120557
you seem to have a lot invested in what other people have to post

maybe you should start thinking for yourself?

>>4120596
>implying you can discover anything about god.
>implying the fact that people wrote stuff about god makes that god more likely to be real


deluded gonna delude

>>4120599
Agreeing with this.

>so much greentext right now lolololol

>>4120599
i posted all those tolds. haha you cant even comprehend that someone can post rapidly. how can you even form valid conclusions. lol

>>4120611
ah, you were congratulating yourself. perhaps one day you will have others congratulating you.

that's kind of like sex to masturbation

is it so hard to believe that some people seek truths from a kinder and warmer system than rationality's cold steely embrace?

the scientific world is the wire monkey from harry harlow's experiment

>>4120598
i think you need to re-read your posts. they do not say what you think they say

just because others believe in "god" and evolution, is completely irrelevant

just because you don't believe in creationism, is completely irrelevant

just because somebody thinks they are napoleon bonaparte living under a bridge, is totally irrelevant

only the truth matters, not what i believe, or what you believe, or what they believe

only the truth

>>4120611
i am insanely jealous, though; i am having to repost and recaptcha like 6 times each post, and some get lost

>>4120612
>implying that insult refutes any of my points ITT.

you really aren't trying

you're neither trying hard enough to troll, or hard enough to genuinely argue your side. lol

>>4120622
Nice twisting my own points back on to me because you have none of your own. my beliefs have better certainty and justification behind them, mainly because i dont believe in anything. haha. you lose sucka

>>4120621
>implying science=cold
>implying straw men
>implying equivocation

>>4120641
how does believing in nothing equate to a win?

and if you think i missed your point, or are afraid of it somehow, would you mind terribly restating it, but coherently this time?

tia

>>4120652
reread the thread. i haven't made a point. ive only refuted your's. you did not hold up well.

i don't believe because to believe = to doubt. there's no need to believe in things you're certain of. i don't accept anything there is no high degree of certainty for. I mostly criticise things people profess, including myself. hence, how i reach near certainty.

>>4120666
nice trips, quite appropos

do you realize that you have made no points, refuted no points, and contributed nothing in this thread?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Velikovsky


belongs in this thread lololol

>>4120677
You fail at reading comprehension or you're just stubborn as a rock. I feel sorry for you. Why don't you wish to intellectually better yourself?

is it really so hard to understand why some people seek truth from a kinder and warmer system than rationality's cold steely embrace?

the scientific world is the wire monkey from harry harlow's experiment

whoops didn't mean to doublepost that

>>4120706
no, it deserved two postings. looking into it now.

>>4120703
nice, especially when, as i see it, only the terrycloth monkey (God) actually provides the milk

>>4120719
>>4120703

>implying science and religion even try to provide the same things.

sciences provides probabilities of high certainty.
religion provides comfort.

you can get comfort from lots of things but probabilities of high certainty only come from privileged sources.

religion isn't as ecessary as science. Sorry to burst your bubble, friends :(

>>4120757

"high certainty" has no intrinsic value outside its ability to provide comfort; consider your own bubble burst as well

>>4120779
>>4120779
high certainty doesnt necessarily provide any comfort. it could be be high certainty of uncomfortable things, or not.
consider your rebuttal adequately countered.

>>4120801

right, it's the same role, just for some people god and jesus play it, and for others precision and accuracy

>>4120779
probability has nothing to do with comfort.

>>4120809
precision and accuracy dont provide me an comfort. its a hindrance getting there in fact. its why im not scientist.

im not a scientist and im not religious. consider your dichotomy false.

>>4120809
bayes' theorem shows precision and accuracy in experiments isn't comforting at all. precision and accuracy isn't even close to the purpose god and jesus play

you can get what god and jesus give you from many tings and people do. you ca only get what sciences gives you, from one place

>>4120817
>>4120828
>>4120838
>>4120812

Richard Feynmann !Hwop/gspA. = TOLD

>>4120809
but religious people dont even pretend they're not after precision and accuracy like you claim. they spend considerable resources trying to convince us that creationism and the bible are precise and accurate.

>>4120868
a final told

sage for end of thread

>>4120255
But the sky IS red at a certain point you fucking idiot.

"Less than 300 supernovae observed.
- Why so few?"