More scientific probability and the Genesis account

Originally posted by RJHinds
You are lying for you have no way of knowing what I have read or what I haven't read.

sure i have a way of knowing what you have read; it's called your posting record. from that record, i know the following:

you haven't read any history books
you haven't read the bible
you haven't read any books on evolution theory
you haven't read any scientific books in general

You are only speculating the same as those scientist do on the origin of the universe, the age of the earth, the origin of life, and that there is such a thing as biological evolution. They are all wrong, too.

you have no way of knowing this, you haven't read anything on the subjects.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
sure i have a way of knowing what you have read; it's called your posting record. from that record, i know the following:

you haven't read any history books
you haven't read the bible
you haven't read any books on evolution theory
you haven't read any scientific books in general

You are only speculating the same as those scientist do on t ...[text shortened]... oo.

you have no way of knowing this, you haven't read anything on the subjects.

"Physical cosmology, as it is now understood, began with the twentieth century development of Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity and better astronomical observations of extremely distant objects. These advances made it possible to speculate about the origin of the universe, and allowed scientists to establish the Big Bang Theory as the leading cosmological model. Some researchers still advocate a handful of alternative cosmologies; however, cosmologists generally agree that the Big Bang theory best explains observations."

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

Did you notice it said specualate about the origin of the universe?

SPECULATIONS concerning the origin of life and laboratory efforts to prove how life began lie outside the scientific domain. Scientifically, man can only postulate what could have happened or what may have happened, but such efforts can never establish what really did happen.

An astounding number of speculations, models, theories and controversies still surround every aspect of the origin of life problem (Lahav, Noam. 1999. Biogenesis: Theories of life’s origin. Oxford University, New York.)

Therefore, the answer to our original question, “What is the smallest form of nonparasitic life?” probably is an organism close to size and complexity of E. Coli, possibly even larger. No answer is currently possible because we have much to learn about what is required for life. (MacAyeal, Doug. 1995. Challenging an ice-core paleothermometer. Science. 270:444–445.) E. coli, as far as we can tell, is the same today as in the fossil record.

http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp

Dating methods to determine the age of the earth are based on assuptions and therefore must be declared SPECULATIVE. These radiometric dating assumptions include: 1) the initial amount of the daughter isotope is known, 2) neither parent or daughter product has migrated into, or out of, the closed rock system, and 3) decay has occurred at a constant rate over time.

http://orgs.usd.edu/esci/age/content/current_scientific_clocks/isochron_dating.html

http://www.americanclarion.com/8941/2012/06/14/geological-dating-methods-built-unreliable-assumptions/

I can tell you without fear of contradiction that the theory of evolution has not a shred of evidence to support it. On the contrary, during the years of research and investigation since the theory was first advanced, it has been possible to observe certain species of animal and plant life of a short life-span over thousands of generations, yet it has never been possible to establish a transmutation from one species into another, much less to turn a plant into an animal. Hence such a theory can have no place in the arsenal of empirical science.

Intelligent design is the most plausible explanation for the different kinds of plant and animal life. Evolution is not even good SPECULATION. It is a fairy tale for grownup atheists.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=nnj_OtkUK3I

After looking at that last video, it is very clear to me that evolutionists are on the side of Satan the devil and are liars too.

Originally posted by RJHinds
"Physical cosmology, as it is now understood, began with the twentieth century development of Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity and better astronomical observations of extremely distant objects. These advances made it possible [b]to speculate about the origin of the universe, and allowed scientists to establish the Big Bang Theory as the le very clear to me that evolutionists are on the side of Satan the devil and are liars too.[/b][/b]

it has never been possible to establish a transmutation from one species into another .
. .Hence such a theory can have no place in the arsenal of empirical science.

Indeed, its the promulgation of this type of unobserved phenomena in the guise of
empirical science which the materialist advocates as explaining the emergence and
diversification of life and which makes him little more than a religionist , preaching a
creation myth of scientific dogma.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
it has never been possible to establish a transmutation from one species into another .
. .Hence such a theory can have no place in the arsenal of empirical science.

Back with your lies again? I know that I have shown to you before that that claim is untrue, yet you persist in making it. That makes you a liar.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Back with your lies again? I know that I have shown to you before that that claim is untrue, yet you persist in making it. That makes you a liar.

I didn't originate the quotation, its a quotation from RJHs post making your assertion
that i lied quite ludicrous, if fact its as stupid and idiotic as your now obligatory
assertions of lying, it really is the total summation of your spiritual comprehension,
general forum that way dumba$$ this is for people that want to discuss spirituality, not
read your nothingness. You are yet another thats best kicked into touch, as far as i can
discern, you have never posted anything worth serious consideration, ever.

dogs howl into the twilight and the caravan trundles ever onwards.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
it has never been possible to establish a transmutation from one species into another .
. .Hence such a theory can have no place in the arsenal of empirical science.

Indeed, its the promulgation of this type of unobserved phenomena in the guise of
empirical science which the materialist advocates as explaining the emergence and
diversificati ...[text shortened]... hich makes him little more than a religionist , preaching a
creation myth of scientific dogma.

That's right, evolutionary science is solely the domain of the materialist. 🙄🙄

Originally posted by Proper Knob
That's right, evolutionary science is solely the domain of the materialist. 🙄🙄

and those who have supplanted Biblical truth with another teaching.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
and those who have supplanted Biblical truth with another teaching.

Biblical truth?! The self confessed 'closed-minded ignorant' forum poster, also known as Robbie 'scaredy-pants' Carrobie is telling us what the truth is.

Also, there are more religions in the world than Christianity. People can except evolution and be of other faiths and not have to supplant any Biblical teaching, i know you have trouble with that concept.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I didn't originate the quotation, its a quotation from RJHs post making your assertion
that i lied quite ludicrous,

You did not say you were quoting, you stated it as your own words.
If you are now saying it was a quote - one that you don't agree with, then I withdraw my accusation (although you should at least admit that you were rather stupid to quote something you don't agree with and not even say you were quoting or that you didn't agree with the contents).

Originally posted by twhitehead
You did not say you were quoting, you stated it as your own words.
If you are now saying it was a quote - one that you don't agree with, then I withdraw my accusation (although you should at least admit that you were rather stupid to quote something you don't agree with and not even say you were quoting or that you didn't agree with the contents).

Read the thread dumba$$! It may just save you from looking as stupid again.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Biblical truth?! The self confessed 'closed-minded ignorant' forum poster, also known as Robbie 'scaredy-pants' Carrobie is telling us what the truth is.

Also, there are more religions in the world than Christianity. People can except evolution and be of other faiths and not have to supplant any Biblical teaching, i know you have trouble with that concept.

So? your appeals to popular opinion are not a validation for the integrity of the teaching itself, why, two words, unobserved phenomena and anything which is unobserved is not empirical science, is it.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Read the thread dumba$$! It may just save you from looking as stupid again.

Just to clarify, do you, or do you not, admit that what you quoted is untrue?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
So? your appeals to popular opinion are not a validation for the integrity of the teaching itself, why, two words, unobserved phenomena and anything which is unobserved is not empirical science, is it.

I'm not trying to validate anything with popular opinion, i don't need to, the scientific method has done that and continues to do so. I'm disputing your claim that evolution is solely for the realm of the materialist, which is patently false. There are countless people worldwide who believe in a God or Gods (of some description) who accept evolution. I've had this conversation numerous times with you now and yet you still persist in presenting this falsehood.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Just to clarify, do you, or do you not, admit that what you quoted is untrue?

I accept your apology and thankyou for it, from my statement it is clear that i endorse RJH's quotation!

Originally posted by Proper Knob
I'm not trying to validate anything with popular opinion, i don't need to, the scientific method has done that and continues to do so. I'm disputing your claim that evolution is solely for the realm of the materialist, which is patently false. There are countless people worldwide who believe in a God or Gods (of some description) who accept evolution. I' ...[text shortened]... ersation numerous times with you now and yet you still persist in presenting this falsehood.

the scientific method, lol, thats funny, the evolutionary hypothesis remains an
unobserved phenomena and cannot be empirically established, no matter how much
you wish for it. Citing that its acceptable to others who may be non materialists
establishes only one thing, their beliefs are irrational, illogical and have no validation,
why, because the idea of a creator and the idea that live arose through purely material
means are mutually exclusive.