25 Million Dollars, it must be true.....

elproximo hilariously said:

latin words for thunder and lizard kinda blows the theory that "thunder lizard in latin means dinosaur"
http://www.archives.nd.edu/cgi-bin/lookdown.pl?thunder+lizard

dinosaur has its etymology in greek and its like this
http://www.etymonline.com

actually proximo - I just sussed out you dont do anything but troll and talk shit do you ?
ha ha ha

 

oooooooooo -don't ya just wanna slap the fuck outa' some people?If humans weren't so damn stupid,war-like,greedy,self righteous,killing,biological (bend over and look in the mirror)dumb-asses,then I might start to begin to maybe,consider that some creature of good will had something to do with our business.If and when humans begin to act with benevolence toward ALL creatures on earth-- when little babies stop getting MASHED on highways,and so-called christians start acting like their jesus asked them to--consideration will be paid.With true believers who've found "THE ANSWER"---particularly if passed down by other humans--information goes out--never in.So afraid of death---so afraid.

 

Thx, yes it is from Greek and not Latin.

 

With no evidence whatsoever to support this. It flies in the face of physics and general relativity.

That's convincing...... NOT!

The "deep" in Gen 1:2 is speaking of the deep "water" that god is hovering over. Any other interpretation is merely wishfull thinking in support of YECism.

"This new cosmology was widely hailed in the young-earth movement and has been widely distributed in book form2. The author, Dr. Humphreys, is not formally trained in general relativity or cosmology theory, and his initial article and book acknowledged the tentative character and possible falsity of the new proposal. He also solicited, publicly and privately, feedback from Christian physicists who did have formal training in these disciplines. Starting even before the appearance of Starlight and Time and continuing to the present, such feedback has been forthcoming, and, to our knowledge, it has been uniformly critical of the theory. In fact, Starlight and Time and related writings by Humphreys exhibit profound misunderstandings of relativity theory and cosmology. Humphreys’ theory is irremediably flawed. It is very unfortunate that these writings have been so widely distributed in the young-earth community and have misled so many Christians". CHRISTIAN SOURCE

And here is a secular source discrediting Humphreys

The guy is in this to sell books and lecture time to unsuspecting christians with a need to take the bible as literal, word for word. Wait a minute.... are YOU Dr. Humphreys in disguise? What is REALLY interesting here is the fact that you use some quack nuclear physicist as your source for information because he supports your beliefs, yet when the MAJORITY of science says anything against your belief, you just "willy nilly" dismiss anything they have to say and accuse them of being "out to get" christians.

 

Humphries is a Nuclear Physicist.
The Starlight Question is one of about a thousand others for which no 'proof' can or will be found anytime soon.
Believing that it came from a magical 'supermolecule' containing all the matter of the Universe that just happened to exist and explode is another highly theoretical idea.

The 'in transit' or 'as fully developed' theory is based on something.
Genesis.
For example, Adam is created 'with intelligence'.
'As' would be matured already.
This sort of idea.
So the suggestion that the lights created for him were already stretched to his eyes would square up and really figure.

Humphries obviously got a lot of criticisms but does answer them as well,
http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_rh_03.asp

Here is a tip for you:
Dont bother attributing stupid ideas to me like "and accuse them of being "out to get" christians."
Gimme a fucking break.
You want to see a group of downright frustrated, whining little cry babies who cant attack, cry wolf and play victim then go check out the mob of babies wearing 'FSM' hats and tshirts at one of the Court Rulings to ban ID from Schools.

Me, I serve you notice.

 

Which makes him NOT an expert in cosmology.

Absolutely wrong. We KNOW without a doubt, that light travels at the rate of 186K miles per second in the vacuum of space.

Correct, the BB theory is a theory. Theories have evidence to support them. We have evidence by way of the heat signature left over from the big bang, its called the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation. This was only recently discovered but was predicted many many years before it's discovery. Your thoughts that the universe started as some "super molecule" is a misunderstanding of the big bang. The "bang" itself is a misnomer. Try this if you're really interested in the BB theory.

A book written 3500 years ago, by a sheep herder that "CLAIMS" god told him this. That has credibility written all over it. LOL

Yeah, real smart feller that Adam.... he listens to a woman he barely knows, telling him that a "talking serpant" told her she wouldn't die if she ate from the tree. We also have to remember that Adam was also created from freaking dust.

Why is it easy for you to believe that some super being with the power to create all, who kills off the entire planet except some old drunk and his family, who advocates genecide and the killing and raping of women and children, yet who loves us, can exist forever, but you can't accept that the universe could have existed forever (in another state prior to the BB)?

Here is a tip for you:
Dont bother attributing stupid ideas to me like "and accuse them of being "out to get" christians."
Gimme a fucking break.
You want to see a group of downright frustrated, whining little cry babies who cant attack, cry wolf and play victim then go check out the mob of babies wearing 'FSM' hats and tshirts at one of the Court Rulings to ban ID from Schools.

Me, I serve you notice.[/QUOTE]You seem to have a problem of teaching FSM creationism in schools, how come? The FSM is nor more or less provable/disprovable than Yehweh, we can't see either of them. The bible discribes creationism in a book, the FSM web site discribes its creationism on a web site, both have been seen by millions. If you can have your creationism story taught in public schools on tax payer dollars, then you have to allow for every other creationism story ever told to be taught as well based on the same amount and kind of evidence for all of them. Evolution/Cosmology actually have evidence to support its stories, based on scientific methods (I know that never impresses you but...) , this is why it IS taught in schools. :drool:

 

Do I have to go over this again with you; You are confused about 'Creationism' and 'ID Theory'.
The FSM thing which (in your mind) is some sort of killer 'gotcha' rhetoric does NOT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH KANSAS CITY ID.
Nothing.

I dont have time to get into the rest of this innappropriate responses you are attempting but its really annoying when you internet evofundies continue to get that entirely wrong.

Repeat: ID Theory has nothing to do with FMS, Genesis, Biblical Creationism.
It was an entirely different case.
I dont care that you are fucking that up but for your own embarrassment please consider reading about that case and ID.

 

Jesus said that his followers should help the poor and needy and be good stewards with their resources. So how is this museum gonna help that hungry homeless guy or that kid that lives on the street?

 

Lets see..... You believe in YEC and you believe in ID. ID still leads back to some "personal creator and ruler of the universe" for which there is no evidence for other than your circular logic. "Things are too complex to have happened by chance, so "someone or thing" had to be the "intelligent angent" involved in the creation of everything".

I'm not attempting anything. I'm merely pointing out faults in your logic. You have yet to address them.

Please give a link to it.

 

I realise you are brimming with a false sense of confidence brought on my seeing the same canards go unchallenged over and over so let me see if I can explain some of this to you.

This is almost certainly where the unwitting or naive get confused so Im going to try and make some simple analogy and comparisons.

A 'YEC 'Genesis Creationist' does believe that God is an 'ID' among other things.

A 'ID Scientist' does conclude there is 'an ID' but may very well reject the Bible, have no faith in a god and may very well be a hardcore Evolutionist.

I really hope that helps but reread that if you dare.

Nope.
It only concludes that (from a strictly scientific view) the best and most likely explanation for complex working information is an 'Intelligent Designer'.
It does not have the right or reason to speculate past that.
You 'can' speculate but that is not up to ID Theory or is its concern.
Its just data.

There is no 'circular logic' involved.
You actually had the concept right the first time where you said 'leads back'.
Thats all it is - leading back as far as we can go based on what we have.

Not quite.
The investigator simpy observes that in examples of complex working information in which we do know the cause that cause always has one thing in common - an 'ID'.
So,
From a strictly scientific point of view, whether you like it or not, whether your 'hunch' is right or not,
The 'best and most likely' explanation is that some sort of 'ID' caused life on earth.
What or Who is the ID doesnt enter into it and is not a 'condition' that must be met before step 1 or 2 somehow 'becomes true'.

That 'ID' may be,
Space Aliens,
Thor,
The Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Has absolutely ZERO here nor there with what IS known so far but even more signifigantly it isnt 'ID Theorists' concern or want or for that matter its not even their right to speculate.

Let me try and make this last point even more clear to you and put it in your own context....

Put aside the increasingly abandoned 'Big Bang Theory' controversies and just lets go with that (you seem to) and lets just go with that.
Lets say we are on board on Big Bang.
Ok,
So here is your BB scientist declaring to us that he has led us all the way back to the beginning.. a Supermolecule containing all the information in the Universe.
OHHH WAIT!
Sorry but the Big Bang Theory is not science because it doesnt tell us anything about what made the supermolecule.
Right?
Oh let me get this straight then.. by teaching that a supermolecule came into existance and not telling me who then hahahhaha.. I can just as easily say the 'FSM' must have created it.
Heck.. next Big Bang Convention Im going to wear a 'FSM' hat and laugh at them right?
Wrong.
If you have your shit together then you would point out that our theorists are simply working backwards as far as they can.
The Big Bang doesnt just 'not happen' or become 'not science' because we dont know where it came from.

Same applies to the ID theorist.
He is simply concluding what is the 'leads back' and

You didnt point out faults in logic. not even 'merely'.
You didnt understand what was happening, misrepresented it and then tried to point out flaws in your misrepresentation.
Well done!

http://www.kansasscience2005.com/

Basically, here is what has happened:

It was proposed that students be made aware that some scientists have concluded that 'ID' is the best scientific explanation so far.
Some people did not want students to know this.
The court sided with them and does not allow textbooks to inform students that 'ID Theory' exists.

To sum up the 'reasons' it was censored pretty much goes like this:

Even though ID Theory is held by some scientists, its best if students do not know this
'because'
Religions also believe that God is an 'ID' and student will then be in danger of thinking that some science also shares some same beliefs of some religions.