Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
And yet the Grand Canyon was made by Noah's Flood a couple thousand years ago...

I don't even know what you mean by this. I assume you misread my posts generally, and the one to which you respond specifically, and that you assume I advocate replacing Evolution texts with the Old Testamnet..
The Grand Canyon was created by running water. We can prove that since we can look at the rocks, make predictions, and test those predictions. This happened a long time ago; too long for the bible's whatever thousand year life of earth.
To say it was Noah's flood requires faith along with dismissal of fossil evidence that shows major species die-offs, but no complete die off, and certainly nothing like that within the existance of man.
How does that make you unqualified belief in a theory, of which you cannot answer the more basic questions, and less simple faith?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

I won't speak for RT, but I understood her to be pointing out that geology is just as threatening to the views of Young Earth Creationists as evolution is.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I don't even know what you mean by this. I assume you misread my posts generally, and the one to which you respond specifically, and that you assume I advocate replacing Evolution texts with the Old Testamnet..
The Grand Canyon was created by running water. We can prove that since we can look at the rocks, make predictions, and test those predictions. This happened a long time ago; too long for the bible's whatever thousand year life of earth.
To say it was Noah's flood requires faith along with dismissal of fossil evidence that shows major species die-offs, but no complete die off, and certainly nothing like that within the existance of man.
How does that make you unqualified belief in a theory, of which you cannot answer the more basic questions, and less simple faith?

I was just pointing back to my earlier post about the bookstore (run by the National Park Service) at the Grand Canyon selling something that suggested that Noah's recent flood carved those rocks. I wasn't disputing your post, but pointing out that the very basic science that people in general don't quibble with (as opposed to primordial ooze) is now up to interpretation because the science conflicts with the Bible.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I was just pointing back to my earlier post about the bookstore (run by the National Park Service) at the Grand Canyon selling something that suggested that Noah's recent flood carved those rocks. I wasn't disputing your post, but pointing out that the very basic science that people in general don't quibble with (as opposed to primordial ooze) is now up to interpretation because the science conflicts with the Bible.

Forgot about the book, sorry. My point is to enlighten you, and your brethern in your faith to parellel questions you should ask.
I mean, do some Christians do dumb stuff? Shoot yes, they snake handle.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I was just pointing back to my earlier post about the bookstore (run by the National Park Service) at the Grand Canyon selling something that suggested that Noah's recent flood carved those rocks. I wasn't disputing your post, but pointing out that the very basic science that people in general don't quibble with (as opposed to primordial ooze) is now up to interpretation because the science conflicts with the Bible.

Like this:

Skull and Bones

Kenneth Vernor has gotten a bit of publicity ever since the 38,000-year-old skull and tusks of some Columbian mammoths were discovered on his property out in Clute [TX]. What hasn't come out, though, is that Vernor doesn't believe any of this heathen garbage about living things possibly being that old.

"I don't buy any of that -- that's just the evolutionists," says Vernor, who owns the sand pit where the mammoth was discovered. "I think the earth's less than 10,000 years old."

He says he's officially named the second of the two mammoths discovered Asiel, which he says is Hebrew for "God is creator."

"No matter what the evolutionists do to me, I'll have the last word in the matter," he says.

Texas A&M archaeologists are really kinda sure the mammoth remains are older than what Vernor claims -- and they do this for a living -- but the Clute businessman analyzes that there's a flaw in the carbon-dating process. He will be bringing in four "creationist" scientists (apparently from the Oxymoron Society) to do their own study of what A&M finds.

After that, they'll move on to debunking that fraud Copernicus.

http://houstonpress.com/issues/2004-...l/1/index.html

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Like this:

Skull and Bones

Kenneth Vernor has gotten a bit of publicity ever since the 38,000-year-old skull and tusks of some Columbian mammoths were discovered on his property out in Clute [TX]. What hasn't come out, though, is that Vernor doesn't believe any of this heathen garbage about living things possibly being that old.

"I don't buy any of that -- that's just the evolutionists," says Vernor, who owns the sand pit where the mammoth was discovered. "I think the earth's less than 10,000 years old."

He says he's officially named the second of the two mammoths discovered Asiel, which he says is Hebrew for "God is creator."

"No matter what the evolutionists do to me, I'll have the last word in the matter," he says.

Texas A&M archaeologists are really kinda sure the mammoth remains are older than what Vernor claims -- and they do this for a living -- but the Clute businessman analyzes that there's a flaw in the carbon-dating process. He will be bringing in four "creationist" scientists (apparently from the Oxymoron Society) to do their own study of what A&M finds.

After that, they'll move on to debunking that fraud Copernicus.

http://houstonpress.com/issues/2004-...l/1/index.html

You know things have gotten completely out of whack when the Aggies are painted with the liberal brush.

[andViolins]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I don't even know what you mean by this. I assume you misread my posts generally, and the one to which you respond specifically, and that you assume I advocate replacing Evolution texts with the Old Testamnet..

No offense Hank, but I've been trying to follow your ramblings for most of the day now, and I still have no fucking idea just what it is you are advocating.

aV

I assume that this makes me one of the unenlighted, unwashed, unlearned folks. Oh well.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Like this:

Skull and Bones

Kenneth Vernor has gotten a bit of publicity ever since the 38,000-year-old skull and tusks of some Columbian mammoths were discovered on his property out in Clute [TX]. What hasn't come out, though, is that Vernor doesn't believe any of this heathen garbage about living things possibly being that old.

"I don't buy any of that -- that's just the evolutionists," says Vernor, who owns the sand pit where the mammoth was discovered. "I think the earth's less than 10,000 years old."

He says he's officially named the second of the two mammoths discovered Asiel, which he says is Hebrew for "God is creator."

"No matter what the evolutionists do to me, I'll have the last word in the matter," he says.

Texas A&M archaeologists are really kinda sure the mammoth remains are older than what Vernor claims -- and they do this for a living -- but the Clute businessman analyzes that there's a flaw in the carbon-dating process. He will be bringing in four "creationist" scientists (apparently from the Oxymoron Society) to do their own study of what A&M finds.

After that, they'll move on to debunking that fraud Copernicus.

http://houstonpress.com/issues/2004-...l/1/index.html

You all keep missing the point, or as my friend Thurgreed would say, why the fuck can't you listen?
No need to pile on about them- much of this shit is apparently vapid. The problem is you.
what about Piltdown man? Read a 50 year old astrophysics book. What were theories then, are silly now. Yet you believe as truth anything you're told is "science." Why?
All of you would do better to trust only what I say. I won't gloss over gaps, nor mislead. Let me be your science.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Yet you believe as truth anything you're told is "science." Why?

(1) Not true, unless Josh concurs.

(2) Even if true, only because I am lazy, and would rather spend my time lounging about and eating bon-bons.

[andViolins]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
You all keep missing the point, or as my friend Thurgreed would say, why the fuck can't you listen?
No need to pile on about them- much of this shit is apparently vapid. The problem is you.
what about Piltdown man? Read a 50 year old astrophysics book. What were theories then, are silly now. Yet you believe as truth anything you're told is "science." Why?
All of you would do better to trust only what I say. I won't gloss over gaps, nor mislead. Let me be your science.

Ahhhh. Now I see. So this would be the point where you offer me the little blue pill or the little red pill and tell me something about how much deeper the rabbit hole goes.

aV

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
You all keep missing the point, or as my friend Thurgreed would say, why the fuck can't you listen?
No need to pile on about them- much of this shit is apparently vapid. The problem is you.
what about Piltdown man? Read a 50 year old astrophysics book. What were theories then, are silly now. Yet you believe as truth anything you're told is "science." Why?
All of you would do better to trust only what I say. I won't gloss over gaps, nor mislead. Let me be your science.

Wow, Hank. This is nearly incomprehensible.

Fortunately I read the one coherent post where you (in response to Bilmore) discussed your actual position on these issues.

You trying some kind of Koresh thing on the Board?

S_A_M

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
You trying some kind of Koresh thing on the Board?

Apparently Not Me is already tithing to him. Wish I'd thought of that first.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Wow, Hank. This is nearly incomprehensible.

No, I think he's making the point that we shouldn't be less critical of an assertion merely because it's offered on some "scientific" basis without being willing (or able) to judge the actual science soundly. Taking either simply on faith results in stories of arks as well as stories of melting igloos. There is no more merit in simply believing there are beelyons and beelyons of stars 'cuz Sagan said so than there is in believing that someone turned into salt after seeing his wife 'cuz you read it in a Book.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by bilmore
No, I think he's making the point that we shouldn't be less critical of an assertion merely because it's offered on some "scientific" basis without being willing (or able) to judge the actual science soundly.

I think I got that part. But the post was still nearly incomprehensible.

Also, given that most people lack the qualifications "to judge the actual science soundly", (and many lack the brains) that premise suggests that either no one except scientists should criticize anything or, that everyone should criticize everything -- even though we lack basis.

(or, did I get that backwards? I can't tell anymore.)

S_A_M

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
(1) Not true, unless Josh concurs.

I spit up my drink on this one.