A message from Lab Rat

[poptart]

lol

I didn't gloss over it.
I heard your answer.
Just as I heard Bri's "priestly class" take earlier.
And now he's thinking I've glossed over that, too.

pffft ...

There are too many questions, too many assertions, too many assumptions, too many off-shoots of points, too much rhetoric ... to reply to all of it, Van.

Why don't you just feel thankful that you've had a "young man creationist" put himself up as your punching bag for as long as I have done so for you.


Understand that I, like all of you, was also indocrinated into the OLD man concept.
I know the drill and very little of what y'all say comes as anything new to me.

On the other hand, what I am saying MIGHT be something that most of you have really never ... honestly ... considered before.
It might be something new that you've never REALLY given any open-minded thought to.

Based on all that you've heard, been schooled in, and assumed, young man sounds preposterous.
I get that.

If you want to step out and look into things and consider them, it might be worthwhile to do so.
If you think not, that's fine.


Belief in old man or young man is certainly not a condition for man's salvation, which is found only in Christ.

[Mikey]

The thing that's hard to picture is that mankind's technological progress, like population growth, has not been constant or linear, like this:






but probably some exponential function, with a shape like this:






You wonder how so much progress could have been made in the past 5000 years compared to the previous 190,000 years.
Consider how much progress has been made in the last 100 years compared to the previous 4900 years.

Same deal.

[poptart]

Here is a fun exercise to look at the population question.

Assume the flood of Noah ended 4,200 yrs ago (rough approx. based on Bible info).
Assume 3 couples (Noah's 3 sons and their wives) came out of the ark (Bible info).
Assume .5% average human growth rate going forward from that point in time (current rate is said to be around 1%, so .5% is maybe conservative, but let's accomodate for wars, famine, pestilence, and slower times and areas).

Plug in those numbers and we would have this for current world population:
7,509,493,188

6,700,000,000 is the real current world population.



Now if you want to plug in just 150,000 years (we're told it's 200,00) for man's time on earth.
And plug in probably a VERY conservative starting number of 100 people.
And plug in a VERY conservative population growth number of .05%
- note that again, point ZERO 5 percent

Our current world population ought to be this number:
3,663,918,751,830,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

har har


http://www.metamorphosisalpha.com/ias/population.php




Just posted for your entertainment.

And again, I expect my detractors to go ape-shit (hi Shrub) and shove this little exercise aside (or up my @ss), but not without many "YOU DUMBFUCK, DON'T YOU KNOW ... such and such" included as part of their friendly ... thank you ... for the gift I've given them.


:wink:

[poptart]

I don't accept all that "science" tells me.
If you do, hey, don't let me stop you from accepting it.
It's all good.

But I'll try to help you know where I am coming from, since you're wanting to know.

Prevailing scientific view is not always correct scientific view.

Man-made global warming??
Fact?
So we have been told ... over and over.
Those who oppose are crackpots.

This is a fun list:

http://amasci.com/weird/vindac.html


There is a very strong "mood" within all of academia to discredit the Bible - science included.
Much of science comes at things from an already established assumption that things are very old and evolution has taken place.
Know that there are many creation scientists who vehemently disagree with the prevailing old age view.
But they are like those who oppose man-made global warming.
They are crackpots.
Myself, I happen to find them very interesting.

And know also that there are people reading this board who agree with what I am saying - although they have not chosen to participate in the discussion.


I don't believe all science is invalid at all.
Science is terrific.
Yes,
I question things if they don't seem right to me, though - even if they are things that are said to be factual by many people.
I laugh at macroeveolution, even though it is routinely passed off as fact.
It's a total joke of an idea as far as I'm concerned.

I questioned the Bible for a long time and I regard it as bunk.
I now believe it 100%.
It's all God's Word.
And the reason I've come to that view is because I've had the profound EXPERIENCE many many times that 100% faith is necessary for God's works to take place.
As soon as disbelief creeps in, the darkness is established.
This is exactly what the Bible tells us and this is what I have experienced.
It's very hard to explain this phenomenon to someone who is a non-believer, but it's very real to me.
So I seek to believe God 100%.

People can take the first 3 chapters of Genesis in varying ways.
I take it as a literal reading because it is written that way and there is NO indication anywhere in Scripture that it is to be taken as anything other than a literal reading.
The six day thing flies in the face of established scientific conclusion.
Ok.
It's just not a big deal to me because believers can have differing views on it if they like.

Science and faith can absolutely co-exist.

I have faith in Christ even though I deny the scientific "fact" of old man.
Another believer in Christ can think evolution is real.

We're still brothers in faith.


I don't care at all what the Vatican has to say, other than to just casually make note of it.

[Van]

lol

I didn't gloss over it.
I heard your answer.
Just as I heard Bri's "priestly class" take earlier.
And now he's thinking I've glossed over that, too.

pffft ...

Hearing the answers then conspicuously avoiding a discussion about them is the precise definition of glossing over them, pop.

You asked a question. I gave you the answer. You avoided it, and continued asking the question.

Basically, you don't want the answer. You simply want to hide behind the question.

There are too many questions, too many assertions, too many assumptions, too many off-shoots of points, too much rhetoric ... to reply to all of it, Van.

Nonsense. You specifically asked myself, 88 and one other person to answer your question. When I answered it, you hid from the answer, depsite my answer consisting of only three words: Industrial Revolution and electricity.

I know the drill and very little of what y'all say comes as anything new to me.

Likewise. Mindless Thumper Speak is as old as the hills. Ignoring science and eschewing reason is hardly a novel concept.

On the other hand, what I am saying MIGHT be something that most of you have really never ... honestly ... considered before.
It might be something new that you've never REALLY given any open-minded thought to.

That could also be said about countless other completely whack trains of thought. It's pretty simple, pop. Until you get off the fundy bandwagon and admit that the OT is not to be taken literally - and not just the allegories about being led to sleep in green fields - you have no credibility. What you preach is every bit as silly as the hundreds of other Tenets O' Laughable Bullshit from various cults you would openly deride.

Pretty much, dude, as long as you still describe as "believable" and "common sense" the ridiculous story of Noah's Arc, you have zero business questioning science or the implausibility of mankind's recent rapid progress. A guy who can stand there and espouse his heartfelt conviction that penguins, polar bears and alligators somehow made their way across entire continents and vast oceans to a desert in the Middle East really does need to smile benignly, eat his graham crackers and milk in silence and otherwise sit in the corner and shut the fuck up.

When that's what you bring to the table, you've arrived empty-handed.

[BSmack]

Likewise. Mindless Thumper Speak is as old as the hills. Ignoring science and eschewing reason is hardly a novel concept.

Yet I'll bet he still gets his vaccinations.

[Van]

"I questioned the Bible for a long time and I regard it as bunk.
I now believe it 100%.
It's all God's Word.
And the reason I've come to that view is because I've had the profound EXPERIENCE many many times that 100% faith is necessary for God's works to take place.
As soon as disbelief creeps in, the darkness is established.
This is exactly what the Bible tells us and this is what I have experienced.
It's very hard to explain this phenomenon to someone who is a non-believer, but it's very real to me.
So I seek to believe God 100%.

So that's it, in a nutshell: You're afraid to question the Bible. It's not so much that you believe but rather that you fear reprisal.

Basically, you're one of Hitler's speech writers.

[Tom In VA]

I'll take poptart's rock solid faith steeped in EXPERIENCE over sophistry and pseudo-science wannabe rhetoric any day.

Fact is, there are very few scientific LAWS, most is just a theory. I find it humourous to see so many folks "eschew" the fact that there are a host of scientists that have faith - as solid as poptarts. That SCIENCE, is not infallible - and in poptart's OBSERVABLE experience God's Word is.

The Wright Brothers were scoffed at by the scientists of their day.




ROCK ON Poptart.





That being said, I agree entirely with what everyone has said, they've all brought a value and quality to this thread that I cannot seem to find elsewhere on the internet. Information, enlightenment, while at the same - the laughs.


Rock on Brothers. Please select the one appropriate for you.

a. God Bless
b. Science Bless.
c. Good Luck with Your Self Delusions
d. Nothing, absolute nothingness and oblivion.
e. Whatever kind of day you want to have.
f. All of the Above

[Van]

Tom, just how many of those scientists who have faith extend it to a belief in talking serpents or the fables of Adam and Eve and Noah's arc?

One can still believe in the divinity of Christ - which is all that really matters in the end, in terms of having faith as a Christian - without needing to adopt a literal interpretation of silly, allegorical fables in the OT.

Try not to misrepresent the beliefs of those scientists, 'k?

[ppanther]

Try not to misrepresent the beliefs of those scientists, 'k?

...and who exactly are you speaking for?

[Van]

Those scientists who don't require a literal interpretation of the silly fables in the OT in order to maintain faith in the divinity of Christ. Many Christians don't feel the need to accept at face value stories like Adam and Eve or Noah's arc, yet they still have faith in God and Christ.

I thought I'd made that point fairly clearly.

[ppanther]

OK... so just those scientists then. That's meaningful. Thanks!

[Van]

Yes, it is, because those scientists who are Christians very likely greatly outnumber those bizarre few who maintain an abiding faith in talking snakes, 900-year-old men and flightless water fowl making their way from Antarctica to Syria. There aren't a whole lotta scientists who are ever going to put a lot of faith in a lone man spawning a woman from his rib, much less all the races of the world, strictly through single-DNA incest.

Tell me you knew.

[Dinsdale]

Just screw all that carbon/argon dating shit. It works flawlessly and accurately, and the results are reproducible over and over...

Except for some odd reason, the whole process magically shuts down once it gets to 6000 years.

It's much more reasonable to think a couple were plunked down randomly, then acquired the ability to speak, read, and write because they ate the wrong apple -- which of course led them to develop agriculture overnight...

infinitely more believable.

[Go Coogs']

I'm on the fence about this particular subject. I've always believed a little of both.

But I will say this...

Jim Caviezel was struck by lightening while hoisted up on the cross when playing the part of Jesus Christ. People who saw it claim Caviezel had fire on both sides of his head. That is fucking eerie.

[ppanther]

...very likely...

Tell me you knew.

Because you said so? Or are you hanging out with the science crowd these days? Don't tell me... you've read about this stuff all over the internet and are therefore now an expert?

Really, the topic is irrelevant. The arrogance is thick.

[Van]

Look in the mirror before you go offering up claims of arrogance.

Oh, and yeah, it's a safe bet that the vast majority of scientists, even Christian ones, don't buy the story of Adam and Eve or Noah's arc. If you wish to dispute this beyond your smarmy nothings about my not hanging out with scientists, well, good luck with that.

[ppanther]

Look in the mirror before you go offering up claims of arrogance.

Oh rolleyes, how well you fit here...

If you wish to dispute this

Dispute what? Your opinions? Why on earth would that be a dispute worth engaging?

[poptart]

Galileo, stop with the nonsense, you gibbering dumbfuck. It is an established scientific FACT that they sun revolves around the earth. STFU.


- the 1600 know-it-alls

[poptart]

When I answered it, you hid from the answer, depsite my answer consisting of only three words: Industrial Revolution and electricity.

As I've said, Van, I'm not satisfied at all with the idea that man was around for about 200,000 years before he could get with the program and then get to the IR, where incredible progress was seen.

If it works for you, that's fine.

[Van]

Yet you're satisfied with the idea of a single man and his lone strand of DNA somehow being able to populate an entire planet with all manner of people.

Yeah, solid critical thinking. Your burning circumspection is truly admirable.

[mvscal]

Galileo, stop with the nonsense, you gibbering dumbfuck. It is an established scientific FACT that they sun revolves around the earth. STFU.


- the 1600 know-it-alls

Know it alls who were employed by the Church. Good job kicking your own ass once again, dumbfuck.

[PSUFAN]

My suggestion - if you want to take part in a meaningful discussion about religion and how the Bible might be interpreted - with what is "true" in the balance, then best shove yourself away from mentioning The Vatican. Sure, the Vatican is now willing to go both ways on creation/evolution, because the details just don't matter to them, as long as the money, kids to exploit, and property tax exemptions keep rolling in.

Rack poptart...if you're going to advocate gobbledygook, then far better to go all the way, rather than this creation/evolution/mix nonsense.

[poptart]

Galileo, stop with the nonsense, you gibbering dumbfuck. It is an established scientific FACT that they sun revolves around the earth. STFU.


- the 1600 know-it-alls

Know it alls who were employed by the Church. Good job kicking your own ass once again, dumbfuck.

lol

Being of the church or not of the church is irrelevant.

I trust you don't imagine that today's man-made global warming crowd is paid for the church.

The point is that the arrogant and prevailing scientific voice of the time had it's collective head up it's @ss.

[stuckinia]

pop,

the defense of your horrible stance regarding science vs church is worse than my shitty attempts at smack.

they are both embarrassing.

[poptart]

Stuck, I don't know how many times I need to say - I don't KNOW the ages of things.
I'm not asserting the ages of things.

I was asked - and I gave my opinion.
And all I've done since is give backing, when asked MORE questions, for why I think what I do.

This somehow angers many people.
I find it funny.


Science vs. the church?

I've also said many times that I don't put ANY competition at all between science and my faith.
If someone else does, that's their issue.


Jesus is the Christ - the end.

[stuckinia]

pop,

i sympathize with your position. honestly. i do not freaking understand it. but i do understand believing the complete opposite of the accepted dogma. i work in a research lab in a university. (i guess lab rat isn't the only edumacated one here. i simply refuse to show it in the quality of my posts.) i think manmade global warming is horseshit. everyone thinks i am a douche. i feel bad that they are so stupid. it is still crazy that you refuse to understand human evolution. ignore monkey->human shit. focus on how slow man learns. 190,00 years is nothing. hoodrats STILL cannot figure out how to not get arrested.

[Goober McTuber]

That being said, I agree entirely with what everyone has said, they've all brought a value and quality to this thread that I cannot seem to find elsewhere on the internet. Information, enlightenment, while at the same - the laughs.


Rock on Brothers. Please select the one appropriate for you.

a. God Bless
b. Science Bless.
c. Good Luck with Your Self Delusions
d. Nothing, absolute nothingness and oblivion.
e. Whatever kind of day you want to have.
f. All of the Above
g. Go fuck yourself. Amen.

I'll go with (g).

[Tom In VA]

That being said, I agree entirely with what everyone has said, they've all brought a value and quality to this thread that I cannot seem to find elsewhere on the internet. Information, enlightenment, while at the same - the laughs.


Rock on Brothers. Please select the one appropriate for you.

a. God Bless
b. Science Bless.
c. Good Luck with Your Self Delusions
d. Nothing, absolute nothingness and oblivion.
e. Whatever kind of day you want to have.
f. All of the Above
g. Go fuck yourself. Amen.

I'll go with (g).

Whatever floats your boat Goobs. Enjoy fucking yourself.

[OCmike]

Noah's arc

So the burning bush was an electrical experiment gone wrong?

[Van]

"God finds Mary sleeping and just sticks the tip in and drops his load."

[Tom In VA]

@something totally different though.

[poptart]

focus on how slow man learns. 190,00 years is nothing.

How slow man learns?

Really?

What is .. observable ... is that man is a very fast learner.
He's diligent, industrious, and he has an innate drive to -----> advance himself.

This is what is observable.

For one of endless examples, he tried to get a craft off the ground, and then when he managed to do that, he went to the friggin' moon and back in 70 years.

190,000 years.

I admit it's a fun concept.

[smackaholic]

Galileo, stop with the nonsense, you gibbering dumbfuck. It is an established scientific FACT that they sun revolves around the earth. STFU.


- the 1600 know-it-alls

Know it alls who were employed by the Church. Good job kicking your own ass once again, dumbfuck.

kinda what I'm thinking. my self roundhouse kick to the head during the it"s spelling debacle's got nothing on this one.

[poptart]

The only difference between "the church" of the 1600's and the man-made global warmers of today is that today we have an infinitely wider flow of OPEN information for people to be aware of.

If you don't think the global warmers would suppress all opposition - if they could, just as the 1600's "church" did - you seriously need to think again.

[Atomic Punk]

poopfart, you seem to proclaim yourself as the apologist for the "True Christian's" yet you are an idiot for differing reasons.

The Earth is 6000 y/o because you don't factor in science and the God says he's the Alpha & Omega. Do you think He was referring time being something an infinite being has to dumb down for morons that go to Korea like yourself? I think so as evidenced by you thinking the world is 6000 y/o in literal terms. Do you really think God is telling you how old the world is when a day is like a thousand years? Did He not say you (yes you poopfart) don't know the day of the Rapture? Are you the next Nostra? (joke implied)

You don't know shit other than having faith others may have. You are a judgmental POS that married not only a dog eater, but moved to Kimsheeville, KOOOOOORHEAA.

What IF? I mean, you fundies believe in literal writings from ancient people that were explaining things to dumbfucks of their time. Basic science, I mean Geology for example, kicks your 6000 years to the curb. The geology in itself is evidence that this planet is pretty old. Plate techtonics and movements of land masses to eventually crush into each other to create pressures to force land masses into each other, etc. etc.

Geology does not say the Bible is wrong. You just don't understand what you take as history versus 6000 years and not understanding the Bible may be making a point about the concept of time which you clearly are confused about.

Softball: If God says you don't understand time and dumbs it down for you in the face of basic science, then what whack job church needs to be burned down next?

[poptart]

AP, you didn't take any time to read my posts.

I said I think the earth might be VERY old, and that a large "gap" of time may exist between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2.

I said I view life as being in the 6,000 yr old range - but that perhaps animal life is older than that.

I said I think MAN is around 6,000 yrs old, as I find it much harder to reconcile Scripture to him being very very old.

And I also conceed that I might be wrong about ALL of those takes - because I just don't know what the age of things are.


Further, I don't pretend to be some voice for the "True Christians," I'm just giving MY takes.


The level of misrepresentation of takes given by myself, as well as what the Bible says, by people in this thread are too numerous to respond to and would, quite frankly, make Foolix blush.

[mvscal]

Do you really think God is telling you how old the world is when a day is like a thousand years?

A day is not 1,000 years, idiot. It is 24 hours in any language.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

Do you really think God is telling you how old the world is when a day is like a thousand years?

A day is not 1,000 years, idiot. It is 24 hours in any language.

I think he was just trying to give context to metaphor.

[PSUFAN]

If God says you don't understand time and dumbs it down for you in the face of basic science, then what whack job church needs to be burned down next?

pithy