Human Population

[AV1611VET]

Sorry, AVET, but I'm not going to follow you around in circles. You claimed you were ridiculed for being ignorant about science. I corrected you and explained you were ridiculed for bragging about how ignorant you are (and being proud of your ignorance). Do you admit your previous statement was wrong?

No -- I simply don't believe you.

Yes, I've been ridiculed for admitting I'm ignorant, but I have also been ridiculed for being ignorant.

 

[Split Rock]

No -- I simply don't believe you.

Yes, I've been ridiculed for admitting I'm ignorant, but I have also been ridiculed for being ignorant.

I would like to see an example of someone ridiculing you for simply either being ignorant about a subject, or for admitting you are ignorant. Any post where you brag about being ignorant and tell us you are proud of being ignorant doesn't count. Also, any statements chastising you for debating about a subject you admit to being ignorant in doesn't count.

 

[rockaction]

I'm stopping right here -- for obvious reasons.

I admit almost total ignorance -- (okay, I stretched it) -- I admit total ignorance and get ridiculed for it.

Don't think we're going to win any Brownie points with you guys by admitting ignorance.

Man, I don't even know why I even reply to you.

 

[AV1611VET]

I would like to see an example of someone ridiculing you for simply either being ignorant about a subject, or for admitting you are ignorant.

51

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

No -- I simply don't believe you.

Yes, I've been ridiculed for admitting I'm ignorant, but I have also been ridiculed for being ignorant.

When you post stuff like this why are you surprised at being ridiculed for being deliberately ignorant?
http://www.christianforums.com/t7475963-23/#post55171905

 

[AV1611VET]

When you post stuff like this why are you surprised at being ridiculed for being deliberately ignorant?
http://www.christianforums.com/t7475963-23/#post55171905

Because you can't ridicule me for being 'vigilant'?

 

[Split Rock]

51

Thaumaturgy was responding to a sarcastic remark you made, so it doesn't count. Then he complained about anti-intellectualism. Swing and a miss!

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Because you can't ridicule me for being 'vigilant'?

No but we can ridicule you for being vigilantly ignorant since you not only admit to it but seem proud of your vigilant ignorance.

 

[Split Rock]

Because you can't ridicule me for being 'vigilant'?

Why do you constantly see yourself as being "ridiculed?"

 

[AV1611VET]

No but we can ridicule you for being vigilantly ignorant since you not only admit to it but seem proud of your vigilant ignorance.

Well, when you achieve omniscience, look me up.

 

[AV1611VET]

Why do you constantly see yourself as being "ridiculed?"

Guys, we could sit and talk about me until the Rapture; but the fact is, I find myself a boring subject.

Could you guys take your Sciish Inquisition elsewhere, please?

 

[dad]

Ya, dad -- humble yourself before science and show some respect.

You don't have to understand it, just agree with it -- and I mean 100% too.

If science contradicts what you're being taught from the Bible, then you'd better find another church, or you're going to lose your rights to go to the doctor or use the Internet without being considered ... ironic.

It's okay to ask questions here -- just agree automatically and totally with the answers or get out.

And when science changes because of a new discovery or something, they'll let you know.

Got a smile outta that one..

 

[dad]

I didn;t explain the reasons why I know it was gradual, so thanks for the baseless statement -- however...

You don't need to explain them to me. I have looked into it. However, maybe I missed something, you could make your best case.

The lack of malleability of the earths crust would have yielded a different result if it was fast - something like bit's and chunks of earth scattered about.

That's rich. Except that present unmalleability one assumes is a feature of this state.

Since fold-type mountains and the land surrounding them don't look like a chaotic pile of rubble, we know it wasn't the case.

No. You merely know that the fast mountain building wasn't in the present state. I could have told you that.

Your same state past scenarios are debunked as baseless dreams.

 

[dad]

You don't know anything about geology or physics, so why do you think you can criticize the science? What are your credentials?

You don't know what I know. The basics of what geology claims are not rocket science. Try dealing in details. As for physics it is not applicable to the creation/evolution debate.

 

[dad]

..

It's funny how I tend to be more knowledgeable than some self-appointed "experts".

Must be nice being you.

 

[Delphiki]

Oh, that's right! Any time the evidence is just far too overwhelming you can play the "dad's different state" card! lol Give me a break. Get some evidence.

And now we know you don't know what "debunked" means.

 

[dad]

I don't know if this has been brought up, but I have often wondered: If modern humans are as old as scientists speculate, wouldn't our population be much larger than present? Put another way, wouldn't we have been flirting with extinction for a very long time?

Hey, they even resorted to getting bacteria adapted to arsenic, and use that to claim that life may have started many times here...! We just are not dealing with reasonable people, or arguments.

 

[dad]

Oh, that's right! Any time the evidence is just far too overwhelming you can play the "dad's different state" card! lol Give me a break. Get some evidence.

And now we know you don't know what "debunked" means.

The same state past is fallen flat as a flounder. It has no proof. It has no intelligence. It is just a satnic assumption that has run amok, with no one to stop it for too long. It doesn't really rate debunked. It is a never really was more than an assumption type of thing. It has to reach up to scratch a worm's ankle.

 

[Delphiki]

Wrong. It's the only proof we have. You don't have any evidence that states were different.. and if they were, as you assert, they would have been all scaled together in a manner which would make the different state irrelevant and undetected, observed by no one and nothing in this universe, ever.

You haven't even bothered to explain HOW the state was different. What forces? What dimensions? By how much? And most importantly: Where is the evidence?

By the same reasoning, you simply assume that trees were never candy canes, and mountains were never molasses, and ponies didn't live in gingerbread houses. How foolish of you, right?

 

[ug333]

Hey, they even resorted to getting bacteria adapted to arsenic, and use that to claim that life may have started many times here...! We just are not dealing with reasonable people, or arguments.

Where did you hear the claim that life had started multiple times (in regards to the NASA discovery)?