Scientists don't require time machines to study craters.

[AV1611VET]

Some things are cute when you're a kid, but when you're an adult they're just tragic. Like believing in Santa Claus or the Easter bunny, at this point in your life they're not so funny anymore.

That's true.

 

[Astrid]

Some things are cute when you're a kid, but when you're an adult they're just tragic. Like believing in Santa Claus or the Easter bunny, at this point in your life they're not so funny anymore.

Kinda pathetic, withall and first to last.

 

[AV1611VET]

Some things are cute when you're a kid, but when you're an adult they're just tragic. Like believing in Santa Claus or the Easter bunny, at this point in your life they're not so funny anymore.

Kinda pathetic, withall and first to last.

We don't believe in Santa Claus or the Easter bunny.

And we're against teaching them to children.

 

[SelfSim]

I don't have a purpose, SelfSim.

A bad faith response .. as demonstrated by your attempted 'rebuttal' to evidence based inference with your mere gut-feel opinion:

... In fact, I know it didn't make the dinosaurs go extinct, because Job mentions dinosaurs later on, as does Isaiah.

Then you call for a sc-fi fantasy (a time machine) as support for your faith in an equally unreliable retelling of some Sunday-school bible story.

And you say you have no purpose?
Pfft!

 

[AV1611VET]

Then you call for a sc-fi fantasy ...

Yes.

On behalf of scientists, who don't know the Truth.

As I said in Post 20:

I have a feeling that, if one was built, scientists would line up around the bend to verify this, that, and several other things.

 

[SelfSim]

Yes.

On behalf of scientists, who don't know the Truth.

Science's purpose is not seeking 'the Truth'.

Your purpose is to advocate that it does.

 

[sjastro]

And yet there's the pollen from about six months later. Charred material says fire, but the pollen says there were plants around and conditions that allowed them to live. If it's pollen from grasses and maybe plants associated with wildfire recovery, that's not problematic since they tend to be quick growing and may reestablish in that length of time. But if it was from trees, that would mean there wasn't complete wildfires.,

Your post raises a couple of points.
First of all the New Zealand data does not provide information on pollen or spore fossil data only soot in the K-T layer to make inferences about pollen.
Secondly the only reference I could find on pollen in your link explicitly stated this was due to rapid recovery of plant life after the effects of the impact.

Further evidence of this are K-T core samples with anomalously high number of fern spores which were released into the environment when ferns were subjected to bushfire conditions leading to a rapid recovery of this type of plant life.

Impact-generated Wildfires

Evidence of impact-generated fires was recovered from K-T boundary sediments before it was understood how the fires were produced. Several types of carbon (fusinite, soot, pyrolitic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, carbonized plant debris, and charcoal) indicated fire had swept over some continental regions. In addition to the soot, there is a biological signature that may reflect the recovery of plants in charred regions. In several locations in the western United States, ferns are the first plants to reappear after the impact, similar to their pioneering occurrence after forest fires today.

 

[AV1611VET]

Science's purpose is not seeking 'the Truth'.

What's this then?

Stephen Hawking was the most influential know-it-all. In his 1988 mega-bestseller A Brief History of Time, Hawking predicted that physicists would soon find an “ultimate theory” that would explain how our cosmos came into being. He compared this achievement to knowing “the mind of God.” This statement was ironic. Hawking, an atheist, wanted science to eliminate the need for a divine creator.

And these?

Theories of Everything, by John Barrow (1991)

The Mind of God, by Paul Davies (1992)

Dreams of a Final Theory, by Steven Weinberg

 

[sjastro]

What's this then?

Stephen Hawking was the most influential know-it-all. In his 1988 mega-bestseller A Brief History of Time, Hawking predicted that physicists would soon find an “ultimate theory” that would explain how our cosmos came into being. He compared this achievement to knowing “the mind of God.” This statement was ironic. Hawking, an atheist, wanted science to eliminate the need for a divine creator.

And these?

Theories of Everything, by John Barrow (1991)

The Mind of God, by Paul Davies (1992)

Dreams of a Final Theory, by Steven Weinberg

When did Steven Weinberg embrace God?

 

[AV1611VET]

When did Steven Weinberg embrace God?

Here's his quote:

With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil - that takes religion.

I pray he embraced God at one point in his life, because on 23 July 2021, he met Him.

As to the quote itself, what about a bad person that does good?

Can you complete this phrase?

With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for bad people to do good - that takes [what]?

 

[sjastro]

Here's his quote:

With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil - that takes religion.

I pray he embraced God at one point in his life, because on 23 July 2021, he met Him.

As to the quote itself, what about a bad person that does good?

Can you complete this phrase?

With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for bad people to do good - that takes [what]?

As usual you don't get it.
Isn't Weinberg in hell, after all you made the highly distasteful remark my sister will burn in hell for being an atheist.

 

[AV1611VET]

As usual you don't get it.

I'm not surprised.

Isn't Weinberg in hell,

Interesting you ask that, as I was going to say that, on 23 July 21, Weinberg went to Aitch, and leave it up to you to decide which Aitch I was talking about.

For the record though, Weinberg is where he is.

He may have prayerfully made a deathbed conversion, like Charles Darwin did.

... after all you made the highly distasteful remark my sister will burn in hell for being an atheist.

I believe I said if she dies as an atheist.

I'll go back and look it up for you.

 

[SelfSim]

What's this then?

Stephen Hawking was the most influential know-it-all. In his 1988 mega-bestseller A Brief History of Time, Hawking predicted that physicists would soon find an “ultimate theory” that would explain how our cosmos came into being. He compared this achievement to knowing “the mind of God.” This statement was ironic. Hawking, an atheist, wanted science to eliminate the need for a divine creator.

And these?

Theories of Everything, by John Barrow (1991)

The Mind of God, by Paul Davies (1992)

Dreams of a Final Theory, by Steven Weinberg

Regardless of what they want, it'll be no better than the last best tested theory.

See, whatever these people say (or said) is never regarded as scripture .. Which is a notion you appear unable to grasp(?)

 

[SelfSim]

For the record though, Weinberg is where he is.

Weinberg is part of randomness.

He may have prayerfully made a deathbed conversion, like Charles Darwin did.

Yet more advocation for the state of perpetual (wilful) ignorance ..

 

[AV1611VET]

See, whatever these people say (or said) is never regarded as scripture ..

Thank goodness.

 

[SelfSim]

Thank goodness.

No .. thank the scientific process.

 

[AV1611VET]

Thank goodness.

No .. thank the scientific process.

I'll take goodness for the win.

 

[Hans Blaster]

On behalf of scientists, who don't know the Truth.

What about scientists that don't capitalize "truth" except at the beginning of sentences?

 

[AV1611VET]

On behalf of scientists, who don't know the Truth.

What about scientists that don't capitalize "truth" except at the beginning of sentences?

I'd say they don't know the Truth.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I'd say they don't know the Truth.

I do know how to use capitalization for that word.

(or does this work better with random capitalization of nouns...)

I do know how to use capitalization for that Word.