02 Nov 12
http://phys.org/news/2012-11-technique-date-cais-chondrules.html
The agreement is getting to 5 decimal places now.
Creationists cannot dispute these dates scientifically.
You can only keep up with your ancient fantasy and say, once more, God did it.
Then followed by the obligatory 'Glory glory glory to the lord holy' blah blah blah.
02 Nov 12
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseI am a creationist and i have never disputed either the age of the earth nor of the
http://phys.org/news/2012-11-technique-date-cais-chondrules.html
The agreement is getting to 5 decimal places now.
Creationists cannot dispute these dates scientifically.
You can only keep up with your ancient fantasy and say, once more, God did it.
Then followed by the obligatory 'Glory glory glory to the lord holy' blah blah blah.
universe, not all creationists profess the same thing? do we tar atheists with the same
brush? they all look alike? do you all have pointy ears and look like Spok? are nerds
and know pi to a thousand decimal places.
02 Nov 12
Originally posted by sonhouseErm I worked with the WOLAS team and CERN in CBM with Oxford university last month and the Astronomical society in Paris - which was a part of the data used to age the universe!!! I am a professor in Quantum Mechanics and lecture in a reputable university in London - I also happen to someone who prayers for about an hour or two a day. So what on earth are you talking about!! utter utter ignorant view on these who believe in a creator which i do!
http://phys.org/news/2012-11-technique-date-cais-chondrules.html
The agreement is getting to 5 decimal places now.
Creationists cannot dispute these dates scientifically.
You can only keep up with your ancient fantasy and say, once more, God did it.
Then followed by the obligatory 'Glory glory glory to the lord holy' blah blah blah.
You want to talk science, do so, you want to try and question my faith and view on creationism?? Do so but don't do any of the former without a little research!
02 Nov 12
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseSo you know how it started now, you know what the data points are that we
http://phys.org/news/2012-11-technique-date-cais-chondrules.html
The agreement is getting to 5 decimal places now.
Creationists cannot dispute these dates scientifically.
You can only keep up with your ancient fantasy and say, once more, God did it.
Then followed by the obligatory 'Glory glory glory to the lord holy' blah blah blah.
need to look at, and what data points we should avoid?
Kelly
02 Nov 12
Originally posted by sonhouseI am more interested in the Rock of Ages than in the age of rocks.
http://phys.org/news/2012-11-technique-date-cais-chondrules.html
The agreement is getting to 5 decimal places now.
Creationists cannot dispute these dates scientifically.
You can only keep up with your ancient fantasy and say, once more, God did it.
Then followed by the obligatory 'Glory glory glory to the lord holy' blah blah blah.
-Matthew Harrison Brady
(Inherit the Wind)
02 Nov 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieHowever, you have disputed that Jesus the Christ is the only begotten Son of God. You, instead, claim Jesus was first created by God as Michael the Archangel. You do not believe the creation account in Genesis and dispute most of the Christian doctrines. You will not give blood to save someones life, even thought it is an easy thing to do. This is why I say you must be deceived by Satan the devil.
I am a creationist and i have never disputed either the age of the earth nor of the
universe, not all creationists profess the same thing? do we tar atheists with the same
brush? they all look alike? do you all have pointy ears and look like Spok? are nerds
and know pi to a thousand decimal places.
Originally posted by nonamesleftatallWhat astonishing spluttering self indulgent nonsense is this? As a professor and a lecturer you will surely recognize that a comment aimed at a general category of people is different to a personal comment aimed at you as an individual.
Erm I worked with the WOLAS team and CERN in CBM with Oxford university last month and the Astronomical society in Paris - which was a part of the data used to age the universe!!! I am a professor in Quantum Mechanics and lecture in a reputable university in London - I also happen to someone who prayers for about an hour or two a day. So what on ear ...[text shortened]... faith and view on creationism?? Do so but don't do any of the former without a little research!
I am not clear why your undoubted scientific track record in the field of Quantum Mechanics lends you special authority when you contribute to this debate such an ungrammatical announcement as "I also happen to someone who prayers for about an hour or two a day." I imagine you would plead for a "charitable reading" of your post, in which case you might explain your decision not to give a charitable reading to Sonhouse. "Charitable." as you will know, being a professor and a lecturer in a reputable university, means reading the post in a way that recognizes its intended meaning, which in the case of Sonhouse means that he intends his comment to refer to those literalists who dispute inter alia the age of the Universe. It is a post in a forum, not an essay in an examination.
If you look into this ongoing and profoundly futile debate, you will notice that people like Sonhouse and myself routinely point out to our fundie rivals that most people of faith are perfectly able to reconcile science with religious faith. More importantly, you will be aware that certain fundamentalist religious fanatics are setting about trying to harm science teaching in America and elsewhere by appeal to spurious religious lines of argument which, as I said, most people of faith do not endorse. Indeed, so callled "Creation Science" is rearing its spotty head in Britain, notably in the new "Academies." Obviously a scientist like yourself would not welcome an assault on your ability to teach good science.
When we attack "Creation Science" then there is no reason to treat this as an attack on you, as a practising physicist. So instead of this spluttering, can we look forward to your support in future?
02 Nov 12
Originally posted by RJHindsno i have not disputed that Jesus Christ is the only begotten son of God, in fact the
However, you have disputed that Jesus the Christ is the only begotten Son of God. You, instead, claim Jesus was first created by God as Michael the Archangel. You do not believe the creation account in Genesis and dispute most of the Christian doctrines. You will not give blood to save someones life, even thought it is an easy thing to do. This is why I say you must be deceived by Satan the devil.
term, only begotten is proof itself. That Christ was begotten as in the case of progeny
is not in dispute, Colossians chapter 1 verse 15 says as much, , the fact that he was
the only begotten clearly indicates that he was the only entity directly created by God.
I do believe the creation account of Genesis, I simply see no reason to assume that the
length of a creative day is a 24 hour period, nor a thousand years, the apostle Paul
speaks of Christians being in Gods rest day, thousands of years later. I will not give
blood because i claim the right of self determination and its against my religious
convictions, I also will not take up arms against anther human being. Thank you for
condemning me the way you have, its simply further proof of Christ's illustration of the
wheat and the weeds and its fulfilment.
02 Nov 12
1 edit
Originally posted by nonamesleftatallI find this doubtful.
I worked with the WOLAS team and CERN in CBM with Oxford university last month and the Astronomical society in Paris - which was a part of the data used to age the universe!!! I am a professor in Quantum Mechanics and lecture in a reputable university in London - I also happen to someone who prayers for about an hour or two a day.
I have no evidence.
But I believe its BS or exaggeration.
Thats my belief.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
02 Nov 12
Originally posted by nonamesleftatallsounds like you dont have enough time in a day to take a piss never mind pray for two hours!!!
Erm I worked with the WOLAS team and CERN in CBM with Oxford university last month and the Astronomical society in Paris - which was a part of the data used to age the universe!!! I am a professor in Quantum Mechanics and lecture in a reputable university in London - I also happen to someone who prayers for about an hour or two a day. So what on ear ...[text shortened]... faith and view on creationism?? Do so but don't do any of the former without a little research!
02 Nov 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWell done. Written like a Jesuit and leaving us entirely none the wiser of what point it was you wished to evade.
no i have not disputed that Jesus Christ is the only begotten son of God, in fact the
term, only begotten is proof itself. That Christ was begotten as in the case of progeny
is not in dispute, Colossians chapter 1 verse 15 says as much, , the fact that he was
the only begotten clearly indicates that he was the only entity directly created by ...[text shortened]... simply further proof of Christ's illustration of the
wheat and the weeds and its fulfilment.
Originally posted by finneganI have found that when posting on this website that it does not always pick up everything one types. Most of the time it just omits one letter, but other times it can miss a whole word or two. I thought it was just my connection for awhile, but this might have happened in this poster's case.
What astonishing spluttering self indulgent nonsense is this? As a professor and a lecturer you will surely recognize that a comment aimed at a general category of people is different to a personal comment aimed at you as an individual.
I am not clear why your undoubted scientific track record in the field of Quantum Mechanics lends you special authori cist. So instead of this spluttering, can we look forward to your support in future?
P.S. Of course, I am just a redneck and do not know much about grammar anyway.
My expertise is in the Holy Bible. I have no degree in Bible Studies and must rely on inspiration from the Holy Spirit.
HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord! Holy! Holy! Holy!
03 Nov 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieDo you also deny your previous claim Jesus was first created by God as Michael the Archangel? If Jesus the Christ is the only begotten Son of God, how then is He created? The Holy bible says of the Son:
no i have not disputed that Jesus Christ is the only begotten son of God, in fact the
term, only begotten is proof itself. That Christ was begotten as in the case of progeny
is not in dispute, Colossians chapter 1 verse 15 says as much, , the fact that he was
the only begotten clearly indicates that he was the only entity directly created by ...[text shortened]... simply further proof of Christ's illustration of the
wheat and the weeds and its fulfilment.
"For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created by Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together."
(Colossians 1:16-17 NASB)
All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.
(John 1:3 NASB)
The creation account clearly says it was all done in six days of an evening and a morning each. That can not be true if it took millions of years because there would be billions of evenngs and mornings.
03 Nov 12
Originally posted by sonhouseI doubt that this is going to work any better than all the other methods that don't work. 😏
http://phys.org/news/2012-11-technique-date-cais-chondrules.html
The agreement is getting to 5 decimal places now.
Creationists cannot dispute these dates scientifically.
You can only keep up with your ancient fantasy and say, once more, God did it.
Then followed by the obligatory 'Glory glory glory to the lord holy' blah blah blah.