Originally posted by FMFHe does not have to, you moron. 😏
Why doesn't "Doctor" Stelling go back to the Geology Department at the University of Sydney ~ or a similar institution ~ and get a new PhD for which he would present his research on this "new evidence" that has nothing to do with his previous PhD and with his claim to be a "Doctor" in Geology?
Originally posted by RJHindsOf course he doesn't have to. But he would if he actually had some scientific evidence for his claims. That is how real science is carried out. You discover something you write a scientific paper about it and get it published and get famous. Anyone who 'discovers' something then publishes a DVD about it (for sale) and writes a book about it (for sale) is not doing science they are just making money off the ignorance of others. Any YouTube videos they create are most likely marketing for the books and DVD or another source of income or pirated copies of the DVD.
He does not have to, you moron. 😏
If you want anyone to take you seriously, present links to the geologists published papers (in a scientific context) not a YouTube video.
Originally posted by twhiteheadI doubt if anyone at RHP would be able to understand a scientific paper. I have never seen anyone, even on the Science Forum, put a scientific paper on here. It would be useless.
Of course he doesn't have to. But he would if he actually had some scientific evidence for his claims. That is how real science is carried out. You discover something you write a scientific paper about it and get it published and get famous. Anyone who 'discovers' something then publishes a DVD about it (for sale) and writes a book about it (for sale) is ...[text shortened]... present links to the geologists published papers (in a scientific context) not a YouTube video.
Originally posted by RJHindsYou obviously don't read the science forum.
I doubt if anyone at RHP would be able to understand a scientific paper. I have never seen anyone, even on the Science Forum, put a scientific paper on here. It would be useless.
And I'll take that as an "I've got nothing" answer.
As long as you fail to produce a scientific paper that supports your claims you cannot honestly claim that your claims are scientific. Science must be backed up with scientific research. Science is not whatever someone says on YouTube.
Originally posted by twhiteheadAs a matter of fact, I do not read the Science Forum anymore. Their nonsense postings are not worth my effort to read and comment on. 😏
You obviously don't read the science forum.
And I'll take that as an "I've got nothing" answer.
As long as you fail to produce a scientific paper that supports your claims you cannot honestly claim that your claims are scientific. Science must be backed up with scientific research. Science is not whatever someone says on YouTube.
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsThere WAS a world wide flood, only it wasn't in the era of mankind:
Let's see if sonhouse will answer that question. 😏
Even Hinds can see this one, it's only 4 minutes long.
That fact still is not evidence of a god. Far from it. It is evidence such a god could give a shyte less about the planet and humans in particular.
Here is a thought: Suppose there is this god. Suppose for a minute all the bible and the whole Abrahamic religions are just BS, and yet there still is a god.
So maybe the reason for us being here is to bootstrap ourselves to some kind of godhood on our own petards, bringing ourselves up by our own bootstraps, where the test is to see how far along that path we can go without offing ourselves in the meantime.
Maybe the real test is to achieve godhood all on our own before we destroy ourselves and if we indeed do destroy ourselves, aforementioned god goes, oh well, I gave them a chance. On to the next experiment.........
Originally posted by sonhouseYou don't actually believe that video, do you? They are simply pulling millions and billions of years out of their ass in wild speculations about things they don't understand. 😏
There WAS a world wide flood, only it wasn't in the era of mankind:
[youtube]YKuoPBbh58Y[/youtube]
Even Hinds can see this one, it's only 4 minutes long.
That fact still is not evidence of a god. Far from it. It is evidence such a god could give a shyte less about the planet and humans in particular.
Here is a thought: Suppose there is this ...[text shortened]... lves, aforementioned god goes, oh well, I gave them a chance. On to the next experiment.........
Originally posted by RJHindsBut isn't this ~ "pulling millions and billions of years out of [his] ass in wild speculations" ~ what you think Andrew Snelling did to get his PhD and his title "Doctor"? And isn't the fact that he ~ according to your way of thinking ~ 'simply pulled millions and billions of years out of his ass in wild speculations about things he doesn't understand' the only reason why he can claim to be a "geologist" in the conventional sense of the word, and the reason why you refer to him that way?
They are simply pulling millions and billions of years out of their ass in wild speculations about things they don't understand.
Originally posted by FMFThere are only two salient points for Hinds: 1] the dude in the video says Earth is young.
But isn't this ~ "pulling millions and billions of years out of [his] ass in wild speculations" ~ what you think Andrew Snelling did to get his PhD and his title "Doctor"? And isn't the fact that he ~ according to your way of thinking ~ 'simply pulled millions and billions of years out of his ass in wild speculations about things he doesn't understand' the on ...[text shortened]... "geologist" in the conventional sense of the word, and the reason why you refer to him that way?
2} the dude in the video says the Earth is young.
That is the only criteria for him. Everything else is not worth talking about.
Originally posted by sonhouseI think RJHinds needs to clarify whether he rejects Stelling's PhD, and therefore rejects Stelling's use of the title "Doctor", and therefore rejects the very basis for Stelling's claim to be a called a "geologist".
There are only two salient points for Hinds: 1] the dude in the video says Earth is young.
2} the dude in the video says the Earth is young.
That is the only criteria for him. Everything else is not worth talking about.
Originally posted by roigamThere you have the truth. They are not interested in the truth, It is all about ideology and the idea of God can not be allowed in their ideology. 😏
If convincing evidence of the flood was found, would it help anyone believe in God?
Or, would they find some other point to criticize?
Originally posted by FMFDr. Snelling did not have to pull billions of years out of his ass because he accept what the Holy Bible says, making the age of the earth about 6,000 years old. 😏
But isn't this ~ "pulling millions and billions of years out of [his] ass in wild speculations" ~ what you think Andrew Snelling did to get his PhD and his title "Doctor"? And isn't the fact that he ~ according to your way of thinking ~ 'simply pulled millions and billions of years out of his ass in wild speculations about things he doesn't understand' the on ...[text shortened]... "geologist" in the conventional sense of the word, and the reason why you refer to him that way?