Quote:

I wasn't poking fun at it, but some obviously do and hence the sensitivity around it
and I get that. I simply asked the question because of the way you were addressing the issues.


I'm going to say that the below that you wrote was poking fun at the beliefs of others.

Quote:

What threw me the other week was one of the "new age" religion groups here in USA that had the
dinosaurs all drowning in Noah's flood a few thousand years ago. Apparently Noah either didn't
build a big enough Arc or God decided dinosaurs where wicked and evil and so they got there justice
like all the other sinners. There seemed to be oscillation about which of these was the reason.


I've already showed how it was done orac , noah popped the dinosaurs into a parallel universe
then popped them back after it was safe so that they wouldnt drown.
what is it about that that you cant comprehend?

Quote:

If your faith demands you believe certain things, that is fine just don't beat around and pretend
you are even free to consider the alternatives.


as far as I'm concerned my faith does not demand that I believe anything.
as far as I understand "faith" can not demand "belief" else faith would simply be belief.

Quote:

I had the same issue when Rev K wanted to treat GOD scientifically. Fine then either tell
GOD to show up so I can test him, and if you can't do that I will assume GOD doesn't exist
and test the landscape. Rev K doesn't have the power to do the first, and the later is
forbidden, so his request was illogical. Science can't discuss something you aren't free to
consider all the options so I can't scientifically look at GOD with Rev K.


fine then the next time you pop some fantasy entity into another parallel universe or
where ever you pop it tell it to show up so I can test it , and if you cant do that
I will continue to believe that you are actually a bull [censored] layman that calls people
layman to make himself feel important to his peers of bull [censored] laymen.

Quote:


The bible itself could never have used the word dinosaur or even a translation of
it, as the word was created by Sir Richard Owen in 1842. It means terrible lizzard
or reptile and is a modern created word and in theory created long after
the bible was written.


how do you know that the word dinosaur wasnt used before 1842? , adam could have named
their kind dinosaurs if they were there when he named all the animals.
a really large number of species become extinct each day , so its obvious that the dinosaurs
were already extinct when noah built the ark because moses didnt mention them when he wrote genesis
and nor did he include all the names of all the animals that entered the ark.

Quote:


If you want to try and start creating situations like your egg, Bill G has already given you the
problem that opens up, that the bible is therefore not accurate or omits things. My strong suggestion
is to not go there and close the discussion on this as you are never going to be happy with that discussion.


but its not my happiness that is in danger here orac , I am happy to discuss things with you even when
you fail to find a intelligent response to my post and start your consistent ranting about your goat god
that you always mention because I get a big laugh when you do that , it really shows your professionalism
being the non layman that you obviously are.

as for Bill G's response about the baby dinosaurs I've noticed that when a chick is hatched from its egg , it
doesnt just sit there for more than a few minutes if any , its eyes are open and it has pecked its way out of
its shell by itself , it then starts walking around in a few minutes finding and eating food ... by itself.
you can buy them from ebay sellers that are a day old --- no parents needed so yes they could have
walked onto the ark by themselves or the postman could have delivered them straight to the ark
with next day shipping from ebay.




Quote:

For my part I am very straight down the line in what I believe and why. I really don't care what you or
indeed every layman on the planet make of it, you are layman. Science doesn't vote on popularity, it's
entire aim is to be useful and predictive and that is all it cares about. You are welcome not believe
in science or write your own. Science just ignores you because we don't have to prove we are right, we
just need to be more useful and predictive than your version and civilization makes the choice for us.



well thank you orac , because if you are not a layman then I must be a layman and that is the group
of people that I would want to be associated with.

science doesnt ignore me , science listens to what I have to say.
almost everything that I say has been found to be true , it usually takes a few years to make it
to main stream and that of course depends on the popularity of what I say and who votes on it.

your the non layman that science either ignores or knows that what you say is simply
something that you read on the internet that someone else said in the past and you are simply
repeating other peoples thoughts and ideas , you are the bearer of lip service.

Quote:


That is the bit you never get, science is not a system that requires people to believe like religion

your right science is not a system it is a discipline.
science is supposed to be about experimentation , data gathering , and to acquire and to increase knowledge
but you and many others in the scientific community are certainly not scientist because all you do is
brag about how smart you are and pat each other on the back while quoting the nonsense that your peers
have dreamed up ... while you do nothing else except try to ridicule others who you and your like minded peers
dont agree with.


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.