Posted on 05/23/2005 3:29:06 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
"Wise men think alike, and fools seldom differ."
But fools ain't thinkin'
(from an earlier post by you, it's "What's up Doc" not "Doc, what's up" sheesh, only a Canadian 8>} )
I don't guess there will be any gay days at this magic kingdom.
When it comes to an understanding of the universe I'd very much like to do the work myself as opposed to being insulted for giving it a try.
Why would links presenting the evidence on a physics/astronomy/nuclear chemistry question worry about some kind of population demographic issue?
You see, you see. js is wrong.
There in #3 - it's closer to 3.7 billion. Hah! and we don't correct each other. Hah!
I'm sure you're well beyond basic astronomy. How about bestowing the favor of telling us what point in history all of the known planets were in perfect alignment? Just the fact and a simple citation will do.
Huh? A) I don't have the time to rewrite all of the evidence from many scientific papers here on a thread, B) post huge screeds where a link will suffice, and C) attempt to format equations into the limited HTML here.
READ THE LINKS! I give them to you for a reason.
Does one of your links assert how many people, on a percentage basis, have been granted the tools and intellect to directly verify the age of the universe?
How about many thousands of people!
Maybe something needs to be mentioned about how links work. You click on the link, see, and you go to a whole article on a subject.
That keeps this thread from getting too big. We could copy the contents of the links to you, but reading them on the thread is no better than reading them on the sites that host them now. In the end, you have to read the stuff because we aren't there to read it to you. Anyway, links would be OK for someone who actually had some intellectual curiosity on a subject and was trying to learn.
Your point in disavowing the use of links, of course, is to stay ignorant. Now, when I say creation science is militantly ignorant of evolution and mainstream science in general, people say I am demeaning the opposition, arguing ad hominem, etc., and shame on me.
Well, here's you on this thread with a world of evidence in your lap and refusing to click. These are the arguments for creationism, the "You can't make me see" science!
The number of intelligent observers can only assist in verifying the information, right? I don't think modern science wants to know the answer to my question. But since "modern science" (a laughable concept when applied to Darwinism) is so intent on proclaiming the number of adnherents and amount of agreement as evidence of veracity, maybe this line of reasoning suits them perfectly.
Nowhere in the Bible does it say the the Earth is some figure less than 10,000 years old. It is irritating to have people say that it does.
In fact, the Bible has an interesting vignet that alludes to a created man that walked the Earth before Adam and God wiped them out.
Christians do not have to manufacture disosaurs on Noah's Ark to combat the ridiculous theory of evolution. If they would just read their Bibles instead of fantacizing procedures and events that never happened, there would by no leg for the evolutionists to stand on.
How about never.
I would much rather see a FReepers own thoughts and let them excercise their God-given intellect than click on a link and read someone else's stuff. Sorry.
:-)
However, messy is fun sometimes.
Stay stupid. It could hardly be otherwise. I'm out for the night.
You forgot the citation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.