The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally

[Diogenes]

The proposition for debate is that when one takes the tales of Genesis literally, one becomes intellectually disabled, at least temporarily. Taking Genesis literally requires one to reject biology (which includes evolution) and other sciences in favor of 'magic.' Geology and radiometric dating have to be rejected since the Earth formed only about 6000 years ago, during the same week the Earth was made (in a single day).

Much of the debate in the topic of Science and Religion consists of theists who insist on a literal interpretation of Genesis rejecting basic science. Most of the resulting debates are not worth engaging in.

[dad1]

That's easy, I already mentioned your GPS.

So what does global positioning have to do with telling us what time at the edges of the universe is like?

In contrast, you have not even tried to show evidence for your own conspiracy theory for how signals from deep space would be skewed, after multiple requests from me. If you have any, post it.

The issue of time being different does not mean what we have here is skewed. What we have here is perfectly normal for here. The issue is that you do not know what time out there is like.

And the exact distances and gravity and etc etc are needed for the signal from stars to arrive here that changes it from being the unknown.

Oh? Show an example of how the spectral signature depends on distance etc?

You are still not telling us how probes change things.

They change nothing anymore than a walk in a local forest where you may not have been before. Once you do go there, it is known. The probes confirm that a lot of things are the same in this solar system area.

We test time in the far universe by sitting here in the fishbowl looking at incoming light confirming that this must be the same as out there.

Hilarious.

So don't splatter it willy nilly. Do it carefully like us, only applying what applies.

The issue is what is known to apply, not like what you feel like declaring applicable for no particular reason.

False by counterexample. I have a great deal of sense and honesty, yet I did not find it funny.

Then what we have here is sad, not funny.

Knowing what I said and understanding it are different things

Just a few sentences ago you said this 'We test time in the far universe by sitting here in the fishbowl looking at incoming light" Not hard to understand.

Good luck waiting for that. Don't hold your breath.

You do not need to be aware of something for it to be real. You seem to specialize in trying to make real what you are not aware of.

Yes, supposed to deal with knowledge and facts, starting from assumption.

When 'assumption' got stretched out beyond recognition and became pure belief, then it is false that science starts from there. Science needs to test and observe and repeat etc. There has been nothing of the sort in regards to what time is like out there.

you've already called a core assumption of science "an unsupportable belief."

That is true.

[Bust Nak]

So what does global positioning have to do with telling us what time at the edges of the universe is like?

Asked and answered: It confirms that our assumption of the universe re: relativity, is accurate. Every time you use a GPS is a test of the model, every time it reports an accurate location is an observation that solidify that assumption into knowledge. I've told you the same thing every time you asked, everyone else has been giving you the same kind of answers.

The issue of time being different does not mean what we have here is skewed. What we have here is perfectly normal for here. The issue is that you do not know what time out there is like.

So you kept repeating, but you haven't even tried to provide any evidence that the signal received distant stars are skewed. Like I said, you are holding on to a conspiracy theory.

Oh? Show an example of how the spectral signature depends on distance etc?

Easy enough, just listen out for siren next time an emergency services vehicle drives by and you will notice a change in pitch as it moves past you.

They change nothing anymore than a walk in a local forest where you may not have been before. Once you do go there, it is known. The probes confirm that a lot of things are the same in this solar system area.

Well there you go. They change nothing, because we haven't gone to Mars yet but treat the signals we received as confirmation of things being the same on Mars; just like how signals from distant stars confirm a lot of things are the same over there. Once again showing you don't actually have an argument and your objection is entirely arbitrary.

Hilarious.

Still the same old appeal to ridicule.

The issue is what is known to apply, not like what you feel like declaring applicable for no particular reason.

Which is why we only apply what is known to apply.

Then what we have here is sad, not funny.

I am inclined to agree. Such is the tragic result of taking Genesis literally.

Just a few sentences ago you said this 'We test time in the far universe by sitting here in the fishbowl looking at incoming light" Not hard to understand.

Good, keep it up, you may well disagree with what I said but none of it is hard to comprehend.

You do not need to be aware of something for it to be real. You seem to specialize in trying to make real what you are not aware of.

Well, strictly speaking there is a difference between what is known and what is real. Knowledge is subject to change as we learn new stuff. I specialize in providing knowledge that you are not aware of.

When 'assumption' got stretched out beyond recognition and became pure belief, then it is false that science starts from there. Science needs to test and observe and repeat etc.

Sure, which is why I said nobody cares that science is based on assumptions. All our assumptions are well tested.

That is true.

Then you were wrong to suggest that science was not supposed to be based on assumptions.

[dad1]

Asked and answered: It confirms that our assumption of the universe re: relativity, is accurate. Every time you use a GPS is a test of the model, every time it reports an accurate location is an observation that solidify that assumption into knowledge. I've told you the same thing every time you asked, everyone else has been giving you the same kind of answers.

Except that is a ridiculous non answer that does not even address the issue of the far universe, anymore that your mother in law's car does if she had one.

So you kept repeating, but you haven't even tried to provide any evidence that the signal received distant stars are skewed. Like I said, you are holding on to a conspiracy theory.

False premise. Just because we know that science does not know, does not mean we need to know. All it means is that their origin models are worthless at best.

Easy enough, just listen out for siren next time an emergency services vehicle drives by and you will notice a change in pitch as it moves past you.

Such apparent fishbowl thinking. So let me guess, if your nephew plays with a toy firetruck, that means that time in the far universe is the same as here? Ha

Well there you go. They change nothing, because we haven't gone to Mars yet but treat the signals we received as confirmation of things being the same on Mars;

As I said I give them the benefit of the doubt for now, unless you have some reason not to?

just like how signals from distant stars confirm a lot of things are the same over there.

No comparison. A signal from a toy walkie talkie to a friend in another room does not mean that time in the far universe or space..is any way at all. Obviously. All it means is that you get a little signal locally that carries some silly message from a little friend.

Once again showing you don't actually have an argument and your objection is entirely arbitrary.

When science does not know there is no argument needed. Don't overate your religion.

Still the same old appeal to ridicule.

One wishes that appealing to honesty and intelligence would suffice.

Which is why we only apply what is known to apply.

Circular. When asked how you know what time itself in the far universe is like and how we can test it, you offered GPS! Better called FPS. (fishbowl positioning system)

I am inclined to agree. Such is the tragic result of taking Genesis literally.

Not accepting faith based science claims as gospel is actually not tragic in any way but is a sign of life.

Just a few sentences ago you said this 'We test time in the far universe by sitting here in the fishbowl looking at incoming light" Not hard to understand.

Good, keep it up, you may well disagree with what I said but none of it is hard to comprehend.

Very simple to understand. You brag about being confined to the fishbowl and revel in the faith based speculations conjured up there.

Well, strictly speaking there is a difference between what is known and what is real.

Science specializes in not knowing the difference.

Knowledge is subject to change as we learn new stuff.

That should be one clue for you. Reality is not subject to change! (even if the whole universe is changed one day by God, because He is the reality)

I specialize in providing knowledge that you are not aware of.

Now you resort to something I have seen before, pretending you posted something that you did not. Usually, not long after this stage, the next step is to run away indignantly, pretending you said something

Sure, which is why I said nobody cares that science is based on assumptions. All our assumptions are well tested.

Yet when I asked you how you tested light speed 500 million light years away, you offered some test here on earth. Your claim has no relation to reality or the truth.

That is true.

Then you were wrong to suggest that science was not supposed to be based on assumptions.

You were wrong to call belief assumption.

[Bust Nak]

Except that is a ridiculous non answer that does not even address the issue of the far universe, anymore that your mother in law's car does if she had one.

Again with the appeal to ridicule. Ridiculous does not mean incorrect. Ridiculous or not, cars working as we expect them to work right here on Earth does have something to do with the far universe - it confirms our assumptions/beliefs at the core of science.

False premise. Just because we know that science does not know, does not mean we need to know. All it means is that their origin models are worthless at best.

Worthless to whom? Not to you apparently, since you are still using modern technologies that are based on the same beliefs as origin models.

Such apparent fishbowl thinking. So let me guess, if your nephew plays with a toy firetruck, that means that time in the far universe is the same as here?

Until said toy firetruck starts breaking the laws of nature, yeah, it does mean that.

As I said I give them the benefit of the doubt for now, unless you have some reason not to?

Yes, the reason is, it's inconsistent to do give them the benefit of doubt for some things, but not others. Cherry picking is irrational, to be consistent, either accept all, or accept none.

No comparison. A signal from a toy walkie talkie to a friend in another room does not mean that time in the far universe or space..is any way at all.

Scientifically speaking, yes, it actually does mean that. You are not into science, I get that, but please just leave science alone if you don't want to play by its rules, you don't get to change the rules as to what makes something scientific knowledge or not.

When science does not know there is no argument needed. Don't overate your religion.

You know, if I was in your place, I wouldn't go round telling others no argument is needed, not on a debate forum. I wouldn't call people out for being religious when your entire objection is religious based.

One wishes that appealing to honesty and intelligence would suffice.

Then be the change you want to see, stop it with the appeal to ridicule fallacies. Appeal only to honesty and intelligence like me.

Circular. When asked how you know what time itself in the far universe is like and how we can test it, you offered GPS! Better called FPS. (fishbowl positioning system)

It's not circular because the assumption/belief is tested over and over again.

Not accepting faith based science claims as gospel is actually not tragic in any way but is a sign of life.

Well, at least one of us is happy.

Very simple to understand.

You say that now, you said it was "word salad" not too long ago. Not very consistent.

You brag about being confined to the fishbowl and revel in the faith based speculations conjured up there.

Yes, it's called being scientific. It is indeed something to brag about, given the surprising amount of unscientific minded people around.

Science specializes in not knowing the difference.

No, we have empirical evidence to differentiate the two.

That should be one clue for you. Reality is not subject to change!

Yes, that's what I said. That's what makes knowledge different from reality. I am glad we can agree some things at least.

Now you resort to something I have seen before, pretending you posted something that you did not. Usually, not long after this stage, the next step is to run away indignantly, pretending you said something.

There is no need to pretend, I have my post history to show that I have posted what I said I posted. All you have is denial.

Yet when I asked you how you tested light speed 500 million light years away, you offered some test here on earth.

That's right, that's how we test light speed 500 million light years away right here on Earth. Similar to how I am testing if it is raining outside right here, right now, indoors, by my desk. I know it is raining as I type this, without leaving the comfort of my swivel chair. This is a non-issue for others, nobody cares because it works. And as I keep pointing out, you didn't care, not until it conflicted with your religion.

You were wrong to call belief assumption.

Meh, not all that interested in semantics. Call it the core beliefs of science if you want, I don't particularly care: Science is supposed to be based on certain beliefs; you were wrong to suggest otherwise.

[dad1]

Again with the appeal to ridicule. Ridiculous does not mean incorrect. Ridiculous or not, cars working as we expect them to work right here on Earth does have something to do with the far universe - it confirms our assumptions/beliefs at the core of science.

One minute you complain about ridicule appeal, then you state that cars have something to do with the far universe.

Worthless to whom?

Worthless to every person on earth.

Not to you apparently, since you are still using modern technologies that are based on the same beliefs as origin models.

I have never used any device that told me what time was like in the distant universe, or had any connection whatsoever. No one has.

Until said toy firetruck starts breaking the laws of nature, yeah, it does mean that.

So unless your little firetruck is some sort of ghostbusting, law violating toy, then in your mind, it shows that time and space at the edges of the universe are identical to here. We can add that to your evidence I guess.

Yes, the reason is, it's inconsistent to do give them the benefit of doubt for some things, but not others. Cherry picking is irrational, to be consistent, either accept all, or accept none.

No. It is sane to question grandiose statements about the unknown based on zero evidence or knowledge, while it is also sane to accept the results of experience based tests. What is not sound is playing in a sandbox with your little firetruck and thinking it tells you what time in the unknown universe is like.

Scientifically speaking, yes, it actually does mean that. You are not into science, I get that, but please just leave science alone if you don't want to play by its rules, you don't get to change the rules as to what makes something scientific knowledge or not.

Nothing about toy walkie talkies means what you claimed. You pretending that it does is unsupportable.

You know, if I was in your place, I wouldn't go round telling others no argument is needed, not on a debate forum. I wouldn't call people out for being religious when your entire objection is religious based.

I prefer honesty. When so called science is wholly faith based, religion is a great word. If a faith based regime makes faith based statements that are not knowledge based then no counter argument is needed. Period.

Then be the change you want to see, stop it with the appeal to ridicule fallacies. Appeal only to honesty and intelligence like me.

Let's review. You offered a car, 'all devices', a toy firetruck, GPS as evidence of what the nature of time itself in the distant unknown universe was like. Did we miss something?

It's not circular because the assumption/belief is tested over and over again.

Tested here on earth.

Very simple to understand.

You say that now, you said it was "word salad" not too long ago. Not very consistent.

When you recalibrate your word salads, they can be clear.

Yes, it's called being scientific. It is indeed something to brag about, given the surprising amount of unscientific minded people around.

So you confess your limitations and being in the fishbowl one minute, then brag about them and pretend they mean more the next.

No, we have empirical evidence to differentiate the two.

Which is --?

There is no need to pretend, I have my post history to show that I have posted what I said I posted. All you have is denial.

No one denies your walkie talkkies, or firetruck, or car. Etc. What must be acknowledged is that none of these remotely applies to telling us about the exact nature of time itself in the whole unknown universe.

That's right, that's how we test light speed 500 million light years away right here on Earth.

If time was not the same out there this would not work. You are using time here for the time involved in seeing light out there move.

Meh, not all that interested in semantics. Call it the core beliefs of science if you want, I don't particularly care: Science is supposed to be based on certain beliefs; you were wrong to suggest otherwise.

Certain beliefs that are known to be true are fine where and when they apply. When some folks get all Buzz Lightyearish on us trying to fly their firetruck to the far universe, those sort of 'core beliefs' go from the sublime to the ridiculous.

[Bust Nak]

One minute you complain about ridicule appeal, then you state that cars have something to do with the far universe.

Yes, you managed to summarise what I said accurately without saying how ridiculous it is. Good job refraining from the fallacy this time, let's see how long it lasts.

Worthless to every person on earth.

False by counter example, it's not worthless to me.

I have never used any device that told me what time was like in the distant universe, or had any connection whatsoever. No one has.

Incorrect. You have made use of plenty of devices that was built upon the belief of what time is like in the distant universe, that counts as a connection.

So unless your little firetruck is some sort of ghostbusting, law violating toy, then in your mind, it shows that time and space at the edges of the universe are identical to here. We can add that to your evidence I guess.

Correct. Like I said from the get-go: the uniformitarian principle is proven by every day experiences. That was literally in my first post.

No. It is sane to question grandiose statements about the unknown based on zero evidence or knowledge, while it is also sane to accept the results of experience based tests.

I've already covered that in my first clause, the "all" in "accept all" refers to the results of experience based tests which includes knowledge about what time is like in the far universe.

What is not sound is playing in a sandbox with your little firetruck and thinking it tells you what time in the unknown universe is like.

So you keep insisting. You have no argument to support your accusation of not being sound though.

Nothing about toy walkie talkies means what you claimed. You pretending that it does is unsupportable.

Again, I get that you don't care about science, but you don't get to change the rules. Call it pretence all you like, the rules say toy walkie talkies mean the uniformitarianism belief counts as confirmed knowledge. You don't like the rules? Then get out of the arena.

I prefer honesty. When so called science is wholly faith based, religion is a great word. If a faith based regime makes faith based statements that are not knowledge based then no counter argument is needed. Period.

You say you prefer honesty, here you are attacking science itself, so be honest, don't cherry pick, reject all of it.

Let's review. You offered a car, 'all devices', a toy firetruck, GPS as evidence of what the nature of time itself in the distant unknown universe was like. Did we miss something?

I also mentioned weather prediction. But whatever, close enough. Literally everything is evidence of uniformitarianism, which we then use to learn about what the nature of time itself in the distant universe. It's no longer unknown, after we made scientific observations about it.

Tested here on earth.

Yes, or near Earth, no more than around a light day away.

When you recalibrate your word salads, they can be clear.

Yeah, I wouldn't go round questioning other people's English if you need recalibration to understand simple sentences.

So you confess your limitations and being in the fishbowl one minute, then brag about them and pretend they mean more the next.

Nop. There is no pretence here. I am bragging about how much we know given our limitations of being in the fishbowl. It really is an amazing achievement considering how quickly we gained so much knowledge. The limitation makes it all the more brag-worthy.

Which is --?

For which topic exactly? DNA for biology, rock formations for geology, signals from space for cosmology, to give some examples.

No one denies your walkie talkkies, or firetruck, or car. Etc. What must be acknowledged is that none of these remotely applies to telling us about the exact nature of time itself in the whole unknown universe.

Again with the denial. My post history would also confirm that you were told exactly how they apply to the whole universe, repeated here for your convenience: they all double as tests for the presumption/belief of uniformitarianism, on which all of science is built upon, including the model we use to learn about the distant universe, the same model we use for our solar system. That's how a toy truck connect to stars in a distant galaxy.

If time was not the same out there this would not work. You are using time here for the time involved in seeing light out there move.

Yes, repeat it all you like, it's still the same old non-issue; if the core beliefs underlying all science turned out to be false, then all of science are invalidated. So what? Like I said, nobody cares, we have no reason to believe the beliefs are wrong. You didn't until it clashed with your religion.

Certain beliefs that are known to be true are fine where and when they apply.

Yes, beliefs such as uniformitarianism, known to be true and applys to the entire universe. You were wrong to suggest science was not supposed to be based on beliefs.

When some folks get all Buzz Lightyearish on us trying to fly their firetruck to the far universe, those sort of 'core beliefs' go from the sublime to the ridiculous.

Aww, you were doing so well. Couldn't last one post without an appeal to ridicule.

[dad1]

False by counter example, it's not worthless to me.

Then prove the worth of claims about what time in the far universe is like and how it matters or applies on earth?

Incorrect. You have made use of plenty of devices that was built upon the belief of what time is like in the distant universe, that counts as a connection.

Nope, never use one. Never heard of one.

Correct. Like I said from the get-go: the uniformitarian principle is proven by every day experiences.

No problem, we will enter your toy firetruck into evidence. You will need to show us how that tells us what time is like in all the universe though.

I've already covered that in my first clause, the "all" in "accept all" refers to the results of experience based tests which includes knowledge about what time is like in the far universe.

No such experience or tests, you are imagining things.

So you keep insisting. You have no argument to support your accusation of not being sound though.

How does a toy truck in a sandbox tell us what time in the universe is like exactly?

Again, I get that you don't care about science, but you don't get to change the rules. Call it pretence all you like, the rules say toy walkie talkies mean the uniformitarianism belief counts as confirmed knowledge.

Except that a walkie talkkie does no such silly thing.

You say you prefer honesty, here you are attacking science itself, so be honest, don't cherry pick, reject all of it.

Pointing out a belief basis is not attacking the nature of science. At least it should not be, obviously.

I also mentioned weather prediction. But whatever, close enough. Literally everything is evidence of uniformitarianism, which we then use to learn about what the nature of time itself in the distant universe.

None of your toys are actually evidence of a uniform universe. No connection whatsoever.

Yes, or near Earth, no more than around a light day away.

Correct, that is the extent of man's travel. The claims about billions of light years away, then, are laughable.

Yeah, I wouldn't go round questioning other people's English if you need recalibration to understand simple sentences.

For someone that thinks his toys tell us about the far universe, that is rich.

Nop. There is no pretence here. I am bragging about how much we know given our limitations of being in the fishbowl. It really is an amazing achievement considering how quickly we gained so much knowledge. The limitation makes it all the more brag-worthy.

You can brag about your sandbox, toy firetruck and walkie talkies all day if you like.

For which topic exactly? DNA for biology,

You thought Noah had modern DNA?

rock formations for geology,

No formation matters to the issue here. Formations do not mean millions of years old.
signals from space for cosmology, to give some examples.

Again with the denial. My post history would also confirm that you were told exactly how they apply to the whole universe,

In your dreams, Buzz

repeated here for your convenience: they all double as tests for the presumption/belief of uniformitarianism,

There is no test for what time is like far far far far beyond the fishbowl.

on which all of science is built upon, including the model we use to learn about the distant universe,

There is no model that exists that tells us anything about time out there.

the same model we use for our solar system. That's how a toy truck connect to stars in a distant galaxy.

Foolishness.

if the core beliefs underlying all science turned out to be false, then all of science are invalidated.

Great. And...so?

So what? Like I said, nobody cares, we have no reason to believe the beliefs are wrong. You didn't until it clashed with your religion.

People do care that silly beliefs have been used as a basis for models in so called science origin models.

Yes, beliefs such as uniformitarianism, known to be true and applys to the entire universe.

How do we know time is uniform?

You were wrong to suggest science was not supposed to be based on beliefs.

No. You were wrong to deny the obvious.

Aww, you were doing so well. Couldn't last one post without an appeal to ridicule.

You make it impossible to avoid pointing out the ridiculous.

[Bust Nak]

Then prove the worth of claims about what time in the far universe is like and how it matters or applies on earth?

Easy enough: I find it interesting, therefore it matters to me, therefore it is of worth to me. I live on Earth, it matters to at least one person on Earth, therefore it applies on Earth.

Nope, never use one. Never heard of one.

So you'd like to claim, while using one to type out your post.

No problem, we will enter your toy firetruck into evidence. You will need to show us how that tells us what time is like in all the universe though... How does a toy truck in a sandbox tell us what time in the universe is like exactly?

Asked and answered. It confirms our assumption/beliefs of uniformitarianism, upon which our model of the universe is built.

No such experience or tests, you are imagining things... Except that a walkie talkkie does no such silly thing... None of your toys are actually evidence of a uniform universe. No connection whatsoever... In your dreams, Buzz... There is no test for what time is like far far far far beyond the fishbowl... There is no model that exists that tells us anything about time out there.

More naysaying without a counterargument. Not interested.

Pointing out a belief basis is not attacking the nature of science. At least it should not be, obviously.

Maybe, maybe not, but stuff like "Science specializes in not knowing the difference," "When so called science is wholly faith based, religion is a great word," or "Science has been shown to have no facts or evidence, but only a hateful belief set that is foisted onto the evidences. For people who are not sleeping zombies still, they can now plainly see the spirit behind the false religion" are unambiguous attack on science itself. So act like you meant it: stop cherry picking, reject it all.

Correct, that is the extent of man's travel. The claims about billions of light years away, then, are laughable... For someone that thinks his toys tell us about the far universe, that is rich... Foolishness... You make it impossible to avoid pointing out the ridiculous.

Appealing to ridicule is a fallacy. Next.

You can brag about your sandbox, toy firetruck and walkie talkies all day if you like.

Thanks. I would also take this opportunity to brag about knowing the speed of light across the entire universe.

You thought Noah had modern DNA?

Don't know. Nor do I care. I don't give credence to Bible stories at all.

No formation matters to the issue here. Formations do not mean millions of years old.

What conclusion you would draw from it personally is up to you, I'd rather you just adopt the scientific one though. Scientifically speaking, it does mean millions of years old.

Great. And...so?

So it's not a big deal, so nobody cares.

People do care that silly beliefs have been used as a basis for models in so called science origin models.

Yeah, when I say "nobody cares," I meant nobody apart from you lot. You didn't care either, not until it clashed with your interpretation of the Bible. The very same "silly beliefs" forms the core of all science. Rejecting said beliefs as silly means rejecting all of science. Same as above, don't cherry pick, reject it all.

How do we know time is uniform?

By repeatedly checking it.

No. You were wrong to deny the obvious.

Obvious to whom? Only to religious people who has no counterarguments, only logical fallacies and their holy book.

[dad1]

Then prove the worth of claims about what time in the far universe is like and how it matters or applies on earth?

Easy enough: I find it interesting, therefore it matters to me, therefore it is of worth to me. I live on Earth, it matters to at least one person on Earth, therefore it applies on Earth.

Nope, never use one. Never heard of one.

So you'd like to claim, while using one to type out your post.

No problem, we will enter your toy firetruck into evidence. You will need to show us how that tells us what time is like in all the universe though... How does a toy truck in a sandbox tell us what time in the universe is like exactly?

Asked and answered. It confirms our assumption/beliefs of uniformitarianism, upon which our model of the universe is built.

No such experience or tests, you are imagining things... Except that a walkie talkkie does no such silly thing... None of your toys are actually evidence of a uniform universe. No connection whatsoever... In your dreams, Buzz... There is no test for what time is like far far far far beyond the fishbowl... There is no model that exists that tells us anything about time out there.

More naysaying without a counterargument. Not interested.

Pointing out a belief basis is not attacking the nature of science. At least it should not be, obviously.

Maybe, maybe not, but stuff like "Science specializes in not knowing the difference," "When so called science is wholly faith based, religion is a great word," or "Science has been shown to have no facts or evidence, but only a hateful belief set that is foisted onto the evidences. For people who are not sleeping zombies still, they can now plainly see the spirit behind the false religion" are unambiguous attack on science itself. So act like you meant it: stop cherry picking, reject it all.

Correct, that is the extent of man's travel. The claims about billions of light years away, then, are laughable... For someone that thinks his toys tell us about the far universe, that is rich... Foolishness... You make it impossible to avoid pointing out the ridiculous.

Appealing to ridicule is a fallacy. Next.

You can brag about your sandbox, toy firetruck and walkie talkies all day if you like.

Thanks. I would also take this opportunity to brag about knowing the speed of light across the entire universe.

You thought Noah had modern DNA?

Don't know. Nor do I care. I don't give credence to Bible stories at all.

No formation matters to the issue here. Formations do not mean millions of years old.

What conclusion you would draw from it personally is up to you, I'd rather you just adopt the scientific one though. Scientifically speaking, it does mean millions of years old.

Great. And...so?

So it's not a big deal, so nobody cares.

People do care that silly beliefs have been used as a basis for models in so called science origin models.

Yeah, when I say "nobody cares," I meant nobody apart from you lot. You didn't care either, not until it clashed with your interpretation of the Bible. The very same "silly beliefs" forms the core of all science. Rejecting said beliefs as silly means rejecting all of science. Same as above, don't cherry pick, reject it all.

How do we know time is uniform?

By repeatedly checking it.

No. You were wrong to deny the obvious.

Obvious to whom? Only to religious people who has no counterarguments, only logical fallacies and their holy book.

OK so you have no evidence that time exists any particular way and don't care. Your inbred fishbowl musings were entertaining. All of your models are invalidated regarding the distant universe and any time involved in anything getting to earth. I kid you not.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to dad1 in post #439]

OK so you have no evidence that time exists any particular way and don't care. Your inbred fishbowl musings were entertaining. All of your models are invalidated regarding the distant universe and any time involved in anything getting to earth. I kid you not.

Evidence has been presented and you ignore it, don't understand it, or just claim nothing has been presented at all. You've yet to make a counterargument of any kind ... just personal statements representing your own personal opinion, based on zero empirical evidence. I don't think anyone believes you are kidding ... just ignorant of what science has accomplished over the last 1000 years, and especially the last 100. That is crystal clear from your comments.