Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.
Separate names with a comma.
If you consider yourself a beginner or an avid shooter, the Glock Talk community is your place to discuss self defense, concealed carry, reloading, target shooting, and all things Glock.
Discussion in 'Religious Issues' started by Peace Warrior, Oct 17, 2012.
I don't think "industrial strength" will get the job done. We need to call NASA in on this one.
No, not at all, in fact, demanding a reference or citation does not equate to trolling; however, slicing and dicing a person's post solely to remove the actual context, and then trying to create a new outlandish context in order to denigrate a position you otherwise have no argument against is very telling.
Here is my quote, in full, but now with its original context in bold highlight.
You just want want out of having to respond to the inquiries made to you.
Weren't they using both the millimeter and sub-millimeter continuum "viewing" instruments?
If so, they are making conclusions based on interpreting data from non-visible light waves that are coming from a distance, if their measurements are correct, of over 400 light years away.
Plus 400 light years?!? Hey, they and you are more than welcome to BELIEVE stars are forming in that area of the universe, but there is NO empirical scientific data to under gird y'alls faith in this belief.
God did not create man...man created God.
Science explains everything.
So much for "I've never ignored empirical scientific data about stars forming."
Any scientific equipment not listed in the Bible doesn't work.
Any equipment that detects anything PW can't explain is faulty.
Any article who's title puts the lie to PW's claim can't be posted.
posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
The problem with "the most rudimentary of all data points" is that they appear to be rudimentary only to creationists; people actually familiar with the field haven't come across them anywhere other than from creationists, who, it's already been pointed out, haven't done any actual research, and are notorious for repeatedly quote mining legitimate sources and outright lying about facts, undeterred even after it's pointed out.
Do you know or understand ANYTHING about either the abilities and or limits of data, when it comes specifically from millimeter and or sub-millimeter continuum "viewing" instruments?
You invited me to point these things out to you,...
I agreed, and here we are.
Evolutionary theory is the opiate of the atheists.
That doesn't even make sense as an insult.
Funny you should mention that after refusing multiple requests for an article you refer to but have never produced.
posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
Apparently not, please do educate me.
Rather than implying there's something I don't know, why don't you actually make your point and explicitly state what it is you think I'm missing.
I remember this sort of pompous self-aggrandizing attitude. Reached its zenith just before I told PW what "instrument backgrounds" were and that the tests he cited that supposedly indicate diamonds have carbon 14 weren't even measuring the diamonds. Funny how he can't seem to find that article now. Thought he'd be eager to prove me wrong.
I eagerly await the next revelation about PWs total misunderstanding of the last batch of stuff cribbed from creationist websites without having a clue what he was actually talking about.
It appears PW has fled once more. My prophetic powers are again verified.
PW is still here, you just can't see him since you obviously don't understand millimeter and sub-millimeter continuum "viewing" instruments.
Of course, I don't mean to be smug, as I have no room to talk. I thought abstracts describe what the associated article is supposed to be about. How crazy is THAT?
His best moments have been deleted, actually.
He once tried to claim that the average rate of star formation in the universe would indicate that we should literally see that many stars forming in the night sky every second.
He ignored that the average rate of star formation would mean about one or two new stars per year in the milky way - which would amount to trying to find one or two new stars in a sea of at least a hundred billion stars.
He also ignored that the universe's actual (as opposed to average) rate of star formation could change over time.
He ignored that the size of the universe, and it's expansion rate, means that it's reasonable that we do not see all those stars forming.
That, however, is not the best part. The best part was that when he calculated his average rate of star formation, he did the math wrong, and claimed a rate that was far too high. Note that this was not a matter of his putting in numbers that were too large to begin with - his statement was actually arithmetically incorrect. The numbers he put in were correct, and the operations he claimed to perform were correct - but the number he got out was just flat out wrong.
I submit this now for those who remember it. The google link to the archive of that thread comes back with an empty page, which is a sad, sad thing. Anybody in a discussion with PW ought to be able to just link that claim, as well as his claim that the minute amount of iron in the Sun would prevent fusion.
Uh you should change your name to pointless, endless argument maker.
Hey PW at what point are we allowed to move onto the story of Noah? I wouldn't want to break any of your "rules", but it is clear that you no longer wish to discuss Carbon dating and there are plenty more scientific inaccuracies to address besides the age of the earth.... I mean come on dude we're barely into the OT, lets pick up the pace.