Let's talk about odds Kelly, you see to partial to them at the moment. As i alluded to in the other thread for your YEC worldview to be correct, and by that i mean -
1. The age of the earth in the thousands
2. Adam & Eve
3. Th Biblical Flood
4. Dinosaurs living with humans on the Ark
5. Vegetarian T Rex's living on the Ark
For the above to be correct, that would require a catastrophic failure of 'science' over the last 500 years. Mankind's entire base of knowledge would have to be wrong. Physics, chemistry, biology all wrong. Some of the greatest scientific minds ever to have lived, for example, Hawking, Einstein, Feynman, Darwin etc all wrong. Yet somehow amongst this centuries mass deception you stand like a fountain of knowledge. Because you are right, somehow you have worked it all out.
What are the odds of that? How many zeros would we need to put onto that probability calculation to end up in this scenario?
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
@Proper-Knob
Be fair and also explain more recent discoveries of SOFT organic tissue found in fossilized bones supposedly 60 millions years old.
Soft tissue (blood cells, hemoglobin) preserved for 60 million or plus years ? Maybe dinosaur populations are not as old as assumed.
Soft Tissue Dinosaur Bones
Hovind YEC-er says babies were taken on the ark. No need to insist all animals were full sized adults.
He says reptiles never stop growing. He says the longevity made many of them them [monsterous] (edited). Longevity was circumvented after the flood as suggested by the dramatically shorter ages of men.
Its not hard to imagine a couple of small lizard like infant creatures which had not yet become full grown were taken on an ark.
My question to YEC-ers might be why do the fossils of those dinosaurs that did die indicate carnivorous characteristics if they were all vegetarians? KellyJay ?
I don't think either viewpoint (OEC / YEC) can fully ignore some of these things.
@proper-knob saidYes, if the earth is young there are catastrophic failures in man's understanding. Not our entire knowledge base, but many assumptions. Some of the greatest scientific minds would wrong others right, that is always true. I've repeatedly have said that the time factor for me isn't a big deal, for you yes. You want to do the odds for that, show me your numbers what variables are you comparing to what, how do you come up with them. Forensic science can give us great insight, but the father away in time from this moment in time it become more of a guessing game.
Let's talk about odds Kelly, you see to partial to them at the moment. As i alluded to in the other thread for your YEC worldview to be correct, and by that i mean -
1. The age of the earth in the thousands
2. Adam & Eve
3. Th Biblical Flood
4. Dinosaurs living with humans on the Ark
5. Vegetarian T Rex's living on the Ark
For the above to be correct, that would ...[text shortened]... t? How many zeros would we need to put onto that probability calculation to end up in this scenario?
When presented with what I was asking about the numbers were there, including what they were based on and why, so you have both odds and variables clearly defined. Give me yours reasons, outside of the fact that saying some people would be wrong isn't anything to put numbers on.
Probability calculations are easy when you know what is being looked at, if the odds of a coin flip is 50% or 1/2 finding out what is required for what odds would over come by having to get heads 150 times in row. You could even come up with how many coins were needed to get that number down to 1. If you have a means to do the math for what you asking me about, show me how you come with them.
@KellyJay
It's not just a few 'assumptions' which are off if the universe is a few thousand years old. That's a colossal understatement and, to me anyhow, demonstrates you clearly don't have an understanding of the implications of what you are saying.
@proper-knob saidI completely understand, not agreeing with you doesn't mean lack of understanding. I pointed out to you I accept I can be wrong about age, it isn't a big deal for me one way or another. The fact that I believe God is putting things together takes away the need for long periods of time, I'm not concern with things coming together in deep time. I see no need for long periods of time for success as I can place a coin down on heads 150 times each time with effort not chance.
@KellyJay
It's not just a few 'assumptions' which are off if the universe is a few thousand years old. That's a colossal understatement and, to me anyhow, demonstrates you clearly don't have an understanding of the implications of what you are saying.
I think if man is colossally wrong on time, than the whole notion of what was required for the universe to be as it is changes, to there had to be a direct first cause, everything here is here for a reason.
@sonship saidIt wasn't 'soft fleshy tissue' that was found. You're making it up.
@Proper-Knob
Or, maybe we don't quite understand how soft tissue can be fossilised under certain conditions?
Right. Sixty five million year old soft fleshy tissue.
Got a plan B in case that turns out inadaquate ?
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
It wasn't 'soft fleshy tissue' that was found. You're making it up.
Close enough. Look, admit that as a skeptic of the Bible, some "common sense" highground you DON't have. You don't have it as much as you think.
Now we have a problem here - what is being found in bones of creatures thought to be multiple millions of years DEAD.
Don't sweep it under the rug. Don't hide out behind semantics. Admit, maybe some previous assumptions have to be revisited. Isn't that what SCIENCE does ?
"Soft Tissue"
This is secular TV show 60 Minutes.
Ignore the dramatic music.
Ignore Genetic Fallacy of what some people would love to see. Just get to the facts.