My HUGE problem with creationist thinking (re: Which version of creationism)

All sorts of things need explaining to Fred Hoyle, but unfortunately he's dead.What does this have to do with anything? I'm not sure it's even possible for anything to make that less true ... perhaps if you combined it with a dissertation on how the first lemon souffl was invented by a revolving umbrella-stand named Gerald. I don't have a religion, and no different from what? I look forward to it.

Condescending as usual. You betcha.

Chuck, do you see the ellipsis throughout your quote?Do you know what that means?

Math quiz for you.(infinity) = (infinity)
(infinity)+10= ? Ridiculous.If you have an infinitely large collection of cue balls, they extend out in rows and columns forever.
You can still take a magic marker and draw an X on one of them.
Drawing an X on a cue ball at your present location does not negate the existence of the rest of the cue balls. Because everything we see is limited by what light can reach us.If you live in an infinite environment filled with evenly spaces pillars, there is no point at which you can stand where you can see everything.At all points, some pillars will be blocking your view.AND, your vision is limited by your ability to distinguish objects at great distance, so even if you could find a vantage point, you can not see further than you can see.I don't know if you ever played peek-a-bo as a baby, but your mommy was still there even when you couldn't see her. Totality. We can observe X amount of the universe, therefore the universe is a certain age. Because the universe is a certain age, then it can only be X big.It's true that we can not see beyond the background radiation. That does not mean that there is nothing behind the background radiation.Again, peekaboo. Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it's not there. We can just as easily say:
"Its like finding a pile of eroded gravel at the bottom of a cliff and allocating it to a Jewish Wizard."

Oh really?Let's look at your quotes over the last two posts, shall we? That's 6 insults in about 5 LINES of total text. And one of those lines was "and".I'm reminded of something someone once told me: So, Chucky, I'm going to quote Chucky here and tell you -
You look like you are clueless on the topic and instead are resorting to low level debate tactics.Sad bro, sad...... owned.

Technically, nothing has anything to do with "ID theory". There is no "ID theory".There's "ID theology".
There's "ID PR"But there's not "theory" of ID.There's no ID experiments.
There's no ID falsifiability.
There's no ID predictions.
There's no ID mechanism.
There's no ID limitations.Here's a tip:
Don't use terms like "theory" if you don't know what they mean.Someone on the thread. Can't quite remember who.... oh, right. YOU.... seems to like playing dictionary.Well, go look up "scientific theory" and then bury your head in the sand.I await your predictably sad reply.

No such thing as Infinity Plus 10 or minus 10. Your slight of hand casino science only proves my case: your infinity was not infinity 10 seconds ago. Plus/Minus Infinity is also a contradiction in terms.Why not reconsider it before being on auto-defense. Think 'ABSOLUTE' finite instead, and by a process of elimination decide what other explanation can be subscribed to the emergence of the universe, if any, other than creationism. Be assured I won't go on auto-defense and treat an intelligent answer respectfully. Hint: Its a scientific issuee, not a theological one! Just because we cannot prove infinity in a vase, it does not mean we must thereby accept a totally unscientific premise never seen anywhere, which itself is unprovable. The sound premise applies. Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

A little math for you.Something can't be "less true" when it's 0% true.He's wrong. Repeating him doesn't make him right no matter how desperately you want him to be.I eagerly await your childish reply.

Because the answer would still be infinity.You are hooked on this idea that there can not be change within an infinite system.That's wrong.Repeating what you believe doesn't make it right.Infinity is not required to be static.

As Nuggin said there is no ID theory as theory as understood as a scientific theory. I post this link occassionally so that those ignorant of what the term means can be enlightened.

quote:

---

Theory: A theory is what one or more hypotheses become once they have been verified and accepted to be true. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers.

---

Scientific Theory, Law, and Hypothesis Explained | Wilstar.comIf you want to pursue that ID has a Theory please show how it is. Please tell us related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers.

quote:

---

We can just as easily say:
"Its like finding a pile of eroded gravel at the bottom of a cliff and allocating it to a Jewish Wizard."

---

No, you cannot pose that as an analogy. Genesis, unlike other ancient writings, includes names, places, dates, numbers, rivers, mountains, geneologies and 1000's of such identifiable stats. Wizards are not brave enough to do that - they cannot put such stiff on the table and have them vindicated 1000's of years later. No one has aside from Genesis. The first recording of the River Tigris and Mount Ararat are listed in their correct locations with amazing aeriel photography directions. Do you have an analogy another writing can match that?

quote:

---

Infinity is not required to be static.

---

You don't understand. The term static or unstatic is subject to something else being present, equally old and fastidious. But that would also mean the first entity was not infinite - because infinite occupies all finite space, and existed before space emerged. It is thereby not possible to have 'TWO' infinite entities, thus polytheism is wrong and only ONE can apply.When one nominates static [changes], without realizing it they are talking about a 'finite' entity only. In contrast, the only mark of infinity is 'change'. Think of an infinite mouse and a finite elephant: if the mouse can be squashed it means it was not infinite; if the mouse prevails the elephant which is later dead, it means the elephant was finite. Only 'change' impacts here.Further, the only way one can describe infinity 3000 years ago, is to say:
I KNOW YOUR GREAT GRAND PARENTS - THEY BECAME OLD THEN DIED AWAY - BUT I HAVE NOT CHANGED.

How many even integers are there?
How many odd integers are there? I know from experience that when you capitalise your scripture it means you are making it up. Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

There's no aeriel photography at all in either of my King James or RSV. Could you scan what's in your version and post it here?

That doesn't make it scientific.In order for the claim to be scientific, you would have to be able to present an experiment through which we could falsify at least one of the mechanisms behind the claim.What mechanisms are given in Genesis?
What experiment can we run to test one of those mechanisms?