Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2019 23:40:58 GMT -5
Duane Gish speaking, vid time stamp – 45:41 “You know, when Amino acids are in the same solution with sugars they react with one another and they are mutually destroyed. You can't even have Amino acids existing in the presence of sugars because they mutually destroy one another.” vid time stamp 45:55 (transcribed) You are correct. I had overlooked the reference. What Gish did leave out was the fact that he was referring to the Maillard reaction. It is what causes the browning of food. The reactions begin to occur above 285°F. That is why foods don't brown at low temperatures. It is a chemical reaction between an amino acid and a reducing sugar. But it does not happen when they are in solution. It happens at high temperatures. Gish went on to claim that amino acids and sugars could not exist in the same solution only to undermine the possibility of amino acids forming, as demonstrated by Miller. But you are correct. Gish did go so far as to make a claim that, as a biologist, he should have known was false. My apology for doubting your quote. Context - Topic of discussion - quote “ ...you cannot get protein molecules, you cannot get DNA and RNA molecules by chance.” Unquote
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Aug 14, 2019 0:13:23 GMT -5
You are correct. I had overlooked the reference. What Gish did leave out was the fact that he was referring to the Maillard reaction. It is what causes the browning of food. The reactions begin to occur above 285°F. That is why foods don't brown at low temperatures. It is a chemical reaction between an amino acid and a reducing sugar. But it does not happen when they are in solution. It happens at high temperatures. Gish went on to claim that amino acids and sugars could not exist in the same solution only to undermine the possibility of amino acids forming, as demonstrated by Miller. But you are correct. Gish did go so far as to make a claim that, as a biologist, he should have known was false. My apology for doubting your quote. Context - Topic of discussion - quote “ ...you cannot get protein molecules, you cannot get DNA and RNA molecules by chance.” Unquote The fact remains IS that Gish is NOT telling you the WHOLE TRUTH!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2019 5:30:23 GMT -5
Duane Gish Bible Science Assoc 1998 - Rev2 www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTXED2g7IaUExcerpt - Green and Goldberger: “...the macromolecule-to-cell transition is a jump of fantastic dimentions, which is beyond the range of testsble hypothesis. In this area all is conjecture. The available facts do not provide a basis for postulating that cells arose on this planet.”
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2019 6:37:32 GMT -5
Duane Gish Talk www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGJDuTVYOEEExcerpt quote “Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideolgy, as secular religion – a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. ... Evolution is a religion.” Rose, Michael. 2000, How evolution became a religion: Creationists correct?: Darwinians wrongly mix science with morality politics. National Post (Ontario, Canada, 13 May sec. B, p5. unquote
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 14, 2019 8:08:33 GMT -5
You are correct. I had overlooked the reference. What Gish did leave out was the fact that he was referring to the Maillard reaction. It is what causes the browning of food. The reactions begin to occur above 285°F. That is why foods don't brown at low temperatures. It is a chemical reaction between an amino acid and a reducing sugar. But it does not happen when they are in solution. It happens at high temperatures. Gish went on to claim that amino acids and sugars could not exist in the same solution only to undermine the possibility of amino acids forming, as demonstrated by Miller. But you are correct. Gish did go so far as to make a claim that, as a biologist, he should have known was false. My apology for doubting your quote. Context - Topic of discussion - quote “ ...you cannot get protein molecules, you cannot get DNA and RNA molecules by chance.” Unquote You cannot win a lottery by chance.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2019 11:44:24 GMT -5
nice techy TRICK??? - the above quote of rational WILL NOT quote there using the full quote button, nor allow this notation to be added back into that section - so I replaced quotation of it here in order to preserve the whole context of rational's post.13 hours ago rational said: You are correct. I had overlooked the reference. What Gish did leave out was the fact that he was referring to the Maillard reaction. It is what causes the browning of food. The reactions begin to occur above 285°F. That is why foods don't brown at low temperatures. It is a chemical reaction between an amino acid and a reducing sugar. But it does not happen when they are in solution. It happens at high temperatures. Gish went on to claim that amino acids and sugars could not exist in the same solution only to undermine the possibility of amino acids forming, as demonstrated by Miller. But you are correct. Gish did go so far as to make a claim that, as a biologist, he should have known was false. My apology for doubting your quote. Context - Topic of discussion - ( Dr. Gish was not referring to or even speaking about the Maillard reaction) quote “ ...you cannot get protein molecules, you cannot get DNA and RNA molecules by chance.” Unquote You cannot win a lottery by chance.
Logical Conclusion -
(the Maillard reaction is asserted into the the mouth of Dr. Gish in order to CREATE supposed 'scienticic fact' that Dr. Gish supposedly (purposely?) left out , and now we hop onto the topic of winning a lottery by chance? So much for scientific FACTS in rational's responses to scientific facts.)
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Aug 14, 2019 13:20:14 GMT -5
Of course, heave the blame for one's own inability to understand something back onto the presenter as "not being clear enough!" h huh - rational's chief angel in place of rational again. What is wrong with rational - keyboard-Laryngitis this time. (that is not a question). Where did you get the idea that any subject on TMB is supposed to have only two people who can take part in the discussion at hand?
Why do you apparently think that I can't have my own thoughts on a subject and able to present my own views?
PS: Some of your replies are so personal & obnoxious towards individual people that they are hardly worth answering.
They have nothing to do with the subject at hand.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 14, 2019 13:33:37 GMT -5
You cannot win a lottery by chance. (such a 'wise' response) Whan Gish mentioned: You know, when Amino acids are in the same solution with sugars they react with one another and they are mutually destroyed.The reduction of amino acids by sugars is the Maillard reaction. It causes the browning of cooked foods. The reduction does not happen when the amino acids, or peptides, are in a solution with sugars. It happens when the temperature is far in excess of the boiling point of water. Since all proteins must be digested to amino acids and sugars and starches must be digested to glucose to enter into the blood stream to be of any use to the body the idea that they will destroy each other in solution is clearly false. (Dr. Gish was not referring to or even speaking about the Maillard reaction) Oh. Are there other amino/sugar reactions that Gish was talking about? You cannot win a lottery by chance. (such a 'wise' response) Random chance is random chance. If you believe Gish's statement then it follows mine was just as true.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2019 14:14:13 GMT -5
Thermodynamic Arguments for Creation www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1yto0-z2bQExcerpts - It doesn't matter if all the data supports intelligent design and contradicts naturalistic evolution. Dr, Scott Todd, an immunologist at Kansas State University said in Nature Magazine: (evolutionist) “Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.” S. D. Todd, Nature, 410067573:423, September 30, 1999 (evolutionist) Science or Philosophical Bias? “(Evolution is) a theory universally accepted not because it can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.” D.M.S. Watson (evolutionist) “Evolution is unproved and unprovable We believe it because the only alternative is special creation which is unthinkable.” Sir Arthure Keith (evolutionist) The only alternative (to evolution) is the doctrine of special creation, which may be true, but is irrational.” L.T. More (evolutionist) How can the truth be irrational?
Only if philosophical bias is given more importance than truth.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Aug 14, 2019 14:21:48 GMT -5
You cannot win a lottery by chance.
(the Maillard reaction is asserted into the the mouth of Dr. Gish in order to CREATE supposed 'scienticic fact' that Dr. Gish supposedly (purposely?) left out , and now we hop onto the topic of winning a lottery by chance? So much for scientific FACTS in rational's responses to scientific facts.) ( It seems that you got your own quote mixed in with Rational's)As for Gish's idea that "...you cannot get protein molecules, you cannot get DNA and RNA molecules by chance,” -that idea that evolution of life means it just happens"by chance" - is a misconception of how the evolution of life really happened.
Creationists are the ones, -NOT evolutionary biologists, -who use that term by ignoring the engine behind the process.
They use the terms "random" and "chance" to distract from the real cause which we know is the "survival of the fitness" -that is the engine behind the process of evolutionary biology! Evolutionary biology is able to show in depth exactly how that happens!
Any 101 class in biology can easily show the elements involved!
So until someone like yourself, Gratu, -is willing to take a course in biology there is simply is no use for you to continue posting all those "creationists" sites!
Not only are they false & and misleading as to scientific knowledge itself but also scientific methods. Such ideas like "creationism" actually destroy the method of "critical thinking" which is needed for acquiring knowledge on all fronts of intelligence.
Lose of the element of "critical thinking" -in the way we gather knowledge, -is a danger to ourselves individually and dangerous for humanity as a whole.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Aug 14, 2019 15:09:38 GMT -5
OH PLEASE!
How many times do we have to expose that woefully inaccurate creationist nutty idea?!
Thomas Kindell can't even claim to be a "scientist!"
-------He is a licensed Assemblies of God evangelist -------and is a lifetime sustaining member of the Creation Research Society.
------Dr. Kindell is a frequent guest on the radio series “Science, Scripture & Salvation” which is produced by the Institute for Creation Research.
These three words/subjects “Science, Scripture & Salvation” aren't even comparable! In fact "scripture & salvation" are in antipathy to science!
If people are comfortable and feel secure & safe in their belief of "salvation" by their faith in the "scripture" -why must they attempt to support that faith by the used of science?
Doesn't that seem that they are NOT really leaning on their supposed "FAITH" in their god after all?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2019 15:49:52 GMT -5
If people are comfortable and feel secure & safe in their belief of "salvation" by their faith in the "scripture" -why must they attempt to support that faith by the used of science?
Doesn't that seem that they are NOT really leaning on their supposed "FAITH" in their god after all?
the ONLY reason we do that is because evolutionist and such demand it....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2019 17:37:40 GMT -5
But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:
Beloved, while I was making every effort to write you about our common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 14, 2019 18:15:10 GMT -5
It took a long time but the expected result was there - Hoyle's fallacy. Todd was commenting on evolution debates that took place in Kansas. Todd's comment and the one proceeding it was pointing out that no matter what was being taught the existence or non-existence of a of a paranormal being could not be taught. Just a note - this was not a published article in Nature but the equivalent of a letter to the editor in a newspaper. I have doubts that Scott C. Todd would call himself an evolutionist. The people quoted above were speaking regarding what was current at the time they were alive. All of them were born in the 19 th century and did the majority of their work in the first 1/ 2 of the 20 th century. If science was static this might have some validity. Their thinking is as relevant to evolution today as J. J. Thomson's plum pudding model is nuclear physics. As a time frame note - the neutron was discovered in 1920. Crick and Watson determined t he structure of DNA in 1953.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2019 18:55:09 GMT -5
It took a long time but the expected result was there - Hoyle's fallacy. Todd was commenting on evolution debates that took place in Kansas. Todd's comment and the one proceeding it was pointing out that no matter what was being taught the existence or non-existence of a of a paranormal being could not be taught. Just a note - this was not a published article in Nature but the equivalent of a letter to the editor in a newspaper. The people quoted above were speaking regarding what was current at the tome they were alive. All of them were born in the 19 th century and did the majority of their work in the first 1/ 2 of the 20 th century. If science was static this might have some validity. Their thinking is as relevant to evolution today as J. J. Thomson's plum pudding model is nuclear physics. As a time frame note - the neutron was discovered in 1920. Crick and Watson determined t he structure of DNA in 1953. Ah huh. The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based upon faith alone; exactly the same sort of faith which is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries of religion.... The only alternative is the doctrine of special creation, which may be true, but irrational.
Louis T. Moore www.azquotes.com/quote/589848Evolution—A solution by default Why do evolutionists summarily dismiss the evidence of design without any serious consideration? Professor D.M.S. Watson, zoologist and Chair of Evolution at University College London, has given us some insight as to why this is so. He said, “Evolution [is] a theory universally accepted not because it can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.” This, of course, is an admission that the foundation of evolution is not science, but a rejection of the supernatural. Evolution then is simply the best alternative anyone has been able to come up with. This also means that evolution is the only field in science where one decides on the answer first, and then looks for evidence to support that predetermined answer. Other than rejection of the supernatural, how else can one explain the steadfast adherence of evolutionists to this theory even though they do not know the origin of the three main bases of evolution: the origin of matter, the origin of energy and the origin of life? creationtoday.org/creationist-challenge/Evolution is faith, a religion. L.T.Moore The chance that higher life forms might have emerged through evolutionary processes is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the material therein. Fred Hoyle Life will give you whatever experience is most helpful for the evolution of your consciousness. How do you know this is the experience you need? Because this is the experience you are having at the moment. Eckhart Tolle I do not want to believe in God. Therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation leading to evolution. George Wald My recovery from manic depression has been an evolution, not a sudden miracle. Patty Duke To insist, even with Olympian assurance, that life appeared quite by chance and evolved in this fashion, is an unfounded supposition which I believe to be wrong and not in accordance with the facts. Pierre-Paul Grasse Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing. George Wald One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are-as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation. George Wald The theory [of evolution] is a scientific mistake. Louis Agassiz Echoing the criticism made of his father's habilis skulls, he added that Lucy's skull was so incomplete that most of it was 'imagination made of plaster of Paris', thus making it impossible to draw any firm conclusion about what species she belonged to. Richard Leakey Archaeopteryx probably cannot tell us much about the early origins of feathers and flight in true protobirds because Archaeopteryx was, in the modern sense, a bird. Alan Feduccia Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion - a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint - ...and Mr. Gish is but one of many to make it - the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution today. Michael Ruse For myself, as, no doubt, for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom. Aldous Huxley www.azquotes.com/quotes/topics/evolution.html
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Aug 14, 2019 19:23:07 GMT -5
If people are comfortable and feel secure & safe in their belief of "salvation" by their faith in the "scripture" -why must they attempt to support that faith by the used of science?
Doesn't that seem that they are NOT really leaning on their supposed "FAITH" in their god after all?
the ONLY reason we do that is because evolutionist and such demand it.... Hey, wally, -we don't demand anything of you.
I care not one whit what you and any other "creationists" want to believe for yourself or how YOUR "god" might respond to your lack of faith in HIM.
You believe in HIM, -let HIM deal with you! Wipe you off the face of the earth,- if HE so desires for your lack of "faith! (like you are always threatening HE is going to do to the rest of us. )
However, "creationists" want to teach their RELIGIOUS beliefs as SCIENCE in OUR schools to OUR children! That undermines how our children understand how science works.
As adults, in turn, - that results in their inability to make wise decisions about the future of OUR whole world! That affects the whole world in which my children & their children have to live.
Of course people like yourself don't want to take any responsibility for what happens to the world of the future. They dodge any responsibility by saying these are "signs times and when GOD soon will take of it all!"
Nice scapegoat you have conjured up there!
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Aug 14, 2019 19:40:23 GMT -5
If people are comfortable and feel secure & safe in their belief of "salvation" by their faith in the "scripture" -why must they attempt to support that faith by the used of science?
Doesn't that seem that they are NOT really leaning on their supposed "FAITH" in their god after all?
the ONLY reason we do that is because evolutionist and such demand it.... But you are not supporting your faith using science. All of the people gratu has "quoted" misconstrue and misrepresent science, and twist it into an especially deceptive and reprehensible form of Christian apologetics.
|
|
|
Post by Dennis J on Aug 14, 2019 19:47:19 GMT -5
Once, long ago, decades ago in the late 60’s, when the drillers were working on the first well drilled on Jacobsen Property, I had the good fortune to get to be there, witness it, even ask a few questions.
Was told about the millions of years ago while animals walked on the face of the earth, died, turned to oil... So, merely asked what science had to say about the temp. of our sun that long ago. A troubled stone faced response was, “what are you, some kind of a lawyer?” End of conversation. And so it goes even yet, the various sciences even seem to disagree with each other.
Do I know why? Nope. When pressed neither do they.
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Aug 14, 2019 19:49:25 GMT -5
Once, long ago, decades ago in the late 60’s, when the drillers were working on the first well drilled on Jacobsen Property, I had the good fortune to get to be there, witness it, even ask a few questions.
Was told about the millions of years ago while animals walked on the face of the earth, died, turned to oil... So, merely asked what science had to say about the temp. of our sun that long ago. A troubled stone faced response was, “what are you, some kind of a lawyer?” End of conversation. And so it goes even yet, the various sciences even seem to disagree with each other.
Do I know why? Nope. When pressed neither do they. Please provide an example of this.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2019 20:19:51 GMT -5
the ONLY reason we do that is because evolutionist and such demand it.... But you are not supporting your faith using science. All of the people gratu has "quoted" misconstrue and misrepresent science, and twist it into an especially deceptive and reprehensible form of Christian apologetics. regardless, when talking to an evolutionist and such about God we always end up being asked to prove it scientifically so you get what you ask for....
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 14, 2019 20:22:07 GMT -5
Once, long ago, decades ago in the late 60’s, when the drillers were working on the first well drilled on Jacobsen Property, I had the good fortune to get to be there, witness it, even ask a few questions.
Was told about the millions of years ago while animals walked on the face of the earth, died, turned to oil... So, merely asked what science had to say about the temp. of our sun that long ago. A troubled stone faced response was, “what are you, some kind of a lawyer?” End of conversation. And so it goes even yet, the various sciences even seem to disagree with each other.
Do I know why? Nope. When pressed neither do they. You were asking roughnecks and drillers about the sun temperature millions of years ago and they didn't know? Wow. If you believe the current studies the sun is getting hotter with age.
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Aug 14, 2019 20:25:32 GMT -5
But you are not supporting your faith using science. All of the people gratu has "quoted" misconstrue and misrepresent science, and twist it into an especially deceptive and reprehensible form of Christian apologetics. regardless, when talking to an evolutionist and such about God we always end up being asked to prove it scientifically so you get what you ask for.... But you (collective) have not proven anything scientifically, so you have NOT given scientists what they have asked for.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2019 20:32:42 GMT -5
regardless, when talking to an evolutionist and such about God we always end up being asked to prove it scientifically so you get what you ask for.... But you (collective) have not proven anything scientifically, so you have NOT given scientists what they have asked for. that may be your perception but that wouldn't necessarily be fact....
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Aug 14, 2019 21:00:57 GMT -5
But you (collective) have not proven anything scientifically, so you have NOT given scientists what they have asked for. that may be your perception but that wouldn't necessarily be fact.... It is my perception as a practicing scientist who knows enough to spot liars posing as scientists.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Aug 14, 2019 21:30:02 GMT -5
Thermodynamic Arguments for Creation www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1yto0-z2bQ
“(Evolution is) a theory universally accepted not because it can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.” D.M.S. Watson (evolutionist) Gratu, -I am going to answer just one of your quotes for now. (maybe I can get to the others later but getting at the truth behind creationists deceptions takes time. If I did believe in Satan, -I would believe he is the one that makes them so cunning! )
I will take this one you posted from D.M.S. Watson for now:
“(Evolution is) a theory universally accepted not because it can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.” D.M.S. Watson (evolutionist)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D._M._S._Watson
Famous quotes of D.M.S. Watson: 1#, “ the theory of evolution itself, a theory universally accepted not because it can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible. " This quotation of Watson is often used in Creationist writings in an attempt to show that Watson, and thus by extension promoters of evolution in general, dismiss creationism due to anti-theistic bias. A slightly different version of the quotation, derived from a secondhand source,[5] is sometimes used (e.g., by C. S. Lewis[6]): 2# “ [Evolution is] accepted by zoologists not because it has been observed to occur or . . . can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible."
Sometimes the words in square brackets are incorrectly incorporated into the quotation, and/or the ellipsis* is omitted. Watson's original statement first appeared in a 1929 article, "Adaptation," in the journal Nature: The second version of the quotation, given above, is formed by combining the introduction and conclusion of a passage in Watson's paper, one from the first page and one from the third.
The first passage reads: "Evolution itself is accepted by zoologists not because it has been observed to occur or is supported by logically coherent arguments, but because it does fit all the facts of Taxonomy, of Palaeontology, and of Geographical Distribution, and because no alternative explanation is credible.
But whilst the fact of evolution is accepted by every biologist the mode in which it has occurred and the mechanism by which it has been brought about are still disputable. The only two ' theories of Evolution ' which have gained any general currency, those of Lamark and of Darwin, rest on a most insecure basis;the validity of the assumptions on which they rest has seldom been seriously examined, and they do not interest most of the younger zoologists..." The concluding passage reads:
"The extraordinary lack of evidence to show that the incidence of death under natural conditions is controlled by small differences of the kind which separate species from one another or, what is the same thing from an observational point of view, by physiological differences correlated with such structural features, renders it difficult to appeal to natural selection as the main or indeed an important factor in bringing about the evolutionary changes which we know to have occurred.
It may be important, it may indeed be the principle which overrides all others ; but at present its real existence as a phenomenon rests on an extremely slender basis. The extreme difficulty of obtaining the necessary data for any quantitative estimation of the efficiency of natural selection makes it seem probable that this theory will be re-established, if it be so, by the collapse of alternative explanations which are more easily attacked by observation and experiment.
If so, -it will present a parallel to the Theory of Evolution itself, a theory universally accepted, not because it can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.If so, it will present a parallel to the theory of evolution itself, a theory universally accepted not because it can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible." (emphasis-mine)
So, - these "famous quotes" are shortened and/or squashed together by Creationists in an attempt to skew Watson's quotes into what they think gives them legitimacy of their own conclusions.
How can they believe that we are so gullible as to not be able to see their dishonesty? It is this kind of dishonesty & deception that creationists use all the time which negates all credibility in what they say.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Aug 14, 2019 21:34:13 GMT -5
Once, long ago, decades ago in the late 60’s, when the drillers were working on the first well drilled on Jacobsen Property, I had the good fortune to get to be there, witness it, even ask a few questions.
Was told about the millions of years ago while animals walked on the face of the earth, died, turned to oil... So, merely asked what science had to say about the temp. of our sun that long ago. A troubled stone faced response was, “what are you, some kind of a lawyer?” End of conversation. And so it goes even yet, the various sciences even seem to disagree with each other.
Do I know why? Nope. When pressed neither do they. Dennis what did you expect from oil drillers? A lecture from scientists?
|
|
|
Post by Dennis J on Aug 14, 2019 21:39:19 GMT -5
Sheesh! You really do think I am dumber than a rock, don’t you?
Do you really think the one I would have been talking with was not but a driller? Really?
Well, it wasn’t, it was the lead geologist on the job, if ya gotta know. Your apology is accepted.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2019 22:01:43 GMT -5
No sweat, Dennis, some posters on here have no qualms about their ridicule based on their own ridiculous assumption that everyone else on here are idiots well below THEIR "pay grade."
It's good to see you are still with us to encourage us to believe that God hears our prayers - and yours.
|
|