Will just say hate bars that have unisex toilets ONLY. Like a full row of them with the mirrors and sinks opposite the row of cubicles.

You're standing there waiting for a piss next to some poor 18 year old girl who must be thinking WTF am I doing standing next to an old man in a bar while I'm waiting for a slash. And other girls are trying to do their hair and makeup. Bloody stupid idea.

 

That would be dumb for sure. 

Are you just assuming "her" gender?  Urinals are a construct of the patriarchy that has been repressing all 17 genders since the bible was first published anyway Muz, embrace the freedom of having to sit down to piss. hahahahahahahah

Really?

If you're under 18 you're not mature enough to legally buy a pack of ciggies or a bottle of beer.

But soon you'll able to lop your genitals off and the taxpayer will pay for it, on the basis of something of a mental illness rather than a real condition.  And secular schools are telling kids its all ok..

https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/health-department-to-consider-funding-gender-affirming-surgery-under-medicare-20231114-p5ek0g.html

#ethics.

Well this is an interesting take. (Ties in with your 'what's the evolutionary benefit of being a homosexual'.)

But whatever you think about that it actually says;

'The proposal, which will be considered at a meeting next month, suggests the Medicare rebates be limited to adults between 18 and 50 years old.'

I came across this today - 4 scientific reasons why the earth cannot be millions of years old.

https://youtu.be/y23ap4bKSi0?

and I'll repeat my premise. There are scientific arguments, both for and against. So just because people like Muz and tsf lamblast it as nonsense, their remonstrations does not automatically make it nonsense. It's the substantive arguments that count. Therefore, because there are scientific arguments both for and against, I do not believe the Creation-Evolution issue can conclusively resolve the question of the God of the Bible.

For example, the famous atheist, Anthony Flew -- who was the "Richard Dawkins" and "Christopher Hitchens" of his generation -- towards the end of his life, he admitted there must be a god because the complexity of DNA is too great for it to happen by random chance.

But merely admitting there must be a god - does not take it the next step, which is: out of all the spirits claiming to be god, which one is the true God?

To answer that question - you have to go to the message of Jesus Christ and the apostles - and grapple with the arguments there. And that argument is sufficient to counter all false-spirits and also false-Christian versions.

You didn't.

You came across an old fool that is deluded. And the sheila interviewing him that needs her head read for indulging him.

Looking forward to the peer reviewed papers submitted to Nature, The Journal of Geology or Geosciences that show the earth is merely thousands of years old.

Until then I'll continue to 'lambast' fools that haven't a clue.

.

 

In order to think through an issue -- you first have to become a person that is willing to think.

The biggest reason why people do not think, is the excuse, "I do not have to consider that person's arguments -- but he is an idiot".

For vaccines, you used that "he's an idiot" ploy about Dr John Campbell, Dr Peter McCullough etc. You called them idiots, so you felt self-justified that you did not need to think about what they said.

For these videos, you brand the old man to be an idiot, so you feel you don't need to think about what he said.

Herere's what he said: if they can find soft-tissue in dinosaur bones, it means the bones cannot be millions and millions of years old - because the soft-tissue cannot last that long.

This is not a one-issue investigation. Rather, it is the totality of everything that undercuts in the theory of Evolution.

Notice that scientists show bias. They admit that there is soft-tissue found in dinosaur bones - but they do not even contemplate it is because it is not millions of years BECAUSE, if they did, it would open them up to there being a God that is capable of creating the world in 6 days.

https://www.history.com/news/scientists-find-soft-tissue-in-75-million-year-old-dinosaur-bones

https://online.ucpress.edu/abt/article-abstract/83/5/298/117017/Preservation-of-Soft-Tissues-in-Dinosaur?

As with all these issues - you have scientists arguing both for and against. That is why, there can be no resolution just on the Evolution-Creation debate. It has to go to the next phase of considering the evidence in the message by Jesus Christ.

What's the lowdown with these so-called dinosaurs? Interested to know about who made them up and why they are trying to convince us they were real. 

https://answersingenesis.org/dinosaurs/when-did-dinosaurs-live/what-really-happened-to-the-dinosaurs/

https://answersingenesis.org/dinosaurs/

https://answersingenesis.org/dinosaurs/when-did-dinosaurs-live/dinosaurs-dating-and-the-age-of-the-earth/

https://answersingenesis.org/dinosaurs/humans/dinosaurs-living-with-people-the-biblical-worldview/

https://answersingenesis.org/dinosaurs/digging-truth-about-dinosaurs/

https://answersingenesis.org/dinosaurs/humans/dinosaurs-on-the-ark/

https://answersingenesis.org/dinosaurs/dragon-legends/slaying-the-dragon-myth/

https://answersingenesis.org/dinosaurs/dragon-legends/slaying-the-dragon-myth/

Video playlist:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kaqjxq15wmw&list=PL1v9pqs4w1mxg3IMfFhvwAv5cITDLu9F1&index=2

Would you be kind enough to summarise?

The big hill to climb is overcoming bias.

For example, if I were to try to convince you that humans don't need air and water -- that proposition is so ludicrous to you, that you would instantly brand me an idiot - and refuse to spend time canvassing my arguments.

That seems the right way to go ...

Except that you realise the vast majority of people do that - insult and shut their eyes to evidence - for literally every area in their life.

In the biggest health issue of our time, Covid vaccines, people just "insulted and shut their eyes" and gladly took an experimental MRNA substance that changes the way your body's cells behave. Then middle of this year in 2023, doctors from Melbourne University, Queensland University and Flinders University are saying the Covid vaccines are dangerous, based on many peer-reviewed journal articles.

https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9059/11/8/2287

The other side's doctors where never idiots. The other side's arguments were based on scientific data and principles. It's just that the majority have safely lived most of their life, with no consequences for "insulting and shutting their eyes". So they cannot change, when they are presented with evidence.

What I'm saying is, in the Evolution-Creation debate, the other side's scientific data and scientific arguments are not ludicrous. Instead, our culture's assumption is that anything which points to the existence of God is automatically branded as ludicrous. And so it triggers people to act in their normal "insult and ignore" pattern of behaviour.

The fact is, if the world was created in 6 days, then there must be a God.

That is why atheist-scientists will always favour the scientific argument -- even the weaker argument - that goes away from a young earth. Because, to do otherwise, they would have to consider God.

Do a search for - soft tissue dinosaur bones

A good scientist considers all possibilities - whereas a biased-scientist (and the last 2 years have shown how scientist are just like all of us in their thinking) will limit their thinking to their biases.

Thus, if you search for articles - soft tissue dinosaur bones - you'll note that not one atheist-scientist will consider that the preservation of soft tissue in dinosaur bones is because the world was created in 6 days, and hence dinosaurs lived within the last 6,000 years.

To summarise some key objections:

There is the argument that folk legends of dragons exist in all countries around the globe. e.g. St. George and the Dragon in the British Isles, and legends of dragons in China. It is postulated that these dragon legends point to a time when there was a remnant of dinosaurs still living.

Regarding Noah's Ark, conceivably all that would have been necessary was to bring two juvenile animals which take up less space than adults.

Every issue of the Evolution-Creation debate has genuine-plausible scientific evidence and reasoning on both sides. Like the vaccine issue, it is silly to dismiss the other side as being idiots with no evidence.

e.g. the layers of rock seen around the world. The Evolutionist says that is due to millions of years of laying down sediment. But, on the other hand, we have seen the geophysics of how such layers can be created within a matter of hours - in the catastrophic mud slides of Mount St Helens.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPzSebeH8LI

And how these layers stretch across many continents. And there is no wearing down of the layers (which would have been, if each layers had been exposed to the atmosphere for millions of years). And that you see bends in the layers; whereas hard brittle rock would shatter if it is bent.

In other words, the scientific arguments from the other side are not ludicrous. And, moreover, when you examine each point for point, it is the totality of the evidence that builds the case. Plus, the Evolution side has massive holes in their theory.

It is the complexity of DNA, and the sheer impossibility of creating that complexity out of nothing, by sheer randomness, that caused hardened atheists to concede that God exists.

But once a person takes the next step to consider the existence of God, they run into the next wall: which of the numerous spirits, claiming to be God, which is the true God? And for that, God has made a way to navigate the hundreds of thousands of religions and philosophies.

Shouldn't have asked.

They're very well practiced at throwing up 'explanations' to anything you ask like that which is why I was so fixated on getting foolish to explain how kangaroos, platypusses and echidnas could walk 14 000 kms to Australia. Only 2 remember. Apparently they got here because generations were born and bred on the way to Australia. No sign of remnant populations of echindas, spotted quolls, numbats, wombats and thylacines in Iraq, Afghanistan, India, Malaysia, Indonesia where they would have had to pass through. Lol.

Of course none of these fools can explain any of this without resorting to 'faith'. None of them can because it's simply impossible. If you remember he said something along the lines of 'if you believe in God then you believe that this is possible' or something like that. (Couldn't be arsed looking it up.)

According to foolish the flood laid down all the fossils in the one event. Amazingly not a single cow or dog or cat or monkey or pig or camel or horse or tiger or chimpanzee or fox or duck or, and this is the kicker, human fossil has ever been found in the same sedimentary layers as a dinosaur's. Even worse for them none of those fossils have ever been found in layers below those dinosaurs.

None, zero, Nada, nulla.

Isn't that interesting? How unbelievably inconvenient for these idiots.

Of course tsf I'm not telling you anything you don't know.

It's so ludicrous it defies belief. 

As I said before I won't hold my breath waiting for their peer reviewed papers to the credible scientific journals as I listed above. 

Forgot to add. Did you like the articles he linked talking about soft tissue and dinosaur fossils? I'm not sure he actually read them because it confirms that this can occur in very rare conditions AND they explain how. Hahaha what a dill.

When there's a will, there's a way:

https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/gps-trained-to-prescribe-hormones-to-trans-teens-thanks-to-government-funding-20231124-p5empg.html


Victorian government funding is underwriting an expansion in the number of GPs being trained to prescribe hormones to transgender people from the age of 16 as the state’s two specialist in-hospital clinics are seeing a drop-off in referrals for the first time in a decade.

They worked under an “informed consent” model that holds that people aged 16 and over, “do not require mental health sign-off from a trained psychiatrist [before treatment commences] unless there are particular indicators”.

....the main clinic for children at the Royal Children’s Hospital has fallen sharply in the previous two years after a decade of rapid growth. The clinic treats children aged eight to 16

Interestingly, there was a massive increase in children with this condition in the past decade, and now there is a fall.  Why.....well the experts and trans advocates ie those with skin in the game- say kids are "going elsewhere".   

Or maybe they are perpetuating and treating a "social contagion" amongst children rather than a real condition.  

Nothing to see here...

Oh and the article is littered with pseudo-science gibberish terms and claims to legitimize bullshit:

Example:  they  call it gender "affirming" care.  Affirming means to offer emotional support and encouragement. That's not what they're doing- they providing medical treatment that have profound and irreversible anatomical and physiological effects to children.

Here's a doozy:  [the kids] have “a deep sense of knowing” that they are transgender.  If gender is a social construct, how can an eight year old have a deep sense of knowing that they are transgender.  If gender is a social construct then gender dysphoria has a social, not medical solution.

Yeah I'm neither here or there on this. You won't see me arguing for or against it. I've commented before I'm more on your side of the fence than the other but I don't know enough about it to get right into it.

My point was you were saying if you were under 18 you could get your genitals chopped off and the taxpayer would foot the bill. That's not what the article said.

It was "suggested" that it would be from 18 year- but I'd bet there will be efforts to lower the entry age.  

In any case, Victoria has done exactly that.

Thank for the answer, but it moved a little away. 

Who do you think invented Dinosaurs and why does pretty much everybody believe in them? 

TBF, the argument (non-scientific) that the earth was conceived in a week 6000 years ago by one man on paper is ludicrous, but I am more than happy to have my mind changed if you stay on topic (drop the vaccine chat) and give some solid bullet points 

Careful. They believe dinosaurs existed. 

They're called 'leviathans' and 'behemoths' in the bible. That's their 'dinosaurs'. (Likely whales and hippos and/or rhinos.)

The difference is they believe they 'dinosaurs' existed alongside humans at the same time.

ahhh ok, so the dinosaurs are only 6k years old?

Ok, then maybe I should ask him why are scientists lying about them being from a couple of hundred million years ago?

That's a pretty big gap.

Actually dinosaurs were apparently taken on the ark. (Juveniles though so less room you see.) So they're only 4500 years old and then however long it took them to die out after they walked from Mt Ararat to wherever they were going.

This is why I was asking him why aren't dinosaur fossils found with other fossils. 

But to your point, they just circle back to their starting position which is a belief in god and the literal belief in the bible as a historical document.

They start from there and retrofit all their 'evidence' into proving the bible true. The mental gymnastics they perform is incredible. It doesn't matter if you throw up any evidence they just bat it away.

There's literally recorded (as in written) history that goes back 7000 years. Cross checked and matched against astronomical events and wars, empires and dynasties. Literally older than the earth's age in the bible. No matter to them. Merely an inconvenience.

You can literally go down to the Antarctic and drag out an ice core 10's of thousands of years old which they'll explain away. There's literally hundreds of explanations with twisted and distorted logic for everything.

If you ever happen to corner them on anything they're fall back position is 'Well god made the earth in 6 days, 6000 years ago TO LOOK LIKE it was 4.6 billion years old'. 

For what purpose? Testing us I guess. 

I'd be interested if (lowercase) johnsmith is a believer in Intelligent Design. I'd say he was. I almost hope he is. The list of the flaws with the absolute shitshow that is the human body is extensive. Here's a fun article. Scroll down to the bit about eyes. They love to say stuff like 'the eye is too complicated to evolve.'  

https://partner.sciencenorway.no/evolution-genetics-natural-sciences/evolutionary-flaws-disprove-the-theory-of-intelligent-design/1670232

Another good aticle.

https://gizmodo.com/the-most-unfortunate-design-flaws-in-the-human-body-1518242787

The concept of gut-health is quite new. From my circle of friends, most people haven't caught on yet. But if you Google search for - gut health - you'll see if you are among those who've been slow to catch on.

What this shows is that the human appendix, once through to be totally useless, now is understood to play a massive role in maintaining gut-health in the body.

https://time.com/4631305/appendicitis-appendix-gut-bacteria/

Something to ponder next time you'd like to insult the intelligent design of the Creator God.

tsf

This video uses mathematical calculations of the magnetic field of Earth, Jupiter and Uranus as evidence of earth being 6,000 years old based on physics calculations.

Incidentally, the 6,000 years concept comes from the Bible containing several genealogies going back all the way to Adam (Genesis 5:3, and in the New Testament, Luke 3:23-38). The genealogies in Genesis give the ages of various people. From those genealogies, one can estimate the number of years from Adam until events where dates are known - making the earth about 6,000 years old.

Also, if you plot a graph of the ages of those first people, it shows a smooth decline of people's ages, the longer time elapsed from the Garden of Eden. This has been said to be due to the gradual mutating of man's DNA. The graph also shows a sharp drop immediately after those person's alive at the time of the Flood - perhaps due to climatic changes brought about after the Flood (see the graph in the link below).

https://creation.com/living-for-900-years



Magnetism of Planets of the Solar System

Not all iron metals are magnetic. Magnetism only occurs in a metal when the dipoles (north, south) of all its atoms become aligned to combine into a strong magnetic field. But after the passing of time, the dipoles degrade into a more random pattern, such that their north-south dipoles cancel each other out, so that the lump of metal progressively loses its magnetism over time, eventually becoming a non-magnetic lump of metal.

This video below features Dr. Jason Lisle, a Ph.D. in astrophysics. His premise is: if earth were indeed billions of years old, it would have lost its magnetic field. But, as it is, the strong magnetic north-south field of the Earth indicates that our planet is actually quite young.

How young is the solar system, which includes the Earth? In the video from @28:00 to @29:30, Dr Lisle tells how, before the Voyager space craft reached Uranus, various people did theoretical calculations of what they anticipated the magnetic field of the planet Uranus would be.

Those scientists who held to an Evolution-mindset did their calculation to predict the magnetic field of Uranus, on the assumption of it being billions of years old.

Whereas there was a scientist, who did a calculation based on the premise that Uranus was exactly 6,000 years old.

Dr Lisle tells that when the Voyager spacecraft passed Uranus close enough to measure its magnetic field, the measured amount was exactly as predicted based on the premise that the solar system is 6,000 years old. Exactly.

I've set this YouTube link to start at the part about the earth's magnetism.

https://youtu.be/KRT5TavoPKI?si=Ty5uHr9KmYjd9yrR&t=1517

_____

Remember, because of the bias in atheist-scientists to never go near any data that points to God, it is a pattern that atheist-scientists will consistently side with a weaker scientific argument. Because to them, any data that points to the universe being 6,000 years old is so ridiculous, people are sacked from their university jobs for thinking that out loud. (Similar to medical academics losing their jobs for voicing concern over the dangers of the Covid vaccines).

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=17887101

https://thenewamerican.com/us/tech/over-1-000-scientists-openly-dissent-from-evolution-theory/

This means, atheist-scientists will side with the weaker argument - because for them to even discuss those models that point to 6,000 years, they will lose their jobs. And it would open the door to saying that God exists.

e.g. with earth's existing magnetic field that could never survive billions of years - the atheist-scientists side with the weaker argument that the magnetic field somehow increased. Dr Jason Lisle, in the video, shows flaws with that theory.

e.g. with soft tissue found in dinosaur bones, the atheist-scientists will not even discuss it being because the dinosaur bones are less than 6,000 years old. So they side with implausible reasons how soft-tissue in bones can survive billions of years.

e.g. you know from seeing Steve Irwin underwater videos that the moment a fish dies in the ocean, it is eaten up by other fish, or eventually rots away to nothing. Whereas, the atheist-scientist will side with the idea that fish died, sunk to the bottom of the sea, were covered up by mud, and after billions of years, became fossils. They refused to even contemplate that these fish were caught in catastrophic mud slides all over the globe due to the massive torrential force of a global flood. The atheist-scientist will not even include that in possible reasons - because, as said, that would be tantamount to proving that the Bible is true.

Here's a video pointing out flaws in Evolution theory.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0u3-2CGOMQ

The following is a movie, "The Case For Christ" where an investigative journalist from the Chicago Tribune, was horrified when his wife became a born-again Christian. He set about investigating the evidence for the Resurrection, in order to show it to be a hoax, so that he could extract his wife from Christianity. But like so many who did the due diligence, he found the evidence to be manifestly true, and became a Christian, and eventually a pastor.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzespY6MyFA

@tsf.

See.

Even when faced with a list of how pathetically hopeless and broken the human body is they still find a way to say this is what God wanted. 

C'mon man,  That gizmodo article is shit. 

 I stopped reading after the first half dozen examples as the pattern of the article is the same ie "this feature of the human body is wrong because of x ".  The author fails to comprehend that you can't analyze individual features of the body in isolation to the whole, there are numerous interactions between body parts that require things to be done that way.  Also why don't they say how it *should* be done, and after that change, how it interacts with everything else, and what the final outcome is.  Even if they did that, they would be assuming we know everything about those individual features, which we don't.

I'm in the process of designing a house.  A house is infinitely less complex than the human body.  I wanted to move an ensuite location.  Obviously the plumbing changed, but then the pipes went through a slab rib, but this build is on reactive soil, which then required re-engineering of the slab design..fark that, I'll keep the ensuite where it is, its not perfect but its the simplest and safest way.

  No do that to all the things the gizmodo artilce lists as flaws. and tell me how it goes.

:D

I was completely unaware there are people who believed in this. A whole new world has been opened up :ermm:

This is actually a good point.

One of the things I hate about modern day scientists is their arrogance and hubris.  Many unfortunately have not taken a course in the History and Philosophy of Science.  If they did they wouldn't  be so cocksure about the current state of scientific knowledge.  Two hundred years ago I bet the scientists of the day thought they knew "it".  They were wrong. One hundred and twenty years ago physicists claimed there was nothing more for physics to learn.  They were wrong. 

Your hatred of scientists is unhinged. If you ever took the time to watch or read what scientists have to say on any subject rather than facebook or sky news you would see that 99.9% of the time scientists couch their work with disclaimers and limitations.

They always say 'at the moment this is what we think' or 'there may be some information that disproves this hypothesis' or 'we cannot be 100% certain but...etc'.

If you ever picked up a New Scientists or a Scientific American or any type of scientific periodical journal and actually read a few articles you would understand that.



And BTW the jury is still out whether the appendix has evolved to harbour good bacteria or it was co-opted by the body after it became a vestigial organ. 

If it was actually 'necessary' for good health then the millions of people that have had them removed would be suffering from illness or dying in large numbers over and above people that retain theirs. There's little to no evidence that that is the case.