Nebraska Man: What's Wrong with this Picture?

[Diamond72]

Engineering isn't science.

My dad use to say that. He was a medical doctor and he would say that he was not a Scientist.

 

[Hans Blaster]

My dad use to say that. He was a medical doctor and he would say that he was not a Scientist.

He was correct.

 

[AV1611VET]

Engineering isn't science.

But there are engineering scientists.

 

[Diamond72]

But there are engineering scientists.

We lead the world in Polymer Engineering. They design all the stuff made out of Polymers. (plastic)

 

[AV1611VET]

We lead the world in Polymer Engineering. They design all the stuff made out of Polymers. (plastic)

Serious question: Is titanium tetrachloride the same as stainless steel?

 

[Diamond72]

Serious question: Is titanium tetrachloride the same as stainless steel?

No of course not. Stainless Steel adds Nichol to Steel to make it less corrosive. Nichol of course is softer than steel so the item is not as sharp. They try to trick you by calling it surgical steel. So you get the impression that it has not lost its edge.

 

[AV1611VET]

No of course not. Stainless Steel adds Nichol to Steel to make it less corrosive. Nichol of course is softer than steel so the item is not as sharp. They try to trick you by calling it surgical steel. So you get the impression that it has not lost its edge.

Okay, thank you.

 

[Divide]

Oh, okay.

I agree.

It seems to me that I was taught that, camel were brought to America in the 1800's? To be able to better fare the desert lands here. Something like that. Did they teach me wrong?

Wouldn't be the first time, lol.

 

[Divide]

Yes, I'm familiar with that.

Where did his binomial come from?

The newspaper editor? paperboy? ice cream man? meter maid? a shrewdness of zoologists? Bozo the clown? the IAU? the White Star Line? German Zeppelin Company? BP? Morton Thiokol? Chemie Grünenthal? FIGG Bridge Engineers?

Where?

I think it was prolly the White Star Line, myself. They cooked up a lie from something they found on a island somewhere. Some more of JP Morgans shady activity.

 

[Divide]

Yes, modern humans as we know them require a different climate to what dinosaurs did.
But evolution could just have easily meant that humans could have evolved in a similar if not outright the same climate as the dinosaurs did.

My understanding of that is that before the great flood of Noah's time that there was water enircling the earth. Probably a thick vapor cloud and so somehow the atmospher was very much richer in oxygen that it is now. And I think believe that because look how big dinosauers got and then look at their nose. Many have small nostrils so being big creatures they required a richer oxygen environment.

Wasn't Lucy a hoax too?

 

[Divide]

No, YEC runs counter to all of them, especially Old Earth Creationism.

You seem like you just want to have your cake and eat it too.

That's not true. I know what he is talking about and it is possible. It depends on perspective exactly like he said.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

My understanding of that is that before the great flood of Noah's time that there was water enircling the earth. Probably a thick vapor cloud and so somehow the atmospher was very much richer in oxygen that it is now. And I think believe that because look how big dinosauers got and then look at their nose. Many have small nostrils so being big creatures they required a richer oxygen environment.

Wasn't Lucy a hoax too?

Your understanding is VERY wrong and also nonsensical. The size of the nostrils themselves don't mean anything, it's what the nostrils are connected to that determine things, like the lungs and the heart. Also, so what if the large dinosaurs had small nostrils relative to their size? That still means a BIG nostril. Triceratops had a rostral nostril that was least a foot in size!

And no, Lucy was not a hoax.

That's not true. I know what he is talking about and it is possible. It depends on perspective exactly like he said.

No, the YEC position is untenable to all other forms of creationist thought, especially Old Earth Creationism. Hence why it's specifically called Young Earth Creationism.

 

[Divide]

Your understanding is VERY wrong and also nonsensical. The size of the nostrils themselves don't mean anything, it's what the nostrils are connected to that determine things, like the lungs and the heart. Also, so what if the large dinosaurs had small nostrils relative to their size? That still means a BIG nostril. Triceratops had a rostral nostril that was least a foot in size!

Well which part specifically is nonsensical to you?

I remember reading that certain scientists believe that our sky used to be orange in color before the flood and turned blue after the flood. They said that the enrichment of oxygen that the atmosphere had before the flood is why people lived so long as opposed to today.

No, the YEC position is untenable to all other forms of creationist thought, especially Old Earth Creationism. Hence why it's specifically called Young Earth Creationism.

Aha! So I believe that you have never heard it explained in a way that would make it make sense. It is rather involved but succinctly it is true that from God's perspective the earth was created in 6 24 hour days, AND! from man's perspective (Man can not see forward into time, man can only look backwards into time. Through the red shift of light and all that. As soon as God created the universe, it began expanding and has continued to expand ever since. So from man's perspective, looking backwards into time it is seen as 13.5 or 16 billion years.

Einstein and his theory of relativity, he discovered that the universe is expanding at the same exact rate as time itself. So now they call it spacetime.

What it amounts to is, the expansion of the universe and our limited perspective blurs the truth of what we can see and makes the universe appear to us as billions of years old. Billions of years old is very correct...from our perspective. A young eart is also very correct from God's perspective because God is outside of our time domain and can see both ways with nothing out of focus. The Bible tells us that, we see through a glass darkly.

That's the succinct version. The presentation was very involved and detailed and they had white boards and all sorts of stuff. And these were real scientific people, so I hardly think that we could say that they are nonsensical. I could not. I'm no scientist. Are you?

Was Einstein nonsensical? The presentation made sense to me.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Well which part specifically is nonsensical to you?

All of what you said. Especially the parts about how "before the great flood of Noah's time that there was water enircling the earth. Probably a thick vapor cloud and so somehow the atmospher was very much richer in oxygen that it is now", to quote your own words fully. Post hoc logic at its finest.

I remember reading that certain scientists believe that our sky used to be orange in color before the flood and turned blue after the flood. They said that the enrichment of oxygen that the atmosphere had before the flood is why people lived so long as opposed to today.

What scientists? Who said it?

Aha! So I believe that you have never heard it explained in a way that would make it make sense. It is rather involved but succinctly it is true that from God's perspective the earth was created in 6 24 hour days, AND! from man's perspective (Man can not see forward into time, man can only look backwards into time. Through the red shift of light and all that. As soon as God created the universe, it began expanding and has continued to expand ever since. So from man's perspective, looking backwards into time it is seen as 13.5 or 16 billion years.

Einstein and his theory of relativity, he discovered that the universe is expanding at the same exact rate as time itself. So now they call it spacetime.

What it amounts to is, the expansion of the universe and our limited perspective blurs the truth of what we can see and makes the universe appear to us as billions of years old. Billions of years old is very correct...from our perspective. A young eart is also very correct from God's perspective because God is outside of our time domain and can see both ways with nothing out of focus. The Bible tells us that, we see through a glass darkly.

That's the succinct version. The presentation was very involved and detailed and they had white boards and all sorts of stuff. And these were real scientific people, so I hardly think that we could say that they are nonsensical. I could not. I'm no scientist. Are you?

Was Einstein nonsensical? The presentation made sense to me.

See, now this is nothing BUT post hoc logic. It's just as bad as AV's claim that God creatd the world 6,000 years ago but made it so it looks 4.5 billion years old.

The only one being nonsensical is you.

 

[Divide]

What scientists? Who said it?

I don't remember their names. I saw their presentaion a couple years ago. I can try to look for it, but who knows if I can find it?

All of what you said. Especially the parts about how "before the great flood of Noah's time that there was water enircling the earth. Probably a thick vapor cloud and so somehow the atmospher was very much richer in oxygen that it is now", to quote your own words fully. Post hoc logic at its finest.

Yeah, they went on about the think that the water vapor also helped filter a lot of UV rays out of our sunlight and that also helped in man's longevity back then. Sunlight coming through water vapor might appear orange?

See, now this is nothing BUT post hoc logic. It's just as bad as AV's claim that God creatd the world 6,000 years ago but made it so it looks 4.5 billion years old.

I think that's essentially what God did by not giving us the ability to see from a forward perspective in time. He said in scripture we see as through a glass darkly.

1 Corinthians 13:12
12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.../KJV

But why would God do such a weird thing?!

Proverbs 25:
2 It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter.../KJV

That's just what God likes to do. It still makes a lot of sense.

The only one being nonsensical is you.

That doesn't really matter to me. I am not anybody. I am no scientist. You certainly don't have to believe me, lol!

I am merely making the point that, I know what that other poster was talking about and I must have saw the same presentaion that he did, and those who did the presentation were scientists and well educated people from prestigous schools and stuff.

So my small point to you was, hey I know that other poster is not making this stuff up because I heard likely the same men do the same presentation that explained how it is possible for man to think earth is 16.5 Billon years old. They said the same things that the other poster did.

I'm not being dogmatic and am not asking you to believe that is correct. I'm just saying that I think the possibility does exist (no matter how small) that you yourself may be wrong about it. Sorry I don't remember the scientists names but what if they were right or partially right even, through a glass darkly. Sorry you missed my real point.

But I seriously doubt that you are man who is able to prove that our telescope back into time is in perfect focus and clarity/accuracy. So we're really just tossing ideas around.

It does sound weird! But it also sounds...feasible. I would like to suggest to you that you do some reading on Einstein's theory of relativity and see if you think he was nonsensical.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I don't remember their names. I saw their presentaion a couple years ago. I can try to look for it, but who knows if I can find it?

Not holding out hope, if I'm honest.

Yeah, they went on about the think that the water vapor also helped filter a lot of UV rays out of our sunlight and that also helped in man's longevity back then. Sunlight coming through water vapor might appear orange?

Sounds like unscientific woo...

I think that's essentially what God did by not giving us the ability to see from a forward perspective in time. He said in scripture we see as through a glass darkly.

Well I'm glad that you think that.

That's just what God likes to do. It still makes a lot of sense.

No. No it doesn't.

That doesn't really matter to me. I am not anybody. I am no scientist. You certainly don't have to believe me, lol!

I am merely making the point that, I know what that other poster was talking about and I must have saw the same presentaion that he did, and those who did the presentation were scientists and well educated people from prestigous schools and stuff.

So my small point to you was, hey I know that other poster is not making this stuff up because I heard likely the same men do the same presentation that explained how it is possible for man to think earth is 16.5 Billon years old. They said the same things that the other poster did.

I'm not being dogmatic and am not asking you to believe that is correct. I'm just saying that I think the possibility does exist (no matter how small) that you yourself may be wrong about it. Sorry I don't remember the scientists names but what if they were right or partially right even, through a glass darkly. Sorry you missed my real point.

But I seriously doubt that you are man who is able to prove that our telescope back into time is in perfect focus and clarity/accuracy. So we're really just tossing ideas around.

It does sound weird! But it also sounds...feasible. I would like to suggest to you that you do some reading on Einstein's theory of relativity and see if you think he was nonsensical.

And at the end of the day, your claim is still a non-scientific and nonsensical post hoc attempt to reconcile the Bible with the fact of God's creation.

Nothing of which has anything to do with the OP topic.

 

[Divide]

And at the end of the day, your claim is still a non-scientific and nonsensical post hoc attempt to reconcile the Bible with the fact of God's creation.

Nothing of which has anything to do with the OP topic.

Maybe but you havent shown where I said that I am a scientist and can prove these things. So what is your beef with me?

And it may not be directly to the OP, but I respomded to what you said to another poster, as if he was insame or something.

If you want to go all scientific about it, then by all means, go ahead! State your credentials and prove that me and the other man are insane. That that theory is provable nonsense...!!

(Crickets)....

I think you just don't like Christian scientists.
Oh, again...I am not a scientist.
I am not a scientist.
I am not a scientist.
I can't "prove" any of it.
Because, I am not scientist.

I wonder if you who would refute me, are even qualified to make such statements as you have. I don't think you are. I guess I could be wrong. Are you a scientist or not? Prove me wrong.

Now I didnt say I was right! I said, prove it wrong. A distinction...

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Maybe but you havent shown where I said that I am a scientist and can prove these things. So what is your beef with me?

And it may not be directly to the OP, but I respomded to what you said to another poster, as if he was insame or something.

If you want to go all scientific about it, then by all means, go ahead! State your credentials and prove that me and the other man are insane. That that theory is provable nonsense...!!

(Crickets)....

I think you just don't like Christian scientists.
Oh, again...I am not a scientist.
I am not a scientist.
I am not a scientist.
I can't "prove" any of it.
Because, I am not scientist.

I wonder if you who would refute me, are even qualified to make such statements as you have. I don't think you are. I guess I could be wrong. Are you a scientist or not? Prove me wrong.

Now I didnt say I was right! I said, prove it wrong. A distinction...

Now you're just being intentionally rude and confrontational over nothing directed towards you at all.

 

[Divide]

Now you're just being intentionally rude and confrontational over nothing directed towards you at all.

I'm sorry. Did I misunderstand? Was your post which quoted me and seemed to speak to me actually for someone else? Sorry about that! My bad. It seemed directed to me but I have wrong before, lol.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I'm sorry. Did I misunderstand? Was your post which quoted me and seemed to speak to me actually for someone else? Sorry about that! My bad. It seemed directed to me but I have wrong before, lol.

I'm going to answer this by responding to a part of one of your posts:

So what is your beef with me?

I have no beef with you. You came to this thread, that was last commented on a year ago, to specifically respond to a post I made, that was in no way shape or form directed at you, acting like you were defending someone who did not need defending. You've made off topic comments, and have now begun to be rude and confrontational for no genuine reason, other than me pointing out that I find your comments nonsensical and formed from post hoc logic. If anyone seems to have beef with anyone else, it's you with me.

I think it best for both of us if we part ways from here on out, there is no need to puruse any line of dialogue between us further.