DjDan Posted October 30, 2007 Author Share Posted October 30, 2007 Albert, why are you quoting my previous post, as if your words there give some sort of reply? I'm asking the question as to why my maths needs to be revised? Your following post is nothing at all to do with that. So how does that imply that I am dimwitted? On the contrary, you seem more so yourself.. supposing to have somehow caught me out "and there's the proof" you say. Your second flaw is to suppose that I believe that the earth is only 10,000 years old. Well... I certainly do not believe that at all. so... what exactly is the point you are trying to make here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted October 30, 2007 Share Posted October 30, 2007 It is a shame when people leap in with their preconceptions - The article says Humanity will start to decline in the year 3000 - 993 years from now. I presume that is what our favourite Mormon DJ is referring too. So his maths doesn't seem to be out to me. This teleological bull with its numerology of 10K years in the future etc is just so much publicity seeking toss - it shows no understanding of population dynamics, genetics, evolution or anything - DJdan is loving it - its grist to his mill, but don't let your own biases blind you to the fact he's found people talking rubbish and is making hay from it. Showing up scientists'/academics' stupidities is an important role - and even fools can make knaves look silly - play on DjDan, I'm happy playing the game! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DjDan Posted October 30, 2007 Author Share Posted October 30, 2007 Quite right chinahand.. but that's not really my aim here. I'm not trying to make an issue out of science or anything like that... I just found the concept of this report to be quite amusing, and thought I'd share that. I think we can all laugh about this one together (since to all... it's clearly rubbish!!) and leave any 'science debate' for another topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted October 30, 2007 Share Posted October 30, 2007 Your second flaw is to suppose that I believe that the earth is only 10,000 years old. Well... I certainly do not believe that at all. so... what exactly is the point you are trying to make here? Sorry DJDan - you believe in so many silly things - it's hard to keep up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DjDan Posted October 30, 2007 Author Share Posted October 30, 2007 hehe, if you stopped 'making up' these 'silly things' for me to believe in... you might find it a bit easier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted October 30, 2007 Share Posted October 30, 2007 Quite right chinahand.. but that's not really my aim here. I'm not trying to make an issue out of science or anything like that... I just found the concept of this report to be quite amusing, and thought I'd share that. I think we can all laugh about this one together (since to all... it's clearly rubbish!!) and leave any 'science debate' for another topic. You've got to admire the guy behind this theory, he's achieved the impossible and brought unity to this debate - creationists and people who have even the vaguest scientific understanding think that he is talking bollocks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.