PDA

View Full Version : Christianity debate



FlaGator
06-20-2008, 10:04 PM
The dilemma of Proverbs 26:4-5 comes to mind.

So does 1 Peter 3:15.

InspiredHome
06-20-2008, 11:47 PM
So does 1 Peter 3:15.

I totally agree though sometimes it's like beating your head against a brick wall. :D

The Night Owl
06-21-2008, 12:00 AM
Sure I can. First in nature I can look at the structure of DNA and come to the conclusion that it appears to be a created not an accidentally derived structure.

Appearances can be deceiving, but for the sake of argument, let us accept your idea that DNA appears to have been designed. If DNA appears to have been designed, then why should we assume that it was designed by God and not by extraterrestrials?


OK, I have given you my reasons for the existence of God. Give me your reasons why He does not exist.

I don't claim to know that God does not exist. The believers are the ones who make the extravagant claims. I'll remain open to the God hypothesis, but I'm not going to believe it unless someone provides evidence or a theory to support it.

By the way, your posts are great. I don't agree with most of what you're writing, but I admire the fact that you really think this stuff through.

Anyway, here is a short video you might find interesting...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9_dHjH34nY

LogansPapa
06-21-2008, 01:59 AM
First, you show me where I claimed you were an agnostic. Please copy and paste showing where I stated or implied that you were agnostic. I just asked if you knew what the word meant. Anything else was an erroneous conclusion on your part. I have to ponder your ability to logically draw realistic inferences based on the evidence at hand when you seem to feel that I am calling you an agnostic and I have never said anything that could be even remotely considered doing that. All your conclusions are now suspect.

"When, exactly, did I indicate as an agnostic, I was undecided? Please copy and paste showing where I indicated I was unsure."

How can you walk upright and be this dim? An amazing feat. If you read my statement, once again, please try to grasp that I've already said I'm an agnostic, but never undecided about being so.

Please, please try to grasp that - for the love of reality. And BTW - if my conclusions are suspect then yours are idiotic.:rolleyes:

FlaGator
06-21-2008, 08:09 AM
I totally agree though sometimes it's like beating your head against a brick wall. :D

I know but I enjoy watching the likes of LP stagger around being argumentative because he knows no other way to be. What can I say, it amuses me.

FlaGator
06-21-2008, 08:10 AM
"When, exactly, did I indicate as an agnostic, I was undecided? Please copy and paste showing where I indicated I was unsure."

How can you walk upright and be this dim? An amazing feat. If you read my statement, once again, please try to grasp that I've already said I'm an agnostic, but never undecided about being so.

Please, please try to grasp that - for the love of reality. And BTW - if my conclusions are suspect then yours are idiotic.:rolleyes:

I find conversation with you must amusing and stimulating. You truly do fit the definition of an agnostic.

FlaGator
06-21-2008, 08:30 AM
Appearances can be deceiving, but for the sake of argument, let us accept your idea that DNA appears to have been designed. If DNA appears to have been designed, then why should we assume that it was designed by God and not by extraterrestrials?

I'm surprised you would suggest that when there is even less evidence of extraterrestrail existence than their is of God's existence. In my opinion it takes a bigger leap of faith to lay DNA creation at the feet of aliens than to does to give the credit to God.



I don't claim to know that God does not exist. The believers are the ones who make the extravagant claims. I'll remain open to the God hypothesis, but I'm not going to believe it unless someone provides evidence or a theory to support it.

By the way, your posts are great. I don't agree with most of what you're writing, but I admire the fact that you really think this stuff through.

Anyway, here is a short video you might find interesting...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9_dHjH34nY


That was a very interesting video. Thank you for sharing and thank you for the compliments. I enjoy debating this stuff with people like you who are will to listen and propose their own positions without letting it get personal. Some people take every decenting view as a personal attack.

Anyways, I would ask you to consider Pascal's Wager. Wikepedia has a good definition of it

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager

It's interesting look at at Pascal's applied mathematics of decision making althought this example is a very simple case when compared to some of his other examples. Rationalists tend to dislike Pascal about as much as they dislike Immanuel Kant because they both put limits on the effectiveness of reason when dealing with the existence of God and made good arguments against reason being the end all in some deductive mental processes. Anyways. I hope you enjoy reading it and I'd like to hear your views. Also, pick up Francis Collin's book "The Language of God." It is very interesting reading concerning the design elements of DNA. I don't agree with all of his view points but he makes a fascinating case for why it is more probable that DNA was designed than accidentally formed.

The Night Owl
06-21-2008, 11:28 AM
I'm surprised you would suggest that when there is even less evidence of extraterrestrail existence than their is of God's existence. In my opinion it takes a bigger leap of faith to lay DNA creation at the feet of aliens than to does to give the credit to God.

We have no evidence of either God or extraterrestrials. All we have is speculation.

If you're going to embrace Intelligent Design, you've got to embrace the idea that the Designer is not necessarily the highest power but perhaps just a higher power. Even Michael Behe and William Dembski, two openly religious scientists who have done a lot of work in ID, admit that the Designer implicit in the ID hypothesis is not necessarily God.



Anyways, I would ask you to consider Pascal's Wager. Wikepedia has a good definition of it

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager

It's interesting look at at Pascal's applied mathematics of decision making althought this example is a very simple case when compared to some of his other examples. Rationalists tend to dislike Pascal about as much as they dislike Immanuel Kant because they both put limits on the effectiveness of reason when dealing with the existence of God and made good arguments against reason being the end all in some deductive mental processes. Anyways. I hope you enjoy reading it and I'd like to hear your views.

Thanks. To be blunt, I'm not a fan of Pascal's Wager, which I think should be called Pascal's Deception. My position on Pascal's Wager is more or less identical to that of Christopher Hitchens, so I might as well point you to what Hitchens has said about it since he is far more eloquent than I could ever be...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X94YffpUryo

So, does God admire the person who based his or her faith on what Pascal believed is the safer bet or the person who, in the absence of evidence, couldn't bring himself or herself to believe but remained honest about it? I think the answer is obvious.

As Richard Dawkins points out in his book The God Delusion, one cannot will oneself into believing. Accepting beliefs as plausible does not make one a believer. To believe in God, one must feel that the belief is true, not just plausible.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngta1OuomzY

LogansPapa
06-21-2008, 11:29 AM
Remember, our side has the bones.;)

biccat
06-21-2008, 12:30 PM
Remember, our side has the bones.;)
If God is for us, who shall stand against us?

LogansPapa
06-21-2008, 01:41 PM
If God is for us, who shall stand against us?

only reality.

FlaGator
06-21-2008, 02:39 PM
We have no evidence of either God or extraterrestrials. All we have is speculation.

If you're going to embrace Intelligent Design, you've got to embrace the idea that the Designer is not necessarily the highest power but perhaps just a higher power. Even Michaell Behe, one of the more religious proponents of ID, admits that the Designer implicit in the ID hypothesis is not necessarily God. William Dembski too.



Thanks. To be blunt, I'm not a fan of Pascal's Wager, which I think should be called Pascal's Deception. My position on Pascal's Wager is more or less identical to that of Christopher Hitchens, who attacks it quite eloquently in the following bit of video from a debate...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X94YffpUryo

So, does God admire the person who based his or her faith on what Pascal believed is the safer bet or the person who, in the absence of evidence, couldn't bring himself or herself to believe but remained honest about it? I think the answer is obvious.

As Richard Dawkins points out in his book The God Delusion, one cannot will oneself into believing. Accepting beliefs as plausible does not make one a believer. To believe in God, one must feel that the belief is true, not just plausible.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngta1OuomzY


Pascal himself addressed the issue of people using the wager to opt for God. As he explained the wager does not guarantee salvation. It only gives someone a reason to try to approach God on God's terms. According to scripture, however, people will have no desire to believe unless God calls them to belief. Some people He calls and some He does not. Only He knows the criteria that He uses. From our perspective the choices seem random because no was was given grace because they merited salvation. Their are two calls the general and the specific. The general call is how most people encounter Christianity. Evangelism, witnessing, etc all play a part. God makes the specific call and it is an irrestible called. One will not resist it. I did not resist it. I a little over two years ago I was basically a Taoist and my beliefs were as far from Christianity as they could be. I had not the concept of God that I do now and to me Jesus was just a really moral guy with a lot of good insight. God changed that. I became a believer literally over night. Why did He call me? I have no idea. It wasn't that I did anything to deserve it. To be honest I was not a very good person. He just said "Hey you, come here" and I did. I put down the philosophy books and picked up the Bible. Don't get me wrong I still read philosophy and science and history but I also read a lot of apologetics and theology books. My conversion both focused me and broadened my horizons when it came to gathering information. That is what God asks of me. To learn as much as I can about His word and about the world that He created and about the people in. Even though my faith is as solid as a rock, He has challenged my intellect to discover Him through His presence in the world and when I have doubts to find answers to my questions. So far I have found nothing to make me doubt His existence. It is interesting that two people can review the same information and come to two completely different conclusions but that is the way God created us.

FlaGator
06-21-2008, 02:41 PM
only reality.

Which God also created.

InspiredHome
06-21-2008, 03:05 PM
The bones?

The Night Owl
06-21-2008, 03:09 PM
The bones?

The evidence... in the form of bones.

InspiredHome
06-21-2008, 03:15 PM
Oh you mean the ones based on the presupposition that the rate of decay has always been constant and that the world has been around for billions of years anyway so that it couldn't possibly be young so any evidence to the contrary is already thrown out? Those bones?

The Night Owl
06-21-2008, 03:44 PM
Oh you mean the ones based on the presupposition that the rate of decay has always been constant and that the world has been around for billions of years anyway so that it couldn't possibly be young so any evidence to the contrary is already thrown out? Those bones?

Yes, those bones.

Of course, if you're going to claim that the Earth is thousands of years old, not billions of years old, then you've got to do more than show that the decay rate of Carbon 14 has not always been constant. You also have to show that the speed of light has not always been constant because that would be the only way to explain how the light from most of the stars in the sky has reached Earth. Good luck.

hampshirebrit
06-21-2008, 04:39 PM
So does 1 Peter 3:15.

FlaGator, whatever the relative merits of our cases, it is good to see you back on CU.

Welcome back to the fleet. :D

InspiredHome
06-21-2008, 04:41 PM
FlaGator, whatever the relative merits of our cases, it is good to see you back on CU.

Welcome back to the fleet. :D

I concur. One of my favorite posters :)

FlaGator
06-21-2008, 06:49 PM
Yes, those bones.

Of course, if you're going to claim that the Earth is thousands of years old, not billions of years old, then you've got to do more than show that the decay rate of Carbon 14 has not always been constant. You also have to show that the speed of light has not always been constant because that would be the only way to explain how the light from most of the stars in the sky has reached Earth. Good luck.

Submitted for your approval... (best Rod Stering voice)
For the record the speed of light is not always a constant. In a vacuum it has a constant rate of speed but with in a thick atmosphere such as earth or Jupiter it does slow down. Also as light escapes a black hole it slows down. Eventually it will reach the point where the energy of it's forward motion matches the energy of the gravity pulling on it and will actually come to a stop and reverse it's direction. This is know as the event horizon.

FlaGator
06-21-2008, 06:54 PM
Originally Posted by hampshirebrit
FlaGator, whatever the relative merits of our cases, it is good to see you back on CU.

Welcome back to the fleet.

I concur. One of my favorite posters :)

Thank you very much the both of you! I needed a bit of a time out after all the stuff in December but its nice to be back. I was taking the bloggin stuff way to serioiusly and it was distracting me from what God's desires for me. Any ways I enjoy chatting with each of you and look foward to more of the same!

gary

FlaGator
06-21-2008, 07:03 PM
Yes, those bones.

Of course, if you're going to claim that the Earth is thousands of years old, not billions of years old, then you've got to do more than show that the decay rate of Carbon 14 has not always been constant. You also have to show that the speed of light has not always been constant because that would be the only way to explain how the light from most of the stars in the sky has reached Earth. Good luck.

This got me thinking. Actually it is not the speed of like being wrong that would shake up science. It is the red shift data of the doppler effect. Say that one day they discover that gravity in deep space pulls more strongly on light then the red shift would appear to be greater than it actually is and the distances between stars and galaxies would be greately exaggerated. This would turn modern cosmology on it's head and many of the assumptions based on the age of the universe would need to be re thought or thrown out all together. Talk about putting all your eggs in one basket. I've seen nothing to make be believe that this is so but I wonder if anyone has ever done a study of the possibility.

The Night Owl
06-21-2008, 07:05 PM
Submitted for your approval... (best Rod Stering voice)

For the record the speed of light is not always a constant. In a vacuum it has a constant rate of speed but with in a thick atmosphere such as earth or Jupiter it does slow down.

The fact that light slows in a medium does not change the fact that the speed of light is constant. Moreover, we are talking about light that is travelling through the vacuum of space.

megimoo
06-21-2008, 07:15 PM
Appearances can be deceiving, but for the sake of argument, let us accept your idea that DNA appears to have been designed. If DNA appears to have been designed, then why should we assume that it was designed by God and not by extraterrestrials?



I don't claim to know that God does not exist. The believers are the ones who make the extravagant claims. I'll remain open to the God hypothesis, but I'm not going to believe it unless someone provides evidence or a theory to support it.

By the way, your posts are great. I don't agree with most of what you're writing, but I admire the fact that you really think this stuff through.

Anyway, here is a short video you might find interesting...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9_dHjH34nY
How many corkscrew bends are you going through before you admit the ever so slight possibility of GODS existence .Everything including your aliens were created by GOD and nothing that exists existed before his creation !

The Night Owl
06-21-2008, 07:21 PM
This got me thinking. Actually it is not the speed of like being wrong that would shake up science. It is the red shift data of the doppler effect. Say that one day they discover that gravity in deep space pulls more strongly on light then the red shift would appear to be greater than it actually is and the distances between stars and galaxies would be greately exaggerated. This would turn modern cosmology on it's head and many of the assumptions based on the age of the universe would need to be re thought or thrown out all together. Talk about putting all your eggs in one basket. I've seen nothing to make be believe that this is so but I wonder if anyone has ever done a study of the possibility.

We have more than one way to estimate the age of the Universe...

http://www.astro.ubc.ca/people/scott/bbage.html#cluster

The Night Owl
06-21-2008, 07:25 PM
How many corkscrew bends are you going through before you admit the ever so slight possibility of GODS existence .Everything including your aliens were created by GOD and nothing that exists existed before his creation !

I have already acknowledged the ever so slight possibility that God exists.

Sonnabend
06-21-2008, 07:28 PM
God is dead- Nietszche

Nietszche is dead - God

LogansPapa
06-21-2008, 08:31 PM
And man never walked the Earth with the dinosaurs: The knowledge of any school boy.

FlaGator
06-21-2008, 08:33 PM
We have more than one way to estimate the age of the Universe...

http://www.astro.ubc.ca/people/scott/bbage.html#cluster

I understand that... but here I am going assume the naturalist view which is, has anyone every visited a global cluster to verify that the assumptions of their structure and age are correct?

Since no one has actually traveled to a globular cluster then its condition and state are unknown and its makeup and age is assumed based on circumstantial evidence, much like some theists infer the existence of God based on the preponderance of circumstantial evidence. The point I am making here is that in the debate between the existence or non existence of God, methods that you use to validate one point can also be used to invalidate another supporting point. This is true of theism as well. However I believe that you are asking for irrefutable proof of the existence of God but you apply a lesser standard of evidence to the scientific proofs. To be truly fair you should determine your standard and apply them equally.

BTW, the use of Cepheid variables seem to be the most accurate way of determining distance in space but unfortunately Cepheid’s cannot be detected as far away as the edge of the universe.

The Night Owl
06-21-2008, 10:10 PM
I understand that... but here I am going assume the naturalist view which is, has anyone every visited a global cluster to verify that the assumptions of their structure and age are correct?

Since no one has actually traveled to a globular cluster then its condition and state are unknown and its makeup and age is assumed based on circumstantial evidence, much like some theists infer the existence of God based on the preponderance of circumstantial evidence.

Your concerns about one of the methods used to estimate the age of the Universe would carry more weight if the results were not in agreement with results from other methods... but they are.

No, the Earth is not thousands of years old. It is billions of years old. The only way for the Creationist estimate of Earth's age to be correct is if reality itself were some kind of illusion... which is not likely in my opinion.


However I believe that you are asking for irrefutable proof of the existence of God but you apply a lesser standard of evidence to the scientific proofs. To be truly fair you should determine your standard and apply them equally.

No, I'm not asking for irrefutable proof of God. In fact, even insufficient evidence of God might be enough to persuade an impressionable person such as me to believe.

biccat
06-21-2008, 11:10 PM
No, I'm not asking for irrefutable proof of God. In fact, even insufficient evidence of God might be enough to persuade an impressionable person such as me to believe.
Do you believe in man-made global warming?

John
06-22-2008, 11:32 AM
This relocate is crimping my early morning personality style. However, in the interest of organization I support it. Now to figure out how to quote from another thread:....



Look. Here is the problem. If your explanation for how the Universe came to be is that God created it, then the next thing you have to explain is how God came to be. If you can't explain how God came to be, then why not save a step and admit that you don't know how the Universe came to be?


Wow. They grow them thick where you come from don't they?

The problem is that you are vehemently denying the existence of God while at the same time not capable of providing evidence that supports an alternate theory. Philosophy as old as Aristotle has supported the corollary that a negative cannot be proved! Therefore, you cannot and will not ever, ever, ever be able to prove that God does not exist! You have to prove that something else was there to serve His function.

Hell it's not even a difficult mental exercise to see that you are trying to convince a group of people that there is no God, while you should be trying to convince said group that you have a more viable and provable idea.

Unfortunately you don't and won't ever have a more provable idea.



then the next thing you have to explain is how God came to be


Besides the fact that I don't have to explain the existence of God in order to hold my theory in the same position as yours. I would like to give a little physics 202.

You see, we can employ and correctly utilize all forms of physical science laws and maths all the way back to creation. Big Bang theories and physics currently jive with mathematical and physical models. Anything that happened pre-creation...anything prior to the big bang, is untouchable by human maths and sciences. It's simply not conceivable to develop any sort of theory where time and three dimensional space don't exist or are not factors.

Therefore, you should know that I don't have to explain to anyone how God came to be anymore than anyone who doesn't support God theory has to explain any other cause of the Big Bang! There is no explanation for the Big Bang, God or otherwise, from anyone else ever. We simply cannot conceive of reality before it happened and therefore the casuality of the Big Bang does not apply.

I'm telling you God the willed the Big Bang to take place, and all existence, matter, time and 3D space sprung from it. Now, you tell me what caused existence to emerge. You offer a better theory than that and even the best of those pre-existence theories can't explain where their original movers come from!!!

Oh, and if you come back with "M" or "S", you might as well go home. "M" theory cannot explain where the giant membranes came from anymore than "S" theory can explain where strings come from.


Therefore, one is left to believe that any God theory is on equal fotting with any other theory that explains the cause of the Big Bang.

You really need to read more.

The Night Owl
06-22-2008, 11:38 AM
Do you believe in man-made global warming?

I believe that human activities are the primary cause of global warming but I don't rule out the possibility that natural factors may be contributing to it. Most of the scientific evidence points to human activities being the primary cause of global warming.

biccat
06-22-2008, 11:56 AM
I believe that global warming is probably the result of mostly human activities. Of course, I acknowledge the possibility that global warming may be the result of natural forces, but most of the scientific evidence points to human activity being the primary cause.
Well then if you agree with the consensus on global warming, why not the consensus on God?

MrsSmith
06-22-2008, 01:32 PM
Yes, those bones.

Of course, if you're going to claim that the Earth is thousands of years old, not billions of years old, then you've got to do more than show that the decay rate of Carbon 14 has not always been constant. You also have to show that the speed of light has not always been constant because that would be the only way to explain how the light from most of the stars in the sky has reached Earth. Good luck.

God made the stars in our near space, then moved them to their final locations, trailing light behind them.

MrsSmith
06-22-2008, 01:34 PM
And man never walked the Earth with the dinosaurs: The knowledge of any school boy.

Of course, school boys never have untrue "knowledge." All those ancient pictures of dinosaurs were fakes, really. Truly.

LogansPapa
06-22-2008, 01:39 PM
Of course, school boys never have untrue "knowledge." All those ancient pictures of dinosaurs were fakes, really. Truly.

Human fossils ever found with these animals? Even evidece of human tools found with them? Even once?:confused:

MrsSmith
06-22-2008, 01:44 PM
Human fossils ever found with these animals? Even evidece of human tools found with them? Even once?:confused:

Of course not. Any site that was mixed was declared corrupt. Since everyone "knows" that dinosaurs died long before humans arose, any evidence against that knowledge was discarded.

MrsSmith
06-22-2008, 01:48 PM
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=1842


Evidence for a Young World

1. Galaxies wind themselves up too fast...

2. Too few supernova remnants...

3. Comets disintegrate too quickly...

4. Not enough mud on the sea floor...

5. Not enough sodium in the sea. ..

6. The earth's magnetic field is decaying too fast...

7. Many strata are too tightly bent...

8. Biological material decays too fast...

9. Fossil radioactivity shortens geologic "ages" to a few years...

10. Too much helium in minerals...

11. Too much carbon 14 in deep geologic strata...

>>>

The Night Owl
06-22-2008, 02:11 PM
Well then if you agree with the consensus on global warming, why not the consensus on God?

The consensus on global warming is based on scientific evidence. The consensus on God is based on faith.

The Night Owl
06-22-2008, 02:26 PM
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=1842

Starting with number one...


1. Galaxies wind themselves up too fast.
The stars of our own galaxy, the Milky Way, rotate about the galactic center with different speeds, the inner ones rotating faster than the outer ones. The observed rotation speeds are so fast that if our galaxy were more than a few hundred million years old, it would be a featureless disc of stars instead of its present spiral shape.1 Yet our galaxy is supposed to be at least 10 billion years old. Evolutionists call this "the winding-up dilemma," which they have known about for fifty years. They have devised many theories to try to explain it, each one failing after a brief period of popularity. The same "winding-up" dilemma also applies to other galaxies. For the last few decades the favored attempt to resolve the puzzle has been a complex theory called "density waves."1 The theory has conceptual problems, has to be arbitrarily and very finely tuned, and has been called into serious question by the Hubble Space Telescope's discovery of very detailed spiral structure in the central hub of the "Whirlpool" galaxy, M51.2

False.


Rotations to Reckon With

In 1687, Sir Isaac Newton showed that the force of gravity between two celestial bodies increases as the product of their two masses and decreases as the square of the distance between them. Because of their gravitational attraction to the Sun, the earth and all the other planets in our solar system rotate around the Sun. But while the earth moves completely around the sun in just one year, Pluto, normally the outermost planet in the solar system, takes 249 years to do the same--even though its orbital path is only 40 times that of earth's.

...

Newton's law predicts that the movement of stars around the galactic center should slow down with increasing distance from the center of the galaxy. But scientists noticed a funny thing when studying the movement of star clusters in Andromeda's halo.

...

Much to the surprise of the scientists who made the initial measurements, the rotational velocity of stars in Andromeda did not steadily drop off in the outer reaches of the galaxy. Instead, the speeds drop slightly and then level off at a constant value.

...
http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Cyberia/Cosmos/RotationsReckon.html

Okay, so... right out of the gate, we have a demonstrably false claim by the Creationists. The Creationists are off to a bad start, but perhaps their other claims will fare better. I will check out the other claims when I get a chance.

wilbur
06-22-2008, 02:36 PM
God made the stars in our near space, then moved them to their final locations, trailing light behind them.

So then you believe in the deceitful god of Last Thursdayism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Thursday)?

wilbur
06-22-2008, 02:42 PM
This got me thinking. Actually it is not the speed of like being wrong that would shake up science. It is the red shift data of the doppler effect. Say that one day they discover that gravity in deep space pulls more strongly on light then the red shift would appear to be greater than it actually is and the distances between stars and galaxies would be greately exaggerated. This would turn modern cosmology on it's head and many of the assumptions based on the age of the universe would need to be re thought or thrown out all together. Talk about putting all your eggs in one basket. I've seen nothing to make be believe that this is so but I wonder if anyone has ever done a study of the possibility.

Bemoaning the doppler effect and red shift is one the all time favorite pastimes for creation advocates.

LogansPapa
06-22-2008, 02:46 PM
Of course not. Any site that was mixed was declared corrupt. Since everyone "knows" that dinosaurs died long before humans arose, any evidence against that knowledge was discarded.

Declared corrupt? Link please. Link anywhere in logic, in fact. Why would any scientist ever try to corrupt and/or disguise the finding of human remains and/or human tools in the midst of dinosaurs? What, exactly would be the purpose of that? If I found that situation in my back yard I'd be nominated for a Nobel Prize in about 15 minutes. Please explain to me why somebody - any rational individual - would withhold that great discovery. :confused:

The Night Owl
06-22-2008, 03:00 PM
Declared corrupt? Link please. Link anywhere in logic, in fact. Why would any scientist ever try to corrupt and/or disguise the finding of human remains and/or human tools in the midst of dinosaurs? What, exactly would be the purpose of that? If I found that situation in my back yard I'd be nominated for a Nobel Prize in about 15 minutes. Please explain to me why somebody - any rational individual - would withhold that great discovery. :confused:

Don't you get it? It's a conspiracy. Scientists are always conspiring to fool the masses.

:D

LogansPapa
06-22-2008, 03:03 PM
Don't you get it? It's a conspiracy. Scientists are always conspiring to fool the masses.

:D

:eek:My scull nearly imploded with the utter ignorance in that declaration - I kid you not!:p

The Night Owl
06-22-2008, 03:08 PM
Here we go with Creationist claim #2...


2. Too few supernova remnants.

According to astronomical observations, galaxies like our own experience about one supernova (a violently-exploding star) every 25 years. The gas and dust remnants from such explosions (like the Crab Nebula) expand outward rapidly and should remain visible for over a million years. Yet the nearby parts of our galaxy in which we could observe such gas and dust shells contain only about 200 supernova remnants. That number is consistent with only about 7,000 years worth of supernovas.3

Because dust and other material blocks much of our view of the galaxy, SNRs can be observed only in a small portion of the galaxy. Moreover, even if astronomers were observing the entire sky, old SNRs are very difficult or even impossible to detect.

A detailed rebuttal of the Creationist claim about supernova remnants can be found here...

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/supernova/#BM103

FlaGator
06-22-2008, 03:22 PM
Your concerns about one of the methods used to estimate the age of the Universe would carry more weight if the results were not in agreement with results from other methods... but they are.

No, the Earth is not thousands of years old. It is billions of years old. The only way for the Creationist estimate of Earth's age to be correct is if reality itself were some kind of illusion... which is not likely in my opinion.



No, I'm not asking for irrefutable proof of God. In fact, even insufficient evidence of God might be enough to persuade an impressionable person such as me to believe.

Did I state that I thought that the earth was only a few thousand years old? No I did not. I was merely speculating on the ramifications to cosmology if redshift data was found to be inaccurate for some reason or another.

As for reality being an illusion, there are quite a few schools of thought that say precisely that.

FlaGator
06-22-2008, 03:31 PM
The consensus on global warming is based on scientific evidence. The consensus on God is based on faith.

What facts are those pray tell? For the theory of manmade global climate change to hold water there would have to be no previous occurrences of global climate change so that blame could be laid solely at the feet of man. Unfortunately climate change is the norm historically speaking and man has just happened to live within a period of time in which the climate has been unusually stable. Is man a contributing factor? Possibly, but evidence of a increasing solar output is starting to accumulate that may nullify man's contribution.

FlaGator
06-22-2008, 03:34 PM
Bemoaning the doppler effect and red shift is one the all time favorite pastimes for creation advocates.

I wasn't bemoaning... I was just thinking in print. I accept the doppler effect as a viable means of determining interstellar distances... I was just playing a what if game and imaging the mad scramble in cosmology and astronomy if something was discovered that lead to a change of thought.

FlaGator
06-22-2008, 03:35 PM
Declared corrupt? Link please. Link anywhere in logic, in fact. Why would any scientist ever try to corrupt and/or disguise the finding of human remains and/or human tools in the midst of dinosaurs? What, exactly would be the purpose of that? If I found that situation in my back yard I'd be nominated for a Nobel Prize in about 15 minutes. Please explain to me why somebody - any rational individual - would withhold that great discovery. :confused:

Perhaps for the same reason piltdown man was faked. Just to muddy the waters maybe.

wilbur
06-22-2008, 03:37 PM
I wasn't bemoaning... I was just thinking in print. I accept the doppler effect as a viable means of determining interstellar distances... I was just playing a what if game and imaging the mad scramble in cosmology and astronomy if something was discovered that lead to a change of thought.

Oh I know you werent... You wondered if people have been exploring the possibility of miscalculated doppler effect, and I was just pointing out that they have and they do.

LogansPapa
06-22-2008, 03:42 PM
Perhaps for the same reason piltdown man was faked. Just to muddy the waters maybe.

So dozens of institutions and thousands of field and lab personnel are trying to contain the secret that man and dinosaur walked the Earth together? Do you realize just how irrational that is? In today's information age? Makes the faked moon landings seem like nothing.

The Night Owl
06-22-2008, 04:05 PM
What facts are those pray tell? For the theory of manmade global climate change to hold water there would have to be no previous occurrences of global climate change so that blame could be laid solely at the feet of man.

Arguing that natural climate changes in the past prove that climate change now is natural is like arguing that the existence of lakes and other natural bodies of water proves that swimming pools are natural bodies of water.


Possibly, but evidence of a increasing solar output is starting to accumulate that may nullify man's contribution.

Solar irradiance has been decreasing slightly in the past few decades. If the Sun were the only factor contributing to Earth's temperature, the planet should be getting cooler, not warmer.

The Night Owl
06-22-2008, 04:15 PM
Claim #3...


3. Comets disintegrate too quickly.

According to evolutionary theory, comets are supposed to be the same age as the solar system, about five billion years. Yet each time a comet orbits close to the sun, it loses so much of its material that it could not survive much longer than about 100,000 years. Many comets have typical ages of less than 10,000 years.4 Evolutionists explain this discrepancy by assuming that (a) comets come from an unobserved spherical "Oort cloud" well beyond the orbit of Pluto, (b) improbable gravitational interactions with infrequently passing stars often knock comets into the solar system, and (c) other improbable interactions with planets slow down the incoming comets often enough to account for the hundreds of comets observed.5 So far, none of these assumptions has been substantiated either by observations or realistic calculations. Lately, there has been much talk of the "Kuiper Belt," a disc of supposed comet sources lying in the plane of the solar system just outside the orbit of Pluto. Some asteroid-sized bodies of ice exist in that location, but they do not solve the evolutionists' problem, since according to evolutionary theory, the Kuiper Belt would quickly become exhausted if there were no Oort cloud to supply it.

Over 1000 KBOs have been observed since 1992 and scientists estimate that the Kuiper Belt may contain at least 70,000 KBOs... more than enough to explain comets.

http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/faculty/jewitt/kb.html

Only two objects which can be classified as Oort Cloud objects have been found, but this is not suprising considering the difficulties of detecting small and dark objects as far from Earth as Oort Cloud objects are.

I don't know if I should bother going through the rest of the list of ridiculous claims made by Creationists.

The Night Owl
06-22-2008, 05:12 PM
The problem is that you are vehemently denying the existence of God while at the same time not capable of providing evidence that supports an alternate theory. Philosophy as old as Aristotle has supported the corollary that a negative cannot be proved! Therefore, you cannot and will not ever, ever, ever be able to prove that God does not exist! You have to prove that something else was there to serve His function.

So? I see no reason to try to disprove that which has not been proven in the first place.


Hell it's not even a difficult mental exercise to see that you are trying to convince a group of people that there is no God, while you should be trying to convince said group that you have a more viable and provable idea.

I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. I'm only stating my position.

FlaGator
06-22-2008, 06:01 PM
Arguing that natural climate changes in the past prove that climate change now is natural is like arguing that the existence of lakes and other natural bodies of water proves that swimming pools are natural bodies of water.



Solar irradiance has been decreasing slightly in the past few decades. If the Sun were the only factor contributing to Earth's temperature, the planet should be getting cooler, not warmer.

Your logic is flawed. There are obvious clues that swimming pools are artifically created. There are also clues that artifical lakes are manmade. There are differences between naturally occuring events and events caused by man. Again I ask what is the concrete evidence that the current change in climate is not the result of natural cycles? Instead of analogizing my question as a response provide what you see as evidence.

Also, were do you get your information on solar radiaion tends? From an article in ScienceDaily from 2003.


NASA Study Finds Increasing Solar Trend That Can Change Climate
ScienceDaily (Mar. 21, 2003) — Since the late 1970s, the amount of solar radiation the sun emits, during times of quiet sunspot activity, has increased by nearly .05 percent per decade, according to a NASA funded study.

"This trend is important because, if sustained over many decades, it could cause significant climate change," said Richard Willson, a researcher affiliated with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia University's Earth Institute, New York. He is the lead author of the study recently published in Geophysical Research Letters.

"Historical records of solar activity indicate that solar radiation has been increasing since the late 19th century. If a trend, comparable to the one found in this study, persisted throughout the 20th century, it would have provided a significant component of the global warming the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports to have occurred over the past 100 years," he said.


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/03/030321075236.htm

MrsSmith
06-22-2008, 06:03 PM
Starting with number one...


1. Galaxies wind themselves up too fast.
The stars of our own galaxy, the Milky Way, rotate about the galactic center with different speeds, the inner ones rotating faster than the outer ones. The observed rotation speeds are so fast that if our galaxy were more than a few hundred million years old, it would be a featureless disc of stars instead of its present spiral shape.1 Yet our galaxy is supposed to be at least 10 billion years old. Evolutionists call this "the winding-up dilemma," which they have known about for fifty years. They have devised many theories to try to explain it, each one failing after a brief period of popularity. The same "winding-up" dilemma also applies to other galaxies. For the last few decades the favored attempt to resolve the puzzle has been a complex theory called "density waves."1 The theory has conceptual problems, has to be arbitrarily and very finely tuned, and has been called into serious question by the Hubble Space Telescope's discovery of very detailed spiral structure in the central hub of the "Whirlpool" galaxy, M51.2

False.


Rotations to Reckon With

In 1687, Sir Isaac Newton showed that the force of gravity between two celestial bodies increases as the product of their two masses and decreases as the square of the distance between them. Because of their gravitational attraction to the Sun, the earth and all the other planets in our solar system rotate around the Sun. But while the earth moves completely around the sun in just one year, Pluto, normally the outermost planet in the solar system, takes 249 years to do the same--even though its orbital path is only 40 times that of earth's.

...

Newton's law predicts that the movement of stars around the galactic center should slow down with increasing distance from the center of the galaxy. But scientists noticed a funny thing when studying the movement of star clusters in Andromeda's halo.

...

Much to the surprise of the scientists who made the initial measurements, the rotational velocity of stars in Andromeda did not steadily drop off in the outer reaches of the galaxy. Instead, the speeds drop slightly and then level off at a constant value.

...
http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Cyberia/Cosmos/RotationsReckon.html

Okay, so... right out of the gate, we have a demonstrably false claim by the Creationists. The Creationists are off to a bad start, but perhaps their other claims will fare better. I will check out the other claims when I get a chance.



Before delving into an answer, it is important to note that the spiral arms of galaxies are not fixed, solid objects; rather, they are patterns of bright stars and gas clouds within the overall form of the galaxy. The space between the spiral arms is not empty, and stars can move in and out of the arms as they orbit through the galaxy.

Ray Carlberg in the astronomy department at the University of Toronto sent in this description of what scientists know about the nature of spiral galaxies:

"The basic physics of why galaxies have spirals is known, but the details remain controversial, sometimes intensely so. Spirals exist only among flattened or 'disk' galaxies. These galaxies are differentially rotating--that is, the time to complete a full rotation increases with distance from the center. Differential rotation causes any disturbance in the disk to wind up into a spiral form. The trouble with this simple explanation is that the differential rotation would cause spiral features to wind up too quickly, so galaxies would not look like spirals for any appreciable length of time.


http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=what-process-creates-and

Strangely enough, it seems some astronomers may have a different opinion than TNO.

MrsSmith
06-22-2008, 06:05 PM
Declared corrupt? Link please. Link anywhere in logic, in fact. Why would any scientist ever try to corrupt and/or disguise the finding of human remains and/or human tools in the midst of dinosaurs? What, exactly would be the purpose of that? If I found that situation in my back yard I'd be nominated for a Nobel Prize in about 15 minutes. Please explain to me why somebody - any rational individual - would withhold that great discovery. :confused:

If they are found together, as the tracks in the river in Texas, they are immediately considered "corrupted" sites because the evidence is impossible.

FlaGator
06-22-2008, 06:06 PM
So dozens of institutions and thousands of field and lab personnel are trying to contain the secret that man and dinosaur walked the Earth together? Do you realize just how irrational that is? In today's information age? Makes the faked moon landings seem like nothing.

I know, I know. I'm not a conspiracy theory advocate, I just like watching people freak out everytime this stuff gets mentioned. Also the evolution crowd seem to get pretty touchy about piltdown man, kind of like the most Christians feel about the end of the world doom criers.

MrsSmith
06-22-2008, 06:08 PM
Here we go with Creationist claim #2...


2. Too few supernova remnants.

According to astronomical observations, galaxies like our own experience about one supernova (a violently-exploding star) every 25 years. The gas and dust remnants from such explosions (like the Crab Nebula) expand outward rapidly and should remain visible for over a million years. Yet the nearby parts of our galaxy in which we could observe such gas and dust shells contain only about 200 supernova remnants. That number is consistent with only about 7,000 years worth of supernovas.3

Because dust and other material blocks much of our view of the galaxy, SNRs can be observed only in a small portion of the galaxy. Moreover, even if astronomers were observing the entire sky, old SNRs are very difficult or even impossible to detect.

A detailed rebuttal of the Creationist claim about supernova remnants can be found here...

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/supernova/#BM103

I absolutely love this quote...

Davies uses a value of one million years for the lower end of the typical visible lifetime of a SNR and assumes that all SNRs last this long. He gets this figure from Ilovaisky & Lequeux (1972b). However, on reading the original paper it is noticeable that this value is actually for the theoretical lifetime of the remnant, not the observable lifetime of the remnant

:D:D:D "Observable" lifetime of one million years. As though we've observed anything for a million years. I'm sure gald talkorigins doesn't try to pull any fast ones over on us...

MrsSmith
06-22-2008, 06:09 PM
Arguing that natural climate changes in the past prove that climate change now is natural is like arguing that the existence of lakes and other natural bodies of water proves that swimming pools are natural bodies of water.



Solar irradiance has been decreasing slightly in the past few decades. If the Sun were the only factor contributing to Earth's temperature, the planet should be getting cooler, not warmer.

You do realize that temperatures have NOT risen in the last decade?

The Night Owl
06-22-2008, 06:22 PM
There are differences between naturally occuring events and events caused by man. Again I ask what is the concrete evidence that the current change in climate is not the result of natural cycles? Instead of analogizing my question as a response provide what you see as evidence.

Scientists have studied all the natural factors which contribute to climate and have determined that they alone cannot account for the rising temperatures on Earth.


Also, were do you get your information on solar radiaion tends? From an article in ScienceDaily from 2003.

http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/composite/SolarConstant

The Night Owl
06-22-2008, 06:27 PM
You do realize that temperatures have NOT risen in the last decade?

Correct. Temperatures have been more or less flat for the past decade, but scientists usually use a period of about 30 years to establish a climate baseline. So, when I claim that the planet is getting warmer, I'm talking about the long term temperature trend, which very clearly indicates that the planet is getting warmer.

wilbur
06-22-2008, 06:39 PM
I absolutely love this quote...


:D:D:D "Observable" lifetime of one million years. As though we've observed anything for a million years. I'm sure gald talkorigins doesn't try to pull any fast ones over on us...

Note this is a quote from your article: "The gas and dust remnants from such explosions (like the Crab Nebula) expand outward rapidly and should remain visible for over a million years. Yet the nearby parts of our galaxy in which we could observe such gas and dust shells contain only about 200 supernova remnants."

Do you find that one just as funny?

They go on to use that calculation to support their claim for a young universe.

The Night Owl
06-22-2008, 07:05 PM
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=what-process-creates-and

Strangely enough, it seems some astronomers may have a different opinion than TNO.

The difference of opinion is between the scientists and the creationists. The creationist claim is that the further a star is from the center of the galaxy, the slower it rotates. Wrong. What Ray Carlberg pointed out in the SCIAM page you cited is that the further a star is from the center of the galaxy, the more distance it has to cover to complete an orbit. In other words, if two stars at different distances from the center of the galaxy are orbiting at the same speed, the star with the larger orbit takes longer to complete that orbit because it has more distance to cover than the star with the smaller orbit.

biccat
06-22-2008, 07:29 PM
Human fossils ever found with these animals? Even evidece of human tools found with them? Even once?:confused:
How about evidence of (fossilized) human footprints found alongside (fossilized) dinosaur footprints. Look it up, there are plenty of records.

The geological timetable is based on the period it takes for geological strata to form. How does this compare with so-called "upright fossils" which cross these strata, or even several strata. For that to be true, a single tree would have to survive hundreds of thousands of years while the rock formed around it. In fact, outside of the few specific regions where the strata align just right, most of the world has geological strata that don't 'fit' the accepted view.

Of course, these are ignored, because they don't fit the template.

Vepr
06-22-2008, 07:42 PM
Why did god hate dinosaurs? Honestly what did those poor bastards do that they did not get a place on the arc?

wilbur
06-22-2008, 07:48 PM
How about evidence of (fossilized) human footprints found alongside (fossilized) dinosaur footprints. Look it up, there are plenty of records.


I'm not aware of any that werent uncovered to be hoaxes. I bet we could even find some religious scientists that help uncover those hoaxes.



The geological timetable is based on the period it takes for geological strata to form. How does this compare with so-called "upright fossils" which cross these strata, or even several strata. For that to be true, a single tree would have to survive hundreds of thousands of years while the rock formed around it. In fact, outside of the few specific regions where the strata align just right, most of the world has geological strata that don't 'fit' the accepted view.

Of course, these are ignored, because they don't fit the template.

No, they are addressed and investigated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polystrate_fossil

"Geologists have long accepted that a layer or set of layers containing polystrate fossils was created by a brief period of rapid sedimentation. Typically, this period of rapid sedimentation was followed by a period of time, decades to thousands of years long, characterized by very slow or no accumulation of sediments. In river deltas and other coastal plain settings, rapid sedimentation is often the end result of a brief period of accelerated subsidence of an area of coastal plain relative to sea level caused by salt tectonics, global sea level rise, growth faulting, continental margin collapse, or some combination of these factors.

....

In case of the polystrate trees of the Yellowstone petrified forest, which occur buried within the lahar and other volcanic deposits comprising the Lamar River Formation, the periods of rapid sedimentation are regarded by them to be the result of explosive volcanism."

biccat
06-22-2008, 07:58 PM
No, they are addressed and investigated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polystrate_fossil
Well, (http://www.crunchgear.com/2008/06/22/parents-blame-kids-failing-test-scores-on-wikipedia/) I'm convinced. (http://www.webcommentary.com/asp/ShowArticle.asp?id=stixn&date=080622)

I mean, wow, Wikipedia. You sure showed me. For example, I just visited Wikipedia and learned that George W. Bush is the child of Satan and Adolf Hitler. Isn't education a wonderful thing?

The Night Owl
06-22-2008, 08:27 PM
Well, (http://www.crunchgear.com/2008/06/22/parents-blame-kids-failing-test-scores-on-wikipedia/) I'm convinced. (http://www.webcommentary.com/asp/ShowArticle.asp?id=stixn&date=080622)

I mean, wow, Wikipedia. You sure showed me. For example, I just visited Wikipedia and learned that George W. Bush is the child of Satan and Adolf Hitler. Isn't education a wonderful thing?

The Wiki entry on Polystrate Fossils is supported by published scientific studies. What is your refutation of the Wiki article supported by?

LogansPapa
06-22-2008, 08:44 PM
How about evidence of (fossilized) human footprints found alongside (fossilized) dinosaur footprints. Look it up, there are plenty of records.

Maybe if you're an easily led carnival fucktard rube you might be amazed by shit like this - but I'm for one certainly not:

Paluxy
by John Blanton
Travel Section of The North Texas Skeptic

It's curious how minor events can trickle into and expand our lives.

Forces beyond its control have catapulted the Texas hamlet of Paluxy into the mainstream of a major controversy. Settled in the cedar breaks along a back road in Hood County, Paluxy has lent its name and has gained notoriety in return.

Paluxy is little more than a pair of city limit signs along Farm Road 51. Tiger Woods, or even Jack Nicklaus, could hit a 9-iron shot across it. There is a church and some houses and a U.S. Post Office. But no Wal-Mart.

Nearby is the Paluxy River, which winds down through the eroded Cretaceous landscape toward the Brazos River in adjacent Somerville County. In its short trek the Paluxy cuts through softer layers of sediment and occasionally pauses its downward progress as it runs along harder layers of limestone.

It was here in the late 1930s and early 1940s that paleontologist Roland T. Bird came to study the dinosaur footprints that locals had long observed in the limestone bed of the Paluxy and in tributary streams. Roland Bird wrote at length of these finds for National Geographic and Natural History. His work included the excavation of an extensive set of sauropod prints, which are now on display at the American Museum of Natural History in New York.

Creationists picked up on the notoriety of the Paluxy River tracks, and they also took note of the many carved human tracks being sold to tourists. Since the Earth is only about 6000 years old, they reasoned, why shouldn't human prints be there, as well. Wishing made it come true in their minds, and the Paluxy River man tracks were born.

An entire cottage industry has sprung from the man tracks myth complete with books, conferences, and even a Creation Evidence Museum along the banks of the Paluxy River, north of Glen Rose. We and others have covered the story of the man tracks myth in detail in previous years, so I will just provide some links at the end of this story to allow the uninitiated to read further.

We are fortunate to have the Paluxy River tracks in our own back yard. Exploring the Paluxy River region in person is the best way to get a feel for the geology that shaped the story and maybe to even meet some of the principal players.

http://www.ntskeptics.org/2003/2003january/january2003.htm


(only a complete moron would actually fall for this):rolleyes:

wilbur
06-22-2008, 09:05 PM
Well, (http://www.crunchgear.com/2008/06/22/parents-blame-kids-failing-test-scores-on-wikipedia/) I'm convinced. (http://www.webcommentary.com/asp/ShowArticle.asp?id=stixn&date=080622)

I mean, wow, Wikipedia. You sure showed me. For example, I just visited Wikipedia and learned that George W. Bush is the child of Satan and Adolf Hitler. Isn't education a wonderful thing?

I'm sure there are legions of conspirators having a field day over the polystrate fossil section on wikipedia :rolleyes:

Or if you find wikipedia articles untrustworthy, they do actually list sources at the bottom (crazy, I know), and usually external links with more information.

MrsSmith
06-22-2008, 09:10 PM
The difference of opinion is between the scientists and the creationists. The creationist claim is that the further a star is from the center of the galaxy, the slower it rotates. Wrong. What Ray Carlberg pointed out in the SCIAM page you cited is that the further a star is from the center of the galaxy, the more distance it has to cover to complete an orbit. In other words, if two stars at different distances from the center of the galaxy are orbiting at the same speed, the star with the larger orbit takes longer to complete that orbit because it has more distance to cover than the star with the smaller orbit.
And the sciam artlcle says...

Before delving into an answer, it is important to note that the spiral arms of galaxies are not fixed, solid objects; rather, they are patterns of bright stars and gas clouds within the overall form of the galaxy. The space between the spiral arms is not empty, and stars can move in and out of the arms as they orbit through the galaxy.

Ray Carlberg in the astronomy department at the University of Toronto sent in this description of what scientists know about the nature of spiral galaxies:

"The basic physics of why galaxies have spirals is known, but the details remain controversial, sometimes intensely so. Spirals exist only among flattened or 'disk' galaxies. These galaxies are differentially rotating--that is, the time to complete a full rotation increases with distance from the center. Differential rotation causes any disturbance in the disk to wind up into a spiral form. The trouble with this simple explanation is that the differential rotation would cause spiral features to wind up too quickly, so galaxies would not look like spirals for any appreciable length of time.

As with all the evidence, evolutionists interpret everything within their belief system, and make guesses anything that doesn't match. Creationists interpret everything within the references God gave us and try to make all the evidence match. In my opinion, the creationist arguments fit the evidence with more accuracy than the constantly changing evolutionist arguments.

Of course, I also firmly believe that God didn't lie to Moses, so Genesis is correct. This doesn't mean that the 6000 year theory is correct because there is a lot of room for more time. It does mean that God created light, energy and mass, wrote the laws of physics that we're trying to figure out...built us with the ability to understand at least the physical work He did, and granted us the ability to glimpse the rest of it through a relationship with His Son.

MrsSmith
06-22-2008, 09:12 PM
Maybe if you're an easily led carnival fucktard rube you might be amazed by shit like this - but I'm for one certainly not:

Paluxy
by John Blanton
Travel Section of The North Texas Skeptic

It's curious how minor events can trickle into and expand our lives.

Forces beyond its control have catapulted the Texas hamlet of Paluxy into the mainstream of a major controversy. Settled in the cedar breaks along a back road in Hood County, Paluxy has lent its name and has gained notoriety in return.

Paluxy is little more than a pair of city limit signs along Farm Road 51. Tiger Woods, or even Jack Nicklaus, could hit a 9-iron shot across it. There is a church and some houses and a U.S. Post Office. But no Wal-Mart.

Nearby is the Paluxy River, which winds down through the eroded Cretaceous landscape toward the Brazos River in adjacent Somerville County. In its short trek the Paluxy cuts through softer layers of sediment and occasionally pauses its downward progress as it runs along harder layers of limestone.

It was here in the late 1930s and early 1940s that paleontologist Roland T. Bird came to study the dinosaur footprints that locals had long observed in the limestone bed of the Paluxy and in tributary streams. Roland Bird wrote at length of these finds for National Geographic and Natural History. His work included the excavation of an extensive set of sauropod prints, which are now on display at the American Museum of Natural History in New York.

Creationists picked up on the notoriety of the Paluxy River tracks, and they also took note of the many carved human tracks being sold to tourists. Since the Earth is only about 6000 years old, they reasoned, why shouldn't human prints be there, as well. Wishing made it come true in their minds, and the Paluxy River man tracks were born.

An entire cottage industry has sprung from the man tracks myth complete with books, conferences, and even a Creation Evidence Museum along the banks of the Paluxy River, north of Glen Rose. We and others have covered the story of the man tracks myth in detail in previous years, so I will just provide some links at the end of this story to allow the uninitiated to read further.

We are fortunate to have the Paluxy River tracks in our own back yard. Exploring the Paluxy River region in person is the best way to get a feel for the geology that shaped the story and maybe to even meet some of the principal players.

http://www.ntskeptics.org/2003/2003january/january2003.htm


(only a complete moron would actually fall for this):rolleyes:

You're right, only a complete moron would believe that a skeptic would write an honest article about something he refuses to believe.

MrsSmith
06-22-2008, 09:16 PM
The "Fossil Forests" of Nova Scotia:

>>>

The term polystrate fossil 1 is sometimes now used to describe fossil trees that are upright, in relation to the surrounding strata. Such trees quite often traverse multiple layers of horizontally deposited strata - including sandstones, shales, and occasionally even coal seams. 2 Upright plant fossils range in size from small rootlets, to trees over 80 feet long. 3 Nova Scotia, has perhaps more upright fossil trees and plants than any place on earth. At Joggins alone, erect trees and plants occur at over 50 "levels" scattered throughout 7,500 feet of strata; 4 erect roots and rootlets occur at many more "levels." 4 Drifted plants and trees also occur in many sections of this strata. These drift deposits are scattered over more than 10,000 vertical feet of strata.4,5,6 Most of the upright fossil trees at Joggins are from 2-15 feet in length. The longest was 40 feet.7 Many, if not most, of the upright fossil trees at Joggins have little or no visible traces of roots.8 In addition, many of the larger Stigmaria roots are missing their rootlets,3 and many (if not most) rootlets are buried individually: unattached to any tree, or larger root.8, 9 Fragile fossils such as leaves are also common in the Joggins and Sidney strata.10 Animal tracks, insects, and rain marks are also (sometimes) found here although they are not nearly as common. The strata at Sydney is also said to be very similar to that of Joggins. 11


http://www.earthage.org/polystrate/dawson_198.jpg

The Night Owl
06-22-2008, 09:34 PM
What I can't figure out is why creationists feel the need to cling to the absurd claim that the Earth is thousands of years old. Does the existence of God depend on the Earth being thousands of years old? I can't see why it would. And, as far as I know, the Bible makes no direct claims about the age of the Earth... unless of course one assumes that the Bible's account of who begat who is a plausible way to estimate the Earth's age.

So, why do creationists cling to their belief that the Earth is thousands of years old? Are the writings of Archbishop James Usher so valuable to Christians that they won't even consider the possibility that his unscientific estimates of Earth's age might be wrong?

LogansPapa
06-22-2008, 09:36 PM
You're right, only a complete moron would believe that a skeptic would write an honest article about something he refuses to believe.

Hint: If you travel to this little town you can learn the story of the two brothers that perpetrated this hoax.;)

wilbur
06-22-2008, 09:39 PM
And the sciam artlcle says...


As with all the evidence, evolutionists interpret everything within their belief system, and make guesses anything that doesn't match. Creationists interpret everything within the references God gave us and try to make all the evidence match. In my opinion, the creationist arguments fit the evidence with more accuracy than the constantly changing evolutionist arguments.


But wheres the grand unified theory of creationism that shows us some consistent data? I bet if we took the time to really look at the list, we'd find that most of those points are mutually exclusive with one another. At any rate, the age projections from the many points on that list are wildly varied from millions of years to thousands. That's supposed to be convincing?

Have you read the sciam article? It isnt really supportive of your original point.



Of course, I also firmly believe that God didn't lie to Moses, so Genesis is correct. This doesn't mean that the 6000 year theory is correct because there is a lot of room for more time. It does mean that God created light, energy and mass, wrote the laws of physics that we're trying to figure out...built us with the ability to understand at least the physical work He did, and granted us the ability to glimpse the rest of it through a relationship with His Son.

You can believe in God and still think evolution and an old universe are the right ideas. You'd be following in the tradition of great jewish and christian philosophers if you understood Genesis not as a literal account, but as a creation myth. Can you really honestly say that God had to be lying to Moses if one doesnt view Genesis literally? Come on....

The Night Owl
06-22-2008, 09:45 PM
And the sciam artlcle says...

The SCIAM article explains why spiral galaxies keep their shape but that explanation is not in any way supportive of the creationist explanation for why spiral galaxies keep their shape.

More about the galaxy rotation curve...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_rotation_problem

Very interesting stuff.

LogansPapa
06-22-2008, 09:54 PM
Let's go to Mr. Logic's Street for a moment and actually think about the Earth being created in the year 4004BC.

The Earth was created, with everything on it, man & woman were installed - were not incestuous, a body of people were created, tools were created, structures were created, Noah built his great vessel and got all the animal species - two by two together - from all over the globe, the Great Flood swept all that away, fish that were once in salt water survived in fresh (I can only guess), man and woman started over again - again without any incest, the Pyramids were built (a few millennium before Christ walked the Earth (according to those lying Egyptian calendars), The Chinese society rose and fell half a dozen times, and we ended up here digging in the ground asking - what were those Neanderthal guys anyway?

Vepr
06-22-2008, 10:29 PM
Religion

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krb2OdQksMc

FlaGator
06-23-2008, 06:42 AM
Religion

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krb2OdQksMc

The stoning scene was my personal favorite.

FlaGator
06-23-2008, 08:31 AM
[QUOTE=The Night Owl;11623]Scientists have studied all the natural factors which contribute to climate and have determined that they alone cannot account for the rising temperatures on Earth.
[quote]
That is not data. That is opinion. There is historical evidence of huge climate swings both high and low that were completely unaided by man's contribution. Since these changes are factual based on the geologic record then how can scientist determine that all the natural factors have been accounted for when they don't even know what all the natural factors might be? In this case they are offering their best guess in trying to model a system that is much to complex to model and they don't even know what all the variables are. This is less accurate than the meteorologist on the nightly news trying to predict accurately tomorrow's weather.

Anyways, I want to avoid getting in to dueling reports. Since the scientists can't agree on global warming or whether solar radiation is increasing or decreasing then I guess the point is moot. Each of us will gravitate to the scientifc view point that most closely matches are own and this debate will go on until earth melts or hell freezes over.

The Night Owl
06-23-2008, 08:49 AM
That is not data. That is opinion.

The opinion is scientific and is based on analysis of the data.


There is historical evidence of huge climate swings both high and low that were completely unaided by man's contribution. Since these changes are factual based on the geologic record then how can scientist determine that all the natural factors have been accounted for when they don't even know what all the natural factors might be? In this case they are offering their best guess in trying to model a system that is much to complex to model and they don't even know what all the variables are.

What is the basis for your claim that scientists haven't accounted for all natural factors which contribute to climate? What do you think they've missed?


Anyways, I want to avoid getting in to dueling reports. Since the scientists can't agree on global warming or whether solar radiation is increasing or decreasing then I guess the point is moot. Each of us will gravitate to the scientifc view point that most closely matches are own and this debate will go on until earth melts or hell freezes over.

Scientists are in agreement that solar irradiance has been more or less level since the late 1970s. Whether irriadiance has increased or decreased slightly is climatologically insignificant. Even the Science Daily article you cited indicated that solar output does not account for the recent temperature trend on Earth.

For those who want to follow what the Sun is doing, the following is a good site...

http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/SOLAR/ftpsolarirradiance.html#composite

biccat
06-23-2008, 09:26 AM
What is the basis for your claim that scientists haven't accounted for all natural factors which contribute to climate? What do you think they've missed?
Curious, although not surprising, that a debate on religious beliefs has turned into a debate on Global Warming. Will Reverand Al preach to us next?

http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/9/9c/Phanerozoic_Climate_Change.png
(as reconstructed by oxygen isotope ratios)

wilbur
06-23-2008, 09:45 AM
From what I understand, global warming isn't theorized strictly because of temperature changes... it's because dramatic spike in the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere since the industrial revolution. This doesn't prove humans are the cause of the CO2 increases but it's a damn strong correlation. The Earth does go through cycles where the CO2 level gradually rises to what they are today, but no where near as precipitously fast as it has since we started spewing it out of factories and automobiles (or cattle?).

If you believe dramatically increasing the CO2 levels in the atmosphere (in addition to what the earth generates naturally) can potentially cause major shifts in the climate, then there is nothing far fetched about global warming (aka climate change).

Yes, climate change is pretty solid scientific theory, despite the loons attached to it, and despite their just-as-loony polar opposites that claim it's a fairy tale (Rush L.). Both use the theory as a way to further their political agenda. But just like evolution, big bang, or any other scientific theory global warming does not automatically justify or force you to adopt certain political positions.