Dallas-Mavs.com Forums

Go Back   Dallas-Mavs.com Forums > Everything Else > Political Arena

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-23-2012, 04:22 PM   #41
Underdog
Moderator
 
Underdog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 41.21.1
Posts: 36,143
Underdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan View Post
Circumcision is also a pretty batshit crazy idea thanks to the Jews, but it's still largely mainstream. I don't think you can call yourself separate from the crazies until you renounce it.

They even got the whole bad science thing going for them too. What's the sexual disease epidemic of the day? AIDS? Oh sure, circumcision will certainly prevent that. What's that? A lot of older guys get prostate cancer too? If only they had gotten circumcised...
Yep, ancient belief systems tend to be full of bad/outdated ideas, but you don't need religion's help to come up with bad ideas - sitting on your ass and staring at a computer screen all day in exchange for a paycheck can make you obese and send you to an early grave, but we do it anyway. Bad ideas can be found everywhere in the human experience... So can good ideas (the whole "treat others as you wish to be treated" can't be quantified, but it tends to work out pretty well for the most part when applied properly - science doesn't cover everything...)
__________________

These days being a fan is a competition to see who can be the most upset when
your team loses. That proves you love winning more. That's how it works.

Last edited by Underdog; 11-23-2012 at 04:27 PM.
Underdog is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 11-23-2012, 05:38 PM   #42
SeanL
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 351
SeanL is infamous around these partsSeanL is infamous around these partsSeanL is infamous around these partsSeanL is infamous around these parts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Underdog View Post
Me too, but I don't buy into any of it - just like most Jews I've ever known (with the exception of a few dingbats)... I also know a lot of Christians (mostly American Catholics) who don't believe in a literal translation of the Bible either.



I admitted that it wasn't scientific, but at least it was a rudimentary attempt at trying to debate the Torah - not just a bunch of people simply believing what mommy and daddy told them... You can't paint every religion on the planet with an American Fundamentalist Christian brush because that's not even close to how a chunk of the world approaches religion.
The Talmud has as much validity as the Wall Street Journal editorial page. Nay, it has even less, because at least the opinion columns will occasionally cite a scientifically performed study.

The Talmud comes to its opinions purely based on anecdotal evidence. And anyone who is familiar with science knows that anecdotal evidence is not evidence of anything. The Talmud is useless.

And the only reason why the vast majority of individuals are any religion is because they were taught that from birth. Including Judaism.

Your faith is almost entirely a function of what family you were born into. Not because you arrived at some logical conclusion.
SeanL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-2012, 05:42 PM   #43
SeanL
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 351
SeanL is infamous around these partsSeanL is infamous around these partsSeanL is infamous around these partsSeanL is infamous around these parts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SeanL View Post
The Talmud has as much validity as the Wall Street Journal editorial page. Nay, it has even less, because at least the opinion columns will occasionally cite a scientifically performed study.

The Talmud comes to its opinions purely based on anecdotal evidence. And anyone who is familiar with science knows that anecdotal evidence is not evidence of anything. The Talmud is useless.

And the only reason why the vast majority of individuals are any religion is because they were taught that from birth. Including Judaism.

Your faith is almost entirely a function of what family you were born into. Not because you arrived at some logical conclusion.
Here is a video that does a great job explaining this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iV2VjdpVonY
SeanL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-2012, 06:06 PM   #44
Underdog
Moderator
 
Underdog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 41.21.1
Posts: 36,143
Underdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond reputeUnderdog has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SeanL View Post
The Talmud has as much validity as the Wall Street Journal editorial page. Nay, it has even less, because at least the opinion columns will occasionally cite a scientifically performed study.

The Talmud comes to its opinions purely based on anecdotal evidence. And anyone who is familiar with science knows that anecdotal evidence is not evidence of anything. The Talmud is useless.

And the only reason why the vast majority of individuals are any religion is because they were taught that from birth. Including Judaism.

Your faith is almost entirely a function of what family you were born into. Not because you arrived at some logical conclusion.
I never said the Talmud was valid - I said it was an attempt at seeking a truth beyond the Torah... It was ultimately unsuccessful because the Hebrew scope of reality was built upon a mythology, but it was still an attempt to seek a firsthand understanding and not just take the words at face value... Without those kinds of baby steps, science would have never come about.

Besides, religion works best when it focuses on human interaction rather than trying to explain the universe - science doesn't cover philosophy. You shouldn't be so quick to dismiss EVERYTHING about religion just because it's not 100% true - if one little tidbit has value, then why ignore it? That's not very scientific.
__________________

These days being a fan is a competition to see who can be the most upset when
your team loses. That proves you love winning more. That's how it works.
Underdog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2012, 12:10 AM   #45
SeanL
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 351
SeanL is infamous around these partsSeanL is infamous around these partsSeanL is infamous around these partsSeanL is infamous around these parts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Underdog View Post
I never said the Talmud was valid - I said it was an attempt at seeking a truth beyond the Torah... It was ultimately unsuccessful because the Hebrew scope of reality was built upon a mythology, but it was still an attempt to seek a firsthand understanding and not just take the words at face value... Without those kinds of baby steps, science would have never come about.

Besides, religion works best when it focuses on human interaction rather than trying to explain the universe - science doesn't cover philosophy. You shouldn't be so quick to dismiss EVERYTHING about religion just because it's not 100% true - if one little tidbit has value, then why ignore it? That's not very scientific.
You said:

"Which is why most science (especially theoretical science) is dependent on consensus - no different than religion (take a look at how the Talmud was assembled for reference.)"

You directly compared science to religion. Saying scientific consensus is no different than religion. That is absurd. Scientific consensus is based on carefully tested evidence. Not superstitions. So no the Talmud is not the same as a scientific theory. Not even close.

Anthropology, psychology, and sociology are soft sciences. If you are concerned about human interaction and behavior I would study those subjects. Otherwise you are wasting your time.

And if any tidbit regarding religion is valid, then it is incidental. No knowledge of value that is gained by religion can't be gained with more validity by science times infinity.
SeanL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-2012, 10:19 AM   #46
dalmations202
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Just outside the Metroplex
Posts: 5,539
dalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Finally some good debate.

Quick scientific experiment.

Take an aquarium -- put a water hose in the bottom but don't turn on. then fill with 1" layer of dirt and bone, etc. then fill with another layer of different colored dirt, bones, rock, etc. Then fill with another and another till tank half full. Then bury a few items just somewhere in the depth of the layers.

then fill with 4" of water above the dirt.

then turn on the water hose that was below the layers of dirt. And shake the aquarium violently.

then drain the water, and put a hair drier on one side blowing on one spot only.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Do all the layers of dirt stay in the same layers?
Do all the bones and rocks end up in the same place? In the same layer they were originally in?
When the hair dryer runs long enough, does the sand cause a hole in one spot while building a layer in a different part of the aquarium?
------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
This scientific experiment could explain how some things settle when water is added and that external forces can change where things are in comparison to layers.
----------------------------------------------------------------
This does not prove that a flood happened on the earth, but does prove that if there was a flood or event like it at one time, it could have caused the layers to not be a good choice for how we determine age.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Now, without using any layers of the ground, please give me the scientific proof of how old the earth is.

I always thought it was radiocarbon dating. But--
Raw radiocarbon ages (i.e., those not calibrated) are usually reported in "years Before Present" (BP). This is the number of radiocarbon years before 1950, based on a nominal (an assumed constant) level of carbon-14 in the atmosphere equal to the 1950 level. These raw dates are also based on a slightly-off historic value for the radiocarbon half-life. Such value is used for consistency with earlier published dates.

So if the atmosphere was always the same, and if I assume that there is a constant level of decay, and IF and IF and IF -- then we might be right within a +- of XXX years.

Or from a more standard view....
The number of decays per time is proportional to the current number of radioactive atoms. This is expressed by the following differential equation, where N is the number of radioactive atoms and λ is a positive number called the decay constant:

As the solution to this equation, the number of radioactive atoms N can be written as a function of time:
,
which describes an exponential decay over a timespan t with an initial condition of N0 radioactive atoms at t = 0. Canonically, t is 0 when the decay started. In this case, N0 is the initial number of 14C atoms when the decay started.
For radiocarbon dating a once living organism, the initial ratio of 14C atoms to the sum of all other carbon atoms at the point of the organism's death and hence the point when the decay started, is approximately the ratio in the atmosphere.
Two characteristic times can be defined:
mean- or average-life: mean or average time each radiocarbon atom spends in a given sample until it decays.
half-life: time lapsed for half the number of radiocarbon atoms in a given sample, to decay,
It can be shown that:
= = radiocarbon mean- or average-life = 8033 years (Libby value)
= = radiocarbon half-life = 5568 years (Libby value)

***So science thinks it can date back to 8033 years via the living organisms, but dates animals as being from this geologic era that is millions of years old.

**** Unless someone has some information I haven't seen, then the only other way they have to date any fossils is to date them by the layer of geologic rock they are found in. The experiment above shows that the layers may or may not have been anywhere near close.

Please show me where I can get the "scientific" proof of the age of the earth. Show me where we have proof that the earth is older than thousands of years. Assumptions of decay constants which may or may not be true, assumptions of exact atmosphere, assumptions, assumptions, assumptions.

This means that you "believe" the assumptions made by "other" men.

Religion is close to the same thing -- people believe what is told to them by others. Or they have something happen in their lives that in turn proves to them that there is a higher power.

Science is a religion to an extent. You are asked to believe based upon massive uncertainties. You can't explain, so you state this is your best guess (hypothesis). Some are easy to prove, others prove much more difficult. Example -- how can you prove that the speed of light is a constant? (even if it is a constant here on earth - is it in outer space, or outside our galaxy, or etc)

Since I am an irrational guy -- please send me the links to study which will show me where I am wrong here. I got my masters degree in computers 20 years ago after my military time, and Cobol was the primary language at the time. Just pure logic flow. I don't think I am stupid so please send me links that someone who has had college geology and biology classes should be able to comprehend. I mean not too scientific nerdy, but not jr high either.

Also -- when did science all get to be carefully tested evidence? Some science yes -- all science, not even close.

----------------------------------------------------------
And one more note SeanL: Not all creationist or religious people believe things just because Mommy and Daddy said they were so. Many sure, but all..... not so much. A few I know have studied much harder and longer than you have been alive only to conclude that they just don't really have the answers ( but their own views make the most sense to them).

--------------------------------------------

This is an enjoyable debate. Looking forward to Dirk getting back so I can start debating basketball again instead of politics, religion, science, etc.
__________________


"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have". Gerald Ford

"Life's tough, it's even tougher if you're stupid." -John Wayne

There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.
-Capt. Bob "Wolf" Johnson
dalmations202 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-2012, 11:43 AM   #47
Dirkadirkastan
Diamond Member
 
Dirkadirkastan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,214
Dirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond repute
Default

How is that aquarium experiment relevant to anything? Since when did rain pour from UNDER the earth and violently shake the planet?? It sounds much more likely that someone read a storybook and is now desperately trying to validate it with a false analogy.

As for the radioactive dating... the "average life" refers to taking the average over the whole system. It does NOT imply that the actual life of every particle lasted at or even near that duration. If half of the atoms have decayed in 5000 years, then that's really going to skew the overall average lifespan toward a small number. By comparison, very few atoms survive 100 half-lives, and thus their long lifespan ultimately doesn't affect the average lifespan value that much. But some do last that long... after all, that's the whole idea behind the half-life. Half of the atoms decay and half remain after each half-life, so there will always be a few hanging around.
Dirkadirkastan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-2012, 01:09 PM   #48
dalmations202
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Just outside the Metroplex
Posts: 5,539
dalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan View Post
How is that aquarium experiment relevant to anything? Since when did rain pour from UNDER the earth and violently shake the planet?? It sounds much more likely that someone read a storybook and is now desperately trying to validate it with a false analogy.

As for the radioactive dating... the "average life" refers to taking the average over the whole system. It does NOT imply that the actual life of every particle lasted at or even near that duration. If half of the atoms have decayed in 5000 years, then that's really going to skew the overall average lifespan toward a small number. By comparison, very few atoms survive 100 half-lives, and thus their long lifespan ultimately doesn't affect the average lifespan value that much. But some do last that long... after all, that's the whole idea behind the half-life. Half of the atoms decay and half remain after each half-life, so there will always be a few hanging around.
Since when didn't rain pour from UNDER the earth? Can you definitively tell me it didn't? You can't.....ah but you can assume without proof.

Now I admit that I made an assumption as well to get to this scientific experiment I chose. I assumed the Biblical version to be correct.

Gen 7:11 In the six hundredth year of the life of Noah, in the second month, in the seventeenth day of the month, in this day have been broken up all fountains of the great deep, and the net-work of the heavens hath been opened,
Gen 7:12 and the shower is on the earth forty days and forty nights.

You see it says it in the Bible -- and the storybook is more of a history book from what I have read. It is interpreted vast way which causes lots of issues, but it so far has never been proven to be false. Nor has it been proven to be totally correct - yet.

So even if you don't believe it -- by scientific testing -- it COULD have happened and would throw a huge wrench into the dating of most things.

------------------------------------------------------------

Are not all lifeforms on the earth Carbon based lifeforms? Isn't that why we use carbon dating on anything that was living? Best I can tell we use Carbon dating to date all things living.

But, I put the carbon half-life and formula up and it only goes back thousands of years and has several assumptions in it even there.

So what is the "other" dating we can use on carbon based lifeforms?

I know various other elements we from a scientific standpoint -- IF -- we assume constant decay, etc have longer half-lives. As it was explained to me though -- all living creatures on the earth are carbon based -- hence the reason we do carbon dating.

So I am back to the question above? How does science date carbon based lifeforms other than radiocarbon dating?
__________________


"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have". Gerald Ford

"Life's tough, it's even tougher if you're stupid." -John Wayne

There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.
-Capt. Bob "Wolf" Johnson
dalmations202 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-2012, 03:23 PM   #49
Dirkadirkastan
Diamond Member
 
Dirkadirkastan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,214
Dirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dalmations202 View Post
Since when didn't rain pour from UNDER the earth? Can you definitively tell me it didn't? You can't.....ah but you can assume without proof.
Fortunately, science properly demands evidence for a positive claim, not for proof of a negative.

Quote:
Now I admit that I made an assumption as well to get to this scientific experiment I chose. I assumed the Biblical version to be correct.

Gen 7:11 In the six hundredth year of the life of Noah, in the second month, in the seventeenth day of the month, in this day have been broken up all fountains of the great deep, and the net-work of the heavens hath been opened,
Gen 7:12 and the shower is on the earth forty days and forty nights.

You see it says it in the Bible -- and the storybook is more of a history book from what I have read. It is interpreted vast way which causes lots of issues, but it so far has never been proven to be false. Nor has it been proven to be totally correct - yet.
We also have historical records of Zeus casting thunderbolts from Mount Olympus. How much do you believe Greek Mythology should influence scientific analysis?

Quote:
So even if you don't believe it -- by scientific testing -- it COULD have happened and would throw a huge wrench into the dating of most things.
We also "could have" been deposited on this planet by aliens. That would also certainly throw a wrench into our understanding... once we find evidence for it. For now, we'll stick to the theories that do have evidence going for them.

Quote:
Are not all lifeforms on the earth Carbon based lifeforms? Isn't that why we use carbon dating on anything that was living? Best I can tell we use Carbon dating to date all things living.

But, I put the carbon half-life and formula up and it only goes back thousands of years and has several assumptions in it even there.
Did you not read what I said before? It doesn't "only go back thousands of years." It goes back millions of years because of the nature of radioactive decay.

Quote:
So what is the "other" dating we can use on carbon based lifeforms?

I know various other elements we from a scientific standpoint -- IF -- we assume constant decay, etc have longer half-lives. As it was explained to me though -- all living creatures on the earth are carbon based -- hence the reason we do carbon dating.

So I am back to the question above? How does science date carbon based lifeforms other than radiocarbon dating?
I'm no expert on radioactive dating. But this video (argument #1) gives you a list of methods you can look into.
Dirkadirkastan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-2012, 05:52 PM   #50
dalmations202
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Just outside the Metroplex
Posts: 5,539
dalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan View Post
Fortunately, science properly demands evidence for a positive claim, not for proof of a negative.
But what is the proof of evolution?

Quick article I just found....

Will evolution be called into question now that the similarity of chimpanzee and human DNA has been reduced from >98.5% to ~95%? Probably not. Regardless of whether the similarity was reduced even below 90%, evolutionists would still believe that humans and apes shared a common ancestor. Moreover, using percentages hides an important fact. If 5% of the DNA is different, this amounts to 150,000,000 DNA base pairs that are different between them!
A number of studies have demonstrated a remarkable similarity in the nuclear DNA and mtDNA among modern humans. In fact, the DNA sequences for all people are so similar that scientists generally conclude that there is a ‘recent single origin for modern humans, with general replacement of archaic populations. To be fair, the estimates for a date of a ‘most recent common ancestor’ (MRCA) by evolutionists has this ‘recent single origin’ about 100,000-200,000 years ago, which is not recent by creationist standards. These estimates have been based on comparisons with chimpanzees and the assumption of a chimp/human common ancestor approximately 5 million years ago. In contrast, studies that have used pedigrees or generational mtDNA comparisons have yielded a much more recent MRCA—even 6,500 years!
Research on observable generational mutation events leads to a more recent common ancestor for humans than phylogenetic estimates that assume a relationship with chimpanzees. Mutational hotspots are believed to account for this difference. However, in both cases, they are relying on uniformitarian principles—that rates measured in the present can be used to extrapolate the timing of events in the distant past.
The above examples demonstrate that the conclusions of scientific investigations can be different depending on how the study is done. Humans and chimps can have 95% or >98.5% similar DNA depending on which nucleotides are counted and which are excluded. Modern humans can have a single recent ancestor <10,000 or 100,000-200,000 years ago depending on whether a relationship with chimpanzees is assumed and which types of mutations are considered.

*****WELCOME to the FACTS of science that most don't want to talk about.

Quote:
We also have historical records of Zeus casting thunderbolts from Mount Olympus. How much do you believe Greek Mythology should influence scientific analysis?
Depends, on what are you basing that Zeus cast Thunderbolts. I love Greek Mythology -- but what specific writing are you basing this information on?


Quote:
We also "could have" been deposited on this planet by aliens. That would also certainly throw a wrench into our understanding... once we find evidence for it. For now, we'll stick to the theories that do have evidence going for them.
We have some evidence of our origin as it was written in some of the oldest writings we have.
Maybe we are just so much smarter now than the humans back then.
Maybe aliens did deposit us on this planet -- doesn't change the real concept though. Who made the aliens?
We have nothing but problems stemming from the idea that we came from apes. Of course if the other alternative is intelligent design -- then man isn't really in control -- we might have to answer for our actions -- and oh my--- there might be a God.
So lets teach it the way of coming from apes -- at least we don't have to answer for our actions that way and we are large and in charge.

Quote:
Did you not read what I said before? It doesn't "only go back thousands of years." It goes back millions of years because of the nature of radioactive decay.
yes I read what you said before. It just didn't hold water.
Science claims to be able to date based up radioactive decay -- I understand.
They can date rock via other elements than carbon -- I understand.
ALL life on earth is Carbon Based -- I understand.
They can only date anything that was living via carbon dating because it is a carbon based being -- YES I understand.
They can date the rocks, etc they think -- even though they can't prove it -- if they make enough assumptions with atmosphere, and standard rate of decay -- yes I understand.

What I don't understand is if I don't make these assumptions -- how it would ever work, because it doesn't and can't. I don't assume the decay rate stays the same when we can make the decay rate on everything change based upon outside conditions. We can only date rocks etc with the "other" dating methods. Yes some fossils they try to date, after the carbon has been changed to rock, but they still make many assumptions on decay rates and time to convert to the fossil, etc. -- before they make more assumptions on radioactive decay rates being constant based upon the atmosphere it was in at that time. The best scientific method they have at this time for the dating of anything living is radioactive carbon dating, and that only leads back to what I wrote before -- it maxes to thousands of years which is the life of carbon. Science has NO proof of anything longer than this, and this is if I agree to the assumptions that the decay is constant and the atmosphere it was in is the same today as it was then.

Quote:
I'm no expert on radioactive dating. But this video (argument #1) gives you a list of methods you can look into.
What a video. Basically they say 93% of all scientist don't believe in God and we have taught evolution since the 1950's --- so it all must be true. I mean opinion, opinion, no proof, none. Isn't this exactly what scientists claim that religion says? ( Believe me and I don't need proof and if you don't believe me you are just not as smart (evolved) as I AM )

Just remember the stuff that was taught up till the 1950s is all wrong, we are right -- get on board or your just stupid and wrong.

Science is just another form of religion. Only in Science - man is in charge and knows it all, or can figure it all out.

---------------------------------------------------------

now back to Evolution and God.

Most don't realize that this is THE question. Logic does though.

Evolution has a logical end. The laws of nature have a logical end, but not a logical design.

Have science explain why water -- the building block of life..... is less dense when in both solid and gaseous forms.

Explain why -- if there was a Big Bang -- with all life starting at a single point and goes outward -- that some objects in outer space rotate in opposite directions (You cannot do that here on Earth - I've seen the experiment) Spin something and cause it to explode outward and the inertia causes all things to spin in the same direction. (Same reason that toilets flushed in the northern hemisphere circle one direction when they go down and the opposite direction in the southern hemisphere -- the Earth still spins only one direction)

Science has all kinds of problems it can't solve and its hypothesis just don't work in most instances. The answer for science is just throw out ideas, call them fact, make assumptions, teach it and try as much as possible to get public opinion on their side.

--------------------------------------------------
Now Let's say I am extremely irrational and you are correct. There is no God. Logically there is no afterlife. Hence we live and we die and that is it. Why do we have a conscience? Why is there a right and a wrong? Why shouldn't I just rape, steal, murder? The end is the end no matter what, and we do not have to answer to anyone. Might is always right because if you don't like it, then I'll just kill you. Why would there be Love? and why would anyone offer their own life for someone else? Why would what Hitler did be wrong? Why would the killing of millions be wrong? Who decides right and wrong? Who decides what is fair? Since the planet according to scientist is only able to truly support 500 million or so, and we have 6+ billion on the planet now -- why don't we just commit mass genocide and kill off the rest that are hurting the planet. I am man and can justify this with mans thinking. If man is in control then what makes it wrong for this to happen?

If you don't believe in a God, then why don't you just kill yourself because there isn't anyone to answer to and really you are just hurting the planet anyway.


Can you follow the logic of a world without a creator?


I may be wrong (I am not), but even if I am -- I need to live my life like I have something to live for. Like I have someone to answer to. Like I have a purpose on this earth, and people who care for me and I care for.
If I don't, and there isn't, then the alternative is screw you and your courts, your government, and your life -- I'll take it when I want to and I will rape your women, and steal your food and everything else, and if you don't like it then kill me - because logically that is where we are going to end up either way and none of this matters anyway. Why wait to die, and why try to live at an older age since basically it physically sucks when you start to get old (just trust me on this one). Why try to help others -- if there is nothing for you?

Thinking gets a little deep when you get into it.


Science is a way to try and find the truth -- It just gets itself way off with assumptions, etc that doesn't meet its agenda.
True science is great in my opinion -- just not what is put out there as science today.
__________________


"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have". Gerald Ford

"Life's tough, it's even tougher if you're stupid." -John Wayne

There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.
-Capt. Bob "Wolf" Johnson
dalmations202 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-2012, 07:43 PM   #51
Kirobaito
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 2,012
Kirobaito has a brilliant futureKirobaito has a brilliant futureKirobaito has a brilliant futureKirobaito has a brilliant futureKirobaito has a brilliant futureKirobaito has a brilliant futureKirobaito has a brilliant futureKirobaito has a brilliant futureKirobaito has a brilliant futureKirobaito has a brilliant futureKirobaito has a brilliant future
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dalmations202 View Post
S
Gen 7:11 In the six hundredth year of the life of Noah, in the second month, in the seventeenth day of the month, in this day have been broken up all fountains of the great deep, and the net-work of the heavens hath been opened,
Gen 7:12 and the shower is on the earth forty days and forty nights.

You see it says it in the Bible -- and the storybook is more of a history book from what I have read. It is interpreted vast way which causes lots of issues, but it so far has never been proven to be false. Nor has it been proven to be totally correct - yet.
The Bible is a bunch of different books. Calling it a storybook is no more accurate than calling it a history book. There are 66 (more if you include the deuterocanonical ones). The Book of Joshua isn't historically accurate. It contradicts the book of Judges constantly - both can't actually be correct if you read them closely, and the actual physical evidence much more closely resembles the story in Judges. The timing of the events don't match archaeological and anthropological data. That's not all radiocarbon dating, and there's no hypothetical flood here to use an excuse for lack of knowledge. Et-Tell (Biblical Ai) literally means "rubble," and the story in Joshua is an aetiological myth as to how that mound of rubble got to be there. No army conquered it in the second half of the second millenium BCE. It just didn't happen. Once that story (and pretty much every other one from the Old Testament) loses its historicity, then everything else should, too, if you believe the Bible to be one divinely inspired or inerrant book as most evangelical Christians do. If references to specific, particular historical events are shown to be fraudulent (and the scholarly consensus even among religious archaeologists is that they're generally not historically valid, at least until the 11th-10th century BCE and the actual establishment of the Davidic Kingdom), there's no rational reason to think that the metaphor-laden opening book has any historical truth to it.

If you, like me, see the entire thing as a giant copy-paste job from half a millennium's worth of politically-minded religious authorities*, there's no reason to use one passage to prove another and the entire scheme falls apart.

* By which I mean Genesis-Nehemiah. After that, it's poetry, prophecy and thoroughly allegorical stories like Job which I don't think anyone intended to be taken literally even if people do that now. And of course the New Testament is a completely different issue.
__________________
Kirobaito is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-28-2012, 11:24 AM   #52
dalmations202
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Just outside the Metroplex
Posts: 5,539
dalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirobaito View Post
The Bible is a bunch of different books. Calling it a storybook is no more accurate than calling it a history book. There are 66 (more if you include the deuterocanonical ones). The Book of Joshua isn't historically accurate. It contradicts the book of Judges constantly - both can't actually be correct if you read them closely, and the actual physical evidence much more closely resembles the story in Judges. The timing of the events don't match archaeological and anthropological data. That's not all radiocarbon dating, and there's no hypothetical flood here to use an excuse for lack of knowledge. Et-Tell (Biblical Ai) literally means "rubble," and the story in Joshua is an aetiological myth as to how that mound of rubble got to be there. No army conquered it in the second half of the second millenium BCE. It just didn't happen. Once that story (and pretty much every other one from the Old Testament) loses its historicity, then everything else should, too, if you believe the Bible to be one divinely inspired or inerrant book as most evangelical Christians do. If references to specific, particular historical events are shown to be fraudulent (and the scholarly consensus even among religious archaeologists is that they're generally not historically valid, at least until the 11th-10th century BCE and the actual establishment of the Davidic Kingdom), there's no rational reason to think that the metaphor-laden opening book has any historical truth to it.

If you, like me, see the entire thing as a giant copy-paste job from half a millennium's worth of politically-minded religious authorities*, there's no reason to use one passage to prove another and the entire scheme falls apart.

* By which I mean Genesis-Nehemiah. After that, it's poetry, prophecy and thoroughly allegorical stories like Job which I don't think anyone intended to be taken literally even if people do that now. And of course the New Testament is a completely different issue.
yes there are 66 books in the Protestant Bible, and 73 in the Catholic. There are gnostic texts and some "other" manuscripts that were not put in Alexandrian canon and even more left out when the Protestant Reformation left seven more out.

There are also some books we have no idea about, but are "missing" maybe and maybe just named something else or in Rome.

are they not written on the book of the Chronicles of the kings of Israel?
are they not written on the book of the Chronicles of the kings of Judah?
as it is written in the book of the law of Moses
Is not this written in the book of Jasher

The Chronicles may be first and second Chronicles. Book of the law may be Det.

Jasher though -- there are four different books out there, and they have no actual "older" text on these to verify the correct version -- if any of these are.

------------------------
I have no idea why the Protestant Reformation removed the Macabees, etc from the cannon.
-----------------------

There is also the book of Enoch -- which may or may not talk about the time before the flood -- which is also thought to possibly be when/where the book of Job actually came from as well.

----------------------------------------------------------------
I know a little history on the Book of Morman, and the Koran as well if you are interested.
----------------------------------------------------------------

With this said. I have not heard about the conflicts from Joshua and Judges, so please send me the passages, etc. so I can do some study. Also please send me the links where
Quote:
the story in Joshua is an aetiological myth as to how that mound of rubble got to be there. No army conquered it in the second half of the second millenium BCE. It just didn't happen. Once that story (and pretty much every other one from the Old Testament) loses its historicity, then everything else should, too,
I researched this one and if we make one assumption that Et-tell is the Biblical city of Ai -- then you are correct, and the bible is false. Because if it is incorrect anywhere then the whole thing can be found to be false.

Problem is -- what if Et-tell isn't Ai. Dr. Bryant Wood has proposed that Ai should instead be located at the site of Kirbet el-Maqatir arguing that the evidence for this site being Ai is stronger than at et-Tell.

You see they still don't really have any proof, but someone thought this, and others jumped in an believed, and then it just became fact --- much like most religion.

There are three main hyptotheses about how to explain the biblical story surrounding Ai in light of archaeological evidence.

*Note -- all of them are hypotheses - and none of them are actually provable. Saying something enough times may make many people support the idea -- it doesn't make it true or right.

Which leads me back to the point of "wait and see". So far I haven't seen anything that disproves the Protestant Reformation bible. Not finding Noahs ark doesn't mean it didn't exist. Finding a old city doesn't mean it was the one you were looking for.

I am also a skeptic enough to say that all things are not proven correct in the bible either. Too much of -- man's involvement. They may yet to all be proven correct, but much has not. Also, it is written in parable, which allows for much interpretation. Also much of it was passed down via story, and then written which allows for much problem. Also MAN tends to skew things to where it fits for himself - how else do you explain the "business" of church.

This still doesn't really change anything.

Everything starts with "is there a God"
-- if there isn't then logical actions are one way -- each man for himself as long as he is alive
-- if there is a God then
* We belong to him -- we are his creation
* He makes the rules and we should live by them
* There "could" be an afterlife
* There could be repercussions for not obeying him

Bottom line starts with this question.

Followed by what are his rules and why -- who is he -- and how do I avoid the repercussions.

*** Everyone will make this decision in life in one way or form.
__________________


"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have". Gerald Ford

"Life's tough, it's even tougher if you're stupid." -John Wayne

There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.
-Capt. Bob "Wolf" Johnson

Last edited by dalmations202; 11-28-2012 at 11:33 AM.
dalmations202 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2012, 01:00 PM   #53
EricaLubarsky
Inactive.
 
EricaLubarsky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 41,687
EricaLubarsky has a reputation beyond reputeEricaLubarsky has a reputation beyond reputeEricaLubarsky has a reputation beyond reputeEricaLubarsky has a reputation beyond reputeEricaLubarsky has a reputation beyond reputeEricaLubarsky has a reputation beyond reputeEricaLubarsky has a reputation beyond reputeEricaLubarsky has a reputation beyond reputeEricaLubarsky has a reputation beyond reputeEricaLubarsky has a reputation beyond reputeEricaLubarsky has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Rubio, "there is no conflict [between science and my faith]...and scientific advances have given us insight into how he [God] did it and when he did it.”
Science isn't talking about God because there is no theoretical or empirical basis for it. God isn't even on the radar for Scientists. God and religion will never be attacked by science and personal beliefs will always be based on "faith" which is by its very definition-- irrational. Science doesn't tell us why or who. It tells us "how" and "what".


Science is the pursuit of truths that can be proven.
Talking snakes,
men living in whales,
spontaneous human cloning from DNA rib tissue (capable of producing viable offspring nonetheless)

These would all be of great interest to science. If they could be recreated, replicated or even if they had happened more than once, scientists would love to figure out how current theories are wrong, because snakes don't talk in science nor in our every day experience. People cannot survive in the Ph of a whale stomache, so it would be interesting to research how someone could. Spontaneous human cloning that defies the laws of thermodynamics? That would be wild.

I think you just have to accept that your faith will have to either become irrational or you will have to tweak elements of your faith. Science has proven beyond any doubt that the Earth is not the center of the universe, not the only planet and ours is not the only solar system by far. Somehow, Christianity got over that when the science was developed enough (after fighting it tooth and nail for years).

Is a literal interpretation of the bible (that has already been contradicted a few times by science) that important to you? We are made up of genes-- does that mean God doesn't exist or love you? The Earth is not the center of the universe-- that that mean anything to faith?

I personally more wonder in the complexity of this marvelous machine more satisfying than the myths they replaced. God's wonder is huge and more complex than any human can even comprehend. We just keep finding smaller particles and bigger spaces and complexity inside complexity. I find it amazing and faith-supporting rather than an attack on my spirituality.

Last edited by EricaLubarsky; 12-05-2012 at 01:02 PM.
EricaLubarsky is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2012, 11:26 AM   #54
dalmations202
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Just outside the Metroplex
Posts: 5,539
dalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EricaLubarsky View Post
Science isn't talking about God because there is no theoretical or empirical basis for it. God isn't even on the radar for Scientists. God and religion will never be attacked by science and personal beliefs will always be based on "faith" which is by its very definition-- irrational. Science doesn't tell us why or who. It tells us "how" and "what".
First EL, I wand to apologize to you, Dirk, and anyone else if I have offended anyone. You may or may not have had me in mind when you replied, but either way, I enjoy the debate -- and often think I am right (when does anyone think they are wrong) and usually am (my arrogance kicking in). There are only a few things that I will really keep offering my opinion on over and over -- and this happens to be one of them because I feel it is a very important subject.

With this said, there are several different forms of science as well as many different forms of religion. Science (the religion of) teaches evolution -- it is wrong -- it has been proven wrong by scientific testing. It is not taught that way though, so all science just gets jumbled into the "entire" group of calling it a religion by people who have to take a side.


Quote:
Science is the pursuit of truths that can be proven.
Talking snakes,
men living in whales,
spontaneous human cloning from DNA rib tissue (capable of producing viable offspring nonetheless)

These would all be of great interest to science. If they could be recreated, replicated or even if they had happened more than once, scientists would love to figure out how current theories are wrong, because snakes don't talk in science nor in our every day experience. People cannot survive in the Ph of a whale stomache, so it would be interesting to research how someone could. Spontaneous human cloning that defies the laws of thermodynamics? That would be wild.
And yet -- science (evolution) says that man came from a premordial soup, or ape, or frog, or or or........ kiss a frog and he becomes a prince - just add time.

And the laws of thermodynamics will not allow for the earth to be over a few thousand years old either.

Quote:
I think you just have to accept that your faith will have to either become irrational or you will have to tweak elements of your faith. Science has proven beyond any doubt that the Earth is not the center of the universe, not the only planet and ours is not the only solar system by far. Somehow, Christianity got over that when the science was developed enough (after fighting it tooth and nail for years).

Is a literal interpretation of the bible (that has already been contradicted a few times by science) that important to you? We are made up of genes-- does that mean God doesn't exist or love you? The Earth is not the center of the universe-- that that mean anything to faith?
This gets back to the problem I have with science and religion. You say that science has proven we are not the center of the universe, but the Bible never says we are the center of the universe. It says the heavens (galaxy's etc) and then the earth were created. So how would this conflict with anything?

Yes, the church once thought we were, but so did science at the time. Science proved it, and eventually the church agreed (after lots of prodding)

I realize that some church's -- specifically the Roman Catholic church thinks you need a priest to tell you what the Bible says, and interpret it, and tell you how the world is, etc -- but this is a differing opinion about the bible from me.

Snakes (serpent) talking, making a woman from the DNA of a man's rib, etc...I can't prove. In the end, I think it is more likely to be able to reproduce a person from the DNA of a person than to reproduce a person from a rock or a slug or an ape.

Quote:
I personally more wonder in the complexity of this marvelous machine more satisfying than the myths they replaced. God's wonder is huge and more complex than any human can even comprehend. We just keep finding smaller particles and bigger spaces and complexity inside complexity. I find it amazing and faith-supporting rather than an attack on my spirituality.
Once again, I understand, and I apologize if I have attacked anyone's beliefs or spirituality.

I just think that this subject is extremely important for lots of reasons. IF their is no God like the religion of science suggests - then why be moral, why are we here, etc. If the Bible is wrong, then actions are blurred and we have been lied to by everyone.

But if the Bible is correct and God inspired instead of man written -- then we have a purpose. We are all sinners. We are guilty of breaking Gods rules. Either we will be judged or we will find a replacement...ie Jesus. And if it is true -- then there is something beyond the few years we have physically on this earth and we should act morally.

Maybe I am totally wrong, but eternity sure seems like a LONG LONG time. I would rather use true science to confirm what I think I know, than to try to make up theories to destroy. You have to be a horrid gambler to bet nothingness against eternity, IMO. The odds are stacked against you.

If I am wrong, then I spent hours researching the what's and why's. I tried to find out the who's and when's. I tried to learn what LOVE is... (1John 4:8 .....God is Love). If God is in control, and God is Love ......... then what really is LOVE? (this is one very very deep question for "others" to determine themselves) I have tried to act morally, and tried to determine what "moral" was. I have failed at many things and sinned against God's ways, but have also learned why most of these rules are in place. Selfish vs Selfless. If I am right though, I found eternity.

All in all though, I spent time doing something that could help others. I have tried to believe because it made the most logical sense. I have used science to try to strengthen what I know, instead of making up things to try and tear it down.

Like I said before -- Science --- the testing and determination of truth is a wonderful thing, IMO. Science the religion that makes wild assumptions, and then teaches it as truth, I have a problem with. My problem is that every child that spends up till their XX old being told that the earth is millions of years old and that we came from nothing and that there is no God......means that their is no HOPE, and eternity is such a long time. Teach a child that he is an animal long enough, then why be surprised when he acts like one. Teach a child that we have no future, then why be surprised when they act like there is no future. Teach a child there is no God, then why be surprised when they act they don't have to answer to anyone. Teach a child to be selfish and all about themselves, then why be surprised when the only thing they start worrying about is themselves and their own "pleasures" and not others -- yes this talks directly to abortion, divorce, and pre/extra marital affairs as well as slavery, the murder rate, and suicide.

All of it ties together.

-----------------------------------------------

With this said, I am not trying to attack anyone, and I know that everyone has to make their own choices. I just don't want people to say in the end that they "never" heard any of this stuff- They only heard what they were taught in school.
__________________


"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have". Gerald Ford

"Life's tough, it's even tougher if you're stupid." -John Wayne

There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.
-Capt. Bob "Wolf" Johnson
dalmations202 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2012, 08:10 PM   #55
chumdawg
Guru
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Cowboys Country
Posts: 23,336
chumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Science (the religion of) teaches evolution -- it is wrong -- it has been proven wrong by scientific testing.
You *are* aware that some instances of "evolution"--I put it in quotes anticipating that perhaps you have a different term for it--have unquestionably been observed, are you not? Something about finches in the Galapagos, or somesuch. For that matter, even in our lifetimes--a ridiculously short period when we are talking about such things--we have witnessed not insignificant changes in our own human species. Leaving God out of it for the moment, does natural selection seem to you, intuitively, to be logically unsound?

Myself, I don't much care what the answer to the question is. I think both sides have to rely on some kind of "magic" at one point in their argument. But given that it seems pretty clear that natural selection does indeed happen in the case of some species, it stands to reason that it just might happen in all species.

(I might note, also, that allowing natural selection to happen for some species but not for humans is the same kind of egocentric thinking that we humans have been very good at for a very long time.)

A quick comment about scientists, and what motives they may have. It is my understanding, albeit from anecdotal evidence, that the great majority of scientists are theists. Do you have evidence to the contrary? You come across as very judgmental when you speak of science as a "religion" and throw out terms like "true science." What motive do you believe that atheist scientists, which you seem to believe are a prohibitive majority, have for spreading their creed?

Quote:
I just think that this subject is extremely important for lots of reasons. IF their is no God like the religion of science suggests - then why be moral, why are we here, etc.
I hear this all the time, and every time I hear it I chuckle bemusedly at the irony. It is the people who speak loudest about God and religion who seem to believe the worst about humanity. I don't need a god to be moral, nor do you. You could just be moral because you thought it was the right thing to do, for the sake of your own self and of your fellow man, if you wanted to. That's what a lot of people do, each and every day. I'm sorry you don't see yourself as one of them.

Quote:
We are all sinners.
No, we're really not. And I for one would appreciate it if you and others with a similar message would stop purporting to speak for everyone. I know people who are, for all intents and purposes, saints. They are good role models, for me and for everyone else. Believe it or not, it *is* possible to lead a moral, ethical, upright life.
chumdawg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2012, 11:52 PM   #56
The Ghost of Championship
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 238
The Ghost of Championship is infamous around these partsThe Ghost of Championship is infamous around these partsThe Ghost of Championship is infamous around these partsThe Ghost of Championship is infamous around these partsThe Ghost of Championship is infamous around these partsThe Ghost of Championship is infamous around these partsThe Ghost of Championship is infamous around these partsThe Ghost of Championship is infamous around these partsThe Ghost of Championship is infamous around these parts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Underdog View Post
Newton's LAW of Universal Gravitation is not a theory, it's a fact... Do you know what a theory is?
Gravity has a few holes, as all physicists know.

I'll have to go through the rest of this thread sober. For now, Krugman is a fanatic rockstar of the left and used plenty of fanatical fear mongering in that article. Wish he'd stick to econ from a puristic view.
The Ghost of Championship is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2012, 02:07 AM   #57
roadrunner
Golden Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Never Never Land
Posts: 1,056
roadrunner is a splendid one to beholdroadrunner is a splendid one to beholdroadrunner is a splendid one to beholdroadrunner is a splendid one to beholdroadrunner is a splendid one to beholdroadrunner is a splendid one to beholdroadrunner is a splendid one to beholdroadrunner is a splendid one to beholdroadrunner is a splendid one to beholdroadrunner is a splendid one to beholdroadrunner is a splendid one to behold
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chumdawg View Post
A quick comment about scientists, and what motives they may have. It is my understanding, albeit from anecdotal evidence, that the great majority of scientists are theists. Do you have evidence to the contrary?
I just found this thread and am enjoying the conversation/debate. Like Dalmations I am a Christian believer and have always thought that most scientists were either atheist or agnostic. I didn't remember where I got this exactly but I did a quick search and found a study done on this in 1998. This was a repeat study that started in 1914. There are probably other studies as well.

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html
__________________
We ran like a simple play, and usually the ball doesn’t come get me until later. So I just trotted through the play and I looked to the ball, and it was already right there in my face. … He sees the floor so well and sometimes he throws the ball and we don’t see it. He’s liable to really throw anything.” Dirk

Kidd to Dirk is the present day Stockton to Malone.

roadrunner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2012, 07:21 AM   #58
dalmations202
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Just outside the Metroplex
Posts: 5,539
dalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chumdawg View Post
You *are* aware that some instances of "evolution"--I put it in quotes anticipating that perhaps you have a different term for it--have unquestionably been observed, are you not? Something about finches in the Galapagos, or somesuch. For that matter, even in our lifetimes--a ridiculously short period when we are talking about such things--we have witnessed not insignificant changes in our own human species. Leaving God out of it for the moment, does natural selection seem to you, intuitively, to be logically unsound?

Myself, I don't much care what the answer to the question is. I think both sides have to rely on some kind of "magic" at one point in their argument. But given that it seems pretty clear that natural selection does indeed happen in the case of some species, it stands to reason that it just might happen in all species.

(I might note, also, that allowing natural selection to happen for some species but not for humans is the same kind of egocentric thinking that we humans have been very good at for a very long time.)
Yea, Darwin's finches. Minor adaptation within the species. Never ever outside the species. Hence the term Micro-evolution. Yes it is documented and yes some animals adapt within their "kind".

Quote:
A quick comment about scientists, and what motives they may have. It is my understanding, albeit from anecdotal evidence, that the great majority of scientists are theists. Do you have evidence to the contrary? You come across as very judgmental when you speak of science as a "religion" and throw out terms like "true science." What motive do you believe that atheist scientists, which you seem to believe are a prohibitive majority, have for spreading their creed?
money, power, desire to be in control


Quote:
I hear this all the time, and every time I hear it I chuckle bemusedly at the irony. It is the people who speak loudest about God and religion who seem to believe the worst about humanity. I don't need a god to be moral, nor do you. You could just be moral because you thought it was the right thing to do, for the sake of your own self and of your fellow man, if you wanted to. That's what a lot of people do, each and every day. I'm sorry you don't see yourself as one of them.
But if I wasn't one of them.......and I could find just a few others, then it wouldn't matter as we would just kill the ones who were. Yes, we have and need a God who is in control of these things. Sorry if "just because you thought it was the right thing to do" doesn't fly, IMO.

Quote:
No, we're really not. And I for one would appreciate it if you and others with a similar message would stop purporting to speak for everyone. I know people who are, for all intents and purposes, saints. They are good role models, for me and for everyone else. Believe it or not, it *is* possible to lead a moral, ethical, upright life.
I don't speak for everyone. I speak for me. If you don't like what I say -- don't read it. I don't like evolution being taught to my kids in public funded school systems as I think it is bad, but my options are not as easy as just don't like it. You see evolution is backed by governmental $$$$ and that means it doesn't matter whether it is correct or not.

With that said -- yes we are all sinners. Of course you can't sin unless there is God because sinning is breaking God rules. So I get that you think Man is in control and there is no God. I am sorry for you.
__________________


"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have". Gerald Ford

"Life's tough, it's even tougher if you're stupid." -John Wayne

There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.
-Capt. Bob "Wolf" Johnson
dalmations202 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2012, 02:43 PM   #59
Jack.Kerr
Golden Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,715
Jack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond reputeJack.Kerr has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
I just think that this subject is extremely important for lots of reasons. IF their is no God like the religion of science suggests - then why be moral, why are we here, etc. If the Bible is wrong, then actions are blurred and we have been lied to by everyone.

But if the Bible is correct and God inspired instead of man written -- then we have a purpose. We are all sinners. We are guilty of breaking Gods rules. Either we will be judged or we will find a replacement...ie Jesus. And if it is true -- then there is something beyond the few years we have physically on this earth and we should act morally.

Maybe I am totally wrong, but eternity sure seems like a LONG LONG time. I would rather use true science to confirm what I think I know, than to try to make up theories to destroy. You have to be a horrid gambler to bet nothingness against eternity, IMO. The odds are stacked against you.
It never ceases to amuse me when some Bible-thumper reduces his own theology to nothing more than a psychological hedge.
Jack.Kerr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2012, 04:41 PM   #60
Dirkadirkastan
Diamond Member
 
Dirkadirkastan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,214
Dirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond repute
Default

I wrote out a draft awhile back responding to the most recent post you addressed to me, Dalm, but I never finished it and the thread has since continued. So I'll just post what I have.

Quote:
A number of studies have demonstrated a remarkable similarity in the nuclear DNA and mtDNA among modern humans. In fact, the DNA sequences for all people are so similar that scientists generally conclude that there is a ‘recent single origin for modern humans, with general replacement of archaic populations. To be fair, the estimates for a date of a ‘most recent common ancestor’ (MRCA) by evolutionists has this ‘recent single origin’ about 100,000-200,000 years ago, which is not recent by creationist standards.
That's basically the how it goes, yes.

Quote:
These estimates have been based on comparisons with chimpanzees and the assumption of a chimp/human common ancestor approximately 5 million years ago. In contrast, studies that have used pedigrees or generational mtDNA comparisons have yielded a much more recent MRCA—even 6,500 years!
Source or it didn't happen.

Quote:
Research on observable generational mutation events leads to a more recent common ancestor for humans than phylogenetic estimates that assume a relationship with chimpanzees. Mutational hotspots are believed to account for this difference. However, in both cases, they are relying on uniformitarian principles—that rates measured in the present can be used to extrapolate the timing of events in the distant past.
The above examples demonstrate that the conclusions of scientific investigations can be different depending on how the study is done. Humans and chimps can have 95% or >98.5% similar DNA depending on which nucleotides are counted and which are excluded. Modern humans can have a single recent ancestor <10,000 or 100,000-200,000 years ago depending on whether a relationship with chimpanzees is assumed and which types of mutations are considered.

*****WELCOME to the FACTS of science that most don't want to talk about.
There is uncertainty, yes, but uncertainty in the form of 100,000 vs. 200,000. Not 100,000 vs. 6,500. So contrary to what you believe, science is very candid about its uncertainty. But it turns out even their estimated ranges are enough to discredit creationism, and creationists don't like that.

Now I'm not a biologist, but I can still tell you're trying some underhanded tactics here. Every time you mention a nugget of scientific knowledge, you label it as an assumption. But when you suggest an uncited report implies an idea that could potentially be spun as creationist, you label it as FACT. Somehow I'm getting the sense there's a double standard here.

Quote:
Depends, on what are you basing that Zeus cast Thunderbolts. I love Greek Mythology -- but what specific writing are you basing this information on?
Um, are you serious? You're going the wrong direction here. Ah well, at least your credulity is consistent.

Quote:
We have some evidence of our origin as it was written in some of the oldest writings we have.
Which we shall accept unconditionally.

Quote:
Maybe we are just so much smarter now than the humans back then.
It's a shift from gullibility to rational inquiry. That's how we finally escaped the dark ages.

Quote:
Maybe aliens did deposit us on this planet -- doesn't change the real concept though. Who made the aliens?
Uh yeah, actually it would kinda ruin the whole creation story. Let's not turn this into another one of those "it's always infinite regression until somebody blurts out the G-word" discussions.

Quote:
We have nothing but problems stemming from the idea that we came from apes. Of course if the other alternative is intelligent design -- then man isn't really in control -- we might have to answer for our actions -- and oh my--- there might be a God.
So lets teach it the way of coming from apes -- at least we don't have to answer for our actions that way and we are large and in charge.
The "other alternative"? False dichotomy.

But more importantly, this quote reveals the fact your beliefs are rooted in an ulterior motive. More on that later.

Quote:
yes I read what you said before. It just didn't hold water.
Science claims to be able to date based up radioactive decay -- I understand.
They can date rock via other elements than carbon -- I understand.
ALL life on earth is Carbon Based -- I understand.
They can only date anything that was living via carbon dating because it is a carbon based being -- YES I understand.
They can date the rocks, etc they think -- even though they can't prove it -- if they make enough assumptions with atmosphere, and standard rate of decay -- yes I understand.

What I don't understand is if I don't make these assumptions -- how it would ever work, because it doesn't and can't. I don't assume the decay rate stays the same when we can make the decay rate on everything change based upon outside conditions. We can only date rocks etc with the "other" dating methods. Yes some fossils they try to date, after the carbon has been changed to rock, but they still make many assumptions on decay rates and time to convert to the fossil, etc. -- before they make more assumptions on radioactive decay rates being constant based upon the atmosphere it was in at that time. The best scientific method they have at this time for the dating of anything living is radioactive carbon dating, and that only leads back to what I wrote before -- it maxes to thousands of years which is the life of carbon. Science has NO proof of anything longer than this, and this is if I agree to the assumptions that the decay is constant and the atmosphere it was in is the same today as it was then.
OK, I will try this one more time, but I'm losing my patience here.

Click this link. Scroll down to the definite integral. You see your favorite numbers 5568 and 8033 in there, right? You can even see the 1/2 in there for half-life, though it's disguised as a 2 to a negative power. This formula computes the average expected lifespan of a carbon atom. I said the average, not the maximum. You do know the difference between average and maximum, right?

Here's the kicker. Look at the limits on the integral. These specify the endpoints on the timeline. So the lower limit t=0 specifies the beginning of the decay process, and the upper limit t=∞ specifies the end of the process, i.e. no limit. And yet, even with the infinite time to decay, the average still computes to less than 10,000 years.

This really shouldn't be surprising if you think about it. Let's take the simpler, more intuitive case and suppose we have a sample of atoms that all live through the first full half-life of 5000 years, at which point exactly half of the atoms disappear. Then let's suppose the sample continues in this manner, so it's just like true exponential decay except in a discrete case that's easier to calculate. So half the atoms decay at 5000 years, a quarter of the original sample decays at 10,000 years, a eighth at 15,000 years, a sixteenth at 20,000 years, and so on. Then the average expected lifetime of a single atom would be the infinite sum

(1/2)(5,000) + (1/4)(10,000) + (1/8)(15,000) + (1/16)(20,000) + ...

which converges to exactly 10,000 years. This happens despite the fact there will still be a tiny sample left even after millions of years (thousands of terms into the sum).

And of course, a real sample under exponential decay will have a slightly lower average, since atoms decay continuously starting immediately. But again, there are still atoms that last millions of years. That's the whole premise of exponential decay: about half the remaining sample always survives the next half-life.

Are there other factors that could affect the decay rate in certain environments? Perhaps. I don't know, I'm no archaeologist. But even if the decay rate λ changed, it would NOT affect the fact that the differential equation solves into an exponential decay function.

Now I wonder how soon you're going to flip your story. You just championed the 8033 as a prominent sign of creationism triumphing over evolution. But now that I've shown you how the number itself is derived directly from giving carbon an infinite time to decay, you're probably going to condemn it as obviously fabricated. Neither attitude is based in reason, however.

Again, I'm not a biologist. But at least I'm not so brash as to proclaim everything discovered in science is a baseless assumption just because I don't like what they've found.

I just don't understand why your default position is that the limits of everyone's scientific understanding are the same as your own, and the universal incentive behind all scientific studies are to bullshit preconceived answers they want. And not just any preconceived answers, but the ones you have supplied for them, something about "being in charge" or whatever.

You may not like science to value observation over dogma, but at the very least, you have to admit the system is specifically designed to weed out personal bias and objectively expand our understanding of reality. Evidence is required. Independent testing and peer review are required for verification of any hypothesis. Need I repeat this?

It's a far cry from the sweeping brush you wish to paint across the scientific frontier. There comes a point when everyone recognizes your paranoia is creeping in, except for you.

Meanwhile, you have absolutely no suspicion that the ancient writers of the bible had anything other than pure motives. Further than that, you believe the unverifiable dogma they insist upon has merit because... they dogmatically insist upon it.

Why do you treat the two parties so differently? I already know the answer. In fact, you admitted it right here:

Quote:
I may be wrong (I am not), but even if I am -- I need to live my life like I have something to live for. Like I have someone to answer to. Like I have a purpose on this earth, and people who care for me and I care for.
Which is fantastically ironic and hypocritical, considering how stridently you accuse everyone else of having a bias!

But your bias is even worse than that. You have already made up your mind that not only is the earth young, but that this means the "real" scientific evidence that everyone wants to cover up points to this fact. So in your biased state, when you see the average life of a carbon atom to be 8000 years, you immediately jump to the conclusion that all carbon decays at approximately that time frame. By doing this, you not only betray your personal agenda to try to discredit evolutionary science, but you also demonstrate how your personal agenda drives you to misinterpret a simple exponential curve, something that's taught in Algebra II.

Quote:
Can you follow the logic of a world without a creator?


I may be wrong (I am not), but even if I am -- I need to live my life like I have something to live for. Like I have someone to answer to. Like I have a purpose on this earth, and people who care for me and I care for.
If I don't, and there isn't, then the alternative is screw you and your courts, your government, and your life -- I'll take it when I want to and I will rape your women, and steal your food and everything else, and if you don't like it then kill me - because logically that is where we are going to end up either way and none of this matters anyway. Why wait to die, and why try to live at an older age since basically it physically sucks when you start to get old (just trust me on this one). Why try to help others -- if there is nothing for you?
You probably don't realize it, but every time you bring this up you dig yourself further in the hole. You're telling me that the only reason you don't rape, steal, and murder is because you believe the invisible man in the sky is watching you? Unlike you, I don't need to think the secret police is forever constantly breathing down my neck to be able to control myself. The fact you can't think for yourself and can only take orders doesn't make you morally upstanding, it makes you a drone.

Quote:
What a video. Basically they say 93% of all scientist don't believe in God and we have taught evolution since the 1950's --- so it all must be true. I mean opinion, opinion, no proof, none. Isn't this exactly what scientists claim that religion says? ( Believe me and I don't need proof and if you don't believe me you are just not as smart (evolved) as I AM )
The only reason I linked the video was for the list. I would've simply copy/pasted the list instead but it's in the video itself and I didn't feel like typing out each one individually.

Quote:
now back to Evolution and God.

Most don't realize that this is THE question. Logic does though.
It's not that simple, no. People on either side of the aisle often disagree strongly with others on the same side. Considering how non-descript gods are, this isn't a surprise.

Those that believe one or more deities exist can agree or disagree on any of his/her/their attributes.

Those that don't still have their whole worldview to figure out. And no, they usually don't go in the direction you think they do.

Besides, your reasoning doesn't logically flow automatically in the manner you claim it does. There is this common thread in many religions, but "a personal deity created the universe" is not even sufficient to imply "this deity knows and cares about everything we do," let alone "this deity is virtuous," which I claim yours is not.

Quote:
Explain why -- if there was a Big Bang -- with all life starting at a single point and goes outward -- that some objects in outer space rotate in opposite directions (You cannot do that here on Earth - I've seen the experiment) Spin something and cause it to explode outward and the inertia causes all things to spin in the same direction. (Same reason that toilets flushed in the northern hemisphere circle one direction when they go down and the opposite direction in the southern hemisphere -- the Earth still spins only one direction)
Oh no, not the Coriolis myth.

Quote:
Science has all kinds of problems it can't solve and its hypothesis just don't work in most instances. The answer for science is just throw out ideas, call them fact, make assumptions, teach it and try as much as possible to get public opinion on their side.
No, that's what religion does. That's not just a cheap retort.

Where does creationism come from? The bible. Someone just threw out the idea a few thousand years ago, and now creationists call it fact and try to force it in schools. There is no more rigor in their reasoning than that.

Last edited by Dirkadirkastan; 12-07-2012 at 09:51 PM.
Dirkadirkastan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2012, 06:02 PM   #61
EricaLubarsky
Inactive.
 
EricaLubarsky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 41,687
EricaLubarsky has a reputation beyond reputeEricaLubarsky has a reputation beyond reputeEricaLubarsky has a reputation beyond reputeEricaLubarsky has a reputation beyond reputeEricaLubarsky has a reputation beyond reputeEricaLubarsky has a reputation beyond reputeEricaLubarsky has a reputation beyond reputeEricaLubarsky has a reputation beyond reputeEricaLubarsky has a reputation beyond reputeEricaLubarsky has a reputation beyond reputeEricaLubarsky has a reputation beyond repute
Default

This is a great debate for the ages. Quite a good read.
EricaLubarsky is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2012, 06:48 PM   #62
EricaLubarsky
Inactive.
 
EricaLubarsky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 41,687
EricaLubarsky has a reputation beyond reputeEricaLubarsky has a reputation beyond reputeEricaLubarsky has a reputation beyond reputeEricaLubarsky has a reputation beyond reputeEricaLubarsky has a reputation beyond reputeEricaLubarsky has a reputation beyond reputeEricaLubarsky has a reputation beyond reputeEricaLubarsky has a reputation beyond reputeEricaLubarsky has a reputation beyond reputeEricaLubarsky has a reputation beyond reputeEricaLubarsky has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dalmations202 View Post
And yet -- science (evolution) says that man came from a premordial soup, or ape, or frog, or or or........ kiss a frog and he becomes a prince - just add time.

And the laws of thermodynamics will not allow for the earth to be over a few thousand years old either.
Sorry to take you on 2-on-1. It must feel a little overwhelming. STill, I feel like I need to respond to obvious misconceptions you have.

A) You know that that is not what evolution is saying, right? That a frog can *poof* become a man? That would be as ridiculous as a human being literally being created out of thin air from the genetic material of another human being and that clone being able to provide viable offspring without enormous genetic anomalies and birth defects.
1) There is nothing random about evolution at all, other than the observable mutations that occur. We can see genes change before our eyes with bacteria and viruses and can trace back our own genes by following distribution of particular markers. micro-evolution and macro-evolution are one in the same-- one just takes more generations. Thousands of macro-evolutions have happened in your lifetime-- they just happen with creatures that have shorter lifespans (bacteria, etc.) The swine flu is an example of a macro evolution that came about in your lifetime.
2) There is massive evidence of macro evolution. There are literally tens of millions of fossils in museums-- some on display and there are millions of examples in the Smithsonian alone that are sitting in boxes because there literally aren't enough scientists to work on them. In fact, man of the dinosaur "discoveries" of the last decade haven't been from new finds but scientists digging into archived fossil material. Geneticist can trace macro evolutions as well. I think the problem that people have with macro evolution is simply the limits of words rather than the limits of science. Just because we call one thing a monkey and another thing a man doesn't mean there aren't gradations or that the gradations have changed over millions of years. If you saw one example of human from every generation from the last 400,000 years, you'd be hard pressed to really find one example and say "that's a human" and to the previous one-- "that is not a human." That is the nature of evolution-- gradation.
3) There are very explicit traits that Creationist "science" cannot account for. Macro evolution is not something of the past. It exists in your very body. The reptile bones in your skull. Your vestigial tail. Ear muscles that function in many species but are rarely connected in humans. Plica Semilunaris. bone structures shared by everything from bats to whales that weaken tensile bone strength. Cartilage "armor" in humans that leads to thousands of choking deaths. Many of the vestigial elements of our anatomy are harmless, but some hurt our survival. So why would God have given us such things in common with other animals that have absolutely no purpose or actually hurt our survivability? Evolutionary dead-ends don't often disappear-- they just hide in successful species like humans. An evolutionary dead-end is a more likely argument in my mind than "God created us perfect but left us with artifacts of other creatures that do nothing or actually hurt our survivability"

Second, your proposition that the laws of thermodynamics prove a young-earth conception of the Earth is ludicrous and in fact, support the idea of an older Earth instead. Most of the arguments that Creationists use, in fact, mistake the laws completely.

1) The Earth is not a closed system.
2) Entropy is not the same as disorder.
3) even in a closed system, there will always be pockets of lower entropy exist.

The root of the problem is that Creationist "science" is completely anti-scientific. It starts with an objective to prove (the Biblical account) and then moves back from that, instead of starting with nothing and looking for evidence that is verifiable. When something doesn't work-- it is replaced with something that better describes how things work. It spends most of it's time trying to attack science-- and if the arguments are sound, then science answers them. If, however, the science is ludicrous-- like the thermodynamics argument, they don't need to be answered. The other part of creationist science is coming up with a way of piecing together bits of data to create a theory that picks and chooses from the bible and from modern science in a way that carefully protects elements that religious people find key-- like the Earth being at the center of the universe and the physical plausbility of a boat that can hold 2 of every one of the 8.7 million species and a flood that can literally create water from nowhere because the amount of water required to flood the "Earth" would be considerably more than every molecule of water that ever was on this planet.

The fact is, all the young-Earth arguments and arguments against have had have been proven bogus by logic or empirical evidence. There are many gaps in science-- like how life started in the first place, exactly how old the Earth is, and how the universe was created, but evolution and the age of the universe has withstood more than one hundred years of scrutiny and never failed. It's been revised but never failed.

So, I ask you this. Which of the following do you believe:
1) There once was a snake that could talk
2) A human being was cloned from the rib of the only human on Earth and the first man and the clone were able to populate the whole planet without the genetic problems of inbreeding?
3) Many people lived for 1,000 years.
4) There was a boat that housed 17.4 million creatures
5) Humans and dinosaurs shared the Earth
6) There was a flood on Earth that was made up of 2-4 times the amount of water that ever existed on this planet
7) There was a flood that left no fossil or sedimentary record
8) Humans are created perfect in God's eyes
9) The complexity of the Grand Canyon was created by flood waters, even though receding water with that power would simply have created a single, washed out chasm and not the intricate topography of the actual wonder.
10) a man lived inside a whale and came out OK.
11) The chemistry of H20 spontaneously changed to contain carbohydrates and alcohols

So either you believe that basic laws of science like gravity always take effect or you believe that there are exceptions-- that you could fall up, that a snake (without the physical manifestations or intellect to talk) can spontaneously talk. Chemistry can spontaneously be changed. Biological limitations on lifespan can be changed so modern humans average 80-some but biblical characters lived 910 on average and many children die needlessly in the first 20 years. You don't live as if all the laws of nature could be changed at any time, I assume. You depend on gravity and light and chemistry. No one tests gravity before walking, sips their water to make sure it hasn't turned into cyanide. No one lives with the idea that they may be 910-years-old. Sane people don't talk with snakes with the idea that the physiology of the snake may suddenly be altered to allow it the faculties of language and it's anatomy changed to allow it to make human phonemes.

Last edited by EricaLubarsky; 12-07-2012 at 07:49 PM.
EricaLubarsky is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2012, 02:19 AM   #63
Ninkobei
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Plano, Tx
Posts: 2,227
Ninkobei has a brilliant futureNinkobei has a brilliant futureNinkobei has a brilliant futureNinkobei has a brilliant futureNinkobei has a brilliant futureNinkobei has a brilliant futureNinkobei has a brilliant futureNinkobei has a brilliant futureNinkobei has a brilliant futureNinkobei has a brilliant futureNinkobei has a brilliant future
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dalmations202 View Post

With that said -- yes we are all sinners. Of course you can't sin unless there is God because sinning is breaking God rules. So I get that you think Man is in control and there is no God. I am sorry for you.
And it makes me sad that you are content with "God did it" as an answer to arguably the most important question of humanity.
__________________
Ninkobei is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2012, 12:05 PM   #64
roadrunner
Golden Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Never Never Land
Posts: 1,056
roadrunner is a splendid one to beholdroadrunner is a splendid one to beholdroadrunner is a splendid one to beholdroadrunner is a splendid one to beholdroadrunner is a splendid one to beholdroadrunner is a splendid one to beholdroadrunner is a splendid one to beholdroadrunner is a splendid one to beholdroadrunner is a splendid one to beholdroadrunner is a splendid one to beholdroadrunner is a splendid one to behold
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ninkobei View Post
And it makes me sad that you are content with "God did it" as an answer to arguably the most important question of humanity.
I agree with 'arguably the most important question of humanity' and would take it a step further personally to say it is the most important question for me. I don't know if Dalm is content or not, but I don't see that as something to be even remotely sad about given the large amount of time he put in to studying this subject matter....which i think is obvious given his depth in his posts. On top of that, add in his willingness to discuss/debate his position openly, while being outnumbered, is certainly admirable.

Back to the most important question, IMHO. This all comes down to a question of origin. Did we all come from nothing accidentally? Or did we all come from nothing supernaturally, ie a Creator?

As a believer in the latter, I, and most other believers, readily admit it is based on faith. That, in and of itself, is admitting that we don't have absolute proof to support our beliefs. However, evolutionists typically won't admit that they have their own holes to absolute proof. It tends toward 'evolution is a fact' to the masses. In this thread, I give credit to Chum for saying both use 'magic' to prove their positions. I personally call both positions a faith because neither are provable through true scientific analysis (like Dalm I believe this type of analysis isn't being strictly used for evolutionists theories and for the same reasons he has pointed out, ie. circular reasoning on dating, contradiction of accidental origin when measured against Laws of Thermodynamics, etc.)
__________________
We ran like a simple play, and usually the ball doesn’t come get me until later. So I just trotted through the play and I looked to the ball, and it was already right there in my face. … He sees the floor so well and sometimes he throws the ball and we don’t see it. He’s liable to really throw anything.” Dirk

Kidd to Dirk is the present day Stockton to Malone.

roadrunner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2012, 02:38 PM   #65
Dirkadirkastan
Diamond Member
 
Dirkadirkastan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,214
Dirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by roadrunner View Post
As a believer in the latter, I, and most other believers, readily admit it is based on faith. That, in and of itself, is admitting that we don't have absolute proof to support our beliefs. However, evolutionists typically won't admit that they have their own holes to absolute proof. It tends toward 'evolution is a fact' to the masses. In this thread, I give credit to Chum for saying both use 'magic' to prove their positions. I personally call both positions a faith because neither are provable through true scientific analysis (like Dalm I believe this type of analysis isn't being strictly used for evolutionists theories and for the same reasons he has pointed out, ie. circular reasoning on dating, contradiction of accidental origin when measured against Laws of Thermodynamics, etc.)
You obviously haven't read much of the thread since I already addressed the issue of uncertainties in science and Erica already addressed the issue about thermodynamics.

The observation that species evolve is the fact. The explanation of the overall mechanic that drives it (natural selection) is the theory. I guess it's easy to confuse the two, but the terms seem appropriate enough to me.

But saying it's a theory is not admitting it's a guess anymore than the term "theory of gravity" admits the existence of gravity is a guess. Guesses are labeled as hypotheses, not theories.

It's quite a leap to go from "there is uncertainty in both fields" to "the amount of uncertainty is the same in each" and "both use methods of the same validity." That last point is especially key. The insistence of the validity of evolution would indeed be arrogant and presumptuous if it was just dreamed up out of nowhere, but it came from years of observation and research. On the other hand...

Last edited by Dirkadirkastan; 12-08-2012 at 02:39 PM.
Dirkadirkastan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2012, 08:55 PM   #66
dalmations202
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Just outside the Metroplex
Posts: 5,539
dalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan View Post
You obviously haven't read much of the thread since I already addressed the issue of uncertainties in science and Erica already addressed the issue about thermodynamics.

The observation that species evolve is the fact. The explanation of the overall mechanic that drives it (natural selection) is the theory. I guess it's easy to confuse the two, but the terms seem appropriate enough to me.

But saying it's a theory is not admitting it's a guess anymore than the term "theory of gravity" admits the existence of gravity is a guess. Guesses are labeled as hypotheses, not theories.

It's quite a leap to go from "there is uncertainty in both fields" to "the amount of uncertainty is the same in each" and "both use methods of the same validity." That last point is especially key. The insistence of the validity of evolution would indeed be arrogant and presumptuous if it was just dreamed up out of nowhere, but it came from years of observation and research. On the other hand...
Wait wait wait.

The ONLY evolution which has been even remotely scientifically proven is Micro-Evolution. Micro-Evolution is the evolving of a species -- or in other words this KIND stays this KIND but changes ie adaptation.

I need you to define me evolution.............. because from what I have read.
1. Cosmic evolution -- (pertains to time/space/matter)

2. Chemical evolution -- (pertains to chemicals & elements)

3. Stellar evolution -- (pertains to stars, planets, and "outer space")

4. Organic evolution -- (pertains to the origin of life -- "Where does life come from?")

5. Macro-evolution -- (pertains to kinds of animals)

6. Micro-evolution -- (adaptation within a particular "kind" of animal)

* All of these have to be true if there is not a God....... please start with the proof science has for each of them. Cosmic -- no proof what so ever. Chemical, can't get past iron, but please show me the proof. Steller, please have science show me one star being formed, they can't. Organic, show me how time, space, and matter didn't happen at the same time.

------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
So, I ask you this. Which of the following do you believe:
1) There once was a snake that could talk
2) A human being was cloned from the rib of the only human on Earth and the first man and the clone were able to populate the whole planet without the genetic problems of inbreeding?
3) Many people lived for 1,000 years.
4) There was a boat that housed 17.4 million creatures
5) Humans and dinosaurs shared the Earth
6) There was a flood on Earth that was made up of 2-4 times the amount of water that ever existed on this planet
7) There was a flood that left no fossil or sedimentary record
8) Humans are created perfect in God's eyes
9) The complexity of the Grand Canyon was created by flood waters, even though receding water with that power would simply have created a single, washed out chasm and not the intricate topography of the actual wonder.
10) a man lived inside a whale and came out OK.
11) The chemistry of H20 spontaneously changed to contain carbohydrates and alcohols

So either you believe that basic laws of science like gravity always take effect or you believe that there are exceptions-- that you could fall up, that a snake (without the physical manifestations or intellect to talk) can spontaneously talk. Chemistry can spontaneously be changed. Biological limitations on lifespan can be changed so modern humans average 80-some but biblical characters lived 910 on average and many children die needlessly in the first 20 years. You don't live as if all the laws of nature could be changed at any time, I assume. You depend on gravity and light and chemistry. No one tests gravity before walking, sips their water to make sure it hasn't turned into cyanide. No one lives with the idea that they may be 910-years-old. Sane people don't talk with snakes with the idea that the physiology of the snake may suddenly be altered to allow it the faculties of language and it's anatomy changed to allow it to make human phonemes.
I'll address the numbered ones in a sec, but let's get to gravity.
Gravity does exist. Never thought it didn't, but do you have gravity in outer space? Is gravity the same at sea level as it is in the top of Mount Everest? Just curious as to why you think their is a law of gravity -- when gravity changes and is different by scientific testing.

Please send me some links to Macro evolution -- you claim lots, but I can't find any actual proof of Macro Evolution anywhere. Bacteria is still bacteria.
Age -- yes there are several creationist who think they have this problem answered, I just didn't bring them up because I can't prove they are correct.

Now to the numbers.
1) Snake -- never said snake -- says serpent, and was changed to crawl on belly -- NO way to prove yes or no.
2) Human clone from rib -- Yes I believe, but cant prove it.
3) No one has ever been documented to live 1000 years - Methuselah was the oldest at 969. Yes there are some very good theories out there as to why he could have been this old. Research some of the creationism and maybe you can find some of these answers as well.
4) How do you get 17.4 million creatures? There might be that many different types today, but not that many KINDS of animals. Meaning that a dog, wolf, coyote, fox etc probably had a common ancestor, but they are all canines and if you only took two of each KIND then it limits the numbers quickly. Then make sure that they were the younger not full grown stuff, and yes -- it gets much easier for me to understand how it might have been done.
5)yes 6) yes 7) but yet there is evidence of a global flood all over the place and in the lore of nearly all of the oldest writings we have from American Indians, Mayan, Summaritian, etc as well as the bible.
8) - 12) yes

Yes, I do believe it miracles. Yes I do believe in God. Yes I do believe that the Grand Canyon was made during the flood, and I think it is easily explained.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Next

Quote:
But your bias is even worse than that. You have already made up your mind that not only is the earth young, but that this means the "real" scientific evidence that everyone wants to cover up points to this fact. So in your biased state, when you see the average life of a carbon atom to be 8000 years, you immediately jump to the conclusion that all carbon decays at approximately that time frame. By doing this, you not only betray your personal agenda to try to discredit evolutionary science, but you also demonstrate how your personal agenda drives you to misinterpret a simple exponential curve, something that's taught in Algebra II.

So you say that you immediately jump to the conclusion that all carbon decays at approximately that time frame.

If it doesn't decay at the same time frame -- then how so you use it in a time calculation?

If science has proven that it doesn't, then why use it and call it science?

You see -- I see this quite often in the scientific community. Circular logic.

So you are back into the exact same place you just put me in. Personal agenda driving a misinterpretation.

---------------------------------------

Basically here is what I have been taught about evolution.
The Big Bang theory teaches that all of the universe was squashed into a dot smaller than the period at the end of this sentence (an "infintessimal region"), which began to spin, faster and faster, until it eventually exploded. The universe will either continually expand untill we all die a "heat death", or contract again, only to repeat the process in another "Big Bang", sometime in the future.
Basically, "nothing" exploded and made everything. The universe came from nothing. We all came from a dot, and the dot came from nothing.
Where did the dirt [matter] in the dot come from? Who made it?
Where did the [physical] laws come from?
It takes energy to make matter. Where did the energy come from?

The first law of thermodynamics is a version of the law of conservation of energy, specialized for thermodynamical systems. It is usually formulated by stating that the change in the internal energy of a closed system is equal to the amount of heat supplied to the system, minus the amount of work done by the system on its surroundings. The law of conservation of energy can be stated: The energy of an isolated system is constant.

*So in lay mans terms energy can only be changed not created or destroyed.

2nd Law of Thermodynamics -- Everything tends toward disorder.
Things become more chaotic with the passage of time. Things crumble and wither.

This second law is easily seen all over the place. Things with age, crumble and corrode.

** So we have two scientific laws of thermodynamics that science can't explain the creation of. Yet, they claim that their own laws aren't correct because things get better with time, and it was all started by the creation of energy from nothing which is against its own law.

***** Where am I missing it here. Either these laws are correct and science can use them, or science (evolution) is correct and they are absolutely not laws? WE can test them and they work, but they can't be real if evolution is correct.....scientifically. Funny how that works.


And coriolis effect:
In general, observed horizontally, looking along the direction of the movement causing the acceleration, the acceleration always is turned 90° to the right and of the same size regardless of the horizontal orientation.

It is never 180 degrees - only 90 so no that doesn't work. Science taught me about Law of Conservation of Angular Motion. So I am back to how does evolution explain it -- or are the scientific laws just wrong? I think the scientific laws are correct here and evolution is just wrong, but that is me personally.

If the Big Bang theory is correct, then everything that came out of the original "dot" should be spinning in the same direction in which the dot was spinning.
If the Big Bang theory is correct, then two or three of the planets, eight of ninety-one known moons, and even whole galaxies are spinning backwards.
---------------------------

Now some questions for you:

1)The moon is moving farther away from earth -- by a little bit each year. The fact that is moving farther away implies that it used to be closer. Reckoned by the age of the earth in the theory of evolution, 1.2 billion years ago, the moon would have been circling pretty close to the earth. Inverse Square Law -- The closer that two objects are to one another, the stronger the attraction. Consider the effects on life on earth of such a dramatic repositioning of the moon. Tides?

2)The rotation of the earth is slowing down. We "lose" a second about every year-and-a-half, and must amend our clocks.
If the earth is slowing down, then it must have been going faster in the past.
Today, at the equater, the earth spins at 1,038 miles per hour.
However, billions of years ago, how fast would the earth have been moving?Any math people here? Day would have been how long?

3) MAGNETISM OF EARTH EVIDENCE FOR YOUNG EARTH
Magnets lose their strength over time. The earth has lost 6% of its magnetism in the past 150 years. Heat is necessary for magnetism. If the earth is as old as evolutionists claim, then, based on it's magnetism, it would have been too hot for life to exist.

______________

CARBON DATING REFUTED
Mammoths have been found that date to different millennium on different parts of their bodies.

GEOLOGICAL COLUMN REFUTED
Petrified trees have been found standing upright, spanning several different "strata" of rock, which, according to theories taught in school, represent different geological "ages."

ICE LAYERS REFUTED AS EVIDENCE FOR OLD EARTH
Core samples, that were taken from deep holes drilled in ice, are marked with rings, which supposedly delineate the annual changing of the seasons. Samples taken from a depth of 10,000 feet have been marked with as many as 135,000 rings, that are said to indicate as many years. That the ice rings represent the yearly season change is an assumption.

A U.S. WWII fighter plane -- a P-38 Lightening -- that was lost over Greenland in 1942 was discovered in 1992 -- under 268 feet of ice. The ice contained hundreds of these "annual" ice rings -- not fifty, as it should have been, had this theory proved to be correct.

Also, in Alaska, 15 distinct layers of snow have been observed to fall over a period of a mere eight hours.

PETRIFICATION POSSIBLE IN SHORT TIME
Petrification does not take millions of years, as is taught by evolution.
At Spirit Lake, trees from the Mt. St. Helens eruption have began to petrify in less than twenty years.
A cowboys foot and part of his leg were found petrified, still in the boot, dating to the mid-19th century.

SUBTERRAREAN STRUCTURES POSSIBLE IN SHORT TIME
Stalactites, columns, and rock flows, as well as other geological cave formations are merely mineral deposits, and don't take millions of years to form.
Some are present in the Lincoln monument.
Flow stones no more than forty years old are know to exist.
The "Tepee Fountain" in Wyoming was created from a mineral spring in less than a century.
Numerous other examples exist.
Mineral deposits do not take millions of years to form.

SALT CONTENT IN OCEAN EVIDENCE FOR FLOOD
The oceans are only 3.6% salt.
Salt mixes with rainwater and travels to the ocean.
Why aren't the oceans saltier?
The oceans may have been mostly freshwater during the Flood. Animals would have adapted to the saline content as the waters got saltier.

PROCESS OF DESERTIFICATION EVIDENCE OF FLOOD
Through a process called "desertification," the Sahara desert is constantly growing, due to a prevailing wind pattern.
Scientists estimate that it is about 4,000 years old.
It couldn't have started growing until after the Flood.
Why are there no bigger deserts on the earth, if the earth is billions of years old and the Flood is a myth?

EXISTENCE OF OIL EVIDENCE OF FLOOD
Oil beneath the surface of the earth builds to a pressure of 20,000 PSI.
If it was created over millions of years by decomposing dinosaurs, as evolution teaches, why has it not all come up by now, as the pressure has built?

AGE OF GREAT BARRIER REEF EVIDENCE FOR FLOOD
An environmental group in Australia watched the Great Barrier Reef "grow" for 20 years, and determined that it was about 4,200 years old.
Why isn't there a coral reef that is older?

AGE OF WORLD'S OLDEST TREE EVIDENCE FOR FLOOD
"Tree ring dating" is not an exact science.
The oldest tree in the world is a bristlecone pine, which is around 4,300 years old.
This supports the Biblical dating of Noah's Flood, to around 4,400 years ago.
Why is there not an older tree?

EROSION OF NIAGARA FALLS EVIDENCE OF FLOOD
Niagara Falls is eroding backward at the rate of 4.7 feet per year. It is presently eroded back about 7.5 miles. Charles Lyle, author of "Principles of Geology," a book which was instrumental in convincing Charles Darwin of the theory of evolution, said that the erosion of Niagara Falls had taken 10,000 years to get to the point where it was in his day, then later adjusted his estimate to 35,000 years. If the earth is millions of years old, and either of Charles Lyle's estimates are correct, then why wasn't the falls backed all the way up to Lake Erie long ago? Half of the "erosion" of Niagara Falls probably occurred in about twenty minutes during the Flood.

FORMATION OF THE GULF OF MEXICO EVIDENCE OF FLOOD
Evolutionists claim that it took 30,000 years to deposit the mud at the mouth of the Mississippi River. If the earth is millions of years old, as they contend, why is the Gulf of Mexico not full by now? Petrified trees have been found while drilling for oil in the Gulf of Mexico.

EROSION EVIDENCE OF YOUNG EARTH
At the current rate of erosion, all of the continents will be gone in fourteen million years.
There are "erosion" marks all over the world that serve as markings -- evidence -- for the Flood. One such example is "ripple marks" a mile and a wide in southern Iraq.

EROSION EVIDENCE OF FLOOD
Erosion moves mass downwards. Why are fossils found at high elevations?

AGE OF RECORDED HISTORY EVIDENCE OF FLOOD & YOUNG EARTH
The Chinese calendar dates back about 4,700 years, and the Hebrew calender goes back 5,673. Why does no written history exist beyond that? (Note: This exempts claims made in Egyptian sources, which cannot be trusted)

-----------------------------------------------

There is just so much more evidence of a young earth OR scientific laws aren't really laws. If scientific laws aren't really laws then science can prove nothing as they use the laws for all the testing.

---------------------------------------------

I can't prove my belief of how things started.
Science can't prove their belief of how things started.

I get told you can't teach what I believe in school -
Science gets paid to keep teaching what they believe.

Science can prove wrong its own belief by using the scientific laws it made.
NO one can prove wrong what I believe because yes there is a form of Magic involved that can go against the laws scientist use. With that said, there is also no way to prove it right because there is a form of Magic that contradicts scientific testing.
---------------------------------------

Now you said I was digging deeper by pointing out that we needed a God, due to logic that you didn't agree to.
I don't follow the Lord due to this...it just seems to help people to have a logical reason when they don't know the Lord.
I follow him because of what he has done in my life. Since my experiences would make me seem insane to some people, I tend to leave my personal testimony out, but that doesn't mean he didn't do it.

----------------------------------------

And by the way -- thank you -- I love the debate.

2 on 1 or 2000 on 1 doesn't matter to me. This is the internet, and I don't feel intimidated by anyone on it.

As I said, I did LOTS of study before making my decisions and I have made it. I do still try to find out new stuff though.

Maybe I can't convince you -- Maybe you can't convince me. All we can do it put it out there and research all we can, and make our own decisions.
__________________


"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have". Gerald Ford

"Life's tough, it's even tougher if you're stupid." -John Wayne

There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.
-Capt. Bob "Wolf" Johnson
dalmations202 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2012, 10:26 PM   #67
Ninkobei
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Plano, Tx
Posts: 2,227
Ninkobei has a brilliant futureNinkobei has a brilliant futureNinkobei has a brilliant futureNinkobei has a brilliant futureNinkobei has a brilliant futureNinkobei has a brilliant futureNinkobei has a brilliant futureNinkobei has a brilliant futureNinkobei has a brilliant futureNinkobei has a brilliant futureNinkobei has a brilliant future
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dalmations202 View Post


Now some questions for you:

1)The moon is moving farther away from earth -- by a little bit each year. The fact that is moving farther away implies that it used to be closer. Reckoned by the age of the earth in the theory of evolution, 1.2 billion years ago, the moon would have been circling pretty close to the earth. Inverse Square Law -- The closer that two objects are to one another, the stronger the attraction. Consider the effects on life on earth of such a dramatic repositioning of the moon. Tides?

2)The rotation of the earth is slowing down. We "lose" a second about every year-and-a-half, and must amend our clocks.
If the earth is slowing down, then it must have been going faster in the past.
Today, at the equater, the earth spins at 1,038 miles per hour.
However, billions of years ago, how fast would the earth have been moving?Any math people here? Day would have been how long?

3) MAGNETISM OF EARTH EVIDENCE FOR YOUNG EARTH
Magnets lose their strength over time. The earth has lost 6% of its magnetism in the past 150 years. Heat is necessary for magnetism. If the earth is as old as evolutionists claim, then, based on it's magnetism, it would have been too hot for life to exist.
These are good questions. If you don't know the answer to an equation in math class what do you do? Try to figure it out, right? I don't understand the immediate leap to "it must be god." But if you want to play that game, what happens if someone solves these problems 10 years down the road? Does this make god an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance? Did god somehow lose territory by someone making a scientific discovery?
__________________

Last edited by Ninkobei; 12-08-2012 at 10:26 PM.
Ninkobei is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2012, 10:31 PM   #68
chumdawg
Guru
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Cowboys Country
Posts: 23,336
chumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Wow. I can't believe that you exhibited such a gross misunderstanding of the "law of gravity" or whatever you want to call it, then proceeded to discuss a whole slew of scientific questions. Just...wow. Go study the gravity one first, then maybe we'll move on to some of the rest. (Hint: a simple high-school physics class would have done, but you could easily figure out where you wrong on a simple Wikipedia page, I would bet.)

Dalm: You...are not being...intellectually...honest. That is the problem people have with you. It's not just that your ideas don't mesh with theirs. It's that you cannot apply a standard with integrity.
chumdawg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2012, 05:14 AM   #69
Dirkadirkastan
Diamond Member
 
Dirkadirkastan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,214
Dirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chumdawg View Post
Wow. I can't believe that you exhibited such a gross misunderstanding of the "law of gravity" or whatever you want to call it, then proceeded to discuss a whole slew of scientific questions. Just...wow. Go study the gravity one first, then maybe we'll move on to some of the rest. (Hint: a simple high-school physics class would have done, but you could easily figure out where you wrong on a simple Wikipedia page, I would bet.)

Dalm: You...are not being...intellectually...honest. That is the problem people have with you. It's not just that your ideas don't mesh with theirs. It's that you cannot apply a standard with integrity.
Well said.

The double standard is obvious, even embraced. You are in no position to objectively scrutinize scientific theories when you take translated rotting texts as axiomatic.
Dirkadirkastan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2012, 10:18 AM   #70
dalmations202
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Just outside the Metroplex
Posts: 5,539
dalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ninkobei View Post
These are good questions. If you don't know the answer to an equation in math class what do you do? Try to figure it out, right? I don't understand the immediate leap to "it must be god." But if you want to play that game, what happens if someone solves these problems 10 years down the road? Does this make god an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance? Did god somehow lose territory by someone making a scientific discovery?
OK, so science is correct, we just don't know the answer. So since we might find an answer later -- then I will report something I know is incorrect at the present time................Ah now I get it.

And no -- there isn't an immediate leap to "it must be God". The question- at least for me is why is wrong taught when it conflicts itself.

If you don't know, then just say you don't know.
__________________


"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have". Gerald Ford

"Life's tough, it's even tougher if you're stupid." -John Wayne

There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.
-Capt. Bob "Wolf" Johnson
dalmations202 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2012, 10:33 AM   #71
dalmations202
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Just outside the Metroplex
Posts: 5,539
dalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chumdawg View Post
Wow. I can't believe that you exhibited such a gross misunderstanding of the "law of gravity" or whatever you want to call it, then proceeded to discuss a whole slew of scientific questions. Just...wow. Go study the gravity one first, then maybe we'll move on to some of the rest. (Hint: a simple high-school physics class would have done, but you could easily figure out where you wrong on a simple Wikipedia page, I would bet.)

Dalm: You...are not being...intellectually...honest. That is the problem people have with you. It's not just that your ideas don't mesh with theirs. It's that you cannot apply a standard with integrity.
Glad people have a problem with me.

Obviously you aren't smart enough to actually know the answers to any of the stuff I wrote..........and Yes I actually know I skewed the law of Gravity but there are even issues with it. Study it. Even if I give you that one item -- you still can't answer the other issues. Science has no answer. It has wild assumptions.

And then you get to the double standard. You tell me I am at it, but don't even realize how bad you are doing it.

I admit I can't prove some of my answers.
On the other hand science says we don't have an answer so we will produce answers WE OURSELVES have proven wrong and pass it off as truth. That is what bothers me the most.

So when you talk honesty........look in the mirror.

As far as whether anyone on this board likes me or not -- I don't know any of you and frankly this is a board.......ban me if you wish. Being banned for presenting a differing opinion without attacking anyone would not effect me in any way, so feel free.
__________________


"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have". Gerald Ford

"Life's tough, it's even tougher if you're stupid." -John Wayne

There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.
-Capt. Bob "Wolf" Johnson
dalmations202 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2012, 11:00 AM   #72
dalmations202
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Just outside the Metroplex
Posts: 5,539
dalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond reputedalmations202 has a reputation beyond repute
Default

I am done with the debate unless someone comes up with something that is actual science or new or something. I will keep reading, to see if it is here but I will just agree to disagree.

I will leave with this though....it isn't like it is not expected, according to translated rotting texts.

Ephesians 4:17–19
17 This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind, 18 Having their understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart: 19 Who being past feeling have given themselves over unto lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness.
__________________


"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have". Gerald Ford

"Life's tough, it's even tougher if you're stupid." -John Wayne

There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.
-Capt. Bob "Wolf" Johnson
dalmations202 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2012, 01:03 PM   #73
Ninkobei
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Plano, Tx
Posts: 2,227
Ninkobei has a brilliant futureNinkobei has a brilliant futureNinkobei has a brilliant futureNinkobei has a brilliant futureNinkobei has a brilliant futureNinkobei has a brilliant futureNinkobei has a brilliant futureNinkobei has a brilliant futureNinkobei has a brilliant futureNinkobei has a brilliant futureNinkobei has a brilliant future
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dalmations202 View Post
OK, so science is correct, we just don't know the answer. So since we might find an answer later -- then I will report something I know is incorrect at the present time................Ah now I get it.

And no -- there isn't an immediate leap to "it must be God". The question- at least for me is why is wrong taught when it conflicts itself.
What is wrong with having a 'best guess'? People used to think the earth was flat. Then it was round. But today with our satellites measurements we can see that it has a slight bulge in the middle near the equator due to its rotation. But guess what, due to mass being spread out so unevenly, it's not even oval shaped. The moon causes the actual earth to constantly shift. The weight of the ocean waters causes the crust to deform.

Do all of these details mean that on a basic level the earth is not round? Certainly not. Saying the earth is round is a good basic way to describe it to a kindergartner. When they being to understand physics more then they can absorb the extra details of the earth's shape.

Science is a constantly changing process and very rarely is there an answer that is 100% true. So in a way you are right for arguing that science has imperfections. But I think you are doing yourself a dis-service to think that science can never be true. Also you seem to be aiming pretty low in your arguments. Tell me that God is the reason why the universe is expanding at a faster and faster rate and the reason for dark matter. Then you would have an argument that would at least be more difficult to be disproved. More so than "Magnets" - seriously that sounds like something Charlie Kelley would say.
__________________
Ninkobei is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2012, 04:29 PM   #74
Dirkadirkastan
Diamond Member
 
Dirkadirkastan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,214
Dirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond reputeDirkadirkastan has a reputation beyond repute
Default

No Dalm, every one of your points is easily refuted by science. There's just no reason to go over any of it with someone that sets the standard of "if it doesn't match the bible then they're obviously making it up."

You have no business acting like the ball is in my court anyway. You still seem to have no concept of exponential decay. I said that even if there was uncertainty in decay rate, we'd still be dealing with an exponential curve, which would still result in millions of years to get to the state we observe in fossils. I guess you can add to your cheeky list "well if there was a flood, it would've taken out all the carbon." Who cares if that statement has any coherence whatsoever, it's biblical!

If you go in with the attitude that the earth is young, you will inevitably pick and choose and skew and misrepresent data as much as possible to support your position. But if you go in with the humble attitude that you want to know the truth at all costs, you get an entirely different conclusion.

The first 30 seconds of this clip certainly come to mind.

Now there are unanswered questions in science, but you haven't touched on any of them. Even if you did, you're in no position to talk. Science has unanswered questions because, unlike you, science can tell the difference between what it knows and doesn't know, and is very humble about it. You, on the other hand, claim to know without any evidence or reason. Again, such a person cannot be reasoned with.

Quote:
Ephesians 4:17–19
17 This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind, 18 Having their understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart: 19 Who being past feeling have given themselves over unto lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness.
One of the main things that drove me to escape the religious way of thinking was when I learned just how far off their evaluation of the non-religious was.

Uncleanliness and greediness? Seriously? You think that's my motive? What a colossally ignorant and condescending statement. I set aside all personal biases to learn the truth, and you do not.

But I guess I shouldn't be surprised by this. I've been warned that creationists tend to think there's more at stake than there really is.
Dirkadirkastan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2012, 04:58 PM   #75
chumdawg
Guru
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Cowboys Country
Posts: 23,336
chumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Dirka's post, right above this one, very efficiently sums up the whole thread to this point.

Dalm...it is evident that you don't *understand* science. That is not necessarily a bad thing, that is not an insult. But it *does* mean that you shouldn't talk about it like you do...as you do.

You *do*, on the other hand, appear to really understand your own religion (even if you apply it wildly inaccurately, as in the case of the square-peg bible verse above that you tried to insert in this round hole). Do you have a specific religious affiliation? If so, which one?
chumdawg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2012, 05:57 PM   #76
The Ghost of Championship
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 238
The Ghost of Championship is infamous around these partsThe Ghost of Championship is infamous around these partsThe Ghost of Championship is infamous around these partsThe Ghost of Championship is infamous around these partsThe Ghost of Championship is infamous around these partsThe Ghost of Championship is infamous around these partsThe Ghost of Championship is infamous around these partsThe Ghost of Championship is infamous around these partsThe Ghost of Championship is infamous around these parts
Default

SMFH

What else should I have expected out of Texas?
The Ghost of Championship is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2012, 11:45 PM   #77
chumdawg
Guru
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Cowboys Country
Posts: 23,336
chumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond reputechumdawg has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Dalm, I'm wondering on this day what you did to get yourself ready for the end of the world. Give away possessions? Get right with God? Whatever your tactics, you know the general strategy: Better safe than sorry.

So, what was it exactly that you did? Just curious.
chumdawg is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
nay? really?

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:24 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.