|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 2543 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: ID, Creo's and Fossils | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 866 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
Scottness asserts in response to Kuresu:
I was wondering how IDer's and Creo's handle fossils You may want to see how they handle polystrate fossils... Here's how the rebuttal from Bill Birkeland is done around here: Message 1 I particularly like msg 5,7, and 12
quote: Beyond these posts are all the citations, should you care to follow. Here's how I did it in the great debate under point 73: Message 75 I feel you should review this latter thread as well, as the essay apparently may contain many of your other arguments against science. Please feel free to start a peanut gallery thread if you would like to support S1WC with any helpful hints. Edited by anglagard, : clarity Edited by anglagard, : added content Edited by anglagard, : increase evidence. Edited by anglagard, : better quote
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Confidence Member (Idle past 6348 days) Posts: 48 Joined: |
Alright, I was a bit careless with my response.
I do not believe atheism must result in sociopaths. I just believe that without God, we have no right to decide whats right or wrong. WHy? well it all becomes relative, if it is up to us to decide what is right and wrong, then who is right? One person say rape is bad, the rapists says other wise. So how you solve this problem? well install a government that enforces a certain standard that most people agree with. But the concept is this, without God, there really is no right or wrong.I am sorry that I said that atheism results in no moral code. There just is no way to check to see who's standard is right and who's wrong. Here is the reason why even atheists can be 'good';Everyone has a conscience which still holds on to some image of God. Therefore we do not need the Bible or a law to keep us from complete sociopathic behaviour. And some atheist think its better to hold on to these 'feelings' of what is right and wrong, then there are others (even Christians) who chose to ignore what is right, and do what pleases them. This does not mean that they do away with all that is right, but they pick and chose what best suites them. I hope that this is a bit more clear and less ignorant than my previous comment. Edited by Confidence, : No reason given. Even observations are now interpreted through this biased filter, judged right or wrong depending on whether or not they support the big bang. So discordant data on red shifts, lithium and helium abundances, and galaxy distribution, among other topics, are ignored or ridiculed. This reflects a growing dogmatic mindset that is alien to the spirit of free scientific inquiry. Open Letter on Cosmology
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote: To shamelessly steal the answer from another member, how does a Christian solve this problem? Do you really think that a rapist is going to listen to someone say, "God says rape is bad?" -
quote: That is what democratic consensus is all about. We discuss these issues, and then set up our society to reflect what we as a society believes. If you disagree with the consensus, then you roll up your sleeves and continue to push for your beliefs. How is this different between an atheist and a Christian? -
quote: Exactly. It works the same for atheists as it does for Christians. Kings were put to death long before 21 January 1793. But regicides of earlier times and their followers were interested in attacking the person, not the principle, of the king. They wanted another king, and that was all. It never occurred to them that the throne could remain empty forever. -- Albert Camus
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
alacrity fitzhugh Member (Idle past 4318 days) Posts: 194 Joined: |
confidence writes: I just believe that without God, we have no right to decide whats right or wrong. So Dr. Jones* is right, without the threat of eternal damnation you could not control yourself.
confidence writes: But the concept is this, without God, there really is no right or wrong. Both god(s) and the concept of right or wrong are human constructs.
confidence writes: Everyone has a conscience which still holds on to some image of God. Since god(s) do not exist this is false.
confidence writes: And some atheist think its better to hold on to these 'feelings' of what is right and wrong Great, another christian swaggering in to proclaim that they know what atheist are feeling, that sad.
confidence writes: I hope that this is a bit more clear and less ignorant than my previous comment. Yep, you have no moral compass, you do not now how to distinguish from right or wrong, you need a non existent super being to keep you on the straight and narrow. Edited by alacrity fitzhugh, : No reason given. Edited by alacrity fitzhugh, : No reason given. Look to this day, For yesterday is already a dream. And tomorrow only a vision. But today We lived, makes every Yesterday a dream of Happiness and every tomorrow A vision of hope. Look well there to This day.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iceage  Suspended Member (Idle past 5945 days) Posts: 1024 From: Pacific Northwest Joined: |
scottness writes: You may want to see how they handle polystrate fossils... Not very well really. Much ado about nothing.... Upright fossils are not a problem for a old deep time earth at all. There are numerous examples of upright forests being buried in a upright position from alluvial deposits, subsidence from earthquakes, tsunamis, local floods, land slides, volcanic events, etc. Here are just view case of sub-fossilized forests on their way to become "polystrate" fossils. http://www.washington.edu/...rthquakes/bigone/detective.html News | Michigan Technological University Notice the use of a chainsaw on a 10K year old upright tree. http://gsa.confex.com/...3AM/finalprogram/abstract_67603.htm Quote from the above article "The ages of more than 25 landslides have been estimated by radiocarbon dating of associated sub-fossil wood." and... "Buried forests are found in most river valleys that drain Cascade Range stratovolcanoes. " So what is the problem?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2543 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
you all don't really research alternative moral codes before you speak, do you all?
ever hear of utilitarianism? it is not dependent on God(s). what it says, in a nutshell, is this: you have a man drowning. you have a rescue crew. if they rescue this man, they will all die (including the rescuee). which is better for society? That the rescue crew lives on to save others, or that they all perish, to never be able to help society again? keep in mind that nutshells do have a way of getting something(s) wrong. read up on John Stuart Mill, and read his essay on utilitarianism. oh, and as a good shocker, he argues in there that religious moral codes are actually based off of utilitarianism. figure that one out. oh, and one last thing (I think).God is not required for absolutes to exist. last I checked, God isn't required for math (unless you are arguing that Noah's flood did happen). Just for an example, mind you. Edited by kuresu, : No reason given. Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Confidence Member (Idle past 6348 days) Posts: 48 Joined: |
math... did we create math, or was math already created for us to observe? The latter is obvious. We just made the symbols to represent it. For the equations of how objects move were and are already in place for the objects to obey, we just observe the equations and put symbols to them. Information... random? No, it is a purposeful arrangement of some material that conveys a message from a sender to a recipient. If it was random we wouldn't call it information, we would call it ... randomness. Scientific to say information, observed mathematical equations comes from unguided processes? Not really, we don't observe that. What we do observe is life comes from life, information comes from information, mathematical equations --> already there. Hmmm.. conclusion? Randomness did all this. We call this evolution --> (and people call this science). Wake up people. Edited by AdminModulous, : off topic. We have already shown that life is overwhelmingly loaded with information; it should be clear that a rigorous application of the science of information is devastating to materialistic philosophy in the guise of evolution, and strongly supportive of Genesis creation.
Information, Science and Biology
| Answers in Genesis
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 866 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
Confidence states:
Scientific to say information, observed mathematical equations comes from unguided processes? Not really, we don't observe that. What we do observe is life comes from life, information comes from information, mathematical equations --> already there. Hmmm.. conclusion? Randomness did all this. We call this evolution --> (and people call this science). Wake up people. So according to this, all life comes from preexisting life, and can't change or be added to just like all information comes from preexisting information and can't change or be added to? So, in the entire history of science and technology, no new information has been discovered? What a weird analogy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote: This is a pretty controversial question in the philosophy of mathematics. In my professional opinion (college mathematics instructor; quit school just shy of the PhD), mathematics is invented. Other people insist it's discovered. Kings were put to death long before 21 January 1793. But regicides of earlier times and their followers were interested in attacking the person, not the principle, of the king. They wanted another king, and that was all. It never occurred to them that the throne could remain empty forever. -- Albert Camus
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5225 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Confidence,
Scientific to say information, observed mathematical equations comes from unguided processes? Not really, we don't observe that. A meaningless statement.
What we do observe is life comes from life Which of course doesn't mean it never did.
information comes from information, mathematical equations --> already there. We CERTAINLY never observed that!
Hmmm.. conclusion? Randomness did all this. We call this evolution --> (and people call this science). Pah! Show me a scientific cite that quotes that evolution is all about randomness.
Wake up people. Indeed. You need to wake up & learn about the theory you think is so wrong. The very fact you think NS is random belies your ignorance. Mark
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
What did that have to do with fossils?
Oh, your sig's rubbish, too.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminModulous Administrator Posts: 897 Joined: |
You seem to bring the origin of information into each and every thread you come across. Please stop that. Thanks.
Keep on topic. Comments can be forwarded to the appropriate link in my sig (the second link 'General discussion...'). Do not reply to this post. New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures Thread Reopen Requests Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, Observations about Evolution and This could be interesting....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
platypus Member (Idle past 5784 days) Posts: 139 Joined: |
I was reading this thread hoping for a response to the actual topic by an actual creationist. Instead, things got horribly off-topic. Is it too late to ask- how do you (creationists) explain fossils?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
42 Inactive Member |
I was brought up creationist and I never had any problem with fossils or any other scientific observations - even though I was always scientifically minded. I think its because I never allowed such earthly cares to interfere with my place at the centre of Gods universe. These days I see myself as an ape.
All the best. Human Evolution in 42 Steps
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
truthlover Member (Idle past 4089 days) Posts: 1548 From: Selmer, TN Joined: |
While I don't agree with Glenn Morton, I've always found him very interesting and honest. I thought I'd give you one way an unusual Christian geologist handles the origin of man:
quote: That's at http://home.entouch.net/dmd/synop.htm, and he has a whole page on human evolution and Genesis. He's very intent on Genesis being literal, but he's also trying to be honest about scientific discoveries, so his theories are quite entertaining! I've emailed him a few times, and I like him, though I find all his attempts to save a literal Genesis extreme.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024