Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   cambrian death cause
Trae
Member (Idle past 4306 days)
Posts: 442
From: Fremont, CA, USA
Joined: 06-18-2004


Message 196 of 232 (128293)
07-28-2004 4:31 AM
Reply to: Message 193 by simple
07-28-2004 1:38 AM


Re: momsy was a tomato?
quote:
Of course there have been extinctions since then. Nevertheless, this explosion of life appeared in our record, and being near creation time is handily explained by a creation model.
First, you have to demonstrate that there was an explosion of life.
Second, you would have to show how/why this is somehow unusual/unexpected.
Lastly, you’d have to show that this is inconsistent with evolution theory. Which I suspect you presume, but which isn’t inconsistent at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by simple, posted 07-28-2004 1:38 AM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by simple, posted 07-29-2004 3:10 PM Trae has seen this message but not replied

Trae
Member (Idle past 4306 days)
Posts: 442
From: Fremont, CA, USA
Joined: 06-18-2004


Message 197 of 232 (128294)
07-28-2004 4:49 AM
Reply to: Message 187 by simple
07-26-2004 7:45 PM


Empty promises
The scientific method is little more than what tends to produce the best results in science. If it works it gets added. If it doesn’t work it gets removed. This battle has been fought and your side lost. Faith-based scientific mythologies ruin science. Faith-based scientific mythologies set the discoveries of science back.
If you can come up with a better method, do so. Your ascertains, which we know from history are less productive, aren’t going to convince any scientist to change to some less productive system. If you or creationist have a better system then use it. If your system is really better then it shouldn’t take long for that group to leave the scientific establishment in the dust.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by simple, posted 07-26-2004 7:45 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by simple, posted 07-29-2004 3:21 PM Trae has seen this message but not replied

Trae
Member (Idle past 4306 days)
Posts: 442
From: Fremont, CA, USA
Joined: 06-18-2004


Message 198 of 232 (128296)
07-28-2004 4:55 AM
Reply to: Message 187 by simple
07-26-2004 7:45 PM


Re: momsy was a tomato?
quote:
So, if you don't like a split between the spirit world, and the physical, and can disprove it fine. If you can disprove Eden, fine. You can't. So green fairy dragon stuff don't cut it.
We don’t have to disprove it. As you have defined it, Eden isn’t an issue.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by simple, posted 07-26-2004 7:45 PM simple has not replied

Trae
Member (Idle past 4306 days)
Posts: 442
From: Fremont, CA, USA
Joined: 06-18-2004


Message 199 of 232 (128298)
07-28-2004 5:18 AM
Reply to: Message 187 by simple
07-26-2004 7:45 PM


Show us what you have then.
What is listed as fatal problems are only strongmen arguments. If it had fatal problems then it would be dead. The author fails to understand the point of science and theory is usefulness and not truth.
You seem to be saying that science can change and include the supernatural. Since epistemologists have failed to create a system, feel free to come up with one. Remember, it needs to replace the current system and it needs to produce results.
This message has been edited by Trae, 07-29-2004 01:34 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by simple, posted 07-26-2004 7:45 PM simple has not replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 200 of 232 (128364)
07-28-2004 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 187 by simple
07-26-2004 7:45 PM


Re: momsy was a tomato?
arkathon,
And present so called scientific ways, are not gospel! "However, Popper's doctrine of "falsifiability" has some fatal problems. It is itself a theory, and supposedly a scientific theory, and therefore it applies to itself. This means that if it is true, we can never verify that it is true!
What utter rubbish! Popperian science is a philosophy, not a scientific theory, just like non-Popperian science. After all this time you still are clueless as to what science is, aren't you? The notion of falsifiability is not gleaned from an observation that is supposed to be deductively tested. It's a bit like complaining than non-Popperian science isn't in & of itself testable, & therefore science, ergo there is no such thing as science!
It is based in the reasonable, equitable, & consistent idea that if something is false, it should be knowably false. I don't suppose you would accept invisible fairies pushing the earth around the sun as valid science. But then again, perhaps you would.
Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by simple, posted 07-26-2004 7:45 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by simple, posted 07-29-2004 3:43 PM mark24 has replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 201 of 232 (128532)
07-29-2004 3:01 AM
Reply to: Message 193 by simple
07-28-2004 1:38 AM


Re: momsy was a tomato?
So does this mean the (capitalized) "always" is subject to some erosion you think may have taken place? If so, since it's a big world, with lots of erosion, it seems it would really not be 'always, then would it?
you're misreading my point. my point was that if there is such a layer in a given location, it is always above the layers "evolutionists" say came before it. never below.
Yes, I think we determined they were pretty constant. So then, what is the reason that nothing in heaven or earth could have affected, in the past, these now constant rates?
because they're constant. maybe you should look up what that means.
I guess this would mean, also, by your account, then that Adam's rate of decay was constant, and he never had any change?
what the hell does that mean? we're talking about radioactive atoms gaining or loosing various subatomic particles.
Of course there have been extinctions since then. Nevertheless, this explosion of life appeared in our record, and being near creation time is handily explained by a creation model.
did you know that 82% of the entire geologic record is pre-cambrian? i guess not. near creation -- hardly. and i wouldn't call that explained by the creationist model. you made conjecture that doesn't fit the evidence, with no support.
Good question. I shouldn't assume people have read the 'speed of light' and 'bulletproof' threads over in cosmology. The concept refers to the spirit and physical worlds being seperated by God. Try to peek at a couple of posts there to get the jist of it. So, if this happened, it seems like it would have caused the aging process, and some major change in decaying, and aging.
how?
Interesting. How was this determined? Also, is this a global average? (Of course we would expect drastically different rates of deposition in the past.)
it was in an earlier post, i think in this thread. if not, it's the fossil sorting thread. basically, i took the geologic columns of three closely located canyon national parks, joined them at the overlapping areas, and took the average over 6000 years.
and that's with rock going only from the cambrian to triassic or so. i think there's a lot more rock there than you know about.
No, I would not think so. Why would it? After all, we have no worldwide flood, mist coming out of the earth instead of rain, freshly made planet of unpacked down soil, etc. etc. now, that I am aware of, and what about it? Should we project today's world conditions on the Edenic, and flood world's?
because we already determined that they layers had to have been laid down separately. and presuming it was different is also preposterous, even more so actually. the amount of sediment that would have be laid down per day would make recording the relatively minor world flood seem silly. why not right about the hundreds of feet of dirt that pile up everyday and kill everything in sight?
Ruling God out of all equations, unless you can 'reach out and pick His nose with your finger' is not science.
you're sitting under an apple tree. an apple falls on your head.
is it safe to say that gravity's weight on the mass of the apple out-weighed the structural support of the tree branch? or did god have to personally break the stem, and then personally apply force downward to cause the apple to fall?
you're in math class, and teacher tells you 2+2=4. is god involved in the addition process anywhere?
It is merely selective chosing of criteria, and knowledge that best fits with the pagan outlook, not acknowledging all evidence.
most pagans are pantheistic. stop using pagan as a term for "non-christian." the two are not the same. and as far as i can tell, there is no evidence for god. if there was, faith would be immaterial. instead, faith is said to be the very thing that brings salvation.
Not just what your religion of evolution calls evidence. Billions of witnesses constitute evidence.
actually, eye-witness reports do not count as evidence. for a number of reasons. people do things like lie, and filling information missed subconciously. take a psych course, and i'm sure they'll tell you about an experiment were even a small sample group will report very different versions of a story, even 15 minutes after seeing a videotape.
millions of people eye-witness space aliens, elvis, and bigfoot. it doesn't mean they exist. well, elvis used to.
God's Own record of the world from day 1, backed up with thousands of 100% proven correct prophesies constitute evidence.
now, that's just ridiculous. i've seen these so called prophesies, and they fail time and again. like the one about tyre being a rock and people not living there anymore? yeah, that didn't work. heck, nostradamus has a lot of prophesies that happened. if you read it the right way.
wanna talk archaeological evidence? or rather, the lack thereof?
actually, you can't even prove it's god's own record, can you?
(more than the ever changing stories of so called scientific conjecture-you know the universe is a billion, now 3 billion, now 25 billion years old-black holes would do this but alas, now we imagine it is something else!-extinct fish from the fossil record that still swim! etc.).
science doesn't claim to be the truth, it claims to be the search for the truth. when a scientific idea gets overthrown by new evidence, science as a whole adapts. would you rather we just stuck with the religious idea that the universe revolved around the earth?
creationism is constantly proven wrong by the evidence. and it has nothing to show for it. it's not willing to adapt to the evidence, and accept what it says. instead, it sits there and tries to pick holes in the evidence, the scientists who discovered it, and basic theory as well. why? for a religious idea, that their reading of the bible is absolutely correct. when people have had more educated understandings of the text for thousands of years.
falsifiable conjecture that get validated or disproven is a good thing. it furthers us on a path of understanding. falsified misinterpretations of a book dictating thought is a bad thing.
There's a time for all of us to quiet down. Now what is this getting saved by childbirth business? I understood he was talking about they will be saved FROM a hard labor, and childbirth, if they try and please Him.
no. no. i checked this one. i translated it personally using a greek dictionary and the septuigint. is says "saved yet by the childbearing if remaining in faith and love and holiness with self-control"
by. not from. it says saved BY childbearing.
Anyhow, I don't think killing their babies will much save them either, would that be less chauveninistic to you? Sounds like you got an axe to grind.
sure. why not. god did it, right? but hey, my axe to grind is with paul, not god. i'm quite thankful for god killing his baby, actually.
So because a gal loved Jesus, and was grateful, this means the apostle was some devil, because his opinion on women was perhaps colored by some bad experience? The bible shows man like he is, and women, and doesn't try to gloss it all over. Nevertheless, through it all, His message is pretty clear, and can be put into place by weighing it out in balance with other areas of the bible. There is no doubt He loves all mankind, both sexes.
the point was that it was not divinely inspired. paul's word is not the word of god. paul was not a devil, but he wasn't jesus, and he wasn't god. you should take his advice as that coming from a man, not a deity.
Look into it, I think it was on this forum that I heard some numbers on this. Also, my experience tells me the majority are not bible believers. I could be wrong, but I think it was something like about 80% of modern scientists were non believers?
if belief has to be literal, i'd say that's about right. the 20% are generally in fields not dealing with biology or geology, like physics and chemistry and engineering.
but, hey, i'll start a thread.
So you say the premise then is that God is not acting (alive)-and that natural laws exist. Well, I say natural laws exist as a result of the Hand of God, and that the spirit world is bigger than the physical in importance. Therefore we ignore it all at our peril, and to then call it science and all else unscientific relegates that little physical, God ignorant, spirit blind, set of information, to near irrelavance!
but the physical evidence falsifies your spiritual belief. and god acting and being alive are two different things. many religions, such as reform judaism, claim god generally stays out of human affairs now in order to make faith a valid decision on the part of man.
and personally, i think god acts through natural laws.
Only in your mind, and by excluding the important stuff!
not only in my mind. in every uranium-lead test done, as well as other various isotopes. it also fits the evidence of the fossil record, overlapping tree ring evidence, etc.
what important stuff am i ignoring? the bible? where does it say the age of the earth, pray tell? give me a book, chapter and verse. so far, you've failed to meet any demand for ANY verses. and i've already provided differing opinions on the reading of the bible, including one that explains several inconsistencies, which you rejected outright with no apparent reason.
In effect, by listing the years, it does pretty well do just that, though not in a sentence.
so uh, where? can you tell me? are you using matthew's genealogy, or luke's? one's a lot longer than other. and matthew's misses a few people when you overlap it with chronicles. and how long was it before the first creation day? it doesn't say, does it?
hey, let's ask a man whose advise i don't always like what he thinks. the apostle paul says:
quote:
Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith
hmm.
As long as the processes don't deny that He outright created them in a week, fine.
a week? the bible says a day each.
If they were men, we shared a common ancestor, yes. If not, no.
well, were they? you tell me. creationists tend to say they are.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by simple, posted 07-28-2004 1:38 AM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by simple, posted 07-29-2004 4:45 PM arachnophilia has replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 202 of 232 (128533)
07-29-2004 3:03 AM
Reply to: Message 194 by simple
07-28-2004 1:54 AM


Re: chose your tail!
Granny and the speck are mythical, and teach lessons too, that God was not there, as He says, but is a phoney.
no. they do not say anything of the sort.
in fact, i've said before, the big bang should align well with creationism.
This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 07-29-2004 02:03 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by simple, posted 07-28-2004 1:54 AM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by simple, posted 07-29-2004 3:13 PM arachnophilia has replied

simple 
Inactive Member


Message 203 of 232 (128657)
07-29-2004 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by AdminNosy
07-28-2004 3:12 AM


Adam's atoms
What's wrong with Adam's rate of decay? If we decay now more than ten times faster, I say this is an indication that there was a pretty universal change. Does this mean Adam's atoms would have been exempt from change in your opinion? Under the spirit/physical split idea I have talked about, where the whole cosmos was affected, even light itself, why would such a seperation not affect decay rates of all kinds? Aside from the usual threats and brething fire, you seem to have nothinh much to add. I reccomend a suspension for Ned, for really not debating at all, and doing it in bad faith as well!!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by AdminNosy, posted 07-28-2004 3:12 AM AdminNosy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by jar, posted 07-29-2004 3:07 PM simple has replied
 Message 211 by AdminNosy, posted 07-29-2004 5:02 PM simple has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 204 of 232 (128661)
07-29-2004 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by simple
07-29-2004 2:50 PM


Debating in good faith
Let's talk about that.
So far you have never offered ANY evidence for anything you have alleged.
So perhaps this is a good place.
Please provide your evidence that
  • Adam existed.
  • that we decay now more than ten times faster.
  • that there was a split.
  • that there is something like your S type light.
  • that there has ever been any change in decay rates.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by simple, posted 07-29-2004 2:50 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by simple, posted 07-29-2004 4:53 PM jar has replied

simple 
Inactive Member


Message 205 of 232 (128662)
07-29-2004 3:10 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by Trae
07-28-2004 4:31 AM


One fits so much better
quote:
First, you have to demonstrate that there was an explosion of life.
Hmm. It is becoming clear that evolutionists aare scurring deeper than a pre cambrian 'trace fossil' to try to cahange the story on the cambrian explosion. My model here, where things died would fit nicely with pre cambrian evidence, little (short lived) fossils, burrowers, etc. Only in the assumption of evo;ution without a creator does one run into a dead end.
quote:
Second, you would have to show how/why this is somehow unusual/unexpected.
Ok so now some evolutionists 'expect' to see life busting out all over for no other reason than they were created?
quote:
Lastly, you’d have to show that this is inconsistent with evolution theory.
Easy. God making evrything in a New York minute is inconsistant with evolutionary theory, which is, by design, inconsistent with God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by Trae, posted 07-28-2004 4:31 AM Trae has seen this message but not replied

simple 
Inactive Member


Message 206 of 232 (128664)
07-29-2004 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by arachnophilia
07-29-2004 3:03 AM


that is the question
quote:
no. they do not say anything of the sort. in fact, i've said before, the big bang should align well with creationism.
Say it all you like. The question here it time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by arachnophilia, posted 07-29-2004 3:03 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by arachnophilia, posted 07-30-2004 2:41 PM simple has not replied

simple 
Inactive Member


Message 207 of 232 (128672)
07-29-2004 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by Trae
07-28-2004 4:49 AM


neutered of the devine!
quote:
The scientific method is little more than what tends to produce the best results in science.
Normally, I would say yes, of course, what else besides the physical matters. But to take such a Popper philosophy to the extreme, where, we always rule out the God, and supernatural we can't see and touch, would leave us neutered of the devine! Take what we can see, fine, but let's not pretend there is no God, and that we are the only gods that count. We need both to come to an understanding of how things work.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Trae, posted 07-28-2004 4:49 AM Trae has seen this message but not replied

simple 
Inactive Member


Message 208 of 232 (128680)
07-29-2004 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by mark24
07-28-2004 11:29 AM


the puzzle
SO you didn't like the cut and paste on Popper. Fine. "Karl Popper, following others, argued that a hypothesis must be falsifiable; that is, it must be capable of disproof. Difficulties with this have led to the rejection of the very idea that there is a single method that is universally applicable to all the sciences, and that serves to distinguish science from non-science" (Scientific method - Wikipedia)
Anyhow, I think a philosophy, however well intentioned, that says God can not be included in science is fatally flawed! There needs to be some method that allows for an inclusion of the creator. To rule Him out, is like poking out your eyes, and cutting off your nose and putting earplugs on, and then going to Antartica to learn about equatorial bird colors.
quote:
It is based in the reasonable, equitable, & consistent idea that if something is false, it should be knowably false.
Fair enough, in general, but since we can not prove or disprove God, the best scientific method would be to give Him the benefit of the doubt, and use what we can reasonably, equitably, & consistently discover to put together the puzzle. Otherwise you have all the important pieces missing, and any conjecture as to the true finished puzzle is mere pagan speculation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by mark24, posted 07-28-2004 11:29 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by mark24, posted 07-29-2004 7:26 PM simple has replied

simple 
Inactive Member


Message 209 of 232 (128700)
07-29-2004 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 201 by arachnophilia
07-29-2004 3:01 AM


scientific eunuch
[quote] if there is such a layer in a given location, it is always above the layers "evolutionists" say came before it. never below.
quote:
because they're constant. maybe you should look up what that means.
Before, and after...also some good words to look up.
quote:
what the hell does that mean? we're talking about radioactive atoms gaining or loosing various subatomic particles.
The reference to Adam's basic changes were to illustrate a change took place. Simply put, if a whole man can go through a change that can result in his decay rate changing rapidly, why not an atom?
quote:
did you know that 82% of the entire geologic record is pre-cambrian?
Let me try to translate for you here, correct me if I'm wrong. '82% of the dirt, soil, or earth,- despite it's lack of fossils from the kind of massive life explosion in the cambrian, - is in the pre cambrian'
quote:
i took the geologic columns of three closely located canyon national parks, joined them at the overlapping areas, and took the average over 6000 years. and that's with rock going only from the cambrian to triassic or so
How does this speak to a worldwide average? For example what is the average global thickness of the cambrian, and precambrian?
quote:
the amount of sediment that would have be laid down per day would make recording the relatively minor world flood seem silly.
Interesting, as it bears on the model here. OK, we would need to know the worldwide average for the cambrian level first. (because if we looked at, say an area of uplift, thrust, continental sliding, or any such extraordinary things, it would not reflect the amount of sediment laid down on average in the cambrian.)
quote:
is it safe to say that gravity's weight on the mass of the apple out-weighed the structural support of the tree branch? or did god have to personally break the stem, and then personally apply force downward to cause the apple to fall?
Normally, as the believer Newton no doubt understood, there are certain laws we are subject to. There are exceptions. We need to apply reason. Apples fall. People die. Then we need to add God to the picture. We will never die, and rather than falling like apples, we will be able to fly. Elisha flew up in a flaming chariot, normally we can't do this, and if we tried to rule God out, we would neuter our understanding, and be a scientific eunuch
quote:
most pagans are pantheistic. stop using pagan as a term for "non-christian."
"Related Words
Gentile, Gothic, Philistine, allotheist, allotheistic, animist, animistic, atheist, atheistic, barbarous, bibliolatrous, bookless, chthonian, deceived, disbeliever, disbelieving, ethnic, faithless, fetishistic, functionally illiterate, gentile, grammarless, heathen, heathenish, hoodwinked, idol worshiping, idolater, idolatric, idolatrical, idolatrous, idolistic, ill-educated, illiterate, infidel, infidelic, led astray, lowbrow, minimifidian, misinformed, misinstructed, mistaught, nonbeliever, nonintellectual, nullifidian, paganish, polytheistic, profane, rude, secularist, unbeliever, unbelieving, unbooked, unbookish, unbooklearned, unbriefed, unchristian, uncultivated, uncultured, unedified, uneducated, unerudite, unguided, uninstructed, unintellectual, unlearned, unlettered, unliterary, unread, unrefined, unscholarly, unschooled, unstudious, untaught, untutored, zoolatrous "-1. pagan - a person who does not acknowledge your God " (Pagan | Definition of Pagan by Webster's Online Dictionary)
Go ahead, pick me a better word.
quote:
actually, eye-witness reports do not count as evidence
Then I guess they are not allowed in court these days. The new testament writers were I believe mostly firsthand witnesses, and though I would disbelieve many others, these are gospel.
quote:
prophesies, and they fail time and again
Bible ones are unerring. Tried and proven.
quote:
science doesn't claim to be the truth, it claims to be the search for the truth
A truth that leaves God out. It is therefore truth challenged.
quote:
are you using matthew's genealogy, or luke's?
I wasn't looking for the Messiah's lineage here, I was talking about creation. We have the dates from Adam, to within a small margin of possible error. Look up some things on chronologies like Usher's.
quote:
Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith hmm.
The age of the earth according to the bible is not even remotely what is talked about here.
quote:
well, were they? you tell me. creationists tend to say they are.
Sorry, I'm still here in the cambrian, where men tried not to step on trilobites.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by arachnophilia, posted 07-29-2004 3:01 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by arachnophilia, posted 07-30-2004 3:42 PM simple has not replied

simple 
Inactive Member


Message 210 of 232 (128704)
07-29-2004 4:53 PM
Reply to: Message 204 by jar
07-29-2004 3:07 PM


decaying questions
Please provide your evidence that
Adam existed. (ha)
that we decay now more than ten times faster.(recorded history)
that there was a split. (every time someone dies, there's a split)
that there is something like your S type light.(Like God, hard to disprove, or prove)
that there has ever been any change in decay rates.(I already talked about Adam's change, I don't think we can prove or disprove atomic ones?)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by jar, posted 07-29-2004 3:07 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by jar, posted 07-29-2004 5:46 PM simple has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024