|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1653 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1954 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Fortunately the posts by creation are so completely devoid of evidence, reason, even basic Christian education that they stand as a monument to ignorance and deceit.
Yah, well, this has been going on for years elsewhere. If you haven't heard the rest of the spiel, you are in for a treat, assuming that you enjoy fantasy. Reality is not an option.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: |
But there may be others that are interested in reality who will see the exchanges and so see a way out of the Christian Cult of Ignorance and Deceit. No one expects or even wants to change creation but rather allow others to see and compare the fantasy with reality.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18631 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 4.4 |
jar writes: Yes, but can you be a Christian while believing in a vague unknowable God? You can still be a Christian without leaving your brain at the door.Or are you more properly a Deist? Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1653 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
No. It is my claim you do not know and have chosen simply to believe in a certain state in the past. N dates you use have any other worth or reason for existing other than that belief. So don't know my dates that try and use bible dates. So I guess you didn't see where a biblical date was confirmed ... oh that's right, you haven't read the thread. What is the boundary for time into the past -- the "fishbowl" for times past? How do you know? How can we tell you are right? Intelligent people want to know. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 6076 Joined: Member Rating: 7.1 |
Walt Brown ... Really? Walt Brown? At least he is not as pathetic as Kent Hovind. However, Walt Brown is proven to deliberately lie. That is to say that he tells lies with full knowledge that they are lies. I retell the story here on my "Bullfrog Affair" page. Brown would use the claim that a study comparing the same protein between different species showed that "rattlesnake's closest biochemical relative is humans". Keep that specific wording in mind. The story on my page (extra emphasis added at the end):
quote: The hard requirement to word the claim just right is the first tell. If you present it one way ("the rattlesnake is more closely related to humans that to any other organism"), then you could still claim to be technically correct. But if you present it any other way (eg, that humans are more closely related to the rattlesnake than to any other organism) then you would be completely wrong. Rhesus monkeys were also in that study and they differed from humans by only one amino acid. Chimpanzees were not included in that study, but other studies consistently show that there is no difference in the cytochrome c proteins of humans and chimpazees; they are identical. But what proves beyond a doubt that Walt Brown deliberately lied is how he handled that incident after that debate. He knew full well that he was lying to those people. Again, in Christian doctrine is God supposed to be served and supported by lies and deception? Not in any Christian doctrine that I had ever learned. What I had always seen Christian doctrine teach is that lies and deception serve the Prince of Lies, the Deceiver, Satan. Of course, if you truly believe that God is to be served by lies and deception, then do please explain that to us. BTW, Walt Brown is also to blame for that other stupid "creation science" claim about the rate at which the earth's rotation is slowing down. In 1979 he published his claim based on leap seconds, where had suddenly become big news because of the upcoming GPS system (GPS time started 1980 Jan 06, while the system went on-line around 1986). He grossly misunderstood what leap seconds are and what they do, so he ended up with a deceleration rate hundreds of times too great. That claim was soundly refuted in 1982. Some time after that Walt Brown appears to have dropped that claim, but the creationist community continues to push that false claim even after you prove to them how false it is. For the record, a few years ago I searched through Walt Brown's on-line book for both claims. I could not find any trace of the leap second claim, but the rattlesnake protein claim was still there albeit as a half-cryptic footnote. Again, do please explain to us why you creationists believe so strongly that God must be served through lies and deception. Edited by dwise1, : new subtitle
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Phat writes: Yes, but can you be a Christian while believing in a vague unknowable God?Or are you more properly a Deist? Stop and think Phat. If someone is a registered member of a chapter of Shriners is that person a a Shriner? If someone is a registered Republican is that person a a Republican? I am a Christian despite what ANYONE might think.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
Really? Walt Brown? At least he is not as pathetic as Kent Hovind. Oh he's getting more pathetic by the day. His latest thing is moving the asteroids from near-Earth Solar orbit to the asteroid belt by Solar sails consisting of water vapor clouds surrounding each asteroid. Doesn't take much smarts to realize gravitational coupling between water molecules and the asteroid is orders of magnitude too small, and the Solar wind would strip the water off.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22929 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 7.2
|
Replying to a number of your messages...
Regarding your Message 760 to me:
percy writes: This thread is in the Dates and Dating forum, which is a science forum,.. Except the content and OP are belief based only. That is not science. This is getting boring. Your answer to any evidence is, "That's just belief." You never address the evidence. That evidence is just belief is just something you need to believe in order to hold onto your religious beliefs, which have no evidential support at all.
You cannot claim a same nature in the past without evidence. You cannot spam item after religious item based on there having been a same state past without ever stopping to first prove there was. Again, your criticizing science by calling it religion? Do you not get how that completely undermines your religiously based approach?
Offering tree rings as proof of ages as if they were grown in this nature, without showing why or how is religion. Offering to collaborate that with some other belief based feature of a same state past is religion. It was pointed out that all collaborations here are from the same belief! Collaborations? Did you perhaps mean correlations? I'll proceed under that assumption. If the tree rings were grown under different natural physical laws then there would be evidence of that. Where's your evidence? And once again, do you not realize that criticizing evidence by calling it religion invalidates your own approach?
Rather than try and desperately call that science it seems you guys should be addressing the elephant in the room. We are addressing the elephant in the room. That would be you and your claims completely contradicted by all evidence that natural physical laws were different in the past than they are now. Not to mention that you've presented no evidence yourself. You're just making up whatever you need to to prop up your religious beliefs.
Did I not ask RAZD and others to simply show even one of the supposed correlations that were NOT based on this one belief?! Why are you not capable of doing that? Why are you not capable of seeing that that has been done, multiple times? Why are you imitating a broken record? Why are you incapable of addressing the evidence provided? Regarding your Message 761 to RAZD:
creation in Message 761 writes: No. It is my claim you do not know and have chosen simply to believe in a certain state in the past. No dates you use have any other worth or reason for existing other than that belief. Again, this is untrue. We've provided evidence that natural physical laws in the past were the same as today. You've dismissed the evidence without giving it any consideration, calling it mere belief. In reality there is no evidence for your position, which is mere belief.
So don't know my dates that try and use bible dates. This is not a religious thread. It is a science thread. You should not be mentioning the Bible, though it would be nice if you'd show it the proper respect by capitalizing it.
You've cited a religious website, the same one Starman cited. Do you have any science you'd like to offer? Regarding your Message 762 to me (gee, you thought my Message 758 so nice you responded twice):
creation in Message 762 writes: Great. So the Oklo fable is your defense!!!? So tell us how you know the whole site was dunked miles under the surface of the earth when needed, and then eons later, brought to the surface?? Hint? You can't...you just need it to be so. Correct? No, that's not correct concerning when the natural fission reactions were taking place, which was near the surface, which we know since the concentrations of uranium and the interruptions of the fission reactions were due to groundwater. I couldn't find anything online about the geological history of the region, but it is very, very common for regions of net sedimentation to become deeply buried and later become reexposed after uplift and erosion. The Grand Canyon region is a great example. Oklo is not a fable - you can't make evidence disappear just by calling it names. See Natural nuclear fission reactor over at Wikipedia. We can bring as much evidence as you like into this thread. Regarding your Message 763 to RAZD:
razd writes: Nope. I can touch, feel and measure tree rings for instance. Other people can touch, feel and measure tree rings. In fact this has been done multiple times as part of the scientific review. That's funny earlier you failed to even be able to post a detailed picture of tree rings from a tree that had more than 5000 rings!? Now we supposedly can touch them? Yes, of course we can touch them. Here's an image of the stump of the Prometheus tree:
See the Wikipedia article on the Prometheus tree for more details. We can bring as many of those details into this thread as you wish. The tree ring count is currently thought to be 4862, but because of missing rings (apparently not uncommon at that elevation) it is estimated that the Prometheus tree is older than 5000 years.
Then you have the nerve to accuse others of an inability to debate? It isn't so much an accusation as a statement of the obvious.
Smoke, meet mirror. Ignorance meet bliss. --Percy
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22929 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 7.2
|
Sung to the tune of "Where oh where has my little dog gone":
Oh where, oh where has Creation gone, Oh where, oh where can he be? With his facts cut short And his tales cut long, Oh where, oh where can be be? I think he returnedTo creationist sites, To read what he could read. And what he saw there Was only belief, And not a fact to be found. --Percy
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
Gotta fix the second verse.
I think he returnedTo creationist sites, To read what he could read. And what he saw there Was beyond belief, And alternate facts abound.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
creation Member (Idle past 2191 days) Posts: 654 Joined: |
quote: You cannot spam item after religious item based on there having been a same state past without ever stopping to first prove there was. Science doesn't know. You do not know how far any star is from earth, nor how long light takes to get here from it. You see the light here, hence all reactions and having it obey laws etc is all seen/experienced/done here and only here. That does not address what time is or what time is like far far away.
quote: There are may religions and beliefs, the sad thing is when science pretends to be more.
quote:Such as...?? There would still be rings. quote:Untrue. Imagining time is the same where stars are with no proof is not evidence. Imagining trees grew in this nature is not evidence they did..etc. quote: There is no possibility of discussion of creation without it.
quote: In your invented scenario it was due to groundwater.
quote: Ridiculous. You need evidence for the claim the specific sites underwent this magic dunk/resurfacing. You invented it because your belief based fables required it. Period.
quote: ?? Where are the rings in the stump from exactly 5000 years ago? You offer a pile of junk? If you could give an actual pic of the area in the sample taken from the tree that supposedly represents more than 5000 years (you have failed to do so for years now) you would need to show that said rings grew in this present nature. Face it, you lose.
quote:Ha ha ha. Missing rings. Great. Well, let;s make it easy can you show a good close up of any rings over 4500 years? Ha. Hard to believe creationists used to lose debates. Edited by creation, : No reason given. Edited by creation, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 660 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
creation writes:
No, it's pretty easy to believe. Do you answer posts at all? Hard to believe creationists used to lose debates.And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
creation Member (Idle past 2191 days) Posts: 654 Joined: |
Razd asked fishbowl boundary..
Since the fishbowl simply refers to the area man lives and has visited, even with probes, that makes the fishbowl quite big. Beyond this you cannot say time is the same as here. We have only one little observation point in this universe. Edited by creation, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 660 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
creation writes:
You're making the same mistake that rookie creationists always make. You're giving your 'profound' replies to a dozen different topics. Razd asked fishbowl boundary.. Pick one and discuss it in depth. Then you might understand why creationists can't win.And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
creation Member (Idle past 2191 days) Posts: 654 Joined: |
All the so called science fables on origins are made up nonsense. They have no depth. They are about as deep as a fishbowl. You CANNOT discuss what time is like in the far universe because you do not know even what time is here.
You cannot claim anything based on a same nature in the past unless you first prove one existed. The cunningly devised fables that have been criminally called science are ALL based on the same beliefs.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024