|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 59 (9207 total) |
| |
Fyre1212 | |
Total: 919,412 Year: 6,669/9,624 Month: 9/238 Week: 9/22 Day: 0/9 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: No knowledge of Creationism. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member (Idle past 276 days) Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined:
|
Hi Dr,
Dr Adequate writes: The fact that I believe (for example) that my car was created by Toyota does not make me a creationist. Was your car created from an absence of existence? I dare say it was created from existing material. Can you tell me the difference between non existence and existence?"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3961 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined:
|
ICANT writes:
Or we could just look it up in a dictionary and see that you are wrong. If you or anyone else believes that the universe had a beginning to exist then you are a creationist... *looks up 'creationist' in a dictionary*Yup, you are wrong. Tradition and heritage are all dead people's baggage. Stop carrying it!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Can you try to explain it to me? Feel free to toss some evidence into the explanation as well. Thanks. If you'd care to start a thread, we have actual physicists here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Was your car created from an absence of existence? It was created. It is something. I am not a creationist.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
foreveryoung Member (Idle past 831 days) Posts: 921 Joined: |
The idea that the world was created in 7 days and a biblical flood and the tower of babel was assumed as fact by me as soon as I read about such things in the bible. I was 6 years old at the time. Every sermon I listened to from then on confirmed that belief. Every family member of mine believed it except my stepfather who was catholic. It wasn't until 8th grade biology that I heard anything different. It wasn't until I was an adult until I started hearing serious discussions about evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2354 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
The idea that the world was created in 7 days and a biblical flood and the tower of babel was assumed as fact by me as soon as I read about such things in the bible. I was 6 years old at the time. Every sermon I listened to from then on confirmed that belief. Every family member of mine believed it except my stepfather who was catholic. It wasn't until 8th grade biology that I heard anything different. It wasn't until I was an adult until I started hearing serious discussions about evolution. Some of these issues science can readily test. As just one example, the global flood ca. 4,350 years ago was tested initially by creationist geologists seeking to document that flood. They could not do so, and had to admit that the flood did not occur as described. This capitulation occurred in the early 1800s, long before Darwin. Since then the evidence that there was no global flood ca. 4,350 years ago has become overwheming. It is so easy to disprove this that any archaeologist can do it. I've done it in my own research. What one needs to do is find an archaeological site that cross-cuts the 4,350 year time period. A site that does so by thousands of years is best. Then you examine what occurred before and after that time period, and you look to see if there is any evidence of a major discontinuity at that time. What I have found in the many sites that I have tested is that there is no discontinuity about 4,350 years ago. Instead there is continuity. I've seen continuity of human cultures, fauna and flora, sedimentary deposition, and mtDNA patterns. This last one is the most telling: the mtDNA patterns were the same both before and after the 4,350 year date. This shows that there was no discontinuity, as would be caused by a global flood which wiped out all but a select group in the Near East. If there was such a flood, all human mtDNA would be eliminated at about 4,350 years ago and would have been replaced by one type from the Near East (Noah's female kin). This can be shown not to have happened. The same type of evidence can be shown for all fauna and flora: there was no extinction-repopulation event in recent times. This is the kind of evidence that scientists look at.Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member (Idle past 276 days) Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: |
Hi Dr,
Dr Adequate writes: It was created. It is something. I am not a creationist. Your car was not created. It was produced on an assembly line from parts that was made from existing material. So your car was produced by ordinary processes.
quote:Create Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com Has the universe existed eternally in the past in some form?OR Did the universe begin to exist? God Bless,"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
foreveryoung Member (Idle past 831 days) Posts: 921 Joined: |
Some of these issues science can readily test. As just one example, the global flood ca. 4,350 years ago was tested initially by creationist geologists seeking to document that flood. They could not do so, and had to admit that the flood did not occur as described. This capitulation occurred in the early 1800s, long before Darwin. Since then the evidence that there was no global flood ca. 4,350 years ago has become overwheming. It is so easy to disprove this that any archaeologist can do it. I've done it in my own research. What one needs to do is find an archaeological site that cross-cuts the 4,350 year time period. A site that does so by thousands of years is best. Then you examine what occurred before and after that time period, and you look to see if there is any evidence of a major discontinuity at that time. What I have found in the many sites that I have tested is that there is no discontinuity about 4,350 years ago. Instead there is continuity. I've seen continuity of human cultures, fauna and flora, sedimentary deposition, and mtDNA patterns. This last one is the most telling: the mtDNA patterns were the same both before and after the 4,350 year date. This shows that there was no discontinuity, as would be caused by a global flood which wiped out all but a select group in the Near East. If there was such a flood, all human mtDNA would be eliminated at about 4,350 years ago and would have been replaced by one type from the Near East (Noah's female kin). This can be shown not to have happened. The same type of evidence can be shown for all fauna and flora: there was no extinction-repopulation event in recent times. This is the kind of evidence that scientists look at. I don't believe the biblical genealogies were meant as time measuring instruments, so the whole 4350 year old flood is a bogus argument to me. The flood happened at the hadean/archean boundary. That is 3.9 billion years ago according to radiometric methods. I believe in accelerated radioactive decay so the hadean/archean boundary is actually much younger than that. How much so? I don't know. Much of the sedimentary strata in the geological column is due to marine transgressions and regressions. If we could measure the amount of sediment accumulation on a shore that is currently experiencing either transgression or regression and compare it to the depth of marine sediment of known radiometric age, we could have a more realistic age of the earth. Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2354 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
I don't believe the biblical genealogies were meant as time measuring instruments, so the whole 4350 year old flood is a bogus argument to me. The flood happened at the hadean/archean boundary. That is 3.9 billion years ago according to radiometric methods. I believe in accelerated radioactive decay so the hadean/archean boundary is actually much younger than that. How much so? I don't know. Much of the sedimentary strata in the geological column is due to marine transgressions and regressions. If we could measure the amount of sediment accumulation on a shore that is currently experiencing either transgression or regression and compare it to the depth of marine sediment of known radiometric age, we could have a more realistic age of the earth. These are ideas that can be tested against evidence. Accelerated radioactive decay was one of the things the RATE group tested, using over a million dollars in creationist money. They essentially found that science was right, but refused to believe the evidence they themselves generated. Assessing the RATE Project: Essay Review by Randy Isaac Assessing the RATE Project Do the RATE Findings Negate Mainstream Science? http://184.173.80.159/...RATEFindingsNegateMainstreamScience The initial part of the conclusion from this last link: Young-earth creationists have long claimed there is no evidence for an old Earth. The fact that billions of years of nuclear decay have occurred in Earth history has been denied by most young-earth creationists. Now, the RATE team has admitted that, taken at face value, radiometric dating data is most easily and directly explained by the Earth being billions of years old. This is a remarkable development because no longer can young-earth creationists claim it is merely the naturalistic worldview that makes scientists believe rocks and minerals are millions or billions of years old. As for the marine transgressions and regressions in the geologic column: we can directly date some of the layers in that column using radiometric methods. Creationists' attempts to discredit radiometric dating have not been successful, as was pointed out in the reviews of the RATE group's project. Our own poster RAZD has several lengthy threads here on the subject of radiometric dating and all of the various ways in which independent methods of dating produce similar results. I think you should review those threads before you attempt to claim anything to the contrary.Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
foreveryoung Member (Idle past 831 days) Posts: 921 Joined: |
These are ideas that can be tested against evidence. Accelerated radioactive decay was one of the things the RATE group tested, using over a million dollars in creationist money. They essentially found that science was right, but refused to believe the evidence they themselves generated. Assessing the RATE Project: Essay Review by Randy Isaac Assessing the RATE Project Do the RATE Findings Negate Mainstream Science? http://184.173.80.159/...RATEFindingsNegateMainstreamScience The initial part of the conclusion from this last link: Young-earth creationists have long claimed there is no evidence for an old Earth. The fact that billions of years of nuclear decay have occurred in Earth history has been denied by most young-earth creationists. Now, the RATE team has admitted that, taken at face value, radiometric dating data is most easily and directly explained by the Earth being billions of years old. This is a remarkable development because no longer can young-earth creationists claim it is merely the naturalistic worldview that makes scientists believe rocks and minerals are millions or billions of years old. As for the marine transgressions and regressions in the geologic column: we can directly date some of the layers in that column using radiometric methods. Creationists' attempts to discredit radiometric dating have not been successful, as was pointed out in the reviews of the RATE group's project. Our own poster RAZD has several lengthy threads here on the subject of radiometric dating and all of the various ways in which independent methods of dating produce similar results. I think you should review those threads before you attempt to claim anything to the contrary. It sounds to me like the RATE team just gave up and quit. They don't have to believe that the only explanation for billions of years of radioactive is a billions of years old earth. What made them give up? Why is it impossible for accelerated decay? I know that the sedimentary layers have been dated. That wasn't my point. Has anyone measured how fast sediment is accumulated in a transgression or regression? Has anyone dated a layer of sediment using that measurement? If so, what age did they come up with? As for reading something before I comment, I would never comment if I did that. If you know what the material said, then tell me the summary. Don't make me spend hours at the library so to speak just so I can have a discussion with you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
ICANT writes: So your car was produced by ordinary processes. There are of course other definitions of create on that page you linked to, but we need not even consider them in order to identify the problem with your logic.
quote: Note that in the above definition there are two alternatives. 1) ... that would not naturally evolveOR (not AND) 2) ...that is not made by ordinary processes. Since a car would not naturally evolve, we cannot rule out that a car was created merely because it was made by ordinary processes. Even if we ignore the error delineated above, your basic argument is still without merit. We don't use the term "Creationist" to refer to just any history of the universe. Exactly what do you hope to accomplish by re-defining the term Creationist anyway? Isn't it pretty obvious that every person participating in this thread knows exactly what the thread is about, even if you don't like their use of the word Creationist? But just in case your confusion is sincere, this thread is about how people first encountered beliefs similar to the ones you and foreveryoung hold about the origin of the universe, the earth, and mankind. You can provide your own label, but your goofy musings and misuse of the dictionary really aren't on point.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Your car was not created. It was produced on an assembly line from parts that was made from existing material. So your car was produced by ordinary processes. Hi Dr, Creation is:
1. the act of producing or causing to exist; I'll leave you to argue that one out with yourself.
Has the universe existed eternally in the past in some form? OR Did the universe begin to exist? I don't know. I do know that I am not a creationist, since that word has a meaning and does not describe me. --- Why is it important to you to lie about whether I'm a creationist? Is it for the sheer delight of saying things that are obviously untrue, or do you consider it more as a means to an end?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
It sounds to me like the RATE team just gave up and quit. Give up? Oh no, they didn't give up. What gave you that impression? Coyote merely said that they found that all the evidence proved them wrong. But they're creationists, that didn't make them give up. It's not like they're scientists or something. What happened was this. They found that the rocks showed evidence of hundreds of millions of years of radioactive decay. So then they postulated an unevidenced, unobserved mechanism ("accelerated decay") contrary to the known laws of nature, that would make it look like the Earth was old when it was young. But then they noticed that this mechanism would have melted the Earth, boiled the seas, and killed Noah and his floating zoo. So then they postulated an unevidenced, unobserved mechanism contrary to the known laws of nature that would get rid of the heat and make it look like accelerated decay hadn't happened when it had. Then they concluded that the Bible was reliable. You will notice that by such methods one need never give up on any belief. If you think the sky is green with pink spots, and you look and see that it is blue ... no problem. All you have to do is postulate an unevidenced, unobserved mechanism contrary to the known laws of nature that makes it look blue when it's green with pink spots. You need never give up. Of course, if you do that, you have given up doing science, but you haven't given up your precious, precious belief in the youth of the earth or the greenness of the sky or whatever proposition, contrary to the observed evidence, you would like to believe in despite of all the mere observations that you've ever made. --- In case you think I'm making any of this up, here's something I wrote about RATE on a previous thread, with quotes, links, and references. --- Let us turn to the much-vaunted RATE project of the Institute For Creation Research. Amongst their findings, they admit:
A large amount of nuclear decay did indeed occur in the zircons. Other evidence strongly supports much nuclear decay having occurred in the past [14, pp. 335-337]. We emphasize this point because many creationists have assumed that "old" radioisotopic ages are merely an artifact of analysis, not really indicating the occurrence of large amounts of nuclear decay. But according to the measured amount of lead physically present in the zircons, approximately 1.5 billion years worth at today’s rates of nuclear decay occurred. This is the point at which an actual scientist would start to think that maybe the Earth wasn't all that young. But no, they have a better idea --- "highly accelerated nuclear decay". Though the details are somewhat sketchy:
These diffusion data are not precise enough to reveal details about the acceleration episodes. Were there one, two, or three? Were they during early Creation week, after the Fall, or during the Flood? Were there only 500 to 600 million years worth of acceleration during the year of the Flood, with the rest of the acceleration occurring before that? The details of how this could have happened are not so much sketchy as non-existent. At this point I should like to mention that the slogan of the Institute For Creation Reasearch is "Biblical. Accurate. Certain." It has of course been pointed out to the folks at the ICR that this "accelerated decay" would have melted the Earth, boiled the seas, and killed off Noah and his maritime menagerie. As RATE member Larry Vardiman admits:
The amount of heat produced by a decay rate of a million times faster than normal during the year of the Flood could potentially vaporize the earth’s oceans, melt the crust, and obliterate the surface of the earth. But they are equal to the challenge:
The RATE group is confident that the accelerated decay they discovered was not only caused by God, but that the necessary removal of heat was also superintended by Him as well. "With one bound, Jack was free!" How exactly God achieved this is unclear even to them. As they admit:
The removal of heat was so rapid that it likely involved a process other than conduction, convection, or radiation. (Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth, vol. II, p.763, my emphasis.) In short, they have discovered the principle of Smacco's Rozar: To any hypothesis, no matter how contrary to reality, further hypotheses may be added to explain away the discrepancy. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9580 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 7.0 |
Coyote writes: Since then the evidence that there was no global flood ca. 4,350 years ago has become overwheming. It is so easy to disprove this that any archaeologist can do it. Can you point me at any papers on this? Thanks.Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18631 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 4.4 |
I CANT writes: I personally believe from studying the scriptures that the universe and earth have always existed in some form just not in the form we observe it today. My reason for that belief is that God (existence) is eternal without beginning or end. The text says in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Since God had no beginning when was the beginning? To me, that sounds a bit more pantheistic than monotheistic. Is humanity a created thing? If we are in communion with God, is it the same as being part of God? Did God create Himself? Personally I believe that God always existed but that matter,energy, and life were created things. I suppose, however, that we could argue that if we are in communion with God through His Son, we ourselves always existed in His imagination...as did everything else. It just strikes me as more of a pantheistic view as opposed to a monotheistic/communion view.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024