Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


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


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Proofs of Evolution: A Mediocre Debate (Faith, robinrohan and their invitees)
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 151 of 295 (273876)
12-29-2005 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by Faith
12-29-2005 2:59 PM


Re: Digression
I don't think we can, or should. It's about proofs of evolution
That's fine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by Faith, posted 12-29-2005 2:59 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by Faith, posted 12-29-2005 10:03 PM robinrohan has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 152 of 295 (274020)
12-29-2005 10:03 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by robinrohan
12-29-2005 3:16 PM


Re: Digression
I don't want to get into a dialogue about it here, but thought I'd say this much. I've been mulling it over, and I don't think I can explain it. For one thing, I've come to regret some rather sensitive things I've said on my beliefs at this forum where there is so little respect for it.
And I don't have much optimism that anything I say would persuade you. You've said you read theology, but that hasn't led you to belief. I didn't read theology until I believed and then when I read it I understood more and believed more, and it's been like that all along -- the more I believe, the more I learn that adds to my belief.
It's been discussed at EvC that one can't just decide to believe, and that's certainly true in a certain sense, psychologically speaking. On the other hand, Jesus gave it as a command, Repent and believe the gospel.
If you want to pursue the topic, please open it elsewhere, but I don't know how much I'll have to say.
======================================================
NOT-SO-GREAT DEBATE THREAD. ROBINROHAN & FAITH PLUS INVITED GUESTS
======================================================
This message has been edited by Faith, 12-29-2005 10:11 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by robinrohan, posted 12-29-2005 3:16 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by robinrohan, posted 12-29-2005 10:39 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 160 by robinrohan, posted 12-31-2005 2:43 AM Faith has replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 153 of 295 (274034)
12-29-2005 10:39 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by Faith
12-29-2005 10:03 PM


Re: Digression
I've come to regret some rather sensitive things I've said on my beliefs at this forum where there is so little respect for it.
I understand.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Faith, posted 12-29-2005 10:03 PM Faith has not replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 154 of 295 (274165)
12-30-2005 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 138 by robinrohan
12-28-2005 5:45 PM


Re: The age of the Earth
I think I can explain this dating method.
We have a rock and want to find out how old it is. This rock is emitting radiation.
We don't know when the radiation clock started ticking. That's what we're trying to find out. We also don't know how fast it decays. We're trying to find that out too. We have to figure that out in order to determine its age.
So we take our spyglass and examine all the atoms in this rock and they are the same, except that some are emitting radiation and some are not (we separate these atoms and stick our geiger counter to each one). So we conclude that the ones that are not used to but don't anymore. We count the atoms that are and those that are not. There are 100 atoms that are and 50 that are not.
Then we get our geiger counter and start counting the blips of the whole thing. We find out that there are fewer blips as time passes, but the rate of decrease is constant. The reason there are less blips is that there is less Potassium and more and more Argon as time goes by. Argon is not radioactive. We keep counting the blips for several years. The rate turns out to be 1 less blip per month. That would be 36 less blips total after 3 years.
Then we use our spyglass and count the atoms that are not emitting and the ones that are. After 3 years, there are 90 that are and 60 that are not.
We lost 10 Potassium atoms in 3 years.
We lost 36 blips in 3 years.
So 3.6 blips equals the emergence of one Argon atom.
We had 50 Argon atoms to begin with and we had 100 Potassium atoms. When this rock came into existence it was 100% Potassium. So we had already lost 50, which equals the loss of 180 blips.
At 12 blips a year, we know that this rock is 15 years old (180 divided by 12).
This message has been edited by robinrohan, 12-30-2005 09:48 AM
This message has been edited by robinrohan, 12-30-2005 10:59 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by robinrohan, posted 12-28-2005 5:45 PM robinrohan has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by Faith, posted 12-30-2005 4:34 PM robinrohan has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 155 of 295 (274249)
12-30-2005 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by robinrohan
12-30-2005 10:44 AM


Re: The age of the Earth
You've left me speechless. But I'm sure it won't last long.
Space reserved for future comment
This message has been edited by Faith, 12-30-2005 06:21 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by robinrohan, posted 12-30-2005 10:44 AM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by robinrohan, posted 12-31-2005 2:01 AM Faith has replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 156 of 295 (274324)
12-31-2005 2:01 AM
Reply to: Message 155 by Faith
12-30-2005 4:34 PM


Re: The age of the Earth
I think I did ok with that. The only question is, how does one know that originally the rock had to be 100% Potassium?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Faith, posted 12-30-2005 4:34 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by Faith, posted 12-31-2005 2:06 AM robinrohan has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 157 of 295 (274325)
12-31-2005 2:06 AM
Reply to: Message 156 by robinrohan
12-31-2005 2:01 AM


Re: The age of the Earth
You mean it might have formed after the potassium had already decayed?
But if argon is always formed only by the decay of potassium, and argon is measured in the rock, then at some point there had to be only potassium, no?
But that is an interesting question. Is the original pure potassium the Origin of the Planet? If not, how did this pure potassium rock {AbE: "the pure original potassium IN the rock" would say it better} get started at a later point?
My brain is slow because of a lousy cold, so if that doesn't make a lot of sense please take this as an excuse and I'm going to have to leave EvC for the night.
This message has been edited by Faith, 12-31-2005 02:13 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by robinrohan, posted 12-31-2005 2:01 AM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by robinrohan, posted 12-31-2005 2:15 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 162 by robinrohan, posted 01-01-2006 9:20 AM Faith has not replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 158 of 295 (274326)
12-31-2005 2:15 AM
Reply to: Message 157 by Faith
12-31-2005 2:06 AM


Re: The age of the Earth
I did say earlier that Argon by its very nature comes from Potassium, but now I'm not so sure. I read something (on some website) that seemed to go against that idea. I thought I had deduced it from the link I put here. I'll look into it some more.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Faith, posted 12-31-2005 2:06 AM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by robinrohan, posted 12-31-2005 2:36 AM robinrohan has not replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 159 of 295 (274329)
12-31-2005 2:36 AM
Reply to: Message 158 by robinrohan
12-31-2005 2:15 AM


Re: The age of the Earth
But one thing I am certain of is that that has to be the assumption--that the rock was originally 100% Potassium. Otherwise, it would be imposssible to determine its age.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by robinrohan, posted 12-31-2005 2:15 AM robinrohan has not replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 160 of 295 (274330)
12-31-2005 2:43 AM
Reply to: Message 152 by Faith
12-29-2005 10:03 PM


On persuading each other
And I don't have much optimism that anything I say would persuade you
I just wanted to say that any talk of mine about potassium or fossils or whatever is not, I'm sure, going to persuade you either, nor is that my intent. I was just interested.
(don't worry, I'm not drunk. I was asleep and then woke up; I have insomnia sometimes).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Faith, posted 12-29-2005 10:03 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by Faith, posted 12-31-2005 12:34 PM robinrohan has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 161 of 295 (274402)
12-31-2005 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by robinrohan
12-31-2005 2:43 AM


Re: On persuading each other
I just wanted to say that any talk of mine about potassium or fossils or whatever is not, I'm sure, going to persuade you either, nor is that my intent. I was just interested.
Seems to me that this isn't much of a debate really, at least at this point. More a collecting of information, which is fine with me. I appreciate the reading and thinking you are doing. I'm just not much motivated at the moment; could change. But here we are wasting our thread with such short off-topic posts.
(don't worry, I'm not drunk. I was asleep and then woke up; I have insomnia sometimes).
Not worried. I feel for you.
============================================================
Answer to your following post. Maybe you won't see this but I don't want to keep wasting posts on this thread. I don't want to post more here until I get motivated to think about the questions you have raised. Thought at the least I should read through some other threads on the subject, such as this one where others have answered you:
Dating from the Adams and Eves Threads
============================================================
NOT-SO-GREAT DEBATE THREAD. ROBINROHAN & FAITH ONLY PLUS INVITEES
============================================================
This message has been edited by Faith, 01-01-2006 10:03 AM
This message has been edited by Faith, 01-01-2006 10:06 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by robinrohan, posted 12-31-2005 2:43 AM robinrohan has not replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 162 of 295 (274613)
01-01-2006 9:20 AM
Reply to: Message 157 by Faith
12-31-2005 2:06 AM


Re: The age of the Earth
Is the original pure potassium the Origin of the Planet? If not, how did this pure potassium rock {AbE: "the pure original potassium IN the rock" would say it better} get started at a later point?
If all the potassium on earth started when the planet started, then it would all be the same age more or less. Maybe it's formed out of volcanic activity. Radioactive substances are found in rock that was once lava. That's not where the fossils are, however, so the dating of fossils has to be indirect. Obviously, a fossil is not radioactive.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Faith, posted 12-31-2005 2:06 AM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by lfen, posted 01-12-2006 10:40 PM robinrohan has not replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 163 of 295 (278549)
01-12-2006 9:40 PM


Calvinism
I think we can change the subject if we want to. Admin. hinted as much.
The biggest problem I have with Calvinism is the emphasis on belief rather than works.
Why would that bother me?
To believe or not believe some doctrine is not, on the face of it, a moral matter. One might be correct or incorrect in one's belief, but not morally right or wrong.
Good works, on the other hand, do seem on the face of it to be something moral for its own sake. And so works can be divided into immoral and moral works.
I'll tell you my idea about Augustine a little later.
Maybe we can also discuss whether any of this would make good PNT's for general discussion.

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by Faith, posted 01-12-2006 11:25 PM robinrohan has replied

lfen
Member (Idle past 4678 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 164 of 295 (278558)
01-12-2006 10:40 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by robinrohan
01-01-2006 9:20 AM


Re: The age of the Earth
Excuse me for butting in but here is a succinct explanation for the phenomena you are discussing.
How is the Atomic Clock Set?
When rocks are heated to the melting point, any Ar-40 contained in them is released into the atmosphere. When the rock recrystallizes it becomes impermeable to gasses again. As the K-40 in the rock decays into Ar-40, the gas is trapped in the rock.
http://id-archserve.ucsb.edu/..._Potassium_Argon_Dating.html
Hope this helps,
lfen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by robinrohan, posted 01-01-2006 9:20 AM robinrohan has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 165 of 295 (278566)
01-12-2006 11:25 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by robinrohan
01-12-2006 9:40 PM


Re: Calvinism
I think we can change the subject if we want to. Admin. hinted as much.
I noticed that. OK by me. Maybe we can get back to evolutionism later.
The biggest problem I have with Calvinism is the emphasis on belief rather than works.
Why would that bother me?
To believe or not believe some doctrine is not, on the face of it, a moral matter. One might be correct or incorrect in one's belief, but not morally right or wrong.
Good works, on the other hand, do seem on the face of it to be something moral for its own sake. And so works can be divided into immoral and moral works.
OK, let me see how I would answer this.
1) This idea is not exclusive to Calvinism. It's the battle cry of the Reformation you could say. In fact it was Luther and not Calvin who was most known for it. Protestantism in general revolves around the idea of salvation by faith rather than by works, solidly founded on the teachings of Paul, but clearly demonstrated throughout the Bible.
2) Faith is a moral thing in a sense. It's trust in God after all. It means believing He is truthful rather than a liar. It means believing His appointed spokesmen. It means believing He preserves His word to us and doesn't let it be seriously corrupted. It means believing He is good. It means believing He has the power and good will to save us even though we are sinners who deserve Hell. It means putting all our trust in Him, depending upon Him. It glorifies God. It is maybe the highest honor we can pay God.
3) We are not to depend upon works "lest any man should boast." That is, works can be a matter of pride, putting ourselves above others, saying we're better because we do good things, we care, criticizing others for not living up to our standard. It's like the Pharisee thanking God that He fasts and tithes, as against the Publican who confessed that he was undeserving, and Jesus' saying the Publican was justified, not the Pharisee. Good works is recommending ourselves to God as somebody who deserves something from Him. Faith in Him on the other hand is humble, a recognition of our deserving nothing, emptying ourselves of anything in us that could qualify us for favor from God. Knowing we are sinners.
4) Although we are saved by faith, and our Christian life grows by faith from that point as well, works are definitely a big part of Christian life, and faith is the power to do them, our continuing to depend on God. "Faith without works is dead" (James 2:20, 26) Good works are the proof that we have faith. The whole chapter of Hebrews 11 lists the great people of faith in the Bible and the works they did that demonstrate their faith. Abraham's believing God's promise prompted him to leave Ur based on that promise for instance. Good works that depend upon faith also include doing good to our fellow man in obedience to God, and in fact doing our best in God's power to obey the Law of love to God and neighbor. They don't earn us salvation, but they are the growing in grace that is part of the Christian life.
I'll tell you my idea about Augustine a little later.
"Deep ideas" does pique my interest.
Maybe we can also discuss whether any of this would make good PNT's for general discussion.
Let's see how it goes.
===========================================================
* * * * NOT SO GREAT DEBATE THREAD * * * * NOT SO GREAT DEBATE THREAD * * * *
===========================================================
This message has been edited by Faith, 01-13-2006 01:27 AM
This message has been edited by Faith, 01-13-2006 01:29 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by robinrohan, posted 01-12-2006 9:40 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by robinrohan, posted 01-13-2006 9:19 AM Faith 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