Prove to me the world is 6000 years old

NickB
High Level DonorSpecial Agent
NickB's picture
Posts: 188
Joined: 2008-02-10
User is offlineOffline
Prove to me the world is 6000 years old

Science has proven through many different forms of radiocarbon dating that the world is 4.5 billion years old. In the face of all this evidence creationist persist that our earth is 6000 years old. To this day I have not seen a shred of evidence to support the assertion that the earth is 6000 years old. I do not want to sit here and argue some irrational theist about the Earths age all I want is proof that the Earth is 6000 years old. So to anybody that can prove to me that the Earth is 6000 years old I will give $6,000. When I say proof I mean irrefutable evidence that is based on logic not faith so in other words no bible quotes.

P.S. I am completely serious about this.

 

If Jesus was born today he would be institutionalized as a schizophrenic with delusions of grandeur.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13539
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
NickB wrote:Science has

NickB wrote:

Science has proven through many different forms of radiocarbon dating that the world is 4.5 billion years old. In the face of all this evidence creationist persist that our earth is 6000 years old. To this day I have not seen a shred of evidence to support the assertion that the earth is 6000 years old. I do not want to sit here and argue some irrational theist about the Earths age all I want is proof that the Earth is 6000 years old. So to anybody that can prove to me that the Earth is 6000 years old I will give $6,000. When I say proof I mean irrefutable evidence that is based on logic not faith so in other words no bible quotes.

P.S. I am completely serious about this.

 

GOD SAID:

Quote:
POOF! I DID IT

What? You have a problem backing up a claim with a claim? You silly thinker. Stop doing that, you might make the theist's head explode.

Abracadabra!

You might get someone who is serious about responding, but the answer itself cannot be taken seriously. Good luck, I'll pull up my popcorn bucket.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


NickB
High Level DonorSpecial Agent
NickB's picture
Posts: 188
Joined: 2008-02-10
User is offlineOffline
Thats why I asked for

Thats why I asked for 'irrefutable' if it can be refuted it is not irrefutable therefore it is invalid.

If Jesus was born today he would be institutionalized as a schizophrenic with delusions of grandeur.


pariahjane
pariahjane's picture
Posts: 1595
Joined: 2006-05-06
User is offlineOffline
Huh.  How odd.  I would

Huh.  How odd.  I would have thought that theists would have been fighting over each other to prove to you that the world is only 6000 years old.  What a shock.  LOL.

If god takes life he's an indian giver


NickB
High Level DonorSpecial Agent
NickB's picture
Posts: 188
Joined: 2008-02-10
User is offlineOffline
I just want one piece of

I just want one piece of evidence........... anybody?


Cali_Athiest2
Cali_Athiest2's picture
Posts: 440
Joined: 2008-02-07
User is offlineOffline
Recently I read an article

Recently I read an article that park rangers were complaining that there is an internal pressure within the National Park system. This was aimed mostly at the Grand Canyon, but may be present in other parks. We all know the history of the canyon, but according to the source I read, park rangers are under pressure to disregard the scientific age of the canyon in preference to a young earth philosophy. I have even heard that there are books in the book shops alleging the canyon was formed during noah's flood.

I was there last summer with my fundy preacher father in law and his family. However, I forgot all about this so I didn't get to ask a ranger if this is true, or even check the bookstores. Me, being the instigator I am, would love to harass a park ranger about this LOL. I am only 8 hours away so I plan on going back this summer just to see first hand if this is true. It came from an official site as a complaint from park rangers, so I seem to think it must have some kernel of truth.

Personally, I never knew many people thought this, until just a few years ago. I read that somewhere near 40% of people believe the Earth is young, must be the 40% that were in the lower end of the bell curve in science.

"Always seek out the truth, but avoid at all costs those that claim to have found it" ANONYMOUS


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
pariahjane wrote:Huh.  How

pariahjane wrote:
Huh.  How odd.  I would have thought that theists would have been fighting over each other to prove to you that the world is only 6000 years old.  What a shock.  LOL.

Your post woul be more accurate if you changed "theists" to "fundamentalists".  Not all theists are young-earthers or even creationists.

"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
totus_tuus wrote:pariahjane

totus_tuus wrote:

pariahjane wrote:
Huh.  How odd.  I would have thought that theists would have been fighting over each other to prove to you that the world is only 6000 years old.  What a shock.  LOL.

Your post woul be more accurate if you changed "theists" to "fundamentalists".  Not all theists are young-earthers or even creationists.

If they don't believe in God the same way you do, they don't believe in God at all?

(Trying to be a smart aleck - in a playful mood today. Had a good acting class)

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:If they don't

jcgadfly wrote:
If they don't believe in God the same way you do, they don't believe in God at all?

(Trying to be a smart aleck - in a playful mood today. Had a good acting class)

Troublemaker!  Glad you're having a good day.

I find fundamentalist creationist kinda folks fascinating.  I have a fundamentalist Presbyterian frined who i a very well known surgeon locally, absolutely brilliant guy (and his taste in cigars is impeccable), but he's a young earth creationist.  I just don't get t.

"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II


thingy
SuperfanGold Member
thingy's picture
Posts: 1022
Joined: 2007-02-07
User is offlineOffline
Cali_Athiest2 wrote:Recently

Cali_Athiest2 wrote:

Recently I read an article that park rangers were complaining that there is an internal pressure within the National Park system. This was aimed mostly at the Grand Canyon, but may be present in other parks. We all know the history of the canyon, but according to the source I read, park rangers are under pressure to disregard the scientific age of the canyon in preference to a young earth philosophy. I have even heard that there are books in the book shops alleging the canyon was formed during noah's flood.

I was there last summer with my fundy preacher father in law and his family. However, I forgot all about this so I didn't get to ask a ranger if this is true, or even check the bookstores. Me, being the instigator I am, would love to harass a park ranger about this LOL. I am only 8 hours away so I plan on going back this summer just to see first hand if this is true. It came from an official site as a complaint from park rangers, so I seem to think it must have some kernel of truth.

Personally, I never knew many people thought this, until just a few years ago. I read that somewhere near 40% of people believe the Earth is young, must be the 40% that were in the lower end of the bell curve in science.

Further investigation of this article proved it to be false and just an over-reaction and a conclusion jump due to something said by a whole one park ranger.  They are not given any dictates as to what they are told to say, they are simply given the facts and their speaches/guides are up to each of them  individually.

There is truth however behind the story of a book in the park bookstores talking about a young earth as though it is fact.  This was promised to be investigated by the government a number of years ago, but no action was actually taken beyond that point.

Organised religion is the ultimate form of blasphemy.
Censored and blacked out for internet access in ANZ!
AU: http://nocleanfeed.com/ | NZ: http://nzblackout.org/


Cali_Athiest2
Cali_Athiest2's picture
Posts: 440
Joined: 2008-02-07
User is offlineOffline
Thanks for rectifying my

Thanks for rectifying my ignorance. Like I said, I had not investigated the allegation myself. I did visit a couple websites on urban legends and such, but found no reference to this particuliar item. Like most things in life this seems to have some grain of truth, but gets blown out of proportion.

We didn't have time for the guided tour unfortunately, but that is top of my list this summer. If we had, this wouldn't even have come up I guess. We spent only about 6 hours in the canyon and 2 and a half days in Sedona instead. I forgot how much it can rain there during the summer.

"Always seek out the truth, but avoid at all costs those that claim to have found it" ANONYMOUS


thingy
SuperfanGold Member
thingy's picture
Posts: 1022
Joined: 2007-02-07
User is offlineOffline
Cali_Athiest2 wrote:Thanks

Cali_Athiest2 wrote:
Thanks for rectifying my ignorance. Like I said, I had not investigated the allegation myself. I did visit a couple websites on urban legends and such, but found no reference to this particuliar item. Like most things in life this seems to have some grain of truth, but gets blown out of proportion.

Like a lot of stories, the initial one with all its sensation, errors and bad journalism got posted left right and center on websites but the followups (which originated from other sites) got no attention or spread what so ever.  I'm not surprised you didn't find this information.  Heck, I'm having trouble finding it again to back up my statements and show that I'm not just speaking out my arse and I know what I'm looking for.

Organised religion is the ultimate form of blasphemy.
Censored and blacked out for internet access in ANZ!
AU: http://nocleanfeed.com/ | NZ: http://nzblackout.org/


Believer_6 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
proof

i'm definately on the fence about where i stand with the existence of god, but there definately is some evidence out there for a young earth. First, there was a site where  human footprints were found next to dinosaur ones. Second, at a prime dinosaur digging site where there were many levels of volcanic rock that were said to be varying in age they found a fossilized petrefied tree sticking up right through all of the levels. This meant all of the levels had to be made at the same time in what was later explained as a flood. *hint hint* Also, the biggest thing of all is that there has never been one circumstance where the evolution process was shown through fossils over time. We may assume there are, but those are just theories that have somehow turned to fact in the eyes of many people today.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
It wasn't a human footprint,

It wasn't a human footprint, it was a type of dinosaur. Please provide a link to the one about the tree. Also, learn what a "theory" is in science.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


jmm
Theist
jmm's picture
Posts: 837
Joined: 2007-03-03
User is offlineOffline
I believe that the earth is

I believe that the earth is actually quite a bit younger than even 6000.  232 to be exact. 


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
I believe the universe was

I believe the universe was created last Thursday. All history and all our memories were planted by The Unga Bunga monster to test our faith.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


jmm
Theist
jmm's picture
Posts: 837
Joined: 2007-03-03
User is offlineOffline
But I know I went out for

But I know I went out for coffee last Wednesday...

It all seems so real. 


Presuppositionalist
Theist
Presuppositionalist's picture
Posts: 344
Joined: 2007-05-21
User is offlineOffline
Three very very

Three very very brief arguments for YEC:

1. The oldest living tree of which we know is ring dated to about 6000 years old. This confirms a prediction of YEC.

2. Carbon dating has been refuted. People with old information typically aren't aware of this, but it has been discovered just in the last century that it fails in so many contexts that to use it as proof of anything is silly. Since carbon dating used to be the strongest proof of the Old Earth Conjecture, its refutation is good for the opponents of the OEC: namely, those who believe in YEC.

3. YEC is a prerequisite of the scientific endeavor. The Bible is -interpreted literally, in part and whole- the only coherent ground for reasoning. Since science requires reasoning, science presupposes the literal truth of the Bible. Since the Bible, interpreted literally, tells us that the Earth is about 6000 years old, science presupposes that the earth is about 6000 years old.

I await your intelligent criticisms.

Q: Why didn't you address (post x) that I made in response to you nine minutes ago???

A: Because I have (a) a job, (b) familial obligations, (c) social obligations, and (d) probably a lot of other atheists responded to the same post you did, since I am practically the token Christian on this site now. Be patient, please.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
BULLSHIT!!! They don't use

BULLSHIT!!! They don't use carbon dating for very old things - they use other forms. # 3 is literally the most stupid thing I ever heard in my life.

#1 is also retarded - why would something need to be living from the beginning of time. Time for the asshat avatar I think...

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Presuppositionalist

Presuppositionalist wrote:

Three very very brief arguments for YEC:

1. The oldest living tree of which we know is ring dated to about 6000 years old. This confirms a prediction of YEC.

Except, of course, that the oldest ring-dating for a tree is about 4,600 years. This begins by demonstrating that your assertion is, as usual, off a bit. Add to that that estimated ages for Huon Pine in Tasmania may exceed 10,000 years at the very base of what may, in fact, be an extremely well-buried trunk system, and there's evidence of a Norway Spruce (ironically, in Sweden), that may be as old as 9,550 years.

Quote:

2. Carbon dating has been refuted. People with old information typically aren't aware of this, but it has been discovered just in the last century that it fails in so many contexts that to use it as proof of anything is silly. Since carbon dating used to be the strongest proof of the Old Earth Conjecture, its refutation is good for the opponents of the OEC: namely, those who believe in YEC.

And yet despite all the claims, rational scientists who actually do take the time to look at these things and evaluate them have decided radiocarbon dating isn't, in fact, disproven at all. Funny, that. Edit to add: Also, as Matt's noted, radiocarbon dating isn't used on things out past about 20-40,000 years old to begin with.

Quote:

3. YEC is a prerequisite of the scientific endeavor. The Bible is -interpreted literally, in part and whole- the only coherent ground for reasoning. Since science requires reasoning, science presupposes the literal truth of the Bible. Since the Bible, interpreted literally, tells us that the Earth is about 6000 years old, science presupposes that the earth is about 6000 years old.

The Bible cannot be interpreted literally "in part and whole". Either you interpret it literally as a whole, or you don't. I also question under what grounds you claim that the Bible is the only coherent ground for reasoning. As it stands, you're making a naked assertion with no evidence to support it, no different than if I were to say:

"Ashley Judd is squirming around on my bed right now, looking like she enjoys the silk scarves."

Quote:

I await your intelligent criticisms.

And I await any supportive evidence for your assertions.

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


Rev0lver
Posts: 171
Joined: 2007-02-24
User is offlineOffline
Presuppositionalist

Presuppositionalist wrote:

Three very very brief arguments for YEC:

1. The oldest living tree of which we know is ring dated to about 6000 years old. This confirms a prediction of YEC.

2. Carbon dating has been refuted. People with old information typically aren't aware of this, but it has been discovered just in the last century that it fails in so many contexts that to use it as proof of anything is silly. Since carbon dating used to be the strongest proof of the Old Earth Conjecture, its refutation is good for the opponents of the OEC: namely, those who believe in YEC.

3. YEC is a prerequisite of the scientific endeavor. The Bible is -interpreted literally, in part and whole- the only coherent ground for reasoning. Since science requires reasoning, science presupposes the literal truth of the Bible. Since the Bible, interpreted literally, tells us that the Earth is about 6000 years old, science presupposes that the earth is about 6000 years old.

I await your intelligent criticisms.

#1- there are only 4 surviving trees found to be at least 4000 years old. that tells us either A- god only planted 4 trees on this massive planet or B- trees aren't immortal. i'm going to go with the second. by the way, the oldest of those 4 is dated to about 5,000 years old, not 6,000

#2- the gentleman above me already went over the other part of this, but just to point out there have been something like... 2 controversial carbon dating findings. nobody has been able to present evidence otherwise to the other 99%.

#3- science does not presuppose the literal truth of every single religious text found. this idea is just idiotic. if so, the koran is true, Anubis was a real guy, and the world will blow up on december 21, 2012.


jmm
Theist
jmm's picture
Posts: 837
Joined: 2007-03-03
User is offlineOffline
Presuppositionalist

Presuppositionalist wrote:

Three very very brief arguments for YEC:

1. The oldest living tree of which we know is ring dated to about 6000 years old. This confirms a prediction of YEC.

2. Carbon dating has been refuted. People with old information typically aren't aware of this, but it has been discovered just in the last century that it fails in so many contexts that to use it as proof of anything is silly. Since carbon dating used to be the strongest proof of the Old Earth Conjecture, its refutation is good for the opponents of the OEC: namely, those who believe in YEC.

3. YEC is a prerequisite of the scientific endeavor. The Bible is -interpreted literally, in part and whole- the only coherent ground for reasoning. Since science requires reasoning, science presupposes the literal truth of the Bible. Since the Bible, interpreted literally, tells us that the Earth is about 6000 years old, science presupposes that the earth is about 6000 years old.

I await your intelligent criticisms.

wat


Visual_Paradox
atheistRational VIP!Special Agent
Visual_Paradox's picture
Posts: 481
Joined: 2007-04-07
User is offlineOffline
Presuppositionalist wrote:1.

Presuppositionalist wrote:
1. The oldest living tree of which we know is ring dated to about 6000 years old. This confirms a prediction of YEC.


Using Young Earth Creationism as a starting premise, one cannot infer the existence of a 6,000 year old tree for the reason that one cannot rule out the possibility that the oldest trees had died. The prediction of which you speak was pulled from thin air. Regardless, the age of the oldest extant tree or forest does not establish the age of the Earth, merely a lower limit on its age.

The lone Norway spruce in Dalarna Province, mentioned earlier, has a root system that has grown for 9,550 years, as determined by radiocarbon dating (source). Beyond radiocarbon dating, Hohenheim Laboratory established a dendrochronology, using tree-ring crossdating, of 9,928 years for oaks in Central Europe (source). Anyone who thinks such a use of tree-ring crossdating could exhibit an error of 3,928 years needs to see a mental health professional.

Presuppositionalist wrote:
2. Carbon dating has been refuted. People with old information typically aren't aware of this, but it has been discovered just in the last century that it fails in so many contexts that to use it as proof of anything is silly. Since carbon dating used to be the strongest proof of the Old Earth Conjecture, its refutation is good for the opponents of the OEC: namely, those who believe in YEC.


No one has refuted radiocarbon dating. I must say, though, that I love the vagueness of your statement and how you avoided the specifics, which would undoubtedly ruin your argument. I have seen poor attempts by creationists at employing the method who get odd dates and proceed to blame the method itself instead of their inability to use it properly. In short, I have seen many craftsmen try to hammer in screws and blame the hammer. Creationists love to talk about context (out of context!) except when employing radiocarbon dating techniques, which they regard as context-independent. They talk of freshly killed seals radiocarbon-dated to 1,300 years old but do not consider the context of old carbon in the oceans upwelling off the Antarctic coast and entering the food chain that results in their incorrect dates. They talk of newly-dead mollusks radiocarbon-dating to thousands of years old, ignoring the context of mollusks developing their shells with dissolved limestone that contains no radiocarbon, resulting in incorrect dates for them. Creationists typically regard these as falsification events when they merely demonstrate the creationists' inability to think—something which needed no further corroboration.

Presuppositionalist wrote:
3. YEC is a prerequisite of the scientific endeavor. The Bible is -interpreted literally, in part and whole- the only coherent ground for reasoning. Since science requires reasoning, science presupposes the literal truth of the Bible. Since the Bible, interpreted literally, tells us that the Earth is about 6000 years old, science presupposes that the earth is about 6000 years old.


If a coherent ground for reasoning can only result from interpreting the Bible literally, how does one interpret the Bible literally if one does not have a coherent ground for reasoning in the first place? Your argument makes no sense at all. Garbage in, gospel out? Further, I cannot recall a single Christian who interprets the Bible literally. In Job it says the firmament is hard like a cast metal mirror. Genesis says Elohim placed the stars, sun, and moon inside the firmament, the atmosphere. This leads to the inference of small stars a few miles above your head, hence the reason God panicked when men gathered to build the Tower of Babel. Ezekiel and Revelations support this, speaking of layers of the firmament rotating, thus rotating the constellations, and the stars could fall to the Earth. The Leningrad Codex, the oldest complete manuscript of the Old Testament available to us, speaks of Elohim circumscribing on a large body of water the place for the firmament, which he proceeded to beat into shape (the word firmament derives from an expression meaning "beaten out", like a cast metal mirror), thus bottling some of the primordial water, the wasteland submerged within it, and the wind that rushed across the surface of the waters so as to bring together the land, seas, and atmosphere, which the text of Genesis never describes as coming into existence by the efforts of Elohim. As I said, I cannot recall a single Christian who interprets the Bible literally and believes the rubbish. Perhaps one flat-earther could claim that title, but one would stretch to the point of insanity to describe that individual as the only person on Earth with a coherent ground for reasoning.

Stultior stulto fuisti, qui tabellis crederes!


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:1. The oldest

Quote:

1. The oldest living tree of which we know is ring dated to about 6000 years old. This confirms a prediction of YEC.

Please do not cite the age of the oldest living trees, as this is not evidence that the world was created in six literal days 6,000 years ago.

Quote:
2. Carbon dating has been refuted. People with old information typically aren't aware of this, but it has been discovered just in the last century that it fails in so many contexts that to use it as proof of anything is silly. Since carbon dating used to be the strongest proof of the Old Earth Conjecture, its refutation is good for the opponents of the OEC: namely, those who believe in YEC.

Please do not criticize the accuracy of carbon dating, as this is not evidence that the world was created in six literal days 6,000 years ago.

Quote:
3. YEC is a prerequisite of the scientific endeavor. The Bible is -interpreted literally, in part and whole- the only coherent ground for reasoning. Since science requires reasoning, science presupposes the literal truth of the Bible. Since the Bible, interpreted literally, tells us that the Earth is about 6000 years old, science presupposes that the earth is about 6000 years old.

Please do not bring-up how the Bible is the source for all reason and morality, as this is not evidence that the world was created in six literal days 6,000 years ago.

 

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
Presuppositionalist

Presuppositionalist wrote:

Three very very brief arguments for YEC:

1. The oldest living tree of which we know is ring dated to about 6000 years old. This confirms a prediction of YEC.

So to "refute" that "prediction," a tree would have to be hundreds of thousands to billions of years old. The oldest newspaper in my house is from 2007, thus confirming my prediction that Baal created newspapers, and the false memory of newspaper history, last year. Are there any "predictions" about what would happen to a tree submerged in salt water for months on end? Or, where the water would come from given that all the water on earth could, if spread in a layer a single molecule deep, not even cover its entire surface?

Presuppositionalist wrote:

2. Carbon dating has been refuted. People with old information

LOL. Bwah-waaah.

Presuppositionalist wrote:

typically aren't aware of this, but it has been discovered just in the last century that it fails in so many contexts that to use it as proof of anything is silly. Since carbon dating used to be the strongest proof of the Old Earth Conjecture, its refutation is good for the opponents of the OEC: namely, those who believe in YEC.

This is a false dichotomy at best. The success or failure of carbon dating doesn't lend weight to biblical literalism either way; the latter would, in fact, need even more to find a way to test its premises. Whatever those are, given the wildly idiotic interpretations of the translations I've seen.

Presuppositionalist wrote:

3. YEC is a prerequisite of the scientific endeavor. The Bible is -interpreted literally, in part and whole- the only coherent ground for reasoning. Since science requires reasoning, science presupposes the literal truth of the Bible. Since the Bible, interpreted literally, tells us that the Earth is about 6000 years old, science presupposes that the earth is about 6000 years old.

I await your intelligent criticisms.

The problem of induction remains. Shoehorning in some cockamamie mythology to "account" for logic does nothing.


Abu Lahab
Superfan
Abu Lahab's picture
Posts: 628
Joined: 2008-02-29
User is offlineOffline
Presuppositionalist, FFS!

Hey , Presuppositionalist, that was almost as amusing and one-sided as the old christians Vs. lions debacles.

 

Chalk up another round to the fat tabbies of R.R.S., shame Hamby missed out.

How can not believing in something that is backed up with no empirical evidence be less scientific than believing in something that not only has no empirical evidence but actually goes against the laws of the universe and in many cases actually contradicts itself? - Ricky Gervais


KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
Abu Lahab wrote:Hey ,

Abu Lahab wrote:

Hey , Presuppositionalist, that was almost as amusing and one-sided as the old christians Vs. lions debacles.

Oh my science. I first read that as "the old christians vs lions debates". Rofl.


Abu Lahab
Superfan
Abu Lahab's picture
Posts: 628
Joined: 2008-02-29
User is offlineOffline
Now there's a debate I could

Now there's a debate I could watch over and over.

 


Balrogoz
Posts: 173
Joined: 2008-05-02
User is offlineOffline
 Interesting old stuffMore

 Interesting old stuff

More old stuff

Old living things and intact DNA in ice

 

 

On a more personal level, I wish people who haven't researched the topic wouldn't make claims third-hand about things they know nothing about.  Ignorance masquerading as Science turns my stomach.

If I have gained anything by damning myself, it is that I no longer have anything to fear. - JP Sartre


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
I still like that idea of

I still like that idea of making cat toys that look like early Christians.


A_Deep_Thinker (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
does brian sapient post

does brian sapient post here? if he does, i want to ask him some questions.

1. You dont believe god exists, so why do you dedicate your life to proving he doesnt exist? (thats like if i saw some kids who believed santa claus and i dedicated my life to proving santa isnt real.)

2. What is the transitional animal between monkey and single cell organism?

3. why did you and kelly use any thought you could pull out of your heads at the nightline debate? eg."You could turn on the light switch and maybe it would go on and maybe it wont because its magic"

Also, i think you should add a chatango chatroom on this site.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
I can answer the first

I can answer the first 2:

 

1. Because children who believe in Santa Clause don't try to force their beliefs on the rest of us. They don't go door to door trying to tell us he exists or try to force legislation based on Santa belief or put Santa belief into science classes in public school (as in forcing biology and physics classes to teach an alternative that maybe reindeer can fly and it is possible for them to carry a heavy man and millions of tons of presents to every house in the world in one night.)

2. There is no single animal between monkeys and single celled organisms. There are many. There are also thousands (at least!) of different single cell organisms.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Visual_Paradox
atheistRational VIP!Special Agent
Visual_Paradox's picture
Posts: 481
Joined: 2007-04-07
User is offlineOffline
A_Deep_Thinker wrote:1. You

A_Deep_Thinker wrote:
1. You dont believe god exists, so why do you dedicate your life to proving he doesnt exist? (thats like if i saw some kids who believed santa claus and i dedicated my life to proving santa isnt real.)


You equivocate the notions of "not believing it is so" and "believing it is not so"—two quite distinct positions. The first position could be classified as strong atheism or agnostic atheism, while the latter can only classify as strong atheism. In short, ~B(X) ≢ B(~X). Your fallacy of equivocation puts you dangerously close to committing a strawperson fallacy, caricaturing Brian's position for rhetorical purposes. I cannot tell if you do caricature his position or not because you did not say in your post what you meant by "god" with a lowercase G. Brian could be in the position of "not believing it is so" in the sense of agnostic atheism for the god concept in general while "believing it is not so" with regard to specific conceptions of a deity.

Disregarding that, your question puts forward an argument from analogy, and thus implicitly argues for the conclusion that arguing against god belief is silly, but your argument is invalid because the two situations are disanalogous enough to warrant different conclusions. When was the last time you seen a Santa cult, for example, argue for the beheading of teachers for giving teddy bears a certain name? Trying to expel nonbelievers out of the country? Oppress others in the name of Santa? Beyond the argument from false analogy, your statements exhibit either a slovenliness of thought or a downright lie in its presentation of theism as if it were fairly benign, like belief in jolly ol' St. Nick.

A_Deep_Thinker wrote:
2. What is the transitional animal between monkey and single cell organism?


This question makes no sense. You speak of genetic divergence occurring over billions of years and hundreds of thousands of populations and ask for a single transitional form between the beginning product and the end product as if there were only one transitional form—"the" transitional form. These websites, here and here, provide a good place to start and to gather ideas for pursuing further research if you have a genuine interest in the subject. Considering the confrontational tone of your blatantly disingenuous rhetorical questions, I can only conclude that you have no interest in genuine inquiry and merely seek to make a point. I suspect that you intend to pull the "you live by faith too" card. I'm bored, so I'll go ahead and rebut that: your argument employs an equivocation fallacy by trying to conflate faith and inference, two quite distinct concepts.

A_Deep_Thinker wrote:
3. why did you and kelly use any thought you could pull out of your heads at the nightline debate? eg."You could turn on the light switch and maybe it would go on and maybe it wont because its magic"


This is a loaded question (too). If you actually want to know something, pose genuine questions that don't reek of rhetorical bullshit.

Stultior stulto fuisti, qui tabellis crederes!


Anonymous2012 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
READ and understand.

Actually read the scriptures and understand what you read. The scriptures do not say the world is 6ooo years old. The chosen people of God starting with Adam is 6000 years. I have not the time to explain every detail to you. I gave you a starting point, go read!


mind over matter (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
do you believe in time machines? or just billions of years

1. Comets disintegrate too quickly.  2. Not enough mud on the sea floor.  3. Not enough sodium in the sea.  4. Earth's magnetic field is decaying too fast.  5. Many strata are too tightly bent.  6. Injected sandstone shortens geologic 'ages'.  7. Fossil radioactivity shortens geologic 'ages' to a few years.  8. Helium in the wrong places. 9. Not enough Stone Age skeletons.   10. Agriculture is too recent.  11. History is too short.  

References

  1. Steidl, P.F., 'Planets, comets, and asteroids', Design and Origins in Astronomy, G. Mulfinger, ed., Creation Research Society Books (1983), 5093 Williamsport Drive, Norcross, GA 30092, pp. 73-106.
  2. Whipple, F.L., 'Background of modern comet theory', Nature 263 (2 September 1976), p. 15.
  3. Gordeyev, V.V. et al, 'The average chemical composition of suspensions in the world's rivers and the supply of sediments to the ocean by streams', Dockl. Akad, Nauk. SSSR 238 (1980), p. 150.
  4. Hay, W.W., et al, 'Mass/age distribution and composition of sediments on the ocean floor and the global rate of subduction', Journal of Geophysical Research, 93, No. B12 (10 December 1988), pp. 14,933-14,940.
  5. Maybeck, M., 'Concentrations des eaux fluviales en elements majeurs et apports en solution aux oceans', Rev. de Geol. Dyn. Geogr. Phys. 21 (1979), p. 215.
  6. Sayles, F.L. and Mangelsdorf, P.C., 'Cation-exchange characteristics of Amazon River suspended sediment and its reaction with seawater', Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 41 (1979), p. 767.
  7. Austin, S.A. and Humphreys, D.R., 'The sea's missing salt: a dilemma for evolutionists', Proc. 2nd Internat. Conf. on Creationism, Vol. II, Creation Science Fellowship (1990) pp. 17-31. Address in ref. 12.
  8. Austin, S.A., 'Evolution: the oceans say no!', ICR Impact, No. 8 (October 1973). Institute for Creation Research, address in ref. 2.
  9. Merrill, R.T. and McElhinney, M.W., The Earth's Magnetic Field, Academic Press (1983), London, pp. 101-106.
  10. Humphreys, D.R., 'Reversals of the earth's magnetic field during the Genesis flood', Proc. 1st Internat. Conf. on Creationism (Aug. 1986, Pittsburgh), Creation Science Fellowship (1987) 362 Ashland Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15228, Vol. II, pp. 113-126.
  11. Coe, R.S., Prvot, M., and Camps, P., 'New evidence for extraordinary change of the geomagnetic field during a reversal', Nature 374 (20 April 1995), pp. 687-92.
  12. Humphreys, D.R., 'Physical mechanism for reversals of the earth's magnetic field during the flood', Proc. 2nd Internat. Conf. on Creationism, Vol. II, Creation Science Fellowship (1990), pp. 129-142, address in ref. 12.
  13. Austin, S.A. and Morris, J.D., 'Tight folds and clastic dikes as evidence for rapid deposition and deformation of two very thick stratigraphic sequences', Proc. 1st Internat. Conf. on Creationism, Vol. II, Creation Science Fellowship (1986), pp. 3-15, address in ref. 12.
  14. ibid, pp. 11-12.
  15. Gentry, R.V., 'Radioactive halos', Annual Review of Nuclear Science 23 (1973) pp. 347-362.
  16. Gentry, R.V. et. al., 'Radiohalos in coalified wood: new evidence relating to time of uranium introduction and coalification', Science 194 (15 October 1976) pp. 315-318.
  17. Gentry, R.V., 'Radiohalos in a Radiochronological and cosmological perspective', Science 184 (5 April 1974), pp. 62-66.
  18. Gentry, R.V., Creation's Tiny Mystery, Earth Science Associates (1986), P.O. Box 12067, Knoxville, TN 37912-0067, pp. 23-37, 51-59, 61-62.
  19. Vardiman, L., The Age of the Earth's Atmosphere: a study of the helium flux through the atmosphere, Institute for Creation Research (1990), P.O. Box 2667, El Cajon, CA 92021.
  20. Gentry, R.V. et al, 'Differential helium retention in zircons: implications for nuclear waste management', Geophys. Res. Lett. 9, (October 1982), 1129-1130. See also ref. 20, pp. 169-170.
  21. Deevey, E.S., 'The human population', Scientific American 203 (September 1960), pp. 194-204.
  22. Marshak, A., 'Exploring the mind of Ice Age man', National Geographic 147 (January 1975), pp. 64-89.
  23. Dritt, J.O., 'Man's earliest beginnings: discrepancies in the evolutionary timetable', Proc. 2nd Internat. Conf. on Creationism, Vol. I., Creation Science Fellowship (1990), pp. 73-78, address in ref. 12.

 


mind over matter
Theist
mind over matter's picture
Posts: 210
Joined: 2010-04-09
User is offlineOffline
proof based in science not atheist faith based speculation

SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE
AGAINST EVOLUTION  is my first point

quick recap of atheist foundation 
The word 'evolution' is used in the following contexts:

          Conclusion
Darwin said, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
  After well over a hundred years of intense scientific research and investigation, we must conclude that no-one has shown how the human eye could have come into existence by numerous, successive slight modifications. By using Darwin's own criteria and viewing the other aspects of science that relate to evolution we can conclude that Darwin's humanist/athiest theory has broken down.  "For since the creation of the world YAHUWAH's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that HUMANS (especially humanist/atheist/pagans) are without excuse"

 

phenomena which conflict with the evolutionary idea that the universe is billions of years old  "my second point"

1. Comets disintegrate too quickly.    2. Not enough mud on the sea floor.    3. Not enough sodium in the sea.    4. Earth's magnetic field is decaying too fast.   

5. Many strata are too tightly bent.    6. Injected sandstone shortens geologic 'ages'.    7. Fossil radioactivity shortens geologic 'ages' to a few years.

8. Helium in the wrong places.    9. Not enough Stone Age skeletons.    10. Agriculture is too recent.    11. History is too short.

References

  1. Steidl, P.F., 'Planets, comets, and asteroids', Design and Origins in Astronomy, G. Mulfinger, ed., Creation Research Society Books (1983), 5093 Williamsport Drive, Norcross, GA 30092, pp. 73-106.
  2. Whipple, F.L., 'Background of modern comet theory', Nature 263 (2 September 1976), p. 15.
  3. Gordeyev, V.V. et al, 'The average chemical composition of suspensions in the world's rivers and the supply of sediments to the ocean by streams', Dockl. Akad, Nauk. SSSR 238 (1980), p. 150.
  4. Hay, W.W., et al, 'Mass/age distribution and composition of sediments on the ocean floor and the global rate of subduction', Journal of Geophysical Research, 93, No. B12 (10 December 1988), pp. 14,933-14,940.
  5. Maybeck, M., 'Concentrations des eaux fluviales en elements majeurs et apports en solution aux oceans', Rev. de Geol. Dyn. Geogr. Phys. 21 (1979), p. 215.
  6. Sayles, F.L. and Mangelsdorf, P.C., 'Cation-exchange characteristics of Amazon River suspended sediment and its reaction with seawater', Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 41 (1979), p. 767.
  7. Austin, S.A. and Humphreys, D.R., 'The sea's missing salt: a dilemma for evolutionists', Proc. 2nd Internat. Conf. on Creationism, Vol. II, Creation Science Fellowship (1990) pp. 17-31. Address in ref. 12.
  8. Austin, S.A., 'Evolution: the oceans say no!', ICR Impact, No. 8 (October 1973). Institute for Creation Research, address in ref. 2.
  9. Merrill, R.T. and McElhinney, M.W., The Earth's Magnetic Field, Academic Press (1983), London, pp. 101-106.
  10. Humphreys, D.R., 'Reversals of the earth's magnetic field during the Genesis flood', Proc. 1st Internat. Conf. on Creationism (Aug. 1986, Pittsburgh), Creation Science Fellowship (1987) 362 Ashland Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15228, Vol. II, pp. 113-126.
  11. Coe, R.S., Prvot, M., and Camps, P., 'New evidence for extraordinary change of the geomagnetic field during a reversal', Nature 374 (20 April 1995), pp. 687-92.
  12. Humphreys, D.R., 'Physical mechanism for reversals of the earth's magnetic field during the flood', Proc. 2nd Internat. Conf. on Creationism, Vol. II, Creation Science Fellowship (1990), pp. 129-142, address in ref. 12.
  13. Austin, S.A. and Morris, J.D., 'Tight folds and clastic dikes as evidence for rapid deposition and deformation of two very thick stratigraphic sequences', Proc. 1st Internat. Conf. on Creationism, Vol. II, Creation Science Fellowship (1986), pp. 3-15, address in ref. 12.
  14. ibid, pp. 11-12.
  15. Gentry, R.V., 'Radioactive halos', Annual Review of Nuclear Science 23 (1973) pp. 347-362.
  16. Gentry, R.V. et. al., 'Radiohalos in coalified wood: new evidence relating to time of uranium introduction and coalification', Science 194 (15 October 1976) pp. 315-318.
  17. Gentry, R.V., 'Radiohalos in a Radiochronological and cosmological perspective', Science 184 (5 April 1974), pp. 62-66.
  18. Gentry, R.V., Creation's Tiny Mystery, Earth Science Associates (1986), P.O. Box 12067, Knoxville, TN 37912-0067, pp. 23-37, 51-59, 61-62.
  19. Vardiman, L., The Age of the Earth's Atmosphere: a study of the helium flux through the atmosphere, Institute for Creation Research (1990), P.O. Box 2667, El Cajon, CA 92021.
  20. Gentry, R.V. et al, 'Differential helium retention in zircons: implications for nuclear waste management', Geophys. Res. Lett. 9, (October 1982), 1129-1130. See also ref. 20, pp. 169-170.
  21. Deevey, E.S., 'The human population', Scientific American 203 (September 1960), pp. 194-204.
  22. Marshak, A., 'Exploring the mind of Ice Age man', National Geographic 147 (January 1975), pp. 64-89.
  23. Dritt, J.O., 'Man's earliest beginnings: discrepancies in the evolutionary timetable', Proc. 2nd Internat. Conf. on Creationism, Vol. I., Creation Science Fellowship (1990), pp. 73-78, address in ref. 12.

 

look with love from above
the desire to live is the desire to live forever
you did not evolve never did and never will
True science is always provable, theoretical science never is.


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
I don't have real proof, BUT....

NickB wrote:

Science has proven through many different forms of radiocarbon dating that the world is 4.5 billion years old. In the face of all this evidence creationist persist that our earth is 6000 years old. To this day I have not seen a shred of evidence to support the assertion that the earth is 6000 years old. I do not want to sit here and argue some irrational theist about the Earths age all I want is proof that the Earth is 6000 years old. So to anybody that can prove to me that the Earth is 6000 years old I will give $6,000. When I say proof I mean irrefutable evidence that is based on logic not faith so in other words no bible quotes.

P.S. I am completely serious about this.

The world is actually 4.6 byOLD!

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


B166ER
atheist
B166ER's picture
Posts: 557
Joined: 2010-03-01
User is offlineOffline
Whoa so much craziness,

so little time.

I don't have the time or the energy to refute all the crazy claims made on this thread, so I will focus on the last poster.

mind over matter wrote:
SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE AGAINST EVOLUTION

There is none yet, SORRY!

mind over matter wrote:
Stellar / Planetary Evolution - An explosion (the 'Big Bang') supplied non-living material and over billions of years, supposedly this material became organized into planets and stars

Not evolution, that's cosmology.

mind over matter wrote:
Cellular Evolution - At some point, non-living matter supposedly become living, forming cells that could reproduce

Again, not evolution, that's abiogenesis.

mind over matter wrote:
Evolution of living things - Supposedly, over time, living things appeared which included fish, reptiles, birds and mammals. Human beings are said to be the last to appear in this process. According to evolutionary theory, this change in living things was achieved using time, chance, natural selection ('survival of the fittest') and mutation (random changes in genetic code)

It's never been said that humans were the last to evolve, that would be ridiculous. WE ARE ALL EVOLVING!

mind over matter wrote:
This faith based evolutionary process is claimed to have taken place without any outside intelligence, plan or guiding force.

It's not a faith based anything, it's supported by all the scientific evidence, and all the evidence available points to evolution happening whether you like it or not.

mind over matter wrote:
To produce a living thing you must start with a living thing. Evolution requires non-living matter to turn into a living organism and this has never been observed. although it is preached as scientific fact without question by atheists.

This is abiogenesis, not evolution, and yes, scientists have created the basis for life (RNA) in a lab with only non living matter. It doesn't have to be probable, but it is possible. And it doesn't require a magical sky buddy.


Where have you been? Every fossil ever found is a "transitional" fossil. But if you don't like that statement (since you seem to have an aversion to reality) I will point you to a few links.

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils


Time and time again it has been explained, yet creanderthals like yourself just don't listen, since you bring it out like your magic trump card each and every time. You treat that argument like the Ace of Spades when in fact it only makes you look like the joker!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye

Yes they do, all the time. In fact, that's the ONLY WAY complex systems come about, through the expansion of previously existing systems.

I'm not even going to quote your butchering of the second law of thermodynamics. Needless to say, you obviously have never read it or it's implications outside of creanderthal literature. You destroyed you own argument there.


Wow, so much burning stupid in one place... where to begin...

You seem to think mutations are always bad or detrimental but that's not the case. All mutations are neutral until they help or hinder an individual in it's given environment. You need to find your definitions of scientific concepts from other people then anti-science people. And no, your YEC kooks ARE NOT SCIENTISTS!


Okay, life is improbable, so what? That still offers NO evidence for your invisible sky daddy. Please offer some positive evidence for your imaginary friend before you start trying to "disprove" evolution, because you will fail. There is too much scientific evidence for evolution, and none for your claims. You may not think so, but that's because you have no clue what science is, as evident by your post.

mind over matter wrote:
Darwin said, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."  After well over a hundred years of intense scientific research and investigation, we must conclude that no-one has shown how the human eye could have come into existence by numerous, successive slight modifications.

I posted a link to some of the evidence for how they eye evolved, and it can be explained by purely naturalist causes, no supernatural sky daddy needed.

mind over matter wrote:
By using Darwin's own criteria and viewing the other aspects of science that relate to evolution we can conclude that Darwin's humanist/athiest theory has broken down.

In no way has Darwin's theory broken down. Actually everything we have found out about genetics and DNA has just reinforced Darwin's theory more then any other evidence.

mind over matter wrote:
"For since the creation of the world YAHUWAH's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that HUMANS (especially humanist/atheist/pagans) are without excuse"

Wow, you are delusional... In no way is some cosmic deity clearly seen, or we wouldn't be having this conversation. What IS clearly seen though, is that your faith has absolutely no evidence behind it, so you continually clutch at straws, misinterperate scientific ideas, and generally discount a wealth of evidence since you don't like the findings.

mind over matter wrote:
phenomena which conflict with the evolutionary idea that the universe is billions of years old  "my second point" 1. Comets disintegrate too quickly.    2. Not enough mud on the sea floor.    3. Not enough sodium in the sea.    4. Earth's magnetic field is decaying too fast.   5. Many strata are too tightly bent.    6. Injected sandstone shortens geologic 'ages'.    7. Fossil radioactivity shortens geologic 'ages' to a few years. 8. Helium in the wrong places.    9. Not enough Stone Age skeletons.    10. Agriculture is too recent.    11. History is too short.

What a Gish Gallop... sigh...

Where to begin... First off, you are watching too much "Dr." (forever in quotes) Kent Hovind videos. All those points either were made up by creanderthals and have no basis in reality, or have been answered by real scientists using real evidence and have been ignored by creanderthals.

HAHAHAHAHA I love your "references". Some of them are trustworthy groups but most of them are total tin foil hat kookery! Creation Research Society Books? Creation Science Fellowship? Institute for Creation Research? HAHAHAHAHAHA! You just proved that you have no clue what REAL science is, since you read what those groups said and think they have even one piece of evidence to support their claims. Those groups only "evidence" is explained in this picture:Funny Pictures

Even your signature is strait kookery, mind.

"the desire to live is the desire to live forever" Nope, I enjoy living, but I have no positive thoughts towards immortality. I think that it would stop a lot of the amazing human advancements we have made because we are mortal beings.

"you did not evolve to die" Dude, get your definitions right, none of us evolved, we are the products of evolution. And yes, we have "evolved" to die. Get used to it because it isn't going to change. Death happens and it gets us all and as long as life has been around it ALWAYS HAS. I will die, you will die, and everyone who reads this will die. Grow up. All I see is a scared person trying hard not get older, since you see in it your mortality. All you are is a frightened sheep, bleating out the same sad line that everyone else afraid to die keeps repeating. I find it very depressing.

"This may shock you, but not everything in the bible is true." The only true statement ever to be uttered by Jean Chauvinism, sociopathic emotional terrorist.
"A Boss in Heaven is the best excuse for a boss on earth, therefore If God did exist, he would have to be abolished." Mikhail Bakunin
"The means in which you take,
dictate the ends in which you find yourself."
"Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government! Supreme leadership derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony!"
No Gods, No Masters!


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
If living organisms did not

If living organisms did not die, there would be no evolution - without death there would be no succession of slowly changing generations.

So:

 - "we die to evolve" is one way to express it.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


mind over matter
Theist
mind over matter's picture
Posts: 210
Joined: 2010-04-09
User is offlineOffline
atheist monkey wannabe preaching in a tree

 

  • SKY DADDY?    lol     does that give you comfort  using the SKY DADDY analogy?
  •  
  • you must prove to yourself first that you can show the origin of life and matter in space over time through the scientific method WITHOUT exposing youself in fact that you ARE of the spirit of satan as a liar and accuser:

    atheist terminology : in maistream media , all of which fall into the big atheist faith based non-scieintific  speculation of  the invented and still pagan in origin term  EVOLUTION:

  • Cosmic, chemical, stellar and planetary, organic, macro and micro.

    Cosmic evolution involves the origin of the universe, time and matter itself. The Big Bang theory falls within this discipline of evolution.

    Chemical evolution involves the origin of complex elements. This discipline also attempts to explain the process in which those elements formed.

    Stellar and planetary evolution is the discipline used to explain the origin of the stars and planets. This is distinct from cosmic evolution, yet, at times, overlaps it.

    Organic evolution attempts to explain the origin of living matter. Those in origin of life studies most often focus on this discipline of evolution.

    The two final disciplines of evolution are also the most often confused by people. They are macro-evolution and micro-evolution. Micro-evolution states that all living organisms experience mutations and have the ability to develop genetic adaptations. The difference between this and macro-evolution is that micro-evolution only deals with mutations within a species. Macro-evolution, on the other hand, states that such adaptations and mutations allow new species to form. Also micro changes can be observed with the scientific method. While all the other terms are imaginary and preached as religious fact without question or basis in science or common sense.
    fact
    Evolution is an ancient pagan concept (MAN MADE RELIGION)where people worship nature / creation instead of a CREATOR or they invent idols based on nature/creation
    the theory of evolution has been with us for a very, very long time. It actually comes from ancient pagan religious beliefs that continue to be reflected in many religious traditions around the globe today. It has been documented that many ancient pagan teachers and philosophers believed that the universe spontaneously evolved by itself, that the universe is millions of years old, that humans once resembled fish, and that all living things continue to evolve.
    ABIOGENESIS:nonliving origin belief
    1. (noun) abiogenesis, autogenesis, autogeny, spontaneous generation
    a hypothetical organic phenomenon by which living organisms are created from nonliving matter. Abiogenesis is the idea of life originating from non-living material (non-life). This concept has expanded a great deal as mankind’s understanding of science has grown, but all forms of abiogenesis have one thing in common: they are all scientifically unsupportable. There have been no experiments demonstrating abiogenesis in action. It has never been observed in a natural or artificial environment. Conditions believed to have existed on earth are either incapable of producing the building blocks needed, or self-contradictory. No evidence has been found suggesting where or when such life might have generated. In fact, everything we know of science today seems to indicate that abiogenesis could not have happened under any naturally possible conditions.

    as the atheist it is you who needs to be converted because your interpretation of reality is distorted and religious and pagan and unoriginal at best.
  • until you can demstrate and not fabricate facts you are still a  failed rebel indoctrinated with humanist lies to lustify your petty limited materialsim

     

     

  •  

    look with love from above
    the desire to live is the desire to live forever
    you did not evolve never did and never will
    True science is always provable, theoretical science never is.


    mind over matter
    Theist
    mind over matter's picture
    Posts: 210
    Joined: 2010-04-09
    User is offlineOffline
    death is your hero, how sad you rely on nothing/oblivion

     "we die to evolve" is one way to express it.

     

    so if you die you claim that you are infact evolving? lol

    look with love from above
    the desire to live is the desire to live forever
    you did not evolve never did and never will
    True science is always provable, theoretical science never is.


    BobSpence
    High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
    BobSpence's picture
    Posts: 5809
    Joined: 2006-02-14
    User is offlineOffline
    mind over matter wrote: "we

    mind over matter wrote:

     "we die to evolve" is one way to express it.

     so if you die you claim that you are infact evolving? lol

    Why am I not surprised at such a response?

    Individuals do NOT evolve. Groups do, as some members die, and are replaced by newly born/hatched ones.

    Is that too hard a concept either of your brain cells to grasp?

    Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

    "Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

    The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

    From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


    mellestad
    Moderator
    Posts: 2927
    Joined: 2009-08-19
    User is offlineOffline
    "Evolution is an ancient

    "Evolution is an ancient pagan concept."

     

    Excellent.

     

    Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


    mind over matter
    Theist
    mind over matter's picture
    Posts: 210
    Joined: 2010-04-09
    User is offlineOffline
    atheist monkey wannabe is not smarter than a lifeless rock

     "none of us evolved, we are the products of evolution. And yes, we have "evolved" , -atheist delusion

    very typical regressed imagination out of desparation to justify the atheist humanist sensation

    so you have the desire to live but you do not desire to live forever  at some point because you are defeated by your indoctrination of death = evolution

    lol

    the laws we observe are not random acts of choas and the moral laws that are given to humanity are for the benefit of humanity not a burden. of course many ignorant humanist chumps who think they are chimps need to invent there own brand of law that suites them and no one else.

    its easy for you to shun reality and then claim you have a time machine that proves your presupposition is scientific. when in fact you base all your humanist worldviews on satanic lies.

    free will is what you are given  along with the cosequences of knowledge of good and evil and suffering and death.

    Evolution is an ancient pagan concept (MAN MADE RELIGION)where people worship nature / creation instead of a CREATOR or they invent idols based on nature/creation
    the theory of evolution has been with us for a very, very long time. It actually comes from ancient pagan religious beliefs that continue to be reflected in many religious traditions around the globe today. It has been documented that many ancient pagan teachers and philosophers believed that the universe spontaneously evolved by itself, that the universe is millions/billions of years old, that humans once resembled fish, and that all living things continue to evolve.
     

    the fact remains without a creator there is no creation:
    1.
    a. The act of creating.
    b. The fact or state of having been created.
    2. The act of investing with a new office or title.
    3.
    a. The world and all things in it.
    b. All creatures or a class of creatures.
    4. Creation The divine act by which, according to various religious and philosophical traditions, the world was brought into existence.
    5. An original product of human invention or artistic imagination

    proper translation from the original tablets and scriptures/scrolls

    YAHUWAH (which means I AM HE who IS SELF EXISTENT) HE IS our ELOAH YA AM which means ALMIGHTY EL THE ETERNAL LOVING YA OF THE GREAT PEOPLE. HIS WORD is made manifest in HIS promised MESSIAH YAHUWSHUA which means YAHUWAH IS SALVATION

     

     

     

    look with love from above
    the desire to live is the desire to live forever
    you did not evolve never did and never will
    True science is always provable, theoretical science never is.


    butterbattle
    ModeratorSuperfan
    butterbattle's picture
    Posts: 3705
    Joined: 2008-09-12
    User is offlineOffline
    Oh, you made a second post.

    Oh, you made a second post. I guess I'll address your old Creationist arguments, then. Eh, you're still just pasting weird font from random websites without citing them though; that's not very promising.

    Quote:
    Evolution requires non-living matter to turn into a living organism and this has never been observed.

    Abiogenesis explains the origin of life. Evolution explains the variety of life. Abiogenesis is actually not required for evolution; God could simply create life and let it evolve. Heck, there are more theistic evolutionists than atheists.

    Many if not most of the steps from non-life to life have been directly observed, but not the entire process at once. Meh, the definitions of non-life and life can be very ambiguous. Anyways, direct observation isn't needed to establish a claim beyond a reasonable doubt, and lack of direct observation certainly doesn't disprove the claim.

    Quote:
    The missing links are still missing

    Evolution is continuous. All organisms are links between their parents and their offspring, by definition. All fossils are fossil links.

    Quote:
    No mechanism has been put forward that even begins to explain how something like the human eye could have been produced by time, chance, natural selection and mutation. There is no evidence (in the fossil record etc.) of the evolution of such systems. More than that, not even an imaginary process can be thought of to explain how something like the brain and the digestive system could have evolved bit by bit over time!

    You just listed two of the most important mechanisms: natural selection and mutations (maybe not strictly a "mechanism&quotEye-wink. The evolution of the eye is well understood among the natural sciences community, and the evidence is very substantial. That's probably an understatement. It would take too long for me to reproduce all the evidence here, but if you really wanted to, you could just search "evolution of the eye" on google or youtube or something. 

    Quote:
    The Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that a system will always go from order to disorder unless there is a plan or outside intelligence to organize it.

    ...

    Some people argue that the earth is an open system and therefore the Second Law of Thermodynamics does not apply. Simply pouring in energy (sunlight) into the earth does not override the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

    The Second Law is not "overriden." Evolution conforms to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that entropy always increases in a closed system. The Earth is not a closed system. 

    Quote:
    Natural selection (better adapted organisms surviving to pass on genetic material) cannot produce evolution because it produces no NEW genetic material.

    You need to define "new" genetic material.

    DNA contains the genetic instructions for virtually all living things; it's essentially coded in the four main bases: adenine, cytosine, guanine, and thymine. An insertion mutation adds one or base pairs into the DNA sequence. If that's not "new" genetic material, then what is?  

    Quote:
    Mutations are an example of the Second Law of Thermodynamics (when things are left to themselves they become more disordered over time).

    Eh...no. Mutations, generally, are errors that occur during genetic replication, but this has nothing to do with the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

    Quote:
    Mutations are not a friend of evolution but an enemy that ultimately cuts the theory down and destroys it!

    Evolution would probably be impossible without mutations. In a sense, it is the only part of evolution that really provides "fresh" genetic material. Natural selection can only choose from the variations that are already present.

    Quote:
    Evolutionists such as Sir Fred Hoyle concede this when they say "The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way (time and chance) is comparable with the chance that 'a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.'"

    ...

    BUT the probability of even one single protein molecule consisting of 200 amino acids arising spontaneously by chance is 1 in 10260.

    Evolution is not random. Higher life forms don't emerge by chance. Protein molecules don't arise "spontaneously by chance." 

    Quote:
    In a desperate attempt to override the very powerful argument that life could never arise by chance, Richard Dawkins conjectures that “If the odds of life originating spontaneously on a planet were a billion to one against …” 10 A billion to one is only (yes only!) 1 in 10.

    Dawkins - "This conclusion is so surprising, I'll say it again. If the odds of life originating spontaneously on a planet were a billion to one against, nevertheless that stupefyingly improbable event would still happen on a billion planets."

    Quote:
    They are macro-evolution and micro-evolution. Micro-evolution states that all living organisms experience mutations and have the ability to develop genetic adaptations. The difference between this and macro-evolution is that micro-evolution only deals with mutations within a species. Macro-evolution, on the other hand, states that such adaptations and mutations allow new species to form. Also micro changes can be observed with the scientific method. While all the other terms are imaginary and preached as religious fact without question or basis in science or common sense.

    Microevolution and macroevolution operate under the same mechanisms. The difference is how they manifest themselves because if macroevolution is speciation, then macro simply occurs whenever new species are produced; two populations that used to be one population become unable to interbreed. Then, microevolution is just any change that doesn't produce new species. Macroevolution generally requires a greater change, so usually, compounding microevolution produces macroevoluton. The only difference here, then, is time scale. Both have been observed countless times.

    Since the entire genome to subject to mutations, someone who holds to micro, but not macro would be obligated to explain how this is possible. One possibility is that it would require for there to be some portion of the genome that "defines" the species and is not subject to mutation. But, this is just not the case.

    Edit:

    Quote:
    the fact remains without a creator there is no creation:

    Right. But, you can't make that into a sound argument for the existence of God. I don't agree that this universe is a Creation, so such an argument would beg the question.

    Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


    butterbattle
    ModeratorSuperfan
    butterbattle's picture
    Posts: 3705
    Joined: 2008-09-12
    User is offlineOffline
    mind over matter

    mind over matter wrote:

     "none of us evolved, we are the products of evolution. And yes, we have "evolved" , -atheist delusion

    Uuuhh, you're not trying to quote this...

    BobSpence1 wrote:
    Individuals do NOT evolve. Groups do, as some members die, and are replaced by newly born/hatched ones.

    ...are you?

    Omg, please don't tell me that's what you were quoting. 

     

    Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


    mind over matter
    Theist
    mind over matter's picture
    Posts: 210
    Joined: 2010-04-09
    User is offlineOffline
    mind over matter wrote:

    mind over matter wrote:

     

     "we die to evolve" is one way to express it.

     so if you die you claim that you are infact evolving? lol

     

     

    Why am I not surprised at such a response?

    Individuals do NOT evolve. Groups do, as some members die, and are replaced by newly born/hatched ones.

    Is that too hard a concept either of your brain cells to grasp?

     

    answer: because you do not speak for me when you say WE evolved.

    you confuse having brain cells with having the spirit of intellect.

    groups evolve you say? groups of what? you assume too much fiction based on misinformation.  you never observed what you call evolution and you never will nor will you demostrate that your ancestors are the descendants of mutants who in turn evolved from scum over billions of years.

    question do you really think a pc evolved hardware /software over millions /billions of years? DUH no it was obviously created with purpose ready to function

    now ask the same question about a human body with a brain and the spirit of intellect/mind and then admit you still think it is not stupid to assume both are the product of groups evolving and diing to make way  for ( newly born /hatched ones?as you like to say).

    humans copy designs found in creation all the time and then you tell me there is no evidence for a creator? because you think it is a form of ignorance to see the human heart as a mechanical marvel of engineering and not some random act of mutation?

    are you that kind of horse that will not drink because you prefer to die thirsty?

     

    seriously think for yourself and stop being limited by your mortality

     

     

    look with love from above
    the desire to live is the desire to live forever
    you did not evolve never did and never will
    True science is always provable, theoretical science never is.


    butterbattle
    ModeratorSuperfan
    butterbattle's picture
    Posts: 3705
    Joined: 2008-09-12
    User is offlineOffline
    mind over matter

    mind over matter wrote:
    groups evolve you say? groups of what?

    Living things that can interbreed.

    Quote:
    humans copy designs found in creation all the time and then you tell me there is no evidence for a creator?

    How is that evidence?

    Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


    KSMB
    Scientist
    KSMB's picture
    Posts: 702
    Joined: 2006-08-03
    User is offlineOffline
    You know, when you copy

    You know, when you copy mindless drivel from the internet and paste it onto a forum such as this, at the very least you should provide the source of said drivel, so that we may laugh at it too, not just at you.


    butterbattle
    ModeratorSuperfan
    butterbattle's picture
    Posts: 3705
    Joined: 2008-09-12
    User is offlineOffline
    KSMB wrote: You know, when

    KSMB wrote:

    You know, when you copy mindless drivel from the internet and paste it onto a forum such as this, at the very least you should provide the source of said drivel, so that we may laugh at it too, not just at you.

    Changing Lives Online

    Looks like one of the responses

     

    Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


    DarkSam
    DarkSam's picture
    Posts: 54
    Joined: 2010-03-24
    User is offlineOffline
    Presuppositionalist

    Presuppositionalist wrote:

    Three very very brief arguments for YEC:

    1. The oldest living tree of which we know is ring dated to about 6000 years old. This confirms a prediction of YEC.

    2. Carbon dating has been refuted. People with old information typically aren't aware of this, but it has been discovered just in the last century that it fails in so many contexts that to use it as proof of anything is silly. Since carbon dating used to be the strongest proof of the Old Earth Conjecture, its refutation is good for the opponents of the OEC: namely, those who believe in YEC.

    3. YEC is a prerequisite of the scientific endeavor. The Bible is -interpreted literally, in part and whole- the only coherent ground for reasoning. Since science requires reasoning, science presupposes the literal truth of the Bible. Since the Bible, interpreted literally, tells us that the Earth is about 6000 years old, science presupposes that the earth is about 6000 years old.

    I await your intelligent criticisms.

    The oldest ring dated tree was not 6000 years old. Where and how was carbon dating prooved to not give a reasonable estimate of the life cycle of carbon based matter? It works on the principle of the half life of the carbon atom to my knowledge and there has been no proof that it is inacurate. YEC has nothing to do with modern science and the bible is a book and it cannot logically be taken literally using the scientific method. I don't know when you pulling these 'facts' from, your ass maybe?

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    You cannot disprove the existance of God, but you also cannot disprove the existance of an all powerfull, incomprehesible, pink elephant that lives in the boot of my car.