The Flat Earth Society

Other Discussion Boards => Technology, Science & Alt Science => Topic started by: ﮎingulaЯiτy on March 31, 2009, 10:20:06 AM

Title: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: ﮎingulaЯiτy on March 31, 2009, 10:20:06 AM
A great series of videos that explains in depth the many problems with the foundations of creationism:


If you are a creationist, please bear with me and watch it anyways. Being open minded to examine the a logical argument is never harmful. It starts off condescending, so brace yourself.  ;)
...If you are not a creationist, you may still enjoy the series anyways.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on March 31, 2009, 11:02:24 AM
The video doesn't load for me.  The little circle jsut spins, and spins, and spins, and spins, and spins, I think I just fell out of my chair...............*thump*

Plus it looks like there is 15 of them at 10 min a piece.  How many do I need to watch?
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: ﮎingulaЯiτy on March 31, 2009, 02:43:36 PM
Plus it looks like there is 15 of them at 10 min a piece.  How many do I need to watch?
Need to watch? I'm not forcing you to watch them, but the more the better.
The same way I have not watch all the creationist videos out there, because I'm afraid I'll have a brain aneurysm, I don't expect you to finish all of them. It doesn't really matter if they won't load though.  :-\
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Soul Eater on March 31, 2009, 05:04:09 PM
I just watched the first video.  Interesting stuff.  There is one thing I have a problem with, though.  He insists that creationism is ridiculous because it involves a god creating all life through "magic".  My issue with this is that if a god were to exist, such a being would exist outside of our universe and not be bound by its laws.  Why would an infinitely powerful god not be able to "poof" life into existence? 
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: ﮎingulaЯiτy on March 31, 2009, 08:10:25 PM
I just watched the first video.  Interesting stuff.  There is one thing I have a problem with, though.  He insists that creationism is ridiculous because it involves a god creating all life through "magic".  My issue with this is that if a god were to exist, such a being would exist outside of our universe and not be bound by its laws.  Why would an infinitely powerful god not be able to "poof" life into existence? 
Isn't magic just another word for supernatural?
'Super' meaning above or beyond, and 'natural' meaning the physics and laws of our universe.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Soul Eater on March 31, 2009, 08:20:46 PM
It seemed as if he was discounting the possibility altogether.  Why wouldn't god be able to create everything at once?  Granted evolution makes much more sense, but its still possible.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Pongo on March 31, 2009, 08:32:29 PM
.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000001% chance is still possible.  Yet that does not add credibility to an argument.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on March 31, 2009, 08:37:45 PM
.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000001% chance is still possible.  Yet that does not add credibility to an argument.

That's funny, that's the same percentage I give an single cell hanging out by a volcanic vent turning into a Human 40 billion years later.  I've just never seen it written down before, thanx!
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Pongo on March 31, 2009, 08:38:45 PM
.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000001% chance is still possible.  Yet that does not add credibility to an argument.

That's funny, that's the same percentage I give an single cell hanging out by a volcanic vent turning into a Human 40 billion years later.  I've just never seen it written down before, thanx!

The exact same number?!!? Damn, what are the odds?
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on March 31, 2009, 08:39:49 PM
I'm not sure, but I bet there would be alot of zeros involved.  ;)
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Pongo on March 31, 2009, 08:42:53 PM
Ok, now for the serious response.  I bet you would be surprised to know that every biologist on the planet would actually give the chances of a single celled organism evolving into a human over the course of ~40 bill years nearly an infinitely smaller chance of occurring.  Your failure resides in you having fundamentally flawed assumptions about evolution.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on March 31, 2009, 08:44:33 PM
Ok, now for the serious response.  I bet you would be surprised to know that every biologist on the planet would actually give the chances of a single celled organism evolving into a human over the course of ~40 bill years nearly an infinitely smaller chance of occurring.  Your failure resides in you having fundamentally flawed assumptions about evolution.

You are correct apparently my assumptions are flawed.  Where did humans come from then if not from single celled organisms.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Pongo on March 31, 2009, 08:51:47 PM
Let me elaborate so you don't get confused.  The track record for single celled organisms evolving into humans is 1:1.  Yet the chances of it evolving into a human, as opposed to any other possible being, is infinitesimally small.  Logically, this is a moot point to argue because it does not add weight to the creationist argument.  It's like trying to say that the chances of Jupiter's mass being what it is, is 1 in 100^100^100^100^100.  Besides being impossible to actually calculate, it doesn't matter because that's what Jupiter's mass is.  Does that make sense?
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on March 31, 2009, 09:51:48 PM
Let me elaborate so you don't get confused.  The track record for single celled organisms evolving into humans is 1:1.  Yet the chances of it evolving into a human, as opposed to any other possible being, is infinitesimally small.  Logically, this is a moot point to argue because it does not add weight to the creationist argument.  It's like trying to say that the chances of Jupiter's mass being what it is, is 1 in 100^100^100^100^100.  Besides being impossible to actually calculate, it doesn't matter because that's what Jupiter's mass is.  Does that make sense?

I think the point is there are so many chances and possibilities out there not to have someone "driving the bus" so to speak.  You bring up Jupiter.  Do you know Jupiter, and the other large planets out there, act as an asteroid and comet shield for earth?  Man good thing for that.  Good thing that single cell organism developed into a human instead of it just becoming a fungus.  Fungus are so boring.  The shear mathematics for all these chance happenings is just too great in my mind. 

The moon for example, what are the odds that the moon would rotate at the exact rate it takes to orbit around the earth?  What other moon in the solar system does that?  Astronomical odds.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Proleg on March 31, 2009, 11:01:39 PM
The video doesn't load for me.
Reload current page.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Pongo on March 31, 2009, 11:08:11 PM
Let me elaborate so you don't get confused.  The track record for single celled organisms evolving into humans is 1:1.  Yet the chances of it evolving into a human, as opposed to any other possible being, is infinitesimally small.  Logically, this is a moot point to argue because it does not add weight to the creationist argument.  It's like trying to say that the chances of Jupiter's mass being what it is, is 1 in 100^100^100^100^100.  Besides being impossible to actually calculate, it doesn't matter because that's what Jupiter's mass is.  Does that make sense?

I think the point is there are so many chances and possibilities out there not to have someone "driving the bus" so to speak.  You bring up Jupiter.  Do you know Jupiter, and the other large planets out there, act as an asteroid and comet shield for earth?  Man good thing for that.  Good thing that single cell organism developed into a human instead of it just becoming a fungus.  Fungus are so boring.  The shear mathematics for all these chance happenings is just too great in my mind. 

The moon for example, what are the odds that the moon would rotate at the exact rate it takes to orbit around the earth?  What other moon in the solar system does that?  Astronomical odds.

Ok, obviously that didn't make sense to you. let me try again.  Certain conditions have to be met in order for life (as we know it) to exist.  Off the top of my head, the star in the solar system has to be a second generation star so that there is an abundance of heavier elements.  The planet in question has to have enough hydrogen and oxygen to form water.  The planet has to be within but not exceeding a certain zone in order for liquid water to form.  The core of the plant cannot have cooled.  There has to be a massive gravity well to keep comets away.  The planet has to me massive enough to hold an ozone to keep solar radiation away... That's all I can think of.  Anyways, what I'm saying is that it is pointless to try and calculate the odds of this occurring when you are here to calculate the odds of this occurring.  Everyone will agree with you that it would be rare among solar systems, but it has happened.  If you walk outside and pick up a rock, the chances of all the atoms coalescing in that exact configuration to form that rock are astronomically small.  Does that mean that the rock had a creator?  No.  Does that mean that the chances of the rock being formed are so so so small that it cannot exist?  No.  It means that while that exact rock's state is impossible to exactly duplicate, it was still nevertheless formed.

You only think that it's good that a single celled organism formed into humans because that's what happened.  If it had evolved into a super smart reptile race, they would think it fortunate that the organism evolved into them.  The over all point I'm trying to make here is that you have a misunderstanding of evolution.  You are looking at it like it has an end goal.  Yes, the chances of a cell evolving into humans is so small it's not worth calculating.  But it did.  You need to look at evolution the other way around.  A cell existed, it 'wanted' to survive.  Through natural selection it become dominate and evolved.  Through natural selection all of our genes were selected  and we became what we are today.  There are trillions and trillions of different ways that cell could have evolved, it just happened to do it this way.  So I state again, the track record for a one celled organism becoming man 1:1.  The chances of it becoming anything else?  Incalculably large.

The moon always faces the earth because of what is known as tidal locking.  Every significant moon in the solar system is tidally locked with it's plant.  Charon and Pluto(RIP) are even both tidally locked with each other.  So the odds of this happening?  I'm just guessing here, but I would say maybe 90 to 95%?  I would only call those odds astronomical because we are talking about space.

PS: You misunderstood me.  I was talking about the mass of my Lord and Savior Jupiter, king of the gods.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Raist on April 01, 2009, 12:24:59 AM
I just watched the first video.  Interesting stuff.  There is one thing I have a problem with, though.  He insists that creationism is ridiculous because it involves a god creating all life through "magic".  My issue with this is that if a god were to exist, such a being would exist outside of our universe and not be bound by its laws.  Why would an infinitely powerful god not be able to "poof" life into existence? 

It's not that he is arguing against that possibility, he is saying why would god then manufacture all this evidence that the Earth is older and that evolution happened.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Soul Eater on April 01, 2009, 12:43:20 AM
I just watched the first video.  Interesting stuff.  There is one thing I have a problem with, though.  He insists that creationism is ridiculous because it involves a god creating all life through "magic".  My issue with this is that if a god were to exist, such a being would exist outside of our universe and not be bound by its laws.  Why would an infinitely powerful god not be able to "poof" life into existence? 

It's not that he is arguing against that possibility, he is saying why would god then manufacture all this evidence that the Earth is older and that evolution happened.
I re-watched it and that does seem to be the case.  I think I'll have to watch his other videos now.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on April 01, 2009, 01:21:09 AM
Let me elaborate so you don't get confused.  The track record for single celled organisms evolving into humans is 1:1.  Yet the chances of it evolving into a human, as opposed to any other possible being, is infinitesimally small.  Logically, this is a moot point to argue because it does not add weight to the creationist argument.  It's like trying to say that the chances of Jupiter's mass being what it is, is 1 in 100^100^100^100^100.  Besides being impossible to actually calculate, it doesn't matter because that's what Jupiter's mass is.  Does that make sense?

I think the point is there are so many chances and possibilities out there not to have someone "driving the bus" so to speak.  You bring up Jupiter.  Do you know Jupiter, and the other large planets out there, act as an asteroid and comet shield for earth?  Man good thing for that.  Good thing that single cell organism developed into a human instead of it just becoming a fungus.  Fungus are so boring.  The shear mathematics for all these chance happenings is just too great in my mind. 

The moon for example, what are the odds that the moon would rotate at the exact rate it takes to orbit around the earth?  What other moon in the solar system does that?  Astronomical odds.

Ok, obviously that didn't make sense to you. let me try again.  Certain conditions have to be met in order for life (as we know it) to exist.  Off the top of my head, the star in the solar system has to be a second generation star so that there is an abundance of heavier elements.  The planet in question has to have enough hydrogen and oxygen to form water.  The planet has to be within but not exceeding a certain zone in order for liquid water to form.  The core of the plant cannot have cooled.  There has to be a massive gravity well to keep comets away.  The planet has to me massive enough to hold an ozone to keep solar radiation away... That's all I can think of.  Anyways, what I'm saying is that it is pointless to try and calculate the odds of this occurring when you are here to calculate the odds of this occurring.  Everyone will agree with you that it would be rare among solar systems, but it has happened.  If you walk outside and pick up a rock, the chances of all the atoms coalescing in that exact configuration to form that rock are astronomically small.  Does that mean that the rock had a creator?  No.  Does that mean that the chances of the rock being formed are so so so small that it cannot exist?  No.  It means that while that exact rock's state is impossible to exactly duplicate, it was still nevertheless formed.

You only think that it's good that a single celled organism formed into humans because that's what happened.  If it had evolved into a super smart reptile race, they would think it fortunate that the organism evolved into them.  The over all point I'm trying to make here is that you have a misunderstanding of evolution.  You are looking at it like it has an end goal.  Yes, the chances of a cell evolving into humans is so small it's not worth calculating.  But it did.  You need to look at evolution the other way around.  A cell existed, it 'wanted' to survive.  Through natural selection it become dominate and evolved.  Through natural selection all of our genes were selected  and we became what we are today.  There are trillions and trillions of different ways that cell could have evolved, it just happened to do it this way.  So I state again, the track record for a one celled organism becoming man 1:1.  The chances of it becoming anything else?  Incalculably large.

The moon always faces the earth because of what is known as tidal locking.  Every significant moon in the solar system is tidally locked with it's plant.  Charon and Pluto(RIP) are even both tidally locked with each other.  So the odds of this happening?  I'm just guessing here, but I would say maybe 90 to 95%?  I would only call those odds astronomical because we are talking about space.

PS: You misunderstood me.  I was talking about the mass of my Lord and Savior Jupiter, king of the gods.

I just read a very interesting article on tidal locking.  Thank you.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Pongo on April 01, 2009, 09:11:38 AM
Aye, it's sad to say, but you must always check facts presented to you from religiously motivated people.  Especially in regards to science.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Eddy Baby on April 01, 2009, 10:13:32 AM
I'm not sure, but I bet there would be alot of zeros involved.  ;)

I've forgotten the exact number, but the chance of even the most simple proteins being randomly created is about 1 in 1^10xabout 2.6 billion.....
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Raist on April 01, 2009, 10:32:14 AM
Good thing proteins were never randomly created. They were assembled from amino acids that were randomly created. And by randomly created I mean created following basic rules that we observe to this day that were probably not factored in to your "random" creation.

Learn2simplebiology.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Pongo on April 01, 2009, 10:55:34 AM
I'm not sure, but I bet there would be alot of zeros involved.  ;)

I've forgotten the exact number, but the chance of even the most simple proteins being randomly created is about 1 in 1^10xabout 2.6 billion.....

Am I explaining myself poorly or are you guys not listening?
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Eddy Baby on April 01, 2009, 11:49:23 AM
I'm not sure, but I bet there would be alot of zeros involved.  ;)

I've forgotten the exact number, but the chance of even the most simple proteins being randomly created is about 1 in 1^10xabout 2.6 billion.....

Am I explaining myself poorly or are you guys not listening?

We're having a balanced debate.
Good thing proteins were never randomly created. They were assembled from amino acids that were randomly created. And by randomly created I mean created following basic rules that we observe to this day that were probably not factored in to your "random" creation.

Learn2simplebiology.

Don't state theories as if they're fact.
Also, are you suggesting that proteins are made from amino acids, but not randomly?
They knew what to do?  :o
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Pongo on April 01, 2009, 11:58:33 AM
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB010.html

Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Eddy Baby on April 01, 2009, 12:00:03 PM
Aha. Wrong number of mine then. I'll just go and find out what is actually to the power of 2.6 billion, as it will have been in the same chapter of the book......
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Raist on April 01, 2009, 12:00:38 PM
Non random does not apply knowledge.

 ::)

When DNA is replicated it is not a random process, but I doubt anyone believes that genes know what to do. They follow basic rules.

Again learn2simple biology.

And yes, proteins are made up of amino acids, the amino acids can only form into certain proteins in certain configurations. A randomly formed protein means thousands of atoms randomly came together to form a protein. That would be incredible.

Also, something that is observed is a fact. We watch amino acids form proteins.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Pongo on April 01, 2009, 12:01:59 PM
Aha. Wrong number of mine then. I'll just go and find out what is actually to the power of 2.6 billion, as it will have been in the same chapter of the book......

You're missing the point.  The number is irrelevant.  Here is a video that will explain a lot for you.  It's an hour long, but it will enrich your life.  

Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Eddy Baby on April 01, 2009, 12:05:08 PM
Just for the record, my number was the amount of combinations a strand of DNA can give....


Non random does not apply knowledge.

 ::)

When DNA is replicated it is not a random process, but I doubt anyone believes that genes know what to do. They follow basic rules.

Again learn2simple biology.

And yes, proteins are made up of amino acids, the amino acids can only form into certain proteins in certain configurations. A randomly formed protein means thousands of atoms randomly came together to form a protein. That would be incredible.

Also, something that is observed is a fact. We watch amino acids form proteins.

Please stop being patronising, it's not making any friends.

I meant the concept of creating proteins, not reproducing proteins.

Nobody was alive to watch the creation of the first protein, obviously.

lrn2notbepatronisingifyoudontquiteunderstandwhattherpersonisreferringto.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Raist on April 01, 2009, 12:38:13 PM
I'm sorry, if you understood what you were talking about I wouldn't be patronizing.

The number of possible strands of DNA is irrelevant. Especially considering the length of what the originals would have to be.

And if something is only true if you were there to watch it be made that would disprove God rather quickly.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Eddy Baby on April 01, 2009, 12:42:41 PM
I'm sorry, if you understood what you were talking about I wouldn't be patronizing.

The number of possible strands of DNA is irrelevant. Especially considering the length of what the originals would have to be.

And if something is only true if you were there to watch it be made that would disprove God rather quickly.

I'm trying to find the sense in this post.

Part 1: Well done.

Part 2: Yes it is irrelevant. Read my posts again.

Part 3: What? I suppose that's true, but what relevance does it have to anything?
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: optimisticcynic on April 01, 2009, 12:47:51 PM
 If you consider the number of different planets and the number of different universes (if you believe in the sting theory). then there would almost have to be at least one universe where life started. if life didn't come into existence we would not notice since we would not notice since we wouldn't exist. I also agree with raist that the number of ways  you can make a DNA strand is not a direct correlation to the chance of life coming into existence.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Eddy Baby on April 01, 2009, 12:52:54 PM
You all know what what said about DNA was irrelevant, right?


Also, the the thing about life: If protein had 200 amino acids (a normal-ish number for proteins) the odds of that is about 1 in 10^260, more then there are atoms in the universe.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: EnigmaZV on April 01, 2009, 01:04:59 PM
You all know what what said about DNA was irrelevant, right?


Also, the the thing about life: If protein had 200 amino acids (a normal-ish number for proteins) the odds of that is about 1 in 10^260, more atoms then there are in the universe.

Quote
The authors show that a 32-amino-acid peptide, folded into an alpha-helix
and having a structure based on a region of
the yeast transcription factor GCN4, can autocatalyse its own synthesis by
accelerating the amino-bond condensation of
15- and 17-amino-acid fragments in solution
Source:http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199705/0014.html (http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199705/0014.html)

So why do we need a 200 amino-acid sequence?
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Eddy Baby on April 01, 2009, 01:07:09 PM
You all know what what said about DNA was irrelevant, right?


Also, the the thing about life: If protein had 200 amino acids (a normal-ish number for proteins) the odds of that is about 1 in 10^260, more atoms then there are in the universe.

Quote
The authors show that a 32-amino-acid peptide, folded into an alpha-helix
and having a structure based on a region of
the yeast transcription factor GCN4, can autocatalyse its own synthesis by
accelerating the amino-bond condensation of
15- and 17-amino-acid fragments in solution
Source:http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199705/0014.html (http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199705/0014.html)

So why do we need a 200 amino-acid sequence?


To create different proteins?
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Raist on April 01, 2009, 01:07:12 PM
You all know what what said about DNA was irrelevant, right?


Also, the the thing about life: If protein had 200 amino acids (a normal-ish number for proteins) the odds of that is about 1 in 10^260, more then there are atoms in the universe.

But it doesn't assemble from atoms. Amino acids form naturally and combine to form proteins.

Seriously. Stop trying.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: EnigmaZV on April 01, 2009, 01:36:22 PM
You all know what what said about DNA was irrelevant, right?


Also, the the thing about life: If protein had 200 amino acids (a normal-ish number for proteins) the odds of that is about 1 in 10^260, more atoms then there are in the universe.

Quote
The authors show that a 32-amino-acid peptide, folded into an alpha-helix
and having a structure based on a region of
the yeast transcription factor GCN4, can autocatalyse its own synthesis by
accelerating the amino-bond condensation of
15- and 17-amino-acid fragments in solution
Source:http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199705/0014.html (http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199705/0014.html)

So why do we need a 200 amino-acid sequence?


To create different proteins?

Did you understand what I found and posted for you?
If so, why do you think that this is/isn't significant or relevant?
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Eddy Baby on April 01, 2009, 01:57:08 PM
You all know what what said about DNA was irrelevant, right?


Also, the the thing about life: If protein had 200 amino acids (a normal-ish number for proteins) the odds of that is about 1 in 10^260, more then there are atoms in the universe.

But it doesn't assemble from atoms. Amino acids form naturally and combine to form proteins.

Seriously. Stop trying.

You really can't seem to understand what I'm saying.
I'll let you read it again, and you can see if you can understand it this time.

And also,
But it doesn't assemble from atoms.

Amino Acids aren't made from atoms? That's a new one....
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Raist on April 01, 2009, 02:00:16 PM
I said it doesn't assemble from. Not it is not comprised of.

Also it does not need to be a specific protein first of all, just a self replicating one. Second of all proteins have certain rules about how they can assemble, or else there would be 10^260 different proteins of average length. Another point, the first self replicating proteins were probably smaller. Then you have to take into account the limited number of amino acids, and the fact that it does not matter which protein was produced. As long as a self replicating protein is eventually produced it is fine. You are listing the odds to make a specific protein from infinite quantities of each amino acid if order did not matter. The odds you gave are meaningless in this context.

Are you done trolling yet?
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: optimisticcynic on April 01, 2009, 02:07:44 PM
Raist is saying  that amino acids don't come out of a random creation of atoms they come from a a different molecule acting as almost a set of instructions.(yes raist I know that it is not designed to tell something what to do but it functions as one in the way it makes the amino acid form in a certain way) the set of instructions has other rules governing how it can be created. Correct me if I am wrong raist.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Eddy Baby on April 01, 2009, 02:08:50 PM
I said it doesn't assemble from. Not it is not comprised of.

Also it does not need to be a specific protein first of all, just a self replicating one. Second of all proteins have certain rules about how they can assemble, or else there would be 10^260 different proteins of average length. Another point, the first self replicating proteins were probably smaller. Then you have to take into account the limited number of amino acids, and the fact that it does not matter which protein was produced. As long as a self replicating protein is eventually produced it is fine. You are listing the odds to make a specific protein from infinite quantities of each amino acid if order did not matter. The odds you gave are meaningless in this context.

Are you done trolling yet?

I might stop trying to explain it to you in a bit. You don't seem to be able to grasp it.....

The Chances of Amino Acids forming a functioning, average length protein from scratch is approximately 1 in 10^260. On another note, this number is more than the number of atoms in the universe.


No opinions, nothing but straight fact. Nothing to argue with.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: optimisticcynic on April 01, 2009, 02:19:36 PM
you are assuming that a protein needs 200 amino acids to be able to self replicate. you showed the total number of ways a amino acid could form. you then assumed that there was only one amino acid that can be functioning. at least that is what I got from what you were saying.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Raist on April 01, 2009, 02:20:27 PM
He was saying there is a one in whatever chance it would form a specific protein. Again, a pointless number.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Eddy Baby on April 01, 2009, 02:24:28 PM
He was saying there is a one in whatever chance it would form a specific protein. Again, a pointless number.

Well it was relevant a page or so ago.

you are assuming that a protein needs 200 amino acids to be able to self replicate. you showed the total number of ways a amino acid could form. you also assumed that there was only one amino acid that can be functioning. at least that is what I got from what you were saying.

I'm not assuming anything, I'm just saying that, to make a 200 amino long chain that functioned, that's the chance it would be.

Hang on got it. That's the chance to form any particular 200 amino long protein.

Back on to the videos, I like the fact that it brings to light scientific theists. Too many people don't realise there's middle ground.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: EnigmaZV on April 01, 2009, 02:35:48 PM
Hang on got it. That's the chance to form any particular 200 amino long protein.

What are the conditions?  What was the concentration of amino acids used, what was the acidity/salinity?  Were there surfactants in the solution?  Lipids?  Do they take into account that many amino acids are substitutable?

Or does this number just assume that they need 200 amino acids in a specific order and assume that the way they interact is random?
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Raist on April 01, 2009, 02:44:35 PM
He was saying there is a one in whatever chance it would form a specific protein. Again, a pointless number.

Well it was relevant a page or so ago.

you are assuming that a protein needs 200 amino acids to be able to self replicate. you showed the total number of ways a amino acid could form. you also assumed that there was only one amino acid that can be functioning. at least that is what I got from what you were saying.

I'm not assuming anything, I'm just saying that, to make a 200 amino long chain that functioned, that's the chance it would be.

Hang on got it. That's the chance to form any particular 200 amino long protein.

Back on to the videos, I like the fact that it brings to light scientific theists. Too many people don't realise there's middle ground.

Here is an example of a 32 amino acid peptide reproducing. Go fuck yourself.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Pongo on April 01, 2009, 03:10:57 PM

The Chances of Amino Acids forming a functioning, average length protein from scratch is approximately 1 in 10^260. On another note, this number is more than the number of atoms in the universe.

No opinions, nothing but straight fact. Nothing to argue with.

I think that you will find that statement to be in 100% agreement with evolution, abiogenesis, chemistry and mathematics.  What you are doing incorrectly is assuming that an amino chain needed to be put together by chance in present form.  No one is saying that.  No one.  It started smaller and worked it's way up.  This is not a proof against evolution, it's a proof of your misunderstanding of evolution.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Eddy Baby on April 02, 2009, 11:41:32 AM

The Chances of Amino Acids forming a functioning, average length protein from scratch is approximately 1 in 10^260. On another note, this number is more than the number of atoms in the universe.

No opinions, nothing but straight fact. Nothing to argue with.

I think that you will find that statement to be in 100% agreement with evolution, abiogenesis, chemistry and mathematics.  What you are doing incorrectly is assuming that an amino chain needed to be put together by chance in present form.  No one is saying that.  No one.  It started smaller and worked it's way up.  This is not a proof against evolution, it's a proof of your misunderstanding of evolution.

I believe in Evolution, obviously. It's pretty much indisputable.

Also, it is a valid theory, held by a reasonable amount of people. I really don't care either way, I was just putting into the debate, but I got flamed because somebody spied someone they could ridicule over the internet.
Here is an example of a 32 amino acid peptide reproducing. Go fuck yourself.

Stop posting irrelevant things.

I put A view forward, for people to consider, and got a very very childish reply. It's funny how you still can't seem to understand what I'm saying. Please, please, please, make sure you do before you post again.


Don't make things personal attacks for no reason, it's pathetic.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Raist on April 02, 2009, 12:19:10 PM
You claimed something completely incorrect based simply on meaningless numbers. I post how your numbers are wrong and you start bawwing. If you would have checked your own facts say by googling "self replicating protein" then I wouldn't have had to look it up for you.

Now shut up.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Eddy Baby on April 02, 2009, 12:21:24 PM
You claimed something completely incorrect based simply on meaningless numbers. I post how your numbers are wrong and you start bawwing. If you would have checked your own facts say by googling "self replicating protein" then I wouldn't have had to look it up for you.

Now shut up.

Nothing to do with self replicating proteins.

I quit this thread, I can't get through to you.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Raist on April 02, 2009, 12:23:44 PM
 ::)


You gave the odds of randomly forming any single 200 amino acid protein.

It was a meaningless number.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Eddy Baby on April 02, 2009, 12:25:31 PM
::)


You gave the odds of randomly forming any single 200 amino acid protein.

It was a meaningless number.

I unquit this thread.

What do you mean by that?

How does a number 'mean ' something?



Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Raist on April 02, 2009, 12:27:06 PM
The purpose of a number is to convey a magnitude with symbols. So always.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Eddy Baby on April 02, 2009, 12:28:02 PM
And it didn't?
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: optimisticcynic on April 02, 2009, 12:31:02 PM
No it didn't it convened how many combination you could have. It didn't say the likeliness of any of those combination being able to replicate.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Eddy Baby on April 02, 2009, 12:34:27 PM
I don't know....functioning...
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Raist on April 02, 2009, 12:35:43 PM
huh?
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Eddy Baby on April 02, 2009, 12:41:18 PM
Well in this instance, for a protein to function, it has to replicate.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: optimisticcynic on April 02, 2009, 01:00:26 PM
Second you didn't demonstrate evidence that you need 200+ amino acids in order to self replicate. yes most proteins have over 200 but do you need that many for them to be able to replicate?
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Eddy Baby on April 02, 2009, 01:07:34 PM
Second you didn't demonstrate evidence that you need 200+ amino acids in order to self replicate. yes most proteins have over 200 but do you need that many for them to be able to replicate?

No but it's an average-sized protein..
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Raist on April 02, 2009, 01:15:35 PM
The entire cell didn't spontaneously form. And I showed an amino acid chain of 32 amino acids that self replicated. It was also considered a protein.

No one said it was average proteins self replicating.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: optimisticcynic on April 02, 2009, 01:16:45 PM
I'm just saying the number you gave had almost no numbers backing up your statement the chance of a self replicating protein being 10^260.
You just showed how much proteins you could make if you used 200 amino acids. that does not show either A. that it needs to be 200 long in order to replicate, or B. that there is only one way of making a protein that has 200 units long that can replicate. So I agree with raist unless you can find evidence to support both A. and B. then that number is meaningless in this argument.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Eddy Baby on April 02, 2009, 01:22:10 PM
I'm just saying the number you gave had almost no numbers backing up your statement the chance of a self replicating protein being 10^260.
You just showed how much proteins you could make if you used 200 amino acids. that does not show either A. that it needs to be 200 long in order to replicate, or B. that there is only one way of making a protein that has 200 units long that can replicate. So I agree with raist unless you can find evidence to support both A. and B. then that number is meaningless in this argument.

TBH I don't know why you don't all get this.

Someone a long long time ago said that there was a very small chance of creationism being correct. I then mentioned the apparent chance of life forming on its own, if it had been like this. Please understand.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Pongo on April 02, 2009, 01:40:57 PM
We all get what you are saying, what you aren't understanding is that we are saying that the number you quoted, and indeed the entire argument of the chance of life forming (in regards to someone throwing out a large number and implying logically that abiogenesis is wrong because of it) is irrelevant.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Eddy Baby on April 02, 2009, 01:52:01 PM
Care to elaborate? I really really want to stop posting on this thread now.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on April 02, 2009, 01:58:02 PM
I'll elaborate for you.  Humans did not evolve up from a single string of amino acid proteins, or whateverthefuck their called.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Raist on April 02, 2009, 01:58:58 PM
I'll elaborate for you.  Humans did not evolve up from a single string of amino acid proteins, or whateverthefuck their called.

The proper term is they're.

Ok, so prove it.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on April 02, 2009, 02:04:13 PM
I'll elaborate for you.  Humans did not evolve up from a single string of amino acid proteins, or whateverthefuck their called.

The proper term is they're.

Ok, so prove it.
'

Fuck, I hate it when I miss those.


You prove yours first, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that your aminos formed the way you say they did 45 billion years ago.  End results don't count as proof.

In fact I'd rather not even have you prove that.  Prove to me how water got on the planet 45 billion years ago.  If you can prove that I will be willing to examine abiogensis a little closer.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: optimisticcynic on April 02, 2009, 02:10:40 PM
4.5 billion. the universe isn't 45 billion old.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on April 02, 2009, 02:13:43 PM
Fine, would you like me to edit my post?
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: optimisticcynic on April 02, 2009, 02:17:13 PM
Well you just started arguing and all ready proved you don't know that much about the topic.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on April 02, 2009, 02:18:10 PM
Well you just started arguing and all ready proved you don't know that much about the topic.

I don't know much about Batman and Robin either, doesn't make them real now does it?
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Eddy Baby on April 02, 2009, 02:19:44 PM
Well you just started arguing and all ready proved you don't know that much about the topic.

Everyone should contribute what little they know. Just because they don't know much doesn't mean they'll abandon logic when talking about it...
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Pongo on April 02, 2009, 02:41:42 PM
hydrogen is the most common element in the solar system, oxygen is the third most common. H2O is the common molucule. How could it not have been there?
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Raist on April 02, 2009, 02:47:02 PM
I'll elaborate for you.  Humans did not evolve up from a single string of amino acid proteins, or whateverthefuck their called.

The proper term is they're.

Ok, so prove it.
'

Fuck, I hate it when I miss those.


You prove yours first, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that your aminos formed the way you say they did 45 billion years ago.  End results don't count as proof.

In fact I'd rather not even have you prove that.  Prove to me how water got on the planet 45 billion years ago.  If you can prove that I will be willing to examine abiogensis a little closer.

Most of the universe is hydrogen. That part is easy. Stars form oxygen through fusion in the later parts of their life.

Supernovas form a nebula. The nebula had hydrogen and oxygen. Our planet formed along with the sun in this nebula. It pulled oxygen and hydrogen in various forms to the earth. They combined.
Heating up hydrogen in the presence of oxygen causes water. This can be seen fairly easily.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on April 02, 2009, 03:10:00 PM
hydrogen is the most common element in the solar system, oxygen is the third most common. H2O is the common molucule. How could it not have been there?

Interesting, considering we are the only known planet to have water.


Most of the universe is hydrogen. That part is easy. Stars form oxygen through fusion in the later parts of their life.

Supernovas form a nebula. The nebula had hydrogen and oxygen. Our planet formed along with the sun in this nebula. It pulled oxygen and hydrogen in various forms to the earth. They combined.
Heating up hydrogen in the presence of oxygen causes water. This can be seen fairly easily.

So did 8 other planets.  (fuck you scientists, pluto counts.)  Yet none of the others have it.   Thats still just a hypothesis on how water formed here.  Not proof.  Ive read some scientists believe comets coming close by or even crashing into earth may have caused it.  Hypothesis.  (whats the plural for hypothesis anyway?)
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Isaac on April 02, 2009, 03:12:48 PM
hydrogen is the most common element in the solar system, oxygen is the third most common. H2O is the common molucule. How could it not have been there?

Interesting, considering we are the only known planet to have water.


Most of the universe is hydrogen. That part is easy. Stars form oxygen through fusion in the later parts of their life.

Supernovas form a nebula. The nebula had hydrogen and oxygen. Our planet formed along with the sun in this nebula. It pulled oxygen and hydrogen in various forms to the earth. They combined.
Heating up hydrogen in the presence of oxygen causes water. This can be seen fairly easily.

So did 8 other planets.  (fuck you scientists, pluto counts.)  Yet none of the others have it.   Thats still just a hypothesis on how water formed here.  Not proof.  Ive read some scientists believe comets coming close by or even crashing into earth may have caused it.  Hypothesis.  (whats the plural for hypothesis anyway?)

I'm totally on your side dude, but Mars has known ice caps.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on April 02, 2009, 03:15:09 PM
hydrogen is the most common element in the solar system, oxygen is the third most common. H2O is the common molucule. How could it not have been there?

Interesting, considering we are the only known planet to have water.


Most of the universe is hydrogen. That part is easy. Stars form oxygen through fusion in the later parts of their life.

Supernovas form a nebula. The nebula had hydrogen and oxygen. Our planet formed along with the sun in this nebula. It pulled oxygen and hydrogen in various forms to the earth. They combined.
Heating up hydrogen in the presence of oxygen causes water. This can be seen fairly easily.

So did 8 other planets.  (fuck you scientists, pluto counts.)  Yet none of the others have it.   Thats still just a hypothesis on how water formed here.  Not proof.  Ive read some scientists believe comets coming close by or even crashing into earth may have caused it.  Hypothesis.  (whats the plural for hypothesis anyway?)

I'm totally on your side dude, but Mars has known ice caps.

Im glad you are on my side, but you need to read up.  Mars' polar caps are frozen CO2 or "dry ice".
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Pongo on April 02, 2009, 03:16:16 PM
I'm at work now typing on my phone so I soooooo hope Raist owns you. You really should fact check before posting.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on April 02, 2009, 03:20:16 PM
Why, because some radar thing says that there might be water under the 8 foot of CO2 ice that sits on top of the poles?  Until we go there and do a direct analysis we will never know for sure.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: EnigmaZV on April 02, 2009, 03:56:35 PM
I believe Jupiter's moon Europa has been found to have water on it.

Also,

Quote
When the probe took photos of a ditch it had dug four days before, scientists noticed that about eight small crumbs of a bright material had disappeared. They concluded those crumbs had been water ice buried under a thin layer of dirt that vaporized when Phoenix exposed them to the air...

...Phoenix's robotic arm first revealed the crumbs about 5 cm deep in the trench called "Dodo-Goldilocks" on June 15. By June 19, they had vanished. If the crumbs had been salt, they wouldn't have disappeared, scientists said, and if the ice had been made of carbon dioxide, they wouldn't have vaporized.

Source:http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/080620-phoenix-ice-update.html (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/080620-phoenix-ice-update.html)

Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Raist on April 02, 2009, 05:20:35 PM
hydrogen is the most common element in the solar system, oxygen is the third most common. H2O is the common molucule. How could it not have been there?

Interesting, considering we are the only known planet to have water.


Most of the universe is hydrogen. That part is easy. Stars form oxygen through fusion in the later parts of their life.

Supernovas form a nebula. The nebula had hydrogen and oxygen. Our planet formed along with the sun in this nebula. It pulled oxygen and hydrogen in various forms to the earth. They combined.
Heating up hydrogen in the presence of oxygen causes water. This can be seen fairly easily.

So did 8 other planets.  (fuck you scientists, pluto counts.)  Yet none of the others have it.   Thats still just a hypothesis on how water formed here.  Not proof.  Ive read some scientists believe comets coming close by or even crashing into earth may have caused it.  Hypothesis.  (whats the plural for hypothesis anyway?)


Water is on mars. Sucks for you.

The temperature on the rest could be prohibitive to water formation. Like mercury, where it is so hot water separates to hydrogen and oxygen.

Before you ask why it formed here unlike other planets, just realize if it hadn't formed here we wouldn't be having this debate so it is pointless.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/799552.stm

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12026

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/11/20/mars-frozen-water.html


And the radar you are referring to has been tested on Earth many times to find liquid water.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on April 02, 2009, 07:20:07 PM
I believe Jupiter's moon Europa has been found to have water on it.

Also,

Quote
When the probe took photos of a ditch it had dug four days before, scientists noticed that about eight small crumbs of a bright material had disappeared. They concluded those crumbs had been water ice buried under a thin layer of dirt that vaporized when Phoenix exposed them to the air...

...Phoenix's robotic arm first revealed the crumbs about 5 cm deep in the trench called "Dodo-Goldilocks" on June 15. By June 19, they had vanished. If the crumbs had been salt, they wouldn't have disappeared, scientists said, and if the ice had been made of carbon dioxide, they wouldn't have vaporized.

Source:http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/080620-phoenix-ice-update.html (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/080620-phoenix-ice-update.html)



Here let me highlight some of your "evidence"    They concluded those crumbs had been water ice   Hmmm, they concluded.  Not proved, not for sure, they guessed.   Sounds like a hypothesis to me.


Water is on mars. Sucks for you.

The temperature on the rest could be prohibitive to water formation. Like mercury, where it is so hot water separates to hydrogen and oxygen.

Before you ask why it formed here unlike other planets, just realize if it hadn't formed here we wouldn't be having this debate so it is pointless.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/799552.stm

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12026

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/11/20/mars-frozen-water.html


And the radar you are referring to has been tested on Earth many times to find liquid water.

Here's some quotes from your articles,

The first one - The images show what appears to be brackish water seeping from beneath the Martian surface.  The discovery, if confirmed, will mark a turning point in our exploration of the Red Planet

Oops, that one didn't work, lets go to the next one.

Second article - Updated June '07: The researchers have retracted their claim about the possibility of standing water on Mars after readers pointed out the terrain lies on the sloped wall of a crater. 

Uhoh, that's strike two.  Shall we go for the Trifecta?

Third article - "A key question is 'How did the ice get there in the first place?

While I didn't find a smoking gun, so to speak, in this article I did find the same question I asked about the planet earth.  These are scientists here, you would think they would know about all this O2 and H floating around in the universe just waiting to collide a bond making H2O.

Im sorry Raist but your evidence is extremely lacking and definately not what I would call proof by any sense of the word.


So from this we can say that your original argument of it "just happened" isn't going to work.  Are we going to start debating comets now?
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on April 02, 2009, 07:22:04 PM
I'm at work now typing on my phone so I soooooo hope Raist owns you. You really should fact check before posting.

I guess that didn't work out as well as you hoped, did it? 
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: optimisticcynic on April 02, 2009, 08:02:21 PM
Okay four of the 9 planets are gas giants. so they couldn't have water.
two of the planets are too hot too have liquid water.
We don't know what composes Pluto  surface, and mars doesn't have enough gravity two hold onto an atmosphere. without an atmosphere all the water would evaporate and get blown away by the solar wind. in fact the only molecule  that seems to be able to stay on mars in a gas phase is CO2 which is over twice as heavy as H20. So although there is no water on the surface of any of any of the planets there is a logical reason for it.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Raist on April 02, 2009, 08:15:55 PM
I believe Jupiter's moon Europa has been found to have water on it.

Also,

Quote
When the probe took photos of a ditch it had dug four days before, scientists noticed that about eight small crumbs of a bright material had disappeared. They concluded those crumbs had been water ice buried under a thin layer of dirt that vaporized when Phoenix exposed them to the air...

...Phoenix's robotic arm first revealed the crumbs about 5 cm deep in the trench called "Dodo-Goldilocks" on June 15. By June 19, they had vanished. If the crumbs had been salt, they wouldn't have disappeared, scientists said, and if the ice had been made of carbon dioxide, they wouldn't have vaporized.

Source:http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/080620-phoenix-ice-update.html (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/080620-phoenix-ice-update.html)



Here let me highlight some of your "evidence"    They concluded those crumbs had been water ice   Hmmm, they concluded.  Not proved, not for sure, they guessed.   Sounds like a hypothesis to me.


Water is on mars. Sucks for you.

The temperature on the rest could be prohibitive to water formation. Like mercury, where it is so hot water separates to hydrogen and oxygen.

Before you ask why it formed here unlike other planets, just realize if it hadn't formed here we wouldn't be having this debate so it is pointless.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/799552.stm

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12026

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/11/20/mars-frozen-water.html


And the radar you are referring to has been tested on Earth many times to find liquid water.

Here's some quotes from your articles,

The first one - The images show what appears to be brackish water seeping from beneath the Martian surface.  The discovery, if confirmed, will mark a turning point in our exploration of the Red Planet

Oops, that one didn't work, lets go to the next one.

Second article - Updated June '07: The researchers have retracted their claim about the possibility of standing water on Mars after readers pointed out the terrain lies on the sloped wall of a crater. 

Uhoh, that's strike two.  Shall we go for the Trifecta?

Third article - "A key question is 'How did the ice get there in the first place?

While I didn't find a smoking gun, so to speak, in this article I did find the same question I asked about the planet earth.  These are scientists here, you would think they would know about all this O2 and H floating around in the universe just waiting to collide a bond making H2O.

Im sorry Raist but your evidence is extremely lacking and definately not what I would call proof by any sense of the word.


So from this we can say that your original argument of it "just happened" isn't going to work.  Are we going to start debating comets now?


Find a single scientist who does not know how water got here and I'll show you someone that needs to take a little more chemistry.

The reason they are doubtful about mars is because it lacks an atmosphere.

Look up jupiter's moons. One of them is covered in ice. Water ice.

http://www.solarviews.com/eng/europa.htm

Then we have comets made of ice. You are trying to make water sound like this rare chemical that only exists in select quantities in rare places. It is a compound easily made from two common atoms.

http://www.u24u.com/


this article is on water being one of the most abundant chemicals in the universe.

Water is not rare.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Soul Eater on April 02, 2009, 08:20:03 PM
Pluto is also mostly ice and its moon Charon is suspected to have water.  Hell, even the Sun is thought to have trace amounts of water vapor.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Raist on April 02, 2009, 08:22:52 PM
Warrdog will switch from "god made the earth special, that's why it has water" to the equally profound "god made water everywhere so Earth could exist"


I ask you this warrdog, do you seriously think god, with infinite power, infinite time, infinite wisdom, poofed the earth into existence exactly as it was 8,000 years ago, but made it look much older. Then he explained it to the people of long ago who did not really care about its age. Then we develop ways to figure out about how old it is, and he feels no need to tell us we are wrong?

Why didn't god create the universe the way it looks like it is created? Do you seriously believe he lacks the power to set up every event and miracle he wanted to happen from the beginning?
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: optimisticcynic on April 02, 2009, 08:37:59 PM
Pluto is also mostly ice and its moon Charon is suspected to have water.  Hell, even the Sun is thought to have trace amounts of water vapor.
Do we actually know that about Pluto? I thought that was just theorized.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Soul Eater on April 02, 2009, 08:44:25 PM
Everything I have read has stated that the ice on Pluto is at least partly composed of frozen water.  The rest is mostly frozen nitrogen, I believe.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on April 02, 2009, 09:11:08 PM
Find a single scientist who does not know how water got here and I'll show you someone that needs to take a little more chemistry.

Lets start with this one.

Apparently this scientist - "A key question is 'How did the ice get there in the first place?'" said James Head of Brown University

The reason they are doubtful about mars is because it lacks an atmosphere.

Oh so now it went from "ATTENTION EVERYONE THERE IS WATER ON MARS!"  To reasons they are doubtful?  C'mon man.

Look up jupiter's moons. One of them is covered in ice. Water ice.

http://www.solarviews.com/eng/europa.htm

Europa may be internally active, and its crust may have, or had in the past, liquid water which can harbor life.  
My have or had?  So they aren't sure if it is there now or maybe used to be there?  Seriously, why do you post these links?


Then we have comets made of ice. You are trying to make water sound like this rare chemical that only exists in select quantities in rare places. It is a compound easily made from two common atoms.

http://www.u24u.com/


this article is on water being one of the most abundant chemicals in the universe.

Water is not rare.


Ahh, I knew it was going to come to this.  How many comets had to hit the earth to form enough to cover 75% of the earths surface?  Or was that just a biproduct of one or two hitting the planet and then rain started falling?

And why even bring up the comets.  I thought there was enough hydrogen and oxygen floating around to produce oceans?


Warrdog will switch from "god made the earth special, that's why it has water" to the equally profound "god made water everywhere so Earth could exist"


Until you prove all these other planets have water(which you haven't) Im not switching to anything

I ask you this warrdog, do you seriously think god, with infinite power, infinite time, infinite wisdom, poofed the earth into existence exactly as it was 8,000 years ago, but made it look much older. Then he explained it to the people of long ago who did not really care about its age. Then we develop ways to figure out about how old it is, and he feels no need to tell us we are wrong?

The ways that you speak of are flawed.  But Im not getting into a carbon dating discussion with you until we resolve where the water came from.

Why didn't god create the universe the way it looks like it is created? Do you seriously believe he lacks the power to set up every event and miracle he wanted to happen from the beginning?

Because he wanted people to believe in him regardless of whatever they may find out there.  Again Im not trying to get into religous debate here either.  We are discussing water and its arrival on earth.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: optimisticcynic on April 02, 2009, 09:14:56 PM
Hydrogen is the most plentiful element in the universe. oxygen I believe is one of the most plentiful elements in the earths crust. yes there is not much hydrogen here now but there was in the early solar system. That is where the water came from. I have already explained why the other planets don't have water.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on April 02, 2009, 09:23:17 PM
Hydrogen is the most plentiful element in the universe. oxygen I believe is one of the most plentiful elements in the earths crust. yes there is not much hydrogen here now but there was in the early solar system. That is where the water came from. I have already explained why the other planets don't have water.

Really?  So now we've gone from they all have it, or their moons have it, back to where I started.  Earth is the only one.  On top of that, why is it that different scientists have different opinions on where it came from?
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: optimisticcynic on April 02, 2009, 09:30:52 PM
We are also the only planet that is the correct distance from the star to have liquid water. Now you may say this is luck but water could have formed on any planat big enough to hold an atmospher and in the belt of where liquid water can form. There isn't any planet that does both of those besides earth. if there was we would be two close together to it and our orbits would be thrown off. So the fact we are here talking is why there is only one planet that has liquid water.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on April 02, 2009, 09:32:27 PM
Man, you have it all figured out don't you?  Maybe you should go work for NASA or a college or something.

Why is it that different scientists have different opinions on where it came from?
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: optimisticcynic on April 02, 2009, 09:36:13 PM
Man, you have it all figured out don't you?  Maybe you should go work for NASA or a college or something.

Why is it that different scientists have different opinions on where it came from?
because scientist are people. there will always be someone who disagrees with the group. Now I don't feel like looking this up but you can if you want. is there a strong majority of the  way  that scientists believe how the water got here?
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on April 02, 2009, 09:40:11 PM
Here are some common themes.  Each one very different from the other.  Take your pick, and enjoy the kool-aid.

    * The cooling of the primordial Earth to the point where the outgassed volatile components were held in an atmosphere of sufficient pressure for the stabilization and retention of liquid water.

    * Comets, trans-Neptunian objects or water-rich asteroids (protoplanets) from the outer reaches of the asteroid belt colliding with a pre-historic Earth may have brought water to the world's oceans. Measurements of the ratio of the hydrogen isotopes deuterium and protium point to asteroids, since similar percentage impurities in carbon-rich chondrites were found to oceanic water, whereas previous measurement of the isotopes' concentrations in comets and trans-Neptunian objects correspond only slightly to water on the earth.

    * Biochemically through mineralization and photosynthesis (guttation, transpiration).

    * Gradual leakage of water stored in hydrous minerals of the Earth's rocks.

    * Photolysis: radiation can break down chemical bonds on the surface.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: optimisticcynic on April 02, 2009, 09:46:49 PM
And only one can be right because...?
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on April 02, 2009, 09:56:50 PM
Yeah, a combination of all of the above right?

The point being?  No one fucking knows.  Period. 
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Raist on April 02, 2009, 10:17:21 PM
The reason that it is doubtful there is liquid water is because of the miles deep ice all over the planet. It's hard to tell if there is water on the bottom of that.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on April 02, 2009, 10:21:21 PM
The reason that it is doubtful there is liquid water is because of the miles deep ice all over the planet. It's hard to tell if there is water on the bottom of that.


Miles deep of CO2 ice.

Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Raist on April 02, 2009, 10:21:56 PM
Except it isn't CO2 Ice.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on April 02, 2009, 10:22:59 PM
Except it isn't CO2 Ice.
'

Dry ice, your point?
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Raist on April 02, 2009, 10:23:17 PM
Not what I said either.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on April 02, 2009, 10:28:01 PM
Are you drunk, or extremely tired?
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Raist on April 02, 2009, 10:32:08 PM
Neither. I'm saying that the ice is water. "Water Helen, Wa-ter"
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on April 02, 2009, 10:41:47 PM
Neither. I'm saying that the ice is water. "Water Helen, Wa-ter"

Ahh you're right.  I misread your post.  Maybe Im drunk. 

Except it isn't CO2 Ice.

According to this it is.

Southern - The top layer consists of frozen carbon dioxide and about 8 meters (27 feet) thick

Northern - this gains a seasonal coating of frozen carbon dioxide (dry ice) about one meter (three feet) thick.


http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/M/Marspoles.html

We can only speculate whats underneath.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Raist on April 02, 2009, 10:54:23 PM
That's mars you linked me to.

Uropa.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on April 02, 2009, 11:33:26 PM
That's mars you linked me to.

Uropa.

Moons, planets, make up your mind.

The reason that it is doubtful there is liquid water is because of the miles deep ice all over the planet. It's hard to tell if there is water on the bottom of that.


Fine Europa,

Ahh crap.  Foiled again.

We also summarized the evidence for liquid water at Europa based on geological evidence from images of Europa taken by the Voyager and Galileo spacecraft. The geological evidence is tantalizing, but incomplete it suggests that liquid water could be present.

The Voyager and Galileo spacecraft were not equipped with instruments which could directly detect water or water ice. Observations of Europa show the geometric albedo is generally high, indicative of a reflective surface. Earth-based observations of the infrared spectra of Europa and the other Galilean satellites were made in the early 1970's from ground and airborne observatories.



I still would only call this evidence, wouldn't you?
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Raist on April 02, 2009, 11:41:02 PM
Ah yes. I forgot something is never evidence unless it was written by someone 2,000 years ago.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on April 02, 2009, 11:46:15 PM
Ah yes. I forgot something is never evidence unless it was written by someone 2,000 years ago.

It's the exact same as some scientists' guess about whats on the surface of a moon 480 million miles away.  Or how water formed on the earth, which you still haven't answered.

Belief in an unknown.  Great Job.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Pongo on April 02, 2009, 11:51:03 PM
I'm at work now typing on my phone so I soooooo hope Raist owns you. You really should fact check before posting.

I guess that didn't work out as well as you hoped, did it? 

Raist preformed above and beyond expectations.  I'm not sure what's sadder, that you've lost so soundly that your continued debate only illustrates the depths and facets of your ignorance, or that your trust in wherever you pulled these arguments from is so sound that you do not even realize that you've lost.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on April 02, 2009, 11:53:38 PM
I'm at work now typing on my phone so I soooooo hope Raist owns you. You really should fact check before posting.

I guess that didn't work out as well as you hoped, did it? 

Raist preformed above and beyond expectations.  I'm not sure what's sadder, that you've lost so soundly that your continued debate only illustrates the depths and facets of your ignorance, or that your trust in wherever you pulled these arguments from is so sound that you do not even realize that you've lost.

That entire post is what every facepalm.jpg's and fail.jpg's were made for.


This is my favorite part.
 
or that your trust in wherever you pulled these arguments from is so sound that you do not even realize that you've lost.

I pulled them from his links.  Wow.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Raist on April 03, 2009, 12:01:07 AM
Those were your counter remarks. He means things like your argument about water being rare except for Earth. Also questioning how it formed. I showed an article claiming it is the most abundant chemical in the universe so you bring up the ridiculous statement "we don't know how it formed" Then you start up your ridiculous sidetrack about how we're sure there is water on other planets. Then claim that Uropa is possibly buried under a sea of carbon dioxide miles deep.

Question, where would all that Carbon dioxide come from?
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on April 03, 2009, 12:03:41 AM

Question, where would all that Carbon dioxide come from?

You remember you're asking a creationist right?
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Raist on April 03, 2009, 12:07:18 AM
So..... god poofed a giant lake of carbon dioxide onto a planet when he never does anything similar to this anywhere else namely because it would not make sense when he is tricking us reasonable people in every other category so well? Makes sense. The fact is that much carbon dioxide would not naturally be around an object that size. God has managed to follow general rules of formation for everything else.


A mistake?

As for the rest of my post that you ignored. :D
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on April 03, 2009, 12:08:53 AM
So..... god poofed a giant lake of carbon dioxide onto a planet when he never does anything similar to this anywhere else namely because it would not make sense when he is tricking us reasonable people in every other category so well? Makes sense. The fact is that much carbon dioxide would not naturally be around an object that size. God has managed to follow general rules of formation for everything else.


A mistake?

As for the rest of my post that you ignored. :D

You are giving me shit about ignoring parts of your post?  Try going back a page.  You got a lot of catching up to do.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Pongo on April 03, 2009, 12:09:36 AM

Question, where would all that Carbon dioxide come from?

You remember you're asking a creationist right?

It's generally looked down upon and considered infantile when all your arguments have to evoke dues ex machina.  That kind of thinking cannot even stand in the same ball park as science. 
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on April 03, 2009, 12:11:38 AM

Question, where would all that Carbon dioxide come from?

You remember you're asking a creationist right?

It's generally looked down upon and considered infantile when all your arguments have to evoke dues ex machina.  That kind of thinking cannot even stand in the same ball park as science. 

I am, what I am. 

The same science that doesn't prove a thing, and invokes belief in a hypothesis?
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Pongo on April 03, 2009, 12:14:15 AM

The same science that doesn't prove a thing, and invokes belief in a hypothesis?

No, that's not the science I'm referring to.  I'm talking about real science, not science that creationists distort and strain in order to make their views appear stronger.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on April 03, 2009, 12:15:50 AM

The same science that doesn't prove a thing, and invokes belief in a hypothesis?

No, that's not the science I'm referring to.  I'm talking about real science, not science that creationists distort and strain in order to make their views appear stronger.

How did water get on the new planet of earth again?  According to science of course.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Pongo on April 03, 2009, 12:33:26 AM
I don't know; perhaps tomorrow I'll research it.  For now though, sleep well.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on April 03, 2009, 12:35:38 AM
C'ya later.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Raist on April 03, 2009, 12:38:25 AM

The same science that doesn't prove a thing, and invokes belief in a hypothesis?

No, that's not the science I'm referring to.  I'm talking about real science, not science that creationists distort and strain in order to make their views appear stronger.

How did water get on the new planet of earth again?  According to science of course.

Perhaps it never left. Ha dur.

As for your belief in hypothesis. Never. Science demands doubt beyond reason in your hypothesis. It has to be on something completely testable and have a means to be disproven via experiment.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Isaac on April 03, 2009, 07:18:19 AM

The same science that doesn't prove a thing, and invokes belief in a hypothesis?

No, that's not the science I'm referring to.  I'm talking about real science, not science that creationists distort and strain in order to make their views appear stronger.

How did water get on the new planet of earth again?  According to science of course.
it's really funny. they claim that billions of years ago comets sometimes got to close and their tales dumped water onto the planet. of course there is no proof to support this, it's just accepted because they figure it is the most likely way.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on April 03, 2009, 09:48:31 AM

The same science that doesn't prove a thing, and invokes belief in a hypothesis?

No, that's not the science I'm referring to.  I'm talking about real science, not science that creationists distort and strain in order to make their views appear stronger.

How did water get on the new planet of earth again?  According to science of course.

Perhaps it never left. Ha dur.

As for your belief in hypothesis. Never. Science demands doubt beyond reason in your hypothesis. It has to be on something completely testable and have a means to be disproven via experiment.

So every possible theory on how water formed on this planet has been tested?
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: optimisticcynic on April 03, 2009, 10:27:28 AM
wait a second you are the one saying that earth is the only planet that has water. you should be the one providing evidence that Europa doesn't have water. Same with mars. we have giving reasons why we can't see the ice on mars, you need to prove it doesn't exist.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on April 03, 2009, 10:51:45 AM
wait a second you are the one saying that earth is the only planet that has water. you should be the one providing evidence that Europa doesn't have water. Same with mars. we have giving reasons why we can't see the ice on mars, you need to prove it doesn't exist.

I'm not rehashing this.  Go back to page one and start over.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Raist on April 03, 2009, 01:04:17 PM

The same science that doesn't prove a thing, and invokes belief in a hypothesis?

No, that's not the science I'm referring to.  I'm talking about real science, not science that creationists distort and strain in order to make their views appear stronger.

How did water get on the new planet of earth again?  According to science of course.

Perhaps it never left. Ha dur.

As for your belief in hypothesis. Never. Science demands doubt beyond reason in your hypothesis. It has to be on something completely testable and have a means to be disproven via experiment.

So every possible theory on how water formed on this planet has been tested?

So you have gone out and tested every planet for water?


And yes, they test them to their ability to test them, and the tests could in fact prove them wrong.


Unlike your stance which is simply to nitpick any issue possible, and then when asked about evidence for your claims you just say "god made it that way" and your inconsistencies are fine.


I showed you a water planet. You claimed it is co2. Explained miles deep co2 ice. It is your idea explain how it got there.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Isaac on April 03, 2009, 02:11:34 PM
Even though i am christian I know that other planets have water on them. ours is unique because no other planet has THAWED water on it. That we know of, at least.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Raist on April 03, 2009, 02:20:40 PM
When we've explored very few planets (read:2ish) this hardly makes us unique.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Isaac on April 03, 2009, 05:48:52 PM
we haven't explored many but we can see many through a telscope. but another thing that makes us unique is that no other moon reflects light back onto the planet.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Soul Eater on April 03, 2009, 05:59:59 PM
we haven't explored many but we can see many through a telscope. but another thing that makes us unique is that no other moon reflects light back onto the planet.
You do realize that you can't tell if a planet has water simply by looking through a telescope, right?
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Raist on April 03, 2009, 06:01:58 PM
we haven't explored many but we can see many through a telscope. but another thing that makes us unique is that no other moon reflects light back onto the planet.


False. But good theory. ::)


As for looking at them through a telescope, we have a sample size of nine planets various sizes and distances from the sun. Perhaps if we could see how many planets of our size in the same temperature zone had water we could determine if we were "special."
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Proleg on April 03, 2009, 09:18:59 PM
Who let KingMan back in?
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Pongo on April 03, 2009, 10:33:41 PM
For liquid water to exist on the surface, a planet needs to be in a certain zone not too far and not too close to its sun (among a few other factors).  How many planets per solar system do you think can fit in that range?  Maybe three max?  I don't know, but the point I'm making is that we only have a pool of 8 to look at.  Sure we can see planets in other solar systems, but we can only see them when they pass between their sun and us.  We can't observe well enough to see water.  It's like pulling 8 kids out of a classroom and finding only one that is black and concluding that he/she is the only black child in the world.  The sample size simply isn't big enough.  For another example, Mars is the only known planet to have two moons.  Does this make mars special? Does this mean that there aren't any other planets in the entire cosmos with only two moons because it's the only one we know of?  Does this mean that Mars is special and because it's special God must have made it?  No. 
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Proleg on April 03, 2009, 11:05:21 PM
Obviously, none of you have studied Wumbology.
If you do not cease this low content posting, I shall begin reporting you.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Raist on April 03, 2009, 11:49:53 PM
If you begin spamming my inbox because someone made a joke I will be pissed.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Jack on April 04, 2009, 11:05:06 AM
Who let KingMan back in?
Not anymore.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Raist on April 04, 2009, 01:40:09 PM
So what did you ban him for jack? Just for reference the rule he broke?
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Jack on April 04, 2009, 02:01:00 PM
Ban evasion, as I suspect Isaac is Kingman; I believe he is Kingman not because of his avatar, but because of the quality and content of his posts. If I'm wrong, feel free to unban him.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Raist on April 04, 2009, 02:09:31 PM
I mean why was kingman banned?

The real clue is the photobucket he posted in a chat gkingman, was the name.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Jack on April 04, 2009, 02:10:30 PM
Ask Hara about it.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Raist on April 04, 2009, 02:11:22 PM
 ;D
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Proleg on April 05, 2009, 03:55:09 PM
If you begin spamming my inbox because someone made a joke I will be pissed.
When was the last time I actually reported someone?
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Raist on April 05, 2009, 04:42:31 PM
I don't really pay attention to reports. Possibly yesterday for all I know.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Proleg on April 06, 2009, 06:17:48 PM
I don't really pay attention to reports. Possibly yesterday for all I know.
Wrong.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Raist on April 06, 2009, 06:56:11 PM
Actually that statement is true.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Proleg on April 06, 2009, 07:39:51 PM
Actually that statement is true.
For all you know.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Raist on April 06, 2009, 10:50:46 PM
It was a qualified statement. It is therefore correct.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: ﮎingulaЯiτy on April 07, 2009, 03:37:16 PM
Old link; Relevant message.



I believe it covers the water topic.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on April 07, 2009, 07:00:48 PM
Here are some common themes.  Each one very different from the other.  Take your pick, and enjoy the kool-aid.

    * The cooling of the primordial Earth to the point where the outgassed volatile components were held in an atmosphere of sufficient pressure for the stabilization and retention of liquid water.

    * Comets, trans-Neptunian objects or water-rich asteroids (protoplanets) from the outer reaches of the asteroid belt colliding with a pre-historic Earth may have brought water to the world's oceans. Measurements of the ratio of the hydrogen isotopes deuterium and protium point to asteroids, since similar percentage impurities in carbon-rich chondrites were found to oceanic water, whereas previous measurement of the isotopes' concentrations in comets and trans-Neptunian objects correspond only slightly to water on the earth.

    * Biochemically through mineralization and photosynthesis (guttation, transpiration).

    * Gradual leakage of water stored in hydrous minerals of the Earth's rocks.

    * Photolysis: radiation can break down chemical bonds on the surface.

Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: optimisticcynic on April 07, 2009, 07:31:54 PM
I don't understand how scientist disagreeing is evidence towards creationism. I have went over why there is not water on other planets. So what, scientist aren't sure how water came to the earth. all of those ideas could have happened on another planet that happened to be in the correct position. It really isn't evidence that earth is special. It is evidence that scientist haven't found the answer yet. you don't need to give god credit for everything unknown
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on April 07, 2009, 07:37:35 PM
I don't understand how scientist disagreeing is evidence towards creationism. I have when over why there is not water on other planets. scientist aren't sure how water came to the earth. all of those could have happened on another planet that happened to be in the correct position. It really isn't evidence that earth is special. It is evidence that scientist haven't found the answer yet.

Great job.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: optimisticcynic on April 07, 2009, 09:23:31 PM
I don't understand how scientist disagreeing is evidence towards creationism. I have when over why there is not water on other planets. scientist aren't sure how water came to the earth. all of those could have happened on another planet that happened to be in the correct position. It really isn't evidence that earth is special. It is evidence that scientist haven't found the answer yet.

Great job.
Okay the only evidence you have is A. there is no water on the other planets, which I explained why that is, and B. The fact scientist are do not have a consensus on how water got to our planet.
that is not evidence that our planet is the only one that has water.
that is like saying I have not met bill I have only heard people talk about him and they say different things about bill therefore bill does not exist
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Pongo on April 08, 2009, 12:36:26 AM
Dear Wardogg,

Appeals to your sense of reason are as futile as shouting at mountains to move.  This endeavor gets nowhere.  Where does this leave us?  On opposing sides of a river of debate.  Your side is rich in history and an exquisite look into the enigma of the human psyche.  On your side of this metaphorical river are the greatest works of paint, poetry, pottery, prose, and a myriad of masterworks over many mediums have been commissioned, constructed, crafted, created, and conjured.  All alliterations aside, you stand on the bank your river proud and unapologetic; unmoved and unshaken you shine like a beacon for others to follow.  Why should you be shaken, moved, or apologetic?  You stand in front of what is represented by your side, power, prestige, and a promise of security.  You stand a representative of faith; the noble philosophy of belief in ideas unprovable, hypotheses untestable, and words unquestionable. 
   
Opposed by science and the advancement of mankind you fight vigilantly.  Knowingly or not, when theories that oppose your view are proven to be true you fight them with lies, deceit, misinformation, or outright denial.  What you do not realize however, is that the river is long and has flowed for many centuries.  Better men than us have stood at its banks; men who have valiantly furthered their causes and laid the way for us to follow.  Unfortunately, many men worse than us have stood here as well; when they command attention the river runs red with blood.  Circuitously I say, this debate has raged on for millennia and in the end provable science always wins.  No matter how much you don't want it to or how hard you shy in the shroud of ignorance, science will win.  There are many levels of resistance people employ to fight science.  Some people lie to their followers, some try in vain to poke holes in the opposing argument, some live out their lives in denial, and yet some commit atrocities of mass murder.  All for naught though, in the end science always prevails.
   
Science will always triumph because it offers people tangible and measureable benefits.  Proof of this should dot your life like stars in the night's sky.  Religion offers comfort and assurance to a tormented soul, but this is meaningless to a starving family.  I know you hold your convictions strong and you know you are right.  I know that you have felt the warm loving touch of the divine and I know that you accept it with all your heart.  I also know that you fight your fight under that guiding light.  What you do not know is the implications of your cause.  You stand against the betterment of all of humanity.  To fight evolution is to fight cures of devastating diseases, to fight the improvement of medicine, to fight knowledge.  By trying to suppress evolution you are willfully and knowingly depriving children the knowledge needed to help the human race flourish and grow.
   
You stand proud; we balk at how you can find a shred of pride to stand on.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Proleg on April 08, 2009, 10:46:14 AM
I have a feeling that Wardogg is a "Frank Burns" character, even by Marine standards.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on April 08, 2009, 11:04:18 AM
I don't understand how scientist disagreeing is evidence towards creationism. I have when over why there is not water on other planets. scientist aren't sure how water came to the earth. all of those could have happened on another planet that happened to be in the correct position. It really isn't evidence that earth is special. It is evidence that scientist haven't found the answer yet.

Great job.
Okay the only evidence you have is A. there is no water on the other planets, which I explained why that is, and B. The fact scientist are do not have a consensus on how water got to our planet.
that is not evidence that our planet is the only one that has water.
that is like saying I have not met bill I have only heard people talk about him and they say different things about bill therefore bill does not exist

Oh really? I bet thats exactly what you say about God.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: optimisticcynic on April 08, 2009, 11:13:49 AM
I don't understand how scientist disagreeing is evidence towards creationism. I have when over why there is not water on other planets. scientist aren't sure how water came to the earth. all of those could have happened on another planet that happened to be in the correct position. It really isn't evidence that earth is special. It is evidence that scientist haven't found the answer yet.

Great job.
Okay the only evidence you have is A. there is no water on the other planets, which I explained why that is, and B. The fact scientist are do not have a consensus on how water got to our planet.
that is not evidence that our planet is the only one that has water.
that is like saying I have not met bill I have only heard people talk about him and they say different things about bill therefore bill does not exist

Oh really? I bet thats exactly what you say about God.
No I never said god didn't exist. I said I don't know if he exist. Second no one I know has met god personally.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on April 08, 2009, 03:02:20 PM
Dear Wardogg,

Appeals to your sense of reason are as futile as shouting at mountains to move.  This endeavor gets nowhere.  Where does this leave us?  On opposing sides of a river of debate.  Your side is rich in history and an exquisite look into the enigma of the human psyche.  On your side of this metaphorical river are the greatest works of paint, poetry, pottery, prose, and a myriad of masterworks over many mediums have been commissioned, constructed, crafted, created, and conjured.  All alliterations aside, you stand on the bank your river proud and unapologetic; unmoved and unshaken you shine like a beacon for others to follow.  Why should you be shaken, moved, or apologetic?  You stand in front of what is represented by your side, power, prestige, and a promise of security.  You stand a representative of faith; the noble philosophy of belief in ideas unprovable, hypotheses untestable, and words unquestionable. 
   
Opposed by science and the advancement of mankind you fight vigilantly.  Knowingly or not, when theories that oppose your view are proven to be true you fight them with lies, deceit, misinformation, or outright denial.  What you do not realize however, is that the river is long and has flowed for many centuries.  Better men than us have stood at its banks; men who have valiantly furthered their causes and laid the way for us to follow.  Unfortunately, many men worse than us have stood here as well; when they command attention the river runs red with blood.  Circuitously I say, this debate has raged on for millennia and in the end provable science always wins.  No matter how much you don't want it to or how hard you shy in the shroud of ignorance, science will win.  There are many levels of resistance people employ to fight science.  Some people lie to their followers, some try in vain to poke holes in the opposing argument, some live out their lives in denial, and yet some commit atrocities of mass murder.  All for naught though, in the end science always prevails.
   
Science will always triumph because it offers people tangible and measureable benefits.  Proof of this should dot your life like stars in the night's sky.  Religion offers comfort and assurance to a tormented soul, but this is meaningless to a starving family.  I know you hold your convictions strong and you know you are right.  I know that you have felt the warm loving touch of the divine and I know that you accept it with all your heart.  I also know that you fight your fight under that guiding light.  What you do not know is the implications of your cause.  You stand against the betterment of all of humanity.  To fight evolution is to fight cures of devastating diseases, to fight the improvement of medicine, to fight knowledge.  By trying to suppress evolution you are willfully and knowingly depriving children the knowledge needed to help the human race flourish and grow.
   
You stand proud; we balk at how you can find a shred of pride to stand on.


Some how how i missed this post earlier.  I will agree that better men than us have debated this.  Its funny when I view sciences' stance on evolution and the begining of the earth to me it looks like a religion, alot of guess and presumptions that no one can prove.  When you mock my belief in something that is unproven and unshown and then you spout that water formed on earth becuase of comets that flew by 4.5 million years ago you have to somewhat see my side of it.

Believe what you want.  I applaud your convictions to science, one way or another we are all going to find out for sure, and that is a fact.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: ﮎingulaЯiτy on April 08, 2009, 04:00:54 PM
Today we had a Christian Scholar briefly speak during my comparative religion class. He talked about how "none of the people who wrote the gospels, did so from firsthand experience." Nothing was written for a good 50 AD until Saul/Paul came along and wrote things down based on the myths of Jesus that he could collect from spectator's descendants. (actually even his status as real author is questioned) Essentially, he was the first literate newly converted Christian to go around and record stories of Jesus from children who had heard rumors and myths passed on by their elders. The Gospels came even later.

Romans who were persecuting the Christians couldn't understand why people would follow Christianity. Written stories (the only and most reliable account of news at the time) had reason to be embellished, exaggerated, or downright fabricated in order to present an undeniable perception of Jesus to the Roman people. An elitist Roman general was written in as a witness to Jesus stating that he was indeed the son of God. This was later read and added to in the next gospel to include his entire army as well. When it was mentioned that the stone of Jesus' tomb was moved aside, Gospels written after it replaced a man in a robe who spoke of Jesus' resurrection with an angel who moved the stone herself. These miraculous stories were invented for the purpose of trying to convert as many people as possible, "as faith writings, and not as historical accounts."

The scholar told us that common Christians (not in a derogatory way) usually didn't know this, and if you go to a church and get up in front of everyone and present the historical reasons that the Gospels weren't written by the apostles' nor was it able to be (or even meant to be) accurate, you'd probably be stoned to death or something. It is really something that only the historian Christians commonly agree upon and the rest of the world has to catch up.
...Much like when the scientific community was all zeroing in on the changes of population over time and Darwin presented his (and Wallace's) take on evolution to them. He got little response from them but then he published a book and citizens who hadn't gradually come to similar conclusions on their own were hearing them for the first time, it came as a shock and caused great controversy. He told us he was shocked too, when he first became familiar with this.

Any well educated Christian scholar will tell you that the Gospels are written for spiritual purposes and aren't meant to be taken literally. They are simply stories to embrace spirituality, not to report actual events. All in all, Jesus has become more of a mythical figure who is based on a man who did claim to be the messiah and died by Crucifiction. We can't know much more about him, except for the fictive literature of the people he indirectly moved, and the Roman census.

[This relates heavily to the 2nd Foundational Falsehood of Creationism video.]

As for embracing spirituality and not reality, it is much like Santa Claus. We are all taught that he is real when we are young, because it is an essential part of the spirit of Christmas. He doesn't have to be real, to carry some sort of meaning. Christmas wouldn't be the same if he was written out.






Some how how i missed this post earlier.  I will agree that better men than us have debated this.
Hi. It's been a while Wardogg.

First off, how is that relevant? Are we appealing to other people's debates to avoid our own inquiry? Quite frankly, I feel like watching any one of those debates I would be able to pick a "winner" or "loser", based on their reasoning and debate skills.  :-\

Quote
Its funny when I view sciences' stance on evolution and the beginning of the earth to me it looks like a religion, a lot of guess and presumptions that no one can prove.

What presumptions are you talking about? And what proof are you asking for?

The only perfect proof is witnessing the creation of the Earth, so what we have instead is sizable evidence. Furthermore, it is not religious because it is based upon the principles of observation and repetition. Gravitational attraction of swirling masses, debris, planetesimals, and protoplanets are all seen in distant space. Connecting them as a stages in a cycle takes little to no imagination. If you want to know more about Nebular Theory, just ask.

Quote
When you mock my belief in something that is unproven and unshown and then you spout that water formed on earth because of comets that flew by 4.5 million years ago you have to somewhat see my side of it.
I don't approve of the ridicule of others or their beliefs, but I should probably mention that it is accepted by the vast majority of scientists that H20 ice is a large part of comets. I don't see any flaw in thinking that dust-like snow from comets was commonly intercepting Earth's orbit. Not to mention outgassing of the planet's inner water from global cooling would release large amounts of water and air.

Quote
Believe what you want.  I applaud your convictions to science, one way or another we are all going to find out for sure, and that is a fact.
We will only find out for sure if there is an afterlife. If we just die, we won't even know that we were waiting on an answer. What part of science don't you like? The methods or the conclusions?
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on April 08, 2009, 05:08:19 PM
Some how how i missed this post earlier.  I will agree that better men than us have debated this.
Hi. It's been a while Wardogg.

First off, how is that relevant? Are we appealing to other people's debates to avoid our own inquiry? Quite frankly, I feel like watching any one of those debates I would be able to pick a "winner" or "loser", based on their reasoning and debate skills.  :-\

Yes, it has been awhile,  Here we go again.   ;)  So because someone can out debate someone else that makes that winners position "correct"?  It may only mean that the winner was more knowledgeable in the particular subject.

Quote
Its funny when I view sciences' stance on evolution and the beginning of the earth to me it looks like a religion, a lot of guess and presumptions that no one can prove.

What presumptions are you talking about? And what proof are you asking for?

The only perfect proof is witnessing the creation of the Earth, so what we have instead is sizable evidence. Furthermore, it is not religious because it is based upon the principles of observation and repetition. Gravitational attraction of swirling masses, debris, planetesimals, and protoplanets are all seen in distant space. Connecting them as a stages in a cycle takes little to no imagination. If you want to know more about Nebular Theory, just ask.

You know this little quote brought alot of questions to my head about viewing things in distance space.  Im not even sure they are relevenat other than to  maybe the age of the universe.  I need to ask one question before I start though.  After the big bang how fast did things start to accelerate away from each other.  And how long did that acceleration last, and are they still accelerating or has it become a constant expansion?

Quote
When you mock my belief in something that is unproven and unshown and then you spout that water formed on earth because of comets that flew by 4.5 million years ago you have to somewhat see my side of it.
I don't approve of the ridicule of others or their beliefs, but I should probably mention that it is accepted by the vast majority of scientists that H20 ice is a large part of comets. I don't see any flaw in thinking that dust-like snow from comets was commonly intercepting Earth's orbit. Not to mention outgassing of the planet's inner water from global cooling would release large amounts of water and air.

No its not.  There are so many hypothesis about how water got on this planet.  Go back to page 5 where I listed just a few of them.

Quote
Believe what you want.  I applaud your convictions to science, one way or another we are all going to find out for sure, and that is a fact.
We will only find out for sure if there is an afterlife. If we just die, we won't even know that we were waiting on an answer. What part of science don't you like? The methods or the conclusions?

Mostly it's conclusions that aren't based on fact.  Just speculations, and the "well it had to happen someway so this must be it'. 
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Soul Eater on April 08, 2009, 05:27:12 PM
Mostly it's conclusions that aren't based on fact.  Just speculations, and the "well it had to happen someway so this must be it'. 
Isn't that exactly what religion is? 
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on April 08, 2009, 05:30:10 PM
Mostly it's conclusions that aren't based on fact.  Just speculations, and the "well it had to happen someway so this must be it'. 
Isn't that exactly what religion is? 

So you agree, science and religion are the same?
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Raist on April 08, 2009, 05:33:41 PM
Mostly it's conclusions that aren't based on fact.  Just speculations, and the "well it had to happen someway so this must be it'. 
Isn't that exactly what religion is? 

So you agree, science and religion are the same?

Actually he compared what you claimed was not science to religion. So no.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Soul Eater on April 08, 2009, 05:38:54 PM
Mostly it's conclusions that aren't based on fact.  Just speculations, and the "well it had to happen someway so this must be it'. 
Isn't that exactly what religion is? 

So you agree, science and religion are the same?
No, your definition of science seemed to fit religion more.  Scientific conclusions are based on facts, the problem is that we don't always have all the facts.  A certain amount is speculation, but scientific theories evolve and change as more information is obtained.  I can't say the same for religion.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on April 08, 2009, 05:45:43 PM
Mostly it's conclusions that aren't based on fact.  Just speculations, and the "well it had to happen someway so this must be it'. 
Isn't that exactly what religion is? 

So you agree, science and religion are the same?
No, your definition of science seemed to fit religion more.  Scientific conclusions are based on facts, the problem is that we don't always have all the facts.  A certain amount is speculation, but scientific theories evolve and change as more information is obtained.  I can't say the same for religion.

So its based of facts, just not all of them.  Comets have water ice, FACT.  Comets sometimes fly by earth, FACT.  Comets must have deposited the oceans on the young earth, uhhhh What the fuck?  Where is the fact in that?  (yes i know it was an exageration there at the end but the principle is still there.)  Comets deposited enough water to create a revolving weather system that produced the oceans, whatever the case may be how many comets had to fly by? 

Jesus was a man.  FACT  Jesus claimed to be the son of God and the messiah, FACT.  God created the entire universe in 6 days.  Yours sounds no different than mine.  The only difference is what endng you choose to believe.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Soul Eater on April 08, 2009, 05:54:34 PM
But science has evidence to support it's claims.  Religion is fundamentally unscientific, in that its claims cannot be verified of falsified.  And theories are just that, they're theories.  No one is saying that comets MUST have deposited water on Earth, it's just an explanation that makes sense based on the evidence we have.  I will say that religion acts in a similar way to science.  It's different because it is an explanation based on belief alone, rather than observable evidence.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on April 08, 2009, 05:57:41 PM
But science has evidence to support it's claims.  Religion is fundamentally unscientific, in that its claims cannot be verified of falsified.  And theories are just that, they're theories.  No one is saying that comets MUST have deposited water on Earth, it's just an explanation that makes sense based on the evidence we have.  I will say that religion acts in a similar way to science.  It's different because it is an explanation based on belief alone, rather than observable evidence.

But without seeing a comet drop ice on a new planet and then seeing that planet have oceans its exactly the same.  You believe comets deposited water on earth having never seen it happen here or anywhere else.  An explanation based on a belief.  You have no observable evidence.


BTW why didn't the moon catch any of this magical comet ice?
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: optimisticcynic on April 08, 2009, 06:28:20 PM
But science has evidence to support it's claims.  Religion is fundamentally unscientific, in that its claims cannot be verified of falsified.  And theories are just that, they're theories.  No one is saying that comets MUST have deposited water on Earth, it's just an explanation that makes sense based on the evidence we have.  I will say that religion acts in a similar way to science.  It's different because it is an explanation based on belief alone, rather than observable evidence.

But without seeing a comet drop ice on a new planet and then seeing that planet have oceans its exactly the same.  You believe comets deposited water on earth having never seen it happen here or anywhere else.  An explanation based on a belief.  You have no observable evidence.


BTW why didn't the moon catch any of this magical comet ice?

Because the moon doesn't have the gravity so all the water would have left do to sublimation. once it turned  to a gas it would have been blown of by the solar wind.
Any other evidence against it that you have? Second just because you call something magical doesn't make it more unlikely.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: ﮎingulaЯiτy on April 08, 2009, 06:29:36 PM
So because someone can out debate someone else that makes that winners position "correct"?
I never said that. I am only implying that debate is not beyond our comprehension.

Quote
What presumptions are you talking about? And what proof are you asking for?

The only perfect proof is witnessing the creation of the Earth, so what we have instead is sizable evidence. Furthermore, it is not religious because it is based upon the principles of observation and repetition. Gravitational attraction of swirling masses, debris, planetesimals, and protoplanets are all seen in distant space. Connecting them as a stages in a cycle takes little to no imagination. If you want to know more about Nebular Theory, just ask.

You know this little quote brought alot of questions to my head about viewing things in distance space.  Im not even sure they are relevenat other than to  maybe the age of the universe.  I need to ask one question before I start though.  After the big bang how fast did things start to accelerate away from each other.  And how long did that acceleration last, and are they still accelerating or has it become a constant expansion?

The big bang/creation of the universe is a separate subject then the formation of our plant. Just like abiogenesis and evolution are different topics. I don't see how going off on a tangent to that topic is a prerequisite for you answering mine.

Quote
I don't approve of the ridicule of others or their beliefs, but I should probably mention that it is accepted by the vast majority of scientists that H20 ice is a large part of comets. I don't see any flaw in thinking that dust-like snow from comets was commonly intercepting Earth's orbit. Not to mention outgassing of the planet's inner water from global cooling would release large amounts of water and air.

No its not.  There are so many hypothesis about how water got on this planet.  Go back to page 5 where I listed just a few of them.

I'm not sure what you are talking about. What "isn't"?
Did I say comets were the only plausible source or something?

Quote
What part of science don't you like? The methods or the conclusions?

Mostly it's conclusions that aren't based on fact.  Just speculations, and the "well it had to happen someway so this must be it'.
Tell me, which theories would you like the supporting evidence for?
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on April 08, 2009, 06:34:00 PM
What part of science don't you like? The methods or the conclusions?
Quote
Mostly it's conclusions that aren't based on fact.  Just speculations, and the "well it had to happen someway so this must be it'.
Tell me, which theories would you like the supporting evidence for?

You pick your favorite how water got on earth theory.   
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: ﮎingulaЯiτy on April 08, 2009, 06:38:42 PM
So its based of facts, just not all of them.  Comets have water ice, FACT.  Comets sometimes fly by earth, FACT.  Comets must have deposited the oceans on the young earth, uhhhh What the fuck?
It is a plausible scenario, not a stubborn belief. If we find decent evidence to the contrary, you can bet I'll abandon it.

Quote
Where is the fact in that?  (yes i know it was an exageration there at the end but the principle is still there.)
It's not claimed to be fact that a substantial amount of water originated from comets during young earth.

Quote
Comets deposited enough water to create a revolving weather system that produced the oceans, whatever the case may be how many comets had to fly by?
I'm thinking impacts primarily. But it likely that there was far far more comets and asteroids back in the times of a developing earth, than there are today. Collisions usually only happen once.

Quote
Jesus was a man.  FACT  Jesus claimed to be the son of God and the messiah, FACT.  God created the entire universe in 6 days.  Yours sounds no different than mine.
There's no means in your scenario. Gravity, collection, et cetera are means for the collection of debris for Earth.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: ﮎingulaЯiτy on April 08, 2009, 06:39:11 PM
You pick your favorite how water got on earth theory.   
Who says all of them didn't happen? They could just as easily all contribute to our oceans.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on April 08, 2009, 06:47:03 PM
You pick your favorite how water got on earth theory.   
Who says all of them didn't happen? They could just as easily all contribute to our oceans.

That is by no stretch of the word "evidence"
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: ﮎingulaЯiτy on April 08, 2009, 06:49:38 PM
That is by no stretch of the word "evidence"
All the theories I support have means.

If you see a kid holding a brick over another kids head, look away for a moment, and look back to see that the second kids has a bashed in head, the "means" is the reason for making a connection.

The evidence is self introducing simply by the fact that it has potential to result in that outcome, whether or not it is directly observed.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on April 08, 2009, 06:55:35 PM
That is by no stretch of the word "evidence"
All the theories I support have means.

If you see a kid holding a brick over another kids head, look away for a moment, and look back to see that the second kids has a bashed in head, the "means" is the reason for making a connection.

Try holding that one up in court.

Here is your evidence, as I see it.

Comets have ice water.....Thats it.

Here are your speculations:

Alot of comets came by the earth.

Alot of comets impacted the earth

Alot of water somehow survived these impacts to hang around and pool up together

This water combined with other sources there is no proof for and became a water producing weather system



Too many speculations and not much evidence is what i would call basis for a belief in an unknown.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: optimisticcynic on April 08, 2009, 07:07:38 PM
There is a difference between our arguments. One of our ideas is comets brought water to the ocean. We know both comets and oceans exist.
your argument deals with the fact the universe exist so god must exist. We are dealing with two known s and how they could go together. You have one known and one unknown and how it should go together. Can you see the difference.
How would the water not survive the impact? it would become steam that would condense and rain down. The molecules that form it would not be destroyed. And we have enough gravity so it couldn't escape from the planet.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on April 08, 2009, 07:12:18 PM
There is a difference between our arguments. One of our ideas is comets brought water to the ocean. We know both comets and oceans exist.
your argument deals with the fact the universe exist so god must exist. We are dealing with two known s and how they could go together. You have one known and one unknown and how it should go together. Can you see the difference.
How would the water not survive the impact? it would become steam that would condense and rain down. The molecules that form it would not be destroyed. And we have enough gravity so it couldn't escape from the planet.

Because the amount would be so miniscule considering the current humidity of the planet was 0% it would have evaporated into parts per billion never to be seen again.  We would have to be talking about daily hits here over many years.

I to have two knowns.  I know the universe exists, and I know there is enough holes in the scientific theory on how life started there must be another explaination.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: ﮎingulaЯiτy on April 08, 2009, 07:13:02 PM
Here are your speculations:

Alot of comets came by the earth.
Nebular theory states that they would do to gravitational attraction to the sun and probability.
Quote
Alot of comets impacted the earth
Remember that according to the theory, the planet was formed from debris swirling together from gravitation and eventually clustering into one object from constant impacts.

Quote
Alot of water somehow survived these impacts to hang around and pool up together
How does water "not survive"? Is it alive now?

Quote
This water combined with other sources there is no proof for and became a water producing weather system
I don't even know what you are talking about when you say "water producing".

Quote
Too many speculations and not much evidence is what i would call basis for a belief in an unknown.
Are you suggesting that it doesn't have more evidence in its favor than creationism?
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: ﮎingulaЯiτy on April 08, 2009, 07:18:04 PM
Because the amount would be so minuscule considering the current humidity of the planet was 0% it would have evaporated into parts per billion never to be seen again.  We would have to be talking about daily hits here over many years.
When and why was humidity 0% where?
You seem to hold this notion that evaporation means that the molecules just vanish from reality or something...  ???

We can be talking about daily hits over many years. How is that a problem?

Quote
I to have two knowns.  I know the universe exists, and I know there is enough holes in the scientific theory on how life started there must be another explanation.
Holes meaning something left unproven? So if we solve half of a puzzle and haven't placed the rest of the pieces, we throw the whole thing out? Better yet, we substitute it for a puzzle without pieces?
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: ﮎingulaЯiτy on April 08, 2009, 07:20:30 PM
Did you get the videos to work yet?
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: optimisticcynic on April 08, 2009, 07:25:25 PM
47 percent of the crust is oxygen. Hydrogen would have been much more common in the early solar system. the question should be how could water not form here. Yes it could have formed different ways, However you have not pointed out any evidence besides," Well In my well informed opinion that seems unlikely," or there is lots of ways how it could have happened. Give us some facts, Besides you opinion. We had a fact that there are comets. You might dispute that there was nog enough but then you need a reason why there would not be a lot of comets in the early solar system, Saying there aren't that many comets here now doesn't count.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on April 08, 2009, 07:26:10 PM
To be continued.  Im working on 4 hours of sleep guys and I got to hit the rack.

Until next time.  CAPTAIN CREATION AWAAAYYYYYY!!

Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on April 09, 2009, 06:57:55 PM
Because the amount would be so minuscule considering the current humidity of the planet was 0% it would have evaporated into parts per billion never to be seen again.  We would have to be talking about daily hits here over many years.
When and why was humidity 0% where?
You seem to hold this notion that evaporation means that the molecules just vanish from reality or something...  ???

We can be talking about daily hits over many years. How is that a problem?

Quote
I to have two knowns.  I know the universe exists, and I know there is enough holes in the scientific theory on how life started there must be another explanation.
Holes meaning something left unproven? So if we solve half of a puzzle and haven't placed the rest of the pieces, we throw the whole thing out? Better yet, we substitute it for a puzzle without pieces?

Whats the humidty on the moon?  When the earth was young it would have been the same would it not?

No I definately can't watch the videos from my current location.  I am bandwidth limited. 


@optimist Your the one with science backing you.   This part of your post cracks me up.

We had a fact that there are comets. You might dispute that there was nog enough but then you need a reason why there would not be a lot of comets in the early solar system, Saying there aren't that many comets here now doesn't count.

You have no idea how many comets were cruising around back then do you?  You have a guess, a hypothesis, thats it.  A belief.  And isn't that what this whole discussion is about?
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: optimisticcynic on April 09, 2009, 07:57:35 PM
[
Whats the humidty on the moon?  When the earth was young it would have been the same would it not?
I explained why there is no water on the moon, It doe not have the gravity to hold onto an atmosphere and it is close enough to the sun some of the water on it would turn to gas which would then leave so more of the ice would turn to a gas which would then leave. In other words it could not be able to hold onto any water that hit it.


@optimist Your the one with science backing you.   This part of your post cracks me up.

We had a fact that there are comets. You might dispute that there was nog enough but then you need a reason why there would not be a lot of comets in the early solar system, Saying there aren't that many comets here now doesn't count.

You have no idea how many comets were cruising around back then do you?  You have a guess, a hypothesis, thats it.  A belief.  And isn't that what this whole discussion is about?
No I do not know the exact amount of comets in the early system. However in the early sysem comets would have been more plentiful. The reason is that is because of sublimation most of them would have been destroyed. this is the same concept as seeing a pot with boiling water knowing it has been boiling for a while and realizing that there was more water in it a earlier. So no I don't know how much comets were in the early solar system I do know that there was more of them earlier on.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on April 09, 2009, 08:02:05 PM
[
Whats the humidty on the moon?  When the earth was young it would have been the same would it not?
I explained why there is no water on the moon, It doe not have the gravity to hold onto an atmosphere and it is close enough to the sun some of the water on it would turn to gas which would then leave so more of the ice would turn to a gas which would then leave. In other words it could not be able to hold onto any water that hit it.


@optimist Your the one with science backing you.   This part of your post cracks me up.

We had a fact that there are comets. You might dispute that there was nog enough but then you need a reason why there would not be a lot of comets in the early solar system, Saying there aren't that many comets here now doesn't count.

You have no idea how many comets were cruising around back then do you?  You have a guess, a hypothesis, thats it.  A belief.  And isn't that what this whole discussion is about?
No I do not know the exact amount of comets in the early system. However in the early sysem comets would have been more plentiful. The reason is that is because of sublimation most of them would have been destroyed. this is the same concept as seeing a pot with boiling water knowing it has been boiling for a while and realizing that there was more water in it a earlier. So no I don't know how much comets were in the early solar system I do know that there was more of them earlier on.
  More yes, but you cannot say with any certainty the were slaming into our new home at a daily rate could you?  Has this been observed in other new systems?
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: optimisticcynic on April 09, 2009, 08:20:34 PM
[
Whats the humidty on the moon?  When the earth was young it would have been the same would it not?
I explained why there is no water on the moon, It doe not have the gravity to hold onto an atmosphere and it is close enough to the sun some of the water on it would turn to gas which would then leave so more of the ice would turn to a gas which would then leave. In other words it could not be able to hold onto any water that hit it.


@optimist Your the one with science backing you.   This part of your post cracks me up.

We had a fact that there are comets. You might dispute that there was nog enough but then you need a reason why there would not be a lot of comets in the early solar system, Saying there aren't that many comets here now doesn't count.

You have no idea how many comets were cruising around back then do you?  You have a guess, a hypothesis, thats it.  A belief.  And isn't that what this whole discussion is about?
No I do not know the exact amount of comets in the early system. However in the early sysem comets would have been more plentiful. The reason is that is because of sublimation most of them would have been destroyed. this is the same concept as seeing a pot with boiling water knowing it has been boiling for a while and realizing that there was more water in it a earlier. So no I don't know how much comets were in the early solar system I do know that there was more of them earlier on.
  More yes, but you cannot say with any certainty the were slaming into our new home at a daily rate could you?  Has this been observed in other new systems?
No it as not been observed in new systems. A big portion of that is we cant see a planet smaller then Jupiter. Let alone a comet a few miles long.  So no I am not certain about it. However there is evidence that it wold happen. do I know it is right. No I don't have certainty about i. How ever I think it is a valid Hypothesis. I could probably do some research to find out the average amount of water in the early system. with I could probably find the average amount of of comets that would be hitting it per a day. But frankly I don't know enough stats to do that. So know I can't say how likely it is to happen but it is possible. And I can't believe the person that made that hypothesis didn't run them.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: ﮎingulaЯiτy on April 10, 2009, 12:18:29 PM
We had a fact that there are comets. You might dispute that there was not enough but then you need a reason why there would not be a lot of comets in the early solar system, Saying there aren't that many comets here now doesn't count.

You have no idea how many comets were cruising around back then do you?  You have a guess. A belief.  And isn't that what this whole discussion is about?

Nebular theory posits that the closet bodies to others collided and added to each other and that the early galaxy was a cloud a material.

The stable orbits remained while unstable ones decayed and impacted planets. Jupiter only helps with the asteroids drifting from outside our solar system from origins that don't really matter. If we superimpose the density of the asteroids, in say... the asteroid belt, then asteroids in the early planet formation are more than abundant.

And a guess and hypothesis are very different btw.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on April 10, 2009, 12:22:07 PM
We had a fact that there are comets. You might dispute that there was not enough but then you need a reason why there would not be a lot of comets in the early solar system, Saying there aren't that many comets here now doesn't count.

You have no idea how many comets were cruising around back then do you?  You have a guess. A belief.  And isn't that what this whole discussion is about?

Nebular theory posits that the closet bodies to others collided and added to each other and that the early galaxy was a cloud a material.

The stable orbits remained while unstable ones decayed and impacted planets. Jupiter only helps with the asteroids drifting from outside our solar system from origins that don't really matter. If we superimpose the density of the asteroids, in say... the asteroid belt, then asteroids in the early planet formation are more than abundant.

And a guess and hypothesis are very different btw.

We aren't talking about asteroids here.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: ﮎingulaЯiτy on April 10, 2009, 01:01:41 PM
Why? Because asteroids don't contain ice?
Ah, but they do.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Soul Eater on April 10, 2009, 01:11:40 PM
We had a fact that there are comets. You might dispute that there was not enough but then you need a reason why there would not be a lot of comets in the early solar system, Saying there aren't that many comets here now doesn't count.

You have no idea how many comets were cruising around back then do you?  You have a guess. A belief.  And isn't that what this whole discussion is about?

Nebular theory posits that the closet bodies to others collided and added to each other and that the early galaxy was a cloud a material.

The stable orbits remained while unstable ones decayed and impacted planets. Jupiter only helps with the asteroids drifting from outside our solar system from origins that don't really matter. If we superimpose the density of the asteroids, in say... the asteroid belt, then asteroids in the early planet formation are more than abundant.

And a guess and hypothesis are very different btw.

We aren't talking about asteroids here.
It's actually more likely that the water came from asteroids because of the ratio of deuterium and protium found in Earth's water.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on April 10, 2009, 03:47:48 PM
*sigh* 

Do you guys just make shit up? 

Internet quote follows.

When we look around our solar system, we notice that there are large amounts of water in the outer regions.  This water is mostly in the form of ice, but it is still prevalent.  Comets are bodies in the outermost regions of the solar system that contain large amounts of water.  They also have highly elliptical orbits that frequently bring them into the inner solar system ? and sometimes on a path that will cause them to collide with Earth.  Although we have a general sense of the composition of comets ? they are like dirty snowballs that contain organic matter ? we do not yet know for sure their exact makeup.  Astronomers have studied at least three well-known comets ? Halley?s Comet and Comets Hyakutake and Hale-Bopp ? and they have noticed one commonality between the three.  In these comets, the percentage of deuterium (a form of hydrogen with double the mass of normal hydrogen) is twice that of what we find in average seawater.  It is not yet clear whether or not these comets are representative of the types of comets that would have been colliding with early Earth.  Regardless, if Earth had received the majority of its water from comets with similar composition, we would expect the percentage of deuterium to be similar.  We could even accept it if the percentage of deuterium in our oceans were greater than that of the comets, due to photodissociation and subsequent loss of deuterium to outer space.  Neither of these is the case, so we cannot currently make any conclusions about the contribution of water by comets.  Based on the deuterium composition of the oceans, scientists have estimated that no more than 10% of the water on Earth originally came from comet collisions.

 

Although we have just focused on comets as a possible water bearer for Earth, there are other planetary bodies to consider.  Meteoritic material originating in the asteroid belt could also be responsible for bringing water to Earth.  Objects in the outer part of the asteroid belt are predicted to contain up to twenty percent water.  Jupiter?s large mass and gravitational influence could easily have perturbed the orbits of asteroids in the belt, sending some of them on a one-way trip to Earth.  The composition of asteroids within the belt vary depending on their distance from the Sun, so it is difficult to estimate exactly how much water could have been contributed to Earth.  However, scientists such as Alessandro Morbidelli have predicted that if asteroids had collided with Earth to bring it the majority of its water, delivery by comets could have contributed some water ? resulting in more appropriate deuterium to hydrogen ratios in Earth?s oceans.

 

Like so many things in science, the exact origin of water on Earth is still unknown.  Yet scientists continue to make observations, collect data, and analyze information to try and develop a more complete understanding of the natural world.  One way in which scientists will be gathering more evidence regarding the origin of Earth?s water is the Deep Impact mission, scheduled for July 2005.  This mission will send a spacecraft to crash into Comet Tempel 1.  Once the spacecraft collides and forms an impact crater, scientists will to try and determine the exact composition of the comet.  Discovering a low deuterium concentration in the comet could drastically alter our theories about how water came to Earth.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Pongo on April 10, 2009, 05:13:34 PM
*sigh* 

Do you guys just make shit up? 

I can't speak for the rest of them, but I make shit up.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: ﮎingulaЯiτy on April 10, 2009, 06:18:42 PM
Like so many things in science, the exact origin of water on Earth is still unknown.  Yet scientists continue to make observations, collect data, and analyze information to try and develop a more complete understanding of the natural world.
Nothing can be known. This site is a demonstration of that mentality. Scientists only favor the most likely scenarios, so trying to rub that in our faces doesn't do anything. We are open to anything we can learn, and to do that we have to be ready to admit it when a hypothesis doesn't pan out.

On the off chance that you ever find a way to view this:  :P
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Pongo on April 10, 2009, 06:49:44 PM
Like so many things in science, the exact origin of water on Earth is still unknown.  Yet scientists continue to make observations, collect data, and analyze information to try and develop a more complete understanding of the natural world.
Nothing can be known. This site is a demonstration of that mentality. Scientists only favor the most likely scenarios, so trying to rub that in our faces doesn't do anything. We are open to anything we can learn, and to do that we have to be ready to admit it when a hypothesis doesn't pan out.


He is right you know.  You would be hard pressed to find a scientist that claims to know the 100% truth of anything.  The best you will likely find is 99.999% assurances.  It's what keeps science honest and true.  If a better explanation comes along, scientists will drop the old explanation in the light of new evidence.  The only people who claim to know the 100% truth about anything is religious people.  X-thousand years ago someone claimed something and on their word alone followers of that religion can now say that they know with unwaivering doubt that the person's claim is > 100% true.  I know religion makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside, but perhaps that's why people say the truth hurts.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on April 10, 2009, 07:20:18 PM
The point is we started on comets, moved to asteroids, and neither according to that report could have done it.

You guys seem to be forgetting what the main topic of discussion is here.  Your belief of an unknown.  The exact same thing which you fault me for.  Which I have proven over and over again.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Pongo on April 10, 2009, 07:39:13 PM
The point is we started on comets, moved to asteroids, and neither according to that report could have done it.

You guys seem to be forgetting what the main topic of discussion is here.  Your belief of an unknown.  The exact same thing which you fault me for.  Which I have proven over and over again.

That's not true at all because of subtle yet significant differences.  We believe what experts in fields of science tell us because they conduct real repeatable experiments that lead them to their conclusions.  If their conclusions are found to be flawed we discard the explanations in place of new ones.  You believe in something told to you by someone you mistakenly trusted.  You confirm this with "personal truth".  If a scientist came up with a new theory to explain the water on earth, and his/her claim was supported better by the evidence than the current theories, then we would all note the theory and spread the knowledge.  When a claim is put forth that can better explain anything contradicting religion, then a person can expect at least social ramifications and at most stoning.

I find it amusing when religious people devalue science to the level of religion; claiming that things like evolution is as much of a belief as is creation, or that not believing in God is an extraordinary leap of faith. When arguments like this are put forth I wonder why a person would try and validate their argument by implicating the opposing side of being wrong because it's just as wrong as their argument.  Was that hard to follow?  Think about it, it's a weak argument and you should stop using it.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on April 10, 2009, 07:40:58 PM
What evidence do you have that asteroids and comets were slamming into the earth 4 biillion years ago on a daily basis depositing water onto the surface and into the atmosphere?
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Proleg on April 10, 2009, 07:48:27 PM
Just to clarify, Wardogg, are you one of the "6000 years or thereabouts" Young-Earth-Creationists? I forget exactly how loony you are.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on April 10, 2009, 07:49:36 PM
Just to clarify, Wardogg, are you one of the "6000 years or thereabouts" Young-Earth-Creationists? I forget exactly how loony you are.

Yeah Im that loony, I'll give you about 2 to 4Gs on that if it makes you feel better. 

Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Proleg on April 10, 2009, 07:54:50 PM
Just to clarify, Wardogg, are you one of the "6000 years or thereabouts" Young-Earth-Creationists? I forget exactly how loony you are.

Yeah Im that loony, I'll give you about 2 to 4Gs on that if it makes you feel better. 
Your conception of chronology is truly astounding.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on April 10, 2009, 07:57:31 PM
Just to clarify, Wardogg, are you one of the "6000 years or thereabouts" Young-Earth-Creationists? I forget exactly how loony you are.

Yeah Im that loony, I'll give you about 2 to 4Gs on that if it makes you feel better. 
Your conception of chronology is truly astounding.

We have conception?  Does this mean we are dating now?
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Proleg on April 10, 2009, 08:02:47 PM
Just to clarify, Wardogg, are you one of the "6000 years or thereabouts" Young-Earth-Creationists? I forget exactly how loony you are.

Yeah Im that loony, I'll give you about 2 to 4Gs on that if it makes you feel better. 
Your conception of chronology is truly astounding.

We have conception?  Does this mean we are dating now?
It may or may not mean life has begun. The abortion debate crowd still needs to get back to us with that little clarification.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on April 10, 2009, 08:04:56 PM
Just to clarify, Wardogg, are you one of the "6000 years or thereabouts" Young-Earth-Creationists? I forget exactly how loony you are.

Yeah Im that loony, I'll give you about 2 to 4Gs on that if it makes you feel better. 
Your conception of chronology is truly astounding.

We have conception?  Does this mean we are dating now?
It may or may not mean life has begun. The abortion debate crowd still needs to get back to us with that little clarification.

Ok Ill wait.  In the mean time don't tell you dad.  He's going to be pissed.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Pongo on April 10, 2009, 08:05:40 PM
What evidence do you have that asteroids and comets were slamming into the earth 4 biillion years ago on a daily basis depositing water onto the surface and into the atmosphere?

I don't have proof of this, nor am I interested in finding it.  I do not accept or doubt the assertion that celestial bodies brought water to earth.  I have done no research on the topic and I do not plan to.  It is not something that interests me, my area of interest lies in molecular biology and organic chemistry.  The talk of organic material on comets perked my interest, but all that really means is that there is carbon on them.  Also, the hydrogen isotope caught a second glance.  Other than that, I am not going to try and prove or disprove the origin of water beyond molecular observations.  

I am not attacking your attack of a theory (I think it's unfair to call what you're doing an argument), I am passively attacking your faith.  Nothing more.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on April 10, 2009, 08:17:17 PM
I am passively attacking your faith.  Nothing more.

And I yours. 


Regardless of what you think about the comets you have to have some theory on how water got here.

Show evidence of that theory then.

And quit using proof.  You have to start with evidence before we get to the proof part.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Pongo on April 10, 2009, 08:35:11 PM
I am passively attacking your faith.  Nothing more.

And I yours. 


Regardless of what you think about the comets you have to have some theory on how water got here.

Show evidence of that theory then.

And quit using proof.  You have to start with evidence before we get to the proof part.

I can give you an uneducated and ignorant theory if you wish, but I will have no evidence.  As I said, I have not studied the topic.  Is that what you want? 

Also, quit calling science faith, you are belittling the nature of science.  It is a weak argument and I have already told you why.  It's a statement that will send up red flags in your opponents minds, they will label you woefully misinformed and discontinue to listen to your arguments.  For example (perhaps an extreme example), if I started off every post by saying, "Praise Hitler!" then you would not take anything I said seriously regardless of the content of my message.  When you make errant statements like that, people label you as an ill informed bible beater and stop listening to you (if your view opposes them).  It is a horrible debating tactic and I again recommend that you stop using it.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on April 10, 2009, 08:42:33 PM
Look dude, you can put all the little condescending notions in your posts that you want.  It doesn't change the facts.

FACT I don't know how the earth was created and or had water put upon it.

FACT You don't know how the earth was created and or had water put upon it.

FACT I have a book that gives me an answer to that question that I believe.

FACT You have a book that gives many numerous answers to that question that you choose to pick and choose from I guess or something.

FACT Neither of us have any solid evidence to prove one way or the other.

How are we any different from one another again?
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Pongo on April 10, 2009, 08:54:50 PM
FACT You have a book that gives many numerous answers to that question that you choose to pick and choose from I guess or something.

That's not exactly how science works and if you think that's how it works then your education system has horribly failed you.  If you would like to further this discussion, I can cite numerous examples in your book that you pick and choose from.


FACT Neither of us have any solid evidence to prove one way or the other.

You are right, I have no solid evidence.  But I would bet a years pay that the person or persons who came up with the theory did so on mounds of evidence (Assuming the theory in questions is adopted by modern science. Like I said, I am not informed on the topic).  Things like that do not come about by conjecture.

The rest of your facts I do not disagree with.


Look dude, you can put all the little condescending notions in your posts that you want.  It doesn't change the facts.

You as well are free to put all the misinformed, dark-aged, ignorant, and unscientific notions in your posts.  It will never change the facts.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on April 10, 2009, 09:00:17 PM
FACT You have a book that gives many numerous answers to that question that you choose to pick and choose from I guess or something.

That's not exactly how science works and if you think that's how it works then your education system has horribly failed you.  If you would like to further this discussion, I can cite numerous examples in your book that you pick and choose from.


Im all ears, with a disclaimer.  As you are not an expert on asteroids and water landing upon the earth. I am not a theology major by any means.  I will answer to the best of my ability and what I don't know I will look up.  Will that suffice the terms of any further discussions?
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Pongo on April 10, 2009, 09:14:30 PM
Wardogg, Let us go and worship other gods; gods that neither you nor your fathers have known, gods of the peoples around you, whether near of far, from one end of the land to the other.

You are now biblically obligated to kill me.  Would you choose to do so?

Deuteronomy 13:6-10
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Pongo on April 10, 2009, 09:18:07 PM
Do you choose to agree with science that bats are mammals?

Deuteronomy 14:11-19
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on April 10, 2009, 09:18:46 PM
Wardogg, Let us go and worship other gods; gods that neither you nor your fathers have known, gods of the peoples around you, whether near of far, from one end of the land to the other.

You are now biblically obligated to kill me.  Would you choose to do so?

Deuteronomy 13:6-10

Old testament.

Speaking to the people who were led out of the slavery of egypt.  Not to me, or you.

Next.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Pongo on April 10, 2009, 09:20:20 PM
Which creation story do you choose to believe?

genesis 1:1-2:3 or genesis 2:4-25?
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on April 10, 2009, 09:21:42 PM
Do you choose to agree with science that bats are mammals?

Deuteronomy 14:11-19

Yes I do. 

Again old testament.

My only reasoning is they didn't know about mammals then?

Next.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Pongo on April 10, 2009, 09:23:06 PM
I work on Sundays, you are again now obligated to kill me.  What do you choose?

exodus 31:14
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on April 10, 2009, 09:24:21 PM
Which creation story do you choose to believe?

genesis 1:1-2:3 or genesis 2:4-25?

Uhh Gen 1 is about the creation

Gen 2 is about after creation when God put man upon the earth.

Whats the problem here?


Next.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Pongo on April 10, 2009, 09:24:38 PM
I have cursed my parents.  The punishment is again death.  The choice should be becoming easy now.

Leviticus 20:9
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on April 10, 2009, 09:27:43 PM
I work on Sundays, you are again now obligated to kill me.  What do you choose?

exodus 31:14

So do I, 

Look its the old testament.  Alot of the rules and regs from then have gone away since Christ's death.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Pongo on April 10, 2009, 09:28:34 PM
Have you ever chosen to wear clothes of mixed fabrics?  If so you had better make sure God's fashion police don't get you.

Deuteronomy 22:11
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on April 10, 2009, 09:29:10 PM
I have cursed my parents.  The punishment is again death.  The choice should be becoming easy now.

Leviticus 20:9

Get out of the old testament.


Shall we bring up some scientific proofs from old?
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Pongo on April 10, 2009, 09:30:01 PM
I'm going to take a moment to ask you why you say that all these things in the old testament no longer apply, yet with the very next breath you can swear to me that the creation story is accurate?  Think about that while I dig up some more passages.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: cmdshft on April 10, 2009, 09:30:19 PM
FACT You have a book that gives many numerous answers to that question that you choose to pick and choose from I guess or something.

That's not exactly how science works and if you think that's how it works then your education system has horribly failed you.  If you would like to further this discussion, I can cite numerous examples in your book that you pick and choose from.


Im all ears, with a disclaimer.  As you are not an expert on asteroids and water landing upon the earth. I am not a theology major by any means.  I will answer to the best of my ability and what I don't know I will look up.  Will that suffice the terms of any further discussions?

The part in bold really bothers me.

Why? Because they aren't your own ideas, and whatever "logic" is used cannot be reproduced. You could argue the same about science for certain things, but not everything. If you're going to argue for theology, it's best to use your own knowledge. I don't think that the classic theological circle jerk (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=28188.msg670750#msg670750) would suffice very well here. Reproducing said works would really diminish the value of the discussion.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Pongo on April 10, 2009, 09:32:40 PM
Matthew 5:17

Jesus said there that he is not here to abolish the teachings of the old testament.  Are you saying that Jesus is wrong?  Or are you choosing to ignore that?
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on April 10, 2009, 09:33:17 PM
FACT You have a book that gives many numerous answers to that question that you choose to pick and choose from I guess or something.

That's not exactly how science works and if you think that's how it works then your education system has horribly failed you.  If you would like to further this discussion, I can cite numerous examples in your book that you pick and choose from.


Im all ears, with a disclaimer.  As you are not an expert on asteroids and water landing upon the earth. I am not a theology major by any means.  I will answer to the best of my ability and what I don't know I will look up.  Will that suffice the terms of any further discussions?

The part in bold really bothers me.

Why? Because they aren't your own ideas, and whatever "logic" is used cannot be reproduced. You could argue the same about science for certain things, but not everything. If you're going to argue for theology, it's best to use your own knowledge. I don't think that the classic theological circle jerk (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=28188.msg670750#msg670750) would suffice very well here. Reproducing said works would really diminish the value of the discussion.

Very well

Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Pongo on April 10, 2009, 09:34:23 PM
Have you ever chosen to pray in public?  Are you choosing to ignore the words of Jesus?

Matthew 6:5
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on April 10, 2009, 09:34:32 PM
I'm going to take a moment to ask you why you say that all these things in the old testament no longer apply, yet with the very next breath you can swear to me that the creation story is accurate?  Think about that while I dig up some more passages.

You are talking about 2 different things.  One was rules that people had to live by to prove themselves prior to Christ sacrificing is his life.  The other is the story of how the earth came to be.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on April 10, 2009, 09:35:47 PM
Matthew 5:17

Jesus said there that he is not here to abolish the teachings of the old testament.  Are you saying that Jesus is wrong?  Or are you choosing to ignore that?

He was speaking of the ten commandments.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on April 10, 2009, 09:37:30 PM
Have you ever chosen to pray in public?  Are you choosing to ignore the words of Jesus?

Matthew 6:5

LOL this is about televangelist before they were even around.  Actually I guess were just under a different name.  Basically the loud mouths on the corner screaming for you to repent or suffer the consequences.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Pongo on April 10, 2009, 09:40:19 PM
Matthew 5:17

Jesus said there that he is not here to abolish the teachings of the old testament.  Are you saying that Jesus is wrong?  Or are you choosing to ignore that?

He was speaking of the ten commandments.

Please find for in the bible where the 10 commandments are listed numerically.  I will give you $1 if you can find it.  Also, why would Jesus choose to speak so cryptically about this as to cause future argument?  Sounds to me like you are choosing how to interpret the passage.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Pongo on April 10, 2009, 09:43:46 PM
This one is one of my favorites.  I would be surprised if you have ever heard it, it's not taught often or spoken of in church.  Tell me though, how do you choose to interpret Jesus in this passage?

Matthew 10:34
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on April 10, 2009, 09:49:34 PM
Matthew 5:17

Jesus said there that he is not here to abolish the teachings of the old testament.  Are you saying that Jesus is wrong?  Or are you choosing to ignore that?

He was speaking of the ten commandments.

Please find for in the bible where the 10 commandments are listed numerically.  I will give you $1 if you can find it.  Also, why would Jesus choose to speak so cryptically about this as to cause future argument?  Sounds to me like you are choosing how to interpret the passage.

Read the rest of the passage.

17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. 19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.




As for my dollar, i have pay pal.

Exodus 20:1-17
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Pongo on April 10, 2009, 09:51:49 PM
Please reread my challenge.  Look up any words you don't understand.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on April 10, 2009, 09:54:12 PM
This one is one of my favorites.  I would be surprised if you have ever heard it, it's not taught often or spoken of in church.  Tell me though, how do you choose to interpret Jesus in this passage?

Matthew 10:34

You forgot to include some of that one.

32 Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. 33 But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven. 34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on April 10, 2009, 09:57:32 PM
Please reread my challenge.  Look up any words you don't understand.


Literally they aren't, count the thou shall nots, they are all there. Im not sure what this proves to you.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Pongo on April 10, 2009, 09:58:04 PM
This one is one of my favorites.  I would be surprised if you have ever heard it, it's not taught often or spoken of in church.  Tell me though, how do you choose to interpret Jesus in this passage?

Matthew 10:34

You forgot to include some of that one.

32 Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. 33 But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven. 34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

I don't see how that changes anything.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on April 10, 2009, 10:00:07 PM
If im not mistaken he is speaking of the devil, with whom he is currently at battle with, over us.  I would have to go back and read early in that chapter.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Pongo on April 10, 2009, 10:02:18 PM
It just occurred to me that when you told me to stay in the new testament that you are saying that the old testament is obsolete.  I said I could cite many examples where you choose to ignore the bible.  I think that clearly qualifies.  Still, I have been avoiding the passages that speak of Jesus bringing ruin and damnation to entire cities of people who reject him.  Why does he kill innocent children and babies for what their parents have chosen.  Also, I haven't even touched on the Christanity VS John Locke debate. That one is ripe with choices of ignoring the new testament and following the old that relates to present day.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on April 10, 2009, 10:05:43 PM
It just occurred to me that when you told me to stay in the new testament that you are saying that the old testament is obsolete.  I said I could cite many examples where you choose to ignore the bible.  I think that clearly qualifies.  Still, I have been avoiding the passages that speak of Jesus bringing ruin and damnation to entire cities of people who reject him.  Why does he kill innocent children and babies for what their parents have chosen.  Also, I haven't even touched on the Christanity VS John Locke debate. That one is ripe with choices of ignoring the new testament and following the old that relates to present day.

I haven't heard of the bolded part, so research would have to be done.


Yes I am saying alot of the rules that governed the people of the old testament are obsolete.

I can't answer the why do bad things happen to innocent people question.  I can only think of two instances in the bible.  The great flood and soddom and ghommorah.  I just fucked the spelling of that.  But phonetically you know what I mean.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Pongo on April 10, 2009, 10:16:28 PM
It just occurred to me that when you told me to stay in the new testament that you are saying that the old testament is obsolete.  I said I could cite many examples where you choose to ignore the bible.  I think that clearly qualifies.  Still, I have been avoiding the passages that speak of Jesus bringing ruin and damnation to entire cities of people who reject him.  Why does he kill innocent children and babies for what their parents have chosen.  Also, I haven't even touched on the Christanity VS John Locke debate. That one is ripe with choices of ignoring the new testament and following the old that relates to present day.

I haven't heard of the bolded part, so research would have to be done.


Yes I am saying alot of the rules that governed the people of the old testament are obsolete.

I can't answer the why do bad things happen to innocent people question.  I can only think of two instances in the bible.  The great flood and soddom and ghommorah.  I just fucked the spelling of that.  But phonetically you know what I mean.

If you make concessions for the rules in the old testament that are obsolete what else can you make concessions for?  Clearly the old testament is filled with God-approved stores that people would be put to death for doing today.  There are also rules in the new testament that people choose to ignore today. 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 says that women cannot speak in church.  People choose to ignore that.  The point I am making is that every christian chooses what parts to listen to and what parts to ignore.  You have admitted to obsolete rules in the old testament.  Perhaps there are a few obsolete stories in there as well.


Summary of the Locke debate:  Locke wrote the Second Treatise of Government which is heavily influenced by the "eye for an eye" mentality.  This book was used as a corner stone in forming the American judicial system.  To this day prisons and courts are focused on punishment rather then rehabilitation.  Jesus (and Muhammad for that matter) talked about a forgiving attitude in the sermon on the mount.  He endorsed the "turn the other cheek" philosophy.  Take a long hard look at the world around you and decide if this "Christian Nation" follows the teachings of Jesus or John Locke.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on April 10, 2009, 10:27:40 PM
It just occurred to me that when you told me to stay in the new testament that you are saying that the old testament is obsolete.  I said I could cite many examples where you choose to ignore the bible.  I think that clearly qualifies.  Still, I have been avoiding the passages that speak of Jesus bringing ruin and damnation to entire cities of people who reject him.  Why does he kill innocent children and babies for what their parents have chosen.  Also, I haven't even touched on the Christanity VS John Locke debate. That one is ripe with choices of ignoring the new testament and following the old that relates to present day.

I haven't heard of the bolded part, so research would have to be done.


Yes I am saying alot of the rules that governed the people of the old testament are obsolete.

I can't answer the why do bad things happen to innocent people question.  I can only think of two instances in the bible.  The great flood and soddom and ghommorah.  I just fucked the spelling of that.  But phonetically you know what I mean.

If you make concessions for the rules in the old testament that are obsolete what else can you make concessions for?  Clearly the old testament is filled with God-approved stores that people would be put to death for doing today.  There are also rules in the new testament that people choose to ignore today. 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 says that women cannot speak in church.  People choose to ignore that.  The point I am making is that every christian chooses what parts to listen to and what parts to ignore.  You have admitted to obsolete rules in the old testament.  Perhaps there are a few obsolete stories in there as well.


Summary of the Locke debate:  Locke wrote the Second Treatise of Government which is heavily influenced by the "eye for an eye" mentality.  This book was used as a corner stone in forming the American judicial system.  To this day prisons and courts are focused on punishment rather then rehabilitation.  Jesus (and Muhammad for that matter) talked about a forgiving attitude in the sermon on the mount.  He endorsed the "turn the other cheek" philosophy.  Take a long hard look at the world around you and decide if this "Christian Nation" follows the teachings of Jesus or John Locke.

1st paragraph.  This whole chapter deals with speaking in tounges, which is a HUGE debate within Christianity itself.  I have never actually read that passage.  I have now and am perplexed to say the least.  You have finally got me.  Good show.

2nd paragraph.  As you may or may not know im not what you would consider the perfect Christian.  I am definitely pro death penalty.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on April 10, 2009, 10:38:30 PM
Hara's not going to like this but I found something about the women not speaking in churches.  Feel free to read it if you wish.

http://www.gracecentered.com/women_in_ministry.htm
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Pongo on April 10, 2009, 10:40:48 PM
2nd paragraph.  As you may or may not know im not what you would consider the perfect Christian.  I am definitely pro death penalty.

That is a very Lockean way to view the death penalty.  Jesus would ask you to turn the other cheek and forgive.  The death penalty is not about forgiveness, it's about punishment (It's also proven to not be a deterrent).  The perfect christian is more inline with Locke than Christ.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on April 10, 2009, 10:43:53 PM
2nd paragraph.  As you may or may not know im not what you would consider the perfect Christian.  I am definitely pro death penalty.

That is a very Lockean way to view the death penalty.  Jesus would ask you to turn the other cheek and forgive.  The death penalty is not about forgiveness, it's about punishment (It's also proven to not be a deterrent).  The perfect christian is more inline with Locke than Christ.

Interesting to say the least.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on April 10, 2009, 10:56:54 PM
2nd paragraph.  As you may or may not know im not what you would consider the perfect Christian.  I am definitely pro death penalty.

That is a very Lockean way to view the death penalty.  Jesus would ask you to turn the other cheek and forgive.  The death penalty is not about forgiveness, it's about punishment (It's also proven to not be a deterrent).  The perfect christian is more inline with Locke than Christ.

Romans 13 1.Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.  2 Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.  3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you.  4 For he is God?s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God?s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.  5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Raist on April 10, 2009, 11:34:18 PM
So submitting to Hitler was the right thing to do. For he put Hitler in authority.

The quotation there was obviously added to the Bible simply to give authorities power. Who was Romans written by again?
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Pongo on April 11, 2009, 09:45:00 AM
Are you saying that God has personally approved everyone in power?  No one has believed that sense the days of kings.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Proleg on April 11, 2009, 11:37:59 AM
Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas is our current head of state and commander-in-chief by the Grace of God. The Regal Sovereign also holds the valiant titles of Defender of the Faith and Supreme Governor of the Church of England - the official state religion of the Commonwealth.

What you speak of, sir, is nothing less than blasphemy and treason.

God save the Queen.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Pongo on April 11, 2009, 11:56:17 AM
Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas is our current head of state and commander-in-chief by the Grace of God. The Regal Sovereign also holds the valiant titles of Defender of the Faith and Supreme Governor of the Church of England - the official state religion of the Commonwealth.

What you speak of, sir, is nothing less than blasphemy and treason.

God save the Queen.

Very well, retracted.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: ﮎingulaЯiτy on April 12, 2009, 10:54:53 AM
FACT Neither of us have any solid evidence to prove one way or the other.

How are we any different from one another again?
Because you are not looking for an answer, nor looking looking for evidence.

Supernatural or magic is not an answer. It is disguised as an answer but it is really a question in itself. If 'god' used 'magic', how does the magic work? If it follows different laws of physics, what are they?

Magic is simply a word for the unexplained as it always has been. To early man, fire was a mystery. Tribes and communities attributed what they couldn't proof or comprehend to "The fire god did it". Diseases were attributed to 'supernatural' work of a 'supernatural' father figure. There are countless mysteries that religion gave answers for based upon nothing but man's imagination. Bear in mind that no religious text was written by god. The authors merely claim to have been spoken to, been moved by, or been visited by god/angel figures on god's behalf. Religious scholars do not dispute this. They are faith writings.

When people don't understand something they instinctively define it as supernatural/not understandable and often become attached to that designation. This is why the churches persecuted Galileo, why Christopher Columbus wasn't taken seriously, and why evolution was considered widely false. People attach themselves to what they purport to be reality or what they have been taught to be real (Indoctrination). It's completely normal to want to remain believing in the same things, and looking at life the same way, but it destroys your investigation of alternative causes and makes you closed minded.

In the comets/asteroids vs. god comparison of belief you are making, there are a few considerable distinctions:

You're right to assert that the actual contribution of water via planetary impacts took place is unverified along with the god figure(s), but the creation beliefs dismiss the need for investigation and evidence, as well as hinder learning since they claim to already have the truth. Everything science has advanced upon, gave us a different understanding of the subject than humans once had. And as I tried to indicate above, creation makes a ton of intuition based assumptions without actually even giving an answer. Make no mistake, god 'willing something to happen' is not an answer anymore than fire spreads amongst wood because 'it wants to'.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on April 12, 2009, 11:59:48 AM
FACT Neither of us have any solid evidence to prove one way or the other.

How are we any different from one another again?
Because you are not looking for an answer, nor looking looking for evidence.

Supernatural or magic is not an answer. It is disguised as an answer but it is really a question in itself. If 'god' used 'magic', how does the magic work? If it follows different laws of physics, what are they?

Magic is simply a word for the unexplained as it always has been. To early man, fire was a mystery. Tribes and communities attributed what they couldn't proof or comprehend to "The fire god did it". Diseases were attributed to 'supernatural' work of a 'supernatural' father figure. There are countless mysteries that religion gave answers for based upon nothing but man's imagination. Bear in mind that no religious text was written by god. The authors merely claim to have been spoken to, been moved by, or been visited by god/angel figures on god's behalf. Religious scholars do not dispute this. They are faith writings.

When people don't understand something they instinctively define it as supernatural/not understandable and often become attached to that designation. This is why the churches persecuted Galileo, why Christopher Columbus wasn't taken seriously, and why evolution was considered widely false. People attach themselves to what they purport to be reality or what they have been taught to be real (Indoctrination). It's completely normal to want to remain believing in the same things, and looking at life the same way, but it destroys your investigation of alternative causes and makes you closed minded.

In the comets/asteroids vs. god comparison of belief you are making, there are a few considerable distinctions:
  • Comets/asteroids are known to contain water and exist. God is speculation.
  • Gravitation is known to pull celestial objects toward other massive objects. The supernatural/magic is speculation.
  • An abundance of celestial impacts define a vast amount of the Earth's current geography. 'Magic' leaves no evidence to find.

You're right to assert that the actual contribution of water via planetary impacts took place is unverified along with the god figure(s), but the creation beliefs dismiss the need for investigation and evidence, as well as hinder learning since they claim to already have the truth. Everything science has advanced upon, gave us a different understanding of the subject than humans once had. And as I tried to indicate above, creation makes a ton of intuition based assumptions without actually even giving an answer. Make no mistake, god 'willing something to happen' is not an answer anymore than fire spreads amongst wood because 'it wants to'.

Why do you have to use the word magic for something you cannot comprehend or understand?  There is no such thing.   For all we know God created the universe and this planet the way scientists say happened.  Some christians don't believe in the young earth theory.   Even after reading through your post a couple of times I see us the exact same.  Your stubbornness for science is no different than mine for religion. 

Will we ever travel faster than the speed of light?
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Jack on April 12, 2009, 12:33:37 PM
Will we ever travel faster than the speed of light?
We could, according to General Relativity, but that's just making shortcuts through space-time itself. One possible way is to stretch space and time away from the starship (with the distance between the Earth and the starship increased), so it looks as if the starship has traveled a large distance without even moving at all. However, as physicists point out, it would take the energy of a star to accomplish in such fashion (wormhole or warpdrive, etc).
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: ﮎingulaЯiτy on April 12, 2009, 12:40:49 PM
Why do you have to use the word magic for something you cannot comprehend or understand?
It's the etymology of the word. Magic was a term invented by religious tribes attributing things to a higher power beyind all investigation.

Quote
There is no such thing. For all we know God created the universe and this planet the way scientists say happened.
Magic describe how God created the universe. Just by setting things in motion, he still is playing a supernatural role.

Quote
Some Christians don't believe in the young earth theory.
Good. There is strong evidence compiled that indicates a Earth is about 4.55 billion years (+/- 1%)
Refusing to accept newly collected and very likely data is what concerns me the most about religion.

Quote
Even after reading through your post a couple of times I see us the exact same. Your stubbornness for science is no different than mine for religion.
I have reasons for being stubborn listed above, which I don't see any responses to. In case you are unaware, I used to be a creationist too, until I forced myself to examine my beliefs rationally and not emotionally.

Quote
Will we ever travel faster than the speed of light?
The straightforward answer without getting into favorable loopholes and circumstances: I doubt it very much.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Eddy Baby on April 12, 2009, 01:57:02 PM
Quote
Will we ever travel faster than the speed of light?
The straightforward answer without getting into favorable loopholes and circumstances: I doubt it very much.
[/quote]

I agree with that, although it's very hard to tell how science will advance. Take the computer, for example. It makes me look forward to 40 or so years in the future, because we'll have a hell of a lot more stuff.


And sorry, back to the original topic.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: ﮎingulaЯiτy on April 12, 2009, 06:51:04 PM
And sorry, back to the original topic.
It think his intention was to pose that question in an attempt to expose hypocrisy if there was any. If I was 100% sure, then I would be attached to my beliefs which is unscientific. I don't thing the tangent was going to last very long.  ;)
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on April 12, 2009, 07:00:58 PM
And sorry, back to the original topic.
It think his intention was to pose that question in an attempt to expose hypocrisy if there was any. If I was 100% sure, then I would be attached to my beliefs which is unscientific. I don't thing the tangent was going to last very long.  ;)

What you call magic I call divine intervention.  Just because I don't know how a person performs a certain card trick or disappearing act, doesn't mean he performed magic.  It just means I don't understand how he did it. 


It was just a question.  Me, I think we will.  But I put more faith in God, than I do Einstein.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: ﮎingulaЯiτy on April 12, 2009, 07:15:20 PM
What you call magic I call divine intervention.
Changing the name doesn't add credibility to the argument.

Quote
Just because I don't know how a person performs a certain card trick or disappearing act, doesn't mean he performed magic.  It just means I don't understand how he did it.
I'm sorry, are you saying that the supernatural adheres to physics? 


Quote
I put more faith in God, than I do Einstein.
We know Einstein exists, and he used math to make his points (which qualifies as strong evidence)  ;).

Why have faith at all? Faith is by definition, believing in something that you shouldn't rationally believe in.
Faith - noun; belief in something without, or despite evidence.
Faith - noun, (1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof  (2): complete trust
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on April 12, 2009, 07:32:25 PM
I'm sorry, are you saying that the supernatural adheres to physics? 


Are you saying that it doesn't?  How can you be sure?



Why have faith at all? Faith is by definition, believing in something that you shouldn't rationally believe in.
Faith - noun; belief in something without, or despite evidence.
Faith - noun, (1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof  (2): complete trust

You got to have faith, faith, faith.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: ﮎingulaЯiτy on April 12, 2009, 07:46:43 PM
I'm sorry, are you saying that the supernatural adheres to physics? 
Are you saying that it doesn't?  How can you be sure?
In my experience when talking to creationists, it never has before. Why would we even need the term if it did?

Quote

Why have faith at all? Faith is by definition, believing in something that you shouldn't rationally believe in.
Faith - noun; belief in something without, or despite evidence.
Faith - noun, (1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof  (2): complete trust

You got to have faith, faith, faith.

What? Was my question too hard?
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on April 12, 2009, 07:51:54 PM
I'm sorry, are you saying that the supernatural adheres to physics? 
Are you saying that it doesn't?  How can you be sure?
In my experience when talking to creationists, it never has before. Why would we even need the term if it did?

Quote

Why have faith at all? Faith is by definition, believing in something that you shouldn't rationally believe in.
Faith - noun; belief in something without, or despite evidence.
Faith - noun, (1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof  (2): complete trust

You got to have faith, faith, faith.

What? Was my question too hard?

All im saying is god could have sparked off the big bang.  I don't know.  Im a young earth creationist.  But there are others that aren't.


You question wasn't too hard.  Hmm lets see why do I have faith?  Actually I think we had this discussion before didn't we?  I was brought up to believe in a certain way.  I haven't found a good enough reason to go against that teaching.  With that belief automatically comes faith.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Parsifal on April 12, 2009, 08:06:12 PM
All im saying is god could have sparked off the big bang.

And Jimmy Page could have broken into my house last night and helped himself to a glass of water from the tap quietly enough that nobody noticed.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: ﮎingulaЯiτy on April 12, 2009, 08:15:26 PM
All im saying is god could have sparked off the big bang.
By creating the big bang, he would be starting it supernaturally, unless he himself wasn't supernatural. Any manipulation of reality from a realm beyond it is supernatural.

Quote
Hmm lets see why do I have faith?  Actually I think we had this discussion before didn't we?  I was brought up to believe in a certain way.  I haven't found a good enough reason to go against that teaching.  With that belief automatically comes faith.
God can never be disproved. You are justifying belief in something that requires a universal negative to be disproven.
Not to mention your default position should be skepticism if you want to filter true concepts from false ones.

If you were taught that monkeys can teleport, would you believe it? You shouldn't believe everything you hear, unless you are unconcerned with distinguishing fiction from reality.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on April 12, 2009, 08:19:08 PM
Bad analogy.  I can prove monkeys can't teleport.  Stupid fucks are locked up in the zoo for chrissake.

You cannot disprove God.  I see no reason not to believe.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Proleg on April 12, 2009, 08:20:09 PM
Bad analogy.
Russell's teapot then.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: ﮎingulaЯiτy on April 12, 2009, 08:28:19 PM
Bad analogy.
Russell's teapot then.
Much better.  :)


"If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense."
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on April 12, 2009, 08:30:50 PM
Yeah and the FSM drinks from it.   Your right.  You can believe whatever you want.  This isn't Russia.  This isn't Russia, is it Danny?
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Proleg on April 12, 2009, 08:32:47 PM
"If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense."
"If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: ﮎingulaЯiτy on April 12, 2009, 08:37:43 PM
Heh, I left that out to be more diplomatic, since I was trying to establish that same message by other means.  ;)
I notice that the more someone is alienated for their beliefs, the less likely they are to listen and consider opposing arguments. Certainly, this was a more borderline example.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Proleg on April 12, 2009, 08:40:06 PM
Heh, I left that out to be more diplomatic, since I was trying to establish that same message by other means.  ;)
You need to stop trying to get Wardogg to reach the conclusion by himself. That's not what he wants. He wants your reasoning up front so he can brush it aside all at once and cop out.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on April 12, 2009, 08:43:17 PM
Much easier that way.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Pongo on April 12, 2009, 08:46:59 PM
Wardogg, you're young earth?

That truly hurts when I meet young earthers.  Like, there is a depressed feeling in my heart.  I think it's utter sympathy in its truest form.  How much evidence of the age of the earth would it take for you to be dissuaded?  Because there is literally a planets worth.  Not only that, but there is universes worth of data pointing to a very old existence.  Why would an all-caring, all-loving, and all-compassionate God intentionally try to trick me into thinking the world is old when the fate of my very soul is at stake?  Basically, the all-loving God created everything 4 to 10 thousand years ago then manufactured every shred of evidence to make it look older so that if I use my brain to deduct these facts I will burn for all of existence in pure agony.

There must come a time when you have to ask yourself that.  Also, you have admitted to saying that parts of the old testament are obsolete.  You are a breath away from asking yourself questions like why God would command mass genocide?  Why would God command fetuses be destroyed?   Why would God inflict plagues on innocents?  God is sloppy in his vengeance; collateral damage isn't even a concept it considers.

Please, I implore you Wardogg, If a supreme being designed and created you, why did he design you a brain for thinking when its intended purpose was to deny facts presented to it?  The next time you hear a religious statement, wonder where and how that ideology/story/proverb/commandment was created.  Try and see if there is a use for it without God.  Does that commandment help adhere society?  Does that proverb tell me to help less fortunate?  Does that tenet seem to only serve the purpose of causing fear in people so that they come to church and tithe?  Some you will find to be truly altruistic, yet most you find further the purpose of keeping people in the church and offering them hope.  

Just... just try and not accept something because it's how you are supposed to think.  I think it's more important to be skeptical of the person (or source) presenting the information than the actual information.  If someone presents you information and then shows you evidence proving their point then that helps a lot in their credibility.  I'm not sure if I'm articulating myself very well, and I hope that you don't try and turn that point back on me (you can if you want of course, but it would be very easy to rebuke), but please don't accept something just because it's how you are told to think.  There is a wealth of information on the age of the earth, it is supported by many repeatable experiments across many fields of science.  Young earth creationists get their number from counting "begot's" in the bible.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Pongo on April 12, 2009, 08:50:22 PM


Here is a video on why you can't disprove God.  Also, that guy-girl in the video is pretty hot.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Parsifal on April 12, 2009, 08:51:04 PM
Wardogg, you're young earth?

Protip: Wardogg is a troll.

Also, tl;dr.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: ﮎingulaЯiτy on April 12, 2009, 08:55:48 PM
You need to stop trying to get Wardogg to reach the conclusion by himself. That's not what he wants. He wants your reasoning up front so he can brush it aside all at once and cop out.
Well then, I suppose it is good to have multiple people approaching this in different ways.
It's really just a personal preference to achieve the same goal.

Does the Wardogg have an actual answer?
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Proleg on April 12, 2009, 09:00:49 PM
You need to stop trying to get Wardogg to reach the conclusion by himself. That's not what he wants. He wants your reasoning up front so he can brush it aside all at once and cop out.
Well then, I suppose it is good to have multiple people approaching this in different ways.
It's really just a personal preference to achieve the same goal.

Does the Wardogg have an actual answer?
Yes: It was good enough for the Hebrew children and it's good enough for him.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on April 13, 2009, 02:38:20 PM
Wardogg, you're young earth?

That truly hurts when I meet young earthers.  Like, there is a depressed feeling in my heart.  I think it's utter sympathy in its truest form.  How much evidence of the age of the earth would it take for you to be dissuaded?  

How much evidence would it take you to be dissuaded?

http://www.earthage.org/youngearthev/evidence_for_a_young_earth.htm
http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/topic/young-age-evidence
http://www.tim-thompson.com/young-earth.html
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c012.html
http://toptenproofs.com/article_youngearth.php
http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/yeclaims.html
http://www.creationevidence.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=35
http://www.icr.org/article/1842/

Let me know if you need more.

Wardogg, you're young earth?

Protip: Wardogg is a troll.

Prove it.

You need to stop trying to get Wardogg to reach the conclusion by himself. That's not what he wants. He wants your reasoning up front so he can brush it aside all at once and cop out.
Well then, I suppose it is good to have multiple people approaching this in different ways.
It's really just a personal preference to achieve the same goal.

Does the Wardogg have an actual answer?

What was the question?

You need to stop trying to get Wardogg to reach the conclusion by himself. That's not what he wants. He wants your reasoning up front so he can brush it aside all at once and cop out.
Well then, I suppose it is good to have multiple people approaching this in different ways.
It's really just a personal preference to achieve the same goal.

Does the Wardogg have an actual answer?
Yes: It was good enough for the Hebrew children and it's good enough for him.

You know i hate jews.  Why even make jokes like that?

Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: optimisticcynic on April 13, 2009, 04:08:11 PM
Thank you for finally finding some evidence. I look forward to finding holes in it.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Parsifal on April 13, 2009, 04:09:19 PM
Protip: Wardogg is a troll.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: ﮎingulaЯiτy on April 13, 2009, 05:02:38 PM
Does the Wardogg have an actual answer?
What was the question?
There were really two of them.

1. Why should anyone have faith, especially since faith by definition is irrational?
2. If you were taught about Russel's teapot, and if it appeared in ancient literature, would you choose to believe it?
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: ﮎingulaЯiτy on April 13, 2009, 05:10:41 PM
Thank you for finally finding some evidence. I look forward to finding holes in it.
I didn't even bother to read the first link for more than a minute, because the sources and conclusions are untrustworthy. I read that a christian mathematician says 'that the moon might have been receding at a very high rate in the past so it must not be older than a certain point'. When the sources are only originating from religious authorities, their guesstimates are not only prone to religious bias but definitional invalid as evidence... since they they don't provide the math, and just the conclusions. If they had math and observational data backing them (that I could check) then it would be different, and I'd happily listen. I'd venture a guess that none of the 'scientific proofs' for these conclusions have been revealed for the scientific community or for civilians to critique.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: optimisticcynic on April 13, 2009, 05:21:05 PM
The gravitational pull between the Earth and Moon causes the Earth?s oceans to have tides.  The tidal friction  between the Earth?s terrestrial surface and the water moving over it causes energy to be  added  to the Moon.  This  "results in a constant yearly increase in the distance between the Earth and Moon."1 This tidal friction also causes the Earth?s rotation to slow down, but  more importantly,  the energy added to the Moon causes it to recede from  the  Earth.1,2   The rate  of recession was measured at  four centimeters per year in 1981; 3  however, according to Physicist Donald B. DeYoung: 

    "One cannot extrapolate the present 4 cm/year separation rate back into history. It has that value today, but was more rapid in the past because of tidal effects.  In fact, the separation rate depends on the distance to the 6th power, a very strong dependence ... the rate ... was perhaps 20 m/year ?long? ago, and the average is 1.2 m/year. 1

Because of this, the Moon must be less than 750 million years old -- or 20% of the supposed 4.5 billion-year age of the Earth-Moon system.4

    Note: Even though the maximum age obtained from this method is more than 10,000 years, it is nevertheless much younger than the alleged 4.5 billion year age for the Earth-Moon system proposed by evolutionists. Note also that nobody knows how the Moon got to be in its present orbit. All of the proposed theories as to where it came from have serious problems. It is a complete mystery ? unless of course it was designed that way from the beginning.



This was the closest I could find to hard numbers on it.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Raist on April 13, 2009, 05:23:31 PM
Lol. 20 meters a year. How would that equal 10,000 years? that is only 200,000 meters. or 200 kilometers.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on April 13, 2009, 05:39:31 PM
Does the Wardogg have an actual answer?
What was the question?
There were really two of them.

1. Why should anyone have faith, especially since faith by definition is irrational?
2. If you were taught about Russel's teapot, and if it appeared in ancient literature, would you choose to believe it?

1 Faith brings hope.
2 I don't see why not. Especially if it was taught by my parents as a truth.  And so would you.  You believe in things that are written (more current text granted) that have no proof.  Again I don't see the difference.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on April 13, 2009, 05:41:15 PM
Lol. 20 meters a year. How would that equal 10,000 years? that is only 200,000 meters. or 200 kilometers.

Note: Even though the maximum age obtained from this method is more than 10,000 years, it is nevertheless much younger than the alleged 4.5 billion year age for the Earth-Moon system proposed by evolutionists. Note also that nobody knows how the Moon got to be in its present orbit. All of the proposed theories as to where it came from have serious problems. It is a complete mystery ? unless of course it was designed that way from the beginning.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Raist on April 13, 2009, 05:56:30 PM
Ok. So even the creationists won't agree with the creation theory. This would obviously disprove the 4,000 year old bench mark or whatever the creationists currently use.


A date that was devised several hundred years ago by a man that is considered crazy by most modern religions. If this age can't be treated as fact why even assume the Earth is young? Genesis makes no mention of age.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on April 13, 2009, 06:08:14 PM
Ok. So even the creationists won't agree with the creation theory. This would obviously disprove the 4,000 year old bench mark or whatever the creationists currently use.


A date that was devised several hundred years ago by a man that is considered crazy by most modern religions. If this age can't be treated as fact why even assume the Earth is young? Genesis makes no mention of age.

Not all creationists believe in the young earth.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Raist on April 13, 2009, 07:42:00 PM
You were.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Parsifal on April 13, 2009, 07:50:15 PM
Protip: Wardogg is a troll.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Raist on April 13, 2009, 08:13:33 PM
Protip so are you.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: ﮎingulaЯiτy on April 13, 2009, 08:26:59 PM
1. Why should anyone have faith, especially since faith by definition is irrational?
Faith brings hope.
So you admit that your reason for believing in god is only for emotional comfort, and not rational investigation?

2. If you were taught about Russel's teapot, and if it appeared in ancient literature, would you choose to believe it?

I don't see why not. Especially if it was taught by my parents as a truth.  And so would you.  You believe in things that are written (more current text granted) that have no proof.  Again I don't see the difference.
1. So you don't question the same things things now, that you are acknowledging you were once brainwashed to believe?

2. Actually I wouldn't, just as I don't. I was raised Christian, and I rejected the absurdities, assumptions, and circular logic found within all religious texts and religious concepts (the ones I was exposed to) when I reexamined them.

3. I only give credit to things that are written, peer reviewed, reproduced by the scientific community, and make logical sense.

A vague story passed down orally for generations, before being written by men, edited by men, and rewritten by men, with no actual factual verification, filled with obvious contradictions and absurdities has little sway over me. I filter my sources only to ensure that the messages I would be relying on are factual.

If something is not peer reviewed, I am skeptical. Even if the message makes sense to me.
If something has not been reproduced in a controlled environment, I am still skeptical.
If something doesn't make logical sense to me, I question it and pursue it further in case I have a conflicting misconception about it, or something that it fits with.

I have already mentioned that proof of almost anything is impossible. All I have is evidence.
The difference between us that you are overlooking, is our scrutinization of the source.  If you don't consider the validity of what you read, you might start believing Harry Potter is a real person, who uses magic wands to fight evil wizards at Hogwarts.

Why is it that religion is exempt from the scientific method in your mind?
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: ﮎingulaЯiτy on April 13, 2009, 08:28:51 PM
Protip: Wardogg is a troll.
First of all, I don't have sufficient reason to suspect that.
And regardless of whether or not this is true, he still follows his own dependable rules with his posts, and that's all I need to work with.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Pongo on April 13, 2009, 10:03:17 PM
Wardogg, you're young earth?

That truly hurts when I meet young earthers.  Like, there is a depressed feeling in my heart.  I think it's utter sympathy in its truest form.  How much evidence of the age of the earth would it take for you to be dissuaded?  

How much evidence would it take you to be dissuaded?

http://www.earthage.org/youngearthev/evidence_for_a_young_earth.htm
http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/topic/young-age-evidence
http://www.tim-thompson.com/young-earth.html
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c012.html
http://toptenproofs.com/article_youngearth.php
http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/yeclaims.html
http://www.creationevidence.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=35
http://www.icr.org/article/1842/

Let me know if you need more.

Wardogg, all these links are from christian websites.  How come you didn't link any articles from scientific sources?  You don't get your medical, moral, or mathematical conclusions from the bible, why do you get your biological and geological conclusions from it?  (You will undoubtedly argue that statement and I will undeniably win.)  I do require more sources from you, but gladly I only need one more source.  Find me one repeatable experiment or observation from a scientific source that points to the age of the of the earth being young.  Make sure to check your facts, if you come at me with helium counts, magnetic fields, or metals in the ocean I will shred you.

SPOILER:  You will not find one.  If you can however debunk the age of the earth, your name will survive the ages along with Newton and Einstein.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Taters343 on April 13, 2009, 10:27:43 PM
I just watched all of them in one sitting.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Eddy Baby on April 14, 2009, 05:05:55 AM
I read the first link, and didn't find it too convincing.
It mentioned a few cases of finding dinosaur/ancient animal/plant remains that weren't consistent with the 4.5 billion year old Earth model.
Maybe they can't be adequately explained by Old Earth, but one or two anomalous results don't count as significant evidence.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: DunkMe on April 14, 2009, 02:43:00 PM
A great series of videos that explains in depth the many problems with the foundations of creationism:


If you are a creationist, please bear with me and watch it anyways. Being open minded to examine the a logical argument is never harmful. It starts off condescending, so brace yourself.  ;)
...If you are not a creationist, you may still enjoy the series anyways.


Fascinating. Through the first 4 so far and now simply must watch them all. Very compelling. This guy did quite a bit of work to bring these videos out. Thank you for passing this along.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on April 19, 2009, 07:49:35 PM
1. Why should anyone have faith, especially since faith by definition is irrational?
Faith brings hope.
So you admit that your reason for believing in god is only for emotional comfort, and not rational investigation?

I don't know if I have a "why"  Rational investigation of what.  And how do you investigate something that happened 4.5 BILLION years ago?


2. If you were taught about Russel's teapot, and if it appeared in ancient literature, would you choose to believe it?

I don't see why not. Especially if it was taught by my parents as a truth.  And so would you.  You believe in things that are written (more current text granted) that have no proof.  Again I don't see the difference.
1. So you don't question the same things things now, that you are acknowledging you were once brainwashed to believe?

I acknowledge that i was taught to believe in something and I have no evidence to reject that teaching now.


2. Actually I wouldn't, just as I don't. I was raised Christian, and I rejected the absurdities, assumptions, and circular logic found within all religious texts and religious concepts (the ones I was exposed to) when I reexamined them.

At what age is my point.  And for what reasons.  Were you mad at mommy and daddy? :-\  Hell I still don't go to church.  Haven't since I was probably 14.  But the belief is still there.


3. I only give credit to things that are written, peer reviewed, reproduced by the scientific community, and make logical sense.

So propoganda in a different form then, got it, thanx.

A vague story passed down orally for generations, before being written by men, edited by men, and rewritten by men, with no actual factual verification, filled with obvious contradictions and absurdities has little sway over me. I filter my sources only to ensure that the messages I would be relying on are factual.

Yeah like ancient egypt.  Good to know those fuckers never existed either.

If something is not peer reviewed, I am skeptical. Even if the message makes sense to me.
If something has not been reproduced in a controlled environment, I am still skeptical.
If something doesn't make logical sense to me, I question it and pursue it further in case I have a conflicting misconception about it, or something that it fits with.

Yet you perform none of the experiments or do any investigating yourself.  Only taking the word of 5 scientists that told you they did, and agreed on a conclusion.  Interesting.

I have already mentioned that proof of almost anything is impossible. All I have is evidence.
The difference between us that you are overlooking, is our scrutinization of the source.  If you don't consider the validity of what you read, you might start believing Harry Potter is a real person, who uses magic wands to fight evil wizards at Hogwarts.

There very well may be people that think Harry exists.  And who are we to tell them otherwise.  This isn't russia. This isn't russia is it Danny?  The point being just becuase you can't see it or measure it doesn't always mean it doesn't exist.  IE Aliens, most people think they exist.  I am one of them.  That kind of goes against the bible doesn't it?  But we can't prove it, there is no evidence for it.  Thats what a belief is.  Faith.

Why is it that religion is exempt from the scientific method in your mind?

Its not.  Hence all the links I posted.  All evidence for the earth being created by something other than an accident.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on April 19, 2009, 08:07:05 PM
SPOILER:  You will not find one.  If you can however debunk the age of the earth, your name will survive the ages along with Newton and Einstein.

And what was the guys name that proved 100%, beyond a shadow of a doubt the age of the earth again?  Newton and Einstein I know.  But this guy seems to have slipped my mind.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Raist on April 19, 2009, 08:10:40 PM
SPOILER:  You will not find one.  If you can however debunk the age of the earth, your name will survive the ages along with Newton and Einstein.

And what was the guys name that proved 100%, beyond a shadow of a doubt the age of the earth again?  Newton and Einstein I know.  But this guy seems to have slipped my mind.

No one has proved it a certain age. People have shown absolute maximums and minimums, then there are other clues to the exact age. Something creationists don't understand. They started with an age calculated by some nutjob, then they search for evidence of this age.

Warrdog, there may be no exact known age for the universe, but it is certainly greater than a billion years old.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on April 19, 2009, 08:25:25 PM
SPOILER:  You will not find one.  If you can however debunk the age of the earth, your name will survive the ages along with Newton and Einstein.

And what was the guys name that proved 100%, beyond a shadow of a doubt the age of the earth again?  Newton and Einstein I know.  But this guy seems to have slipped my mind.

No one has proved it a certain age. People have shown absolute maximums and minimums, then there are other clues to the exact age. Something creationists don't understand. They started with an age calculated by some nutjob, then they search for evidence of this age.

Warrdog, there may be no exact known age for the universe, but it is certainly greater than a billion years old.

Certainly?  Interesting word.  Lets look at the number billion shall we?

1 billion is 1,000,000,000
    is 1 thousand, thousand, thousands = 2 x 103 x 103 x 103
    = 1 x 10^9
    or
    is 1 million thousands
    = 1 x 10^6 x 10^3
    = is 1 x 10^9

And now you are saying that it might not be 4 of these billions but its at least 1 of these billions.  Thats a pretty big fucking gap.  Big enough to leave me doubt to its validity.  I think my number while absurd to you, is no more or less plausible.

Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Raist on April 19, 2009, 08:32:56 PM
SPOILER:  You will not find one.  If you can however debunk the age of the earth, your name will survive the ages along with Newton and Einstein.

And what was the guys name that proved 100%, beyond a shadow of a doubt the age of the earth again?  Newton and Einstein I know.  But this guy seems to have slipped my mind.

No one has proved it a certain age. People have shown absolute maximums and minimums, then there are other clues to the exact age. Something creationists don't understand. They started with an age calculated by some nutjob, then they search for evidence of this age.

Warrdog, there may be no exact known age for the universe, but it is certainly greater than a billion years old.

Certainly?  Interesting word.  Lets look at the number billion shall we?

1 billion is 1,000,000,000
    is 1 thousand, thousand, thousands = 2 x 103 x 103 x 103
    = 1 x 10^9
    or
    is 1 million thousands
    = 1 x 10^6 x 10^3
    = is 1 x 10^9

And now you are saying that it might not be 4 of these billions but its at least 1 of these billions.  Thats a pretty big fucking gap.  Big enough to leave me doubt to its validity.  I think my number while absurd to you, is no more or less plausible.



It's not a huge gap. As the size of a number increases, the gaps can increase, but they remain relatively small.

It certainly should not cause you to doubt it's validity. Your argument is completely ridiculous.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on April 19, 2009, 08:38:15 PM
SPOILER:  You will not find one.  If you can however debunk the age of the earth, your name will survive the ages along with Newton and Einstein.

And what was the guys name that proved 100%, beyond a shadow of a doubt the age of the earth again?  Newton and Einstein I know.  But this guy seems to have slipped my mind.

No one has proved it a certain age. People have shown absolute maximums and minimums, then there are other clues to the exact age. Something creationists don't understand. They started with an age calculated by some nutjob, then they search for evidence of this age.

Warrdog, there may be no exact known age for the universe, but it is certainly greater than a billion years old.

Certainly?  Interesting word.  Lets look at the number billion shall we?

1 billion is 1,000,000,000
    is 1 thousand, thousand, thousands = 2 x 103 x 103 x 103
    = 1 x 10^9
    or
    is 1 million thousands
    = 1 x 10^6 x 10^3
    = is 1 x 10^9

And now you are saying that it might not be 4 of these billions but its at least 1 of these billions.  Thats a pretty big fucking gap.  Big enough to leave me doubt to its validity.  I think my number while absurd to you, is no more or less plausible.



It's not a huge gap. As the size of a number increases, the gaps can increase, but they remain relatively small.

It certainly should not cause you to doubt it's validity. Your argument is completely ridiculous.


Greater than 1 billion but less than 4.5 billion YEARS is not that big of gap to you?  Lets put it into seconds for perspective.  The second you were born until you were 1 billiion seconds old would be 31 years 6 months.  Now at your 4.5 billion second mark you would be 142 years 5 months. 

Yeah, a pretty insignificant gap if you ask me. (do i need to put that in blue?)
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Raist on April 19, 2009, 08:44:54 PM
SPOILER:  You will not find one.  If you can however debunk the age of the earth, your name will survive the ages along with Newton and Einstein.

And what was the guys name that proved 100%, beyond a shadow of a doubt the age of the earth again?  Newton and Einstein I know.  But this guy seems to have slipped my mind.

No one has proved it a certain age. People have shown absolute maximums and minimums, then there are other clues to the exact age. Something creationists don't understand. They started with an age calculated by some nutjob, then they search for evidence of this age.

Warrdog, there may be no exact known age for the universe, but it is certainly greater than a billion years old.

Certainly?  Interesting word.  Lets look at the number billion shall we?

1 billion is 1,000,000,000
    is 1 thousand, thousand, thousands = 2 x 103 x 103 x 103
    = 1 x 10^9
    or
    is 1 million thousands
    = 1 x 10^6 x 10^3
    = is 1 x 10^9

And now you are saying that it might not be 4 of these billions but its at least 1 of these billions.  Thats a pretty big fucking gap.  Big enough to leave me doubt to its validity.  I think my number while absurd to you, is no more or less plausible.



It's not a huge gap. As the size of a number increases, the gaps can increase, but they remain relatively small.

It certainly should not cause you to doubt it's validity. Your argument is completely ridiculous.


Greater than 1 billion but less than 4.5 billion YEARS is not that big of gap to you?  Lets put it into seconds for perspective.  The second you were born until you were 1 billiion seconds old would be 31 years 6 months.  Now at your 4.5 billion second mark you would be 142 years 5 months. 

Yeah, a pretty insignificant gap if you ask me. (do i need to put that in blue?)

If the gap was say between 4,000 and 20,000 years, that means the maximum is 5x greater than the minimum.

4billion is only 4 times larger than 1 billion.

The max and the min were found using different systems, meaning that it has to be within that range but neither number claims to be the actual age of the universe.

If you knew that a basketball player had scored 4 points in the first quarter, and the team finished with 60 points, you know he scored between 4 and 60 points, a huge gap, but still 100% accurate. Am I correct?
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on April 19, 2009, 08:57:33 PM

If the gap was say between 4,000 and 20,000 years, that means the maximum is 5x greater than the minimum.

4billion is only 4 times larger than 1 billion.

The max and the min were found using different systems, meaning that it has to be within that range but neither number claims to be the actual age of the universe.

If you knew that a basketball player had scored 4 points in the first quarter, and the team finished with 60 points, you know he scored between 4 and 60 points, a huge gap, but still 100% accurate. Am I correct?

Nope. Those two numbers are verifiable by looking at the scoreboard only.  But you didn't watch the game so how can you be sure that an error wasn't made when posting the scores to the board?  For all you know the score ending up only being 10.  What if two people came up to you and presented evidence that 10 was the correct score and two people came up to you with evidence for 60?  Now what do you do?
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: ﮎingulaЯiτy on April 19, 2009, 09:12:48 PM
Faith brings hope.
So you admit that your reason for believing in god is only for emotional comfort, and not rational investigation?
I don't know if I have a "why".  Rational investigation of what?  And how do you investigate something that happened 4.5 BILLION years ago?
1. There is always a why buried somewhere. I'd start looking in the subconscious for a comfort mechanism.  :P
It should occur to you that not having a reason for a belief in something, is a good reason to not to belief in that something.

2. Rational investigation of god. (Faith is not a rational investigation for anything, let alone something that cannot be investigated)
3. Who's talking about something that happened 4.5 billion years ago? We are talking about having faith in the here and now.


1. So you don't question the same things things now, that you are acknowledging you were once brainwashed to believe?

I acknowledge that i was taught to believe in something and I have no evidence to reject that teaching now.
Do you consider it to be unbiased to favor a teaching that could only be revoked on a universal negative? Why accept it in the first place?
The teapot example was a straight forward question. If that was what you were taught, and you had no evidence to reject the teaching now, would you still cling to that belief?

At what age is my point.  And for what reasons.  Were you mad at mommy and daddy? :-\  Hell I still don't go to church.  Haven't since I was probably 14.  But the belief is still there.
I can't know your point or your reasons.
I wasn't upset at anyone at the time. Emotions actually clouded my thoughts. But when I came to these conclusions, I became terribly upset. I cried and ran to my parents disturbed that my foundations for life weren't as solid as I once believed. It took me awhile to cope with the new dismal perspective, before I began to appreciate the new one for what it really was. If anything, I'm happy that it happened, and that it happened when I was young. The longer it becomes a part of your life, the harder it is to accept. For all I know, it could be 5 times harder for you than it was for me.

3. I only give credit to things that are written, peer reviewed, reproduced by the scientific community, and make logical sense.
So propaganda in a different form then, got it, thanx.
You know that's not fair assessment. You are discrediting an entire process and all of its benefits without examining a single example. Propaganda also has motivation behind it. Scientists make money and progress by tearing each others' theories apart, where ever they can find problems and then improving upon them as best they can making their own contribution. They all question each other and test each other. When they can narrow down a theory to the point that they can't disagree with rational arguments, the move on the the theories build upon them. The scientific community agrees only on what they cannot disagree on. I witness this remarkable system rather often.

Dismissing it as propaganda to change my beliefs is an unverified claim, and I suspect that you are reciting your own prejudices rather than coming to the conclusion that it (whatever 'it' is) is propaganda as you typed.


A vague story passed down orally for generations, before being written by men, edited by men, and rewritten by men, with no actual factual verification, filled with obvious contradictions and absurdities has little sway over me. I filter my sources only to ensure that the messages I would be relying on are factual.

Yeah like ancient Egypt.  Good to know those fuckers never existed either.
I'm not sure I follow. I have every reason to believe Egyptians existed. It seems you are replacing my argument with a flawed analogy to suit your own purpose in convincing yourself that my argument is also flawed. It seems to carry the essence of any strawman, but I don't think it's intentional.

If something is not peer reviewed, I am skeptical. Even if the message makes sense to me.
If something has not been reproduced in a controlled environment, I am still skeptical.
If something doesn't make logical sense to me, I question it and pursue it further in case I have a conflicting misconception about it, or something that it fits with.

Yet you perform none of the experiments or do any investigating yourself.  Only taking the word of 5 scientists that told you they did, and agreed on a conclusion.  Interesting.

What experiments do you expect me to conduct myself?
And 5? Seriously? The scientific community includes all voices from all scientists from all countries. Once again, you are altering your perspective of what I am suggesting in order to make it appear nonsensical. When they are all in agreement to a vast majority after rigorous testing, it is much harder to deny. Once again, there is no ultimate motivation for all of them to just simply agree. A career is made new findings, not in replicating someone else's findings. The motivation actually only exists when you are trying to convert people. See any religion.

I have already mentioned that proof of almost anything is impossible. All I have is evidence.
The difference between us that you are overlooking, is our scrutinization of the source.  If you don't consider the validity of what you read, you might start believing Harry Potter is a real person, who uses magic wands to fight evil wizards at Hogwarts.

There very well may be people that think Harry exists.  And who are we to tell them otherwise?
They are entitled to hold there beliefs, though I feel as though I wouldn't be doing my part if I didn't point out the flaws behind the reasons for their beliefs. If I can demonstrate that believing in Harry is an irrational emotional defense mechanism and they agree, I would have no problem if they still choose to continue to believe in Harry Potter.

Quote
The point being just because you can't see it or measure it doesn't always mean it doesn't exist.
You're right here. I am not telling you god doesn't exist, because I cannot know.
Quote
IE Aliens, most people think they exist.  I am one of them.  That kind of goes against the bible doesn't it?  But we can't prove it, there is no evidence for it.  That's what a belief is.  Faith.
I do not know what goes against your interpretation of the bible, but we cannot "see or measure" them simply because they are far away, not because they don't adhere to basic laws of reality. I too believe in aliens, but not because of faith. I believe in aliens because of basic probability. The size of the visible universe and the amount of planets that would likely fit the requirements of supporting life comes out very favorably.

Why is it that religion is exempt from the scientific method in your mind?
Its not.  Hence all the links I posted.  All evidence for the earth being created by something other than an accident.
The scientific method requires skeptics to review the work and attempt to find problems with it. I skimmed a few of your sources, and they don't even include references to how they reached there conclusions, so I can't reproduce the math, nor can anyone else. However, people can make their own experiments do their own math, and come to their own conclusions. They can then be peer reviewed, tested, retested, and altered and tested again. Carbon dating testing by the scientific community has already done that independently from your biblical sources, so I favor them over yours. I think you have this impression that the scientific community is a group of close friends that all want to guide people's beliefs, rather than a competitive global free-for-all.

And even the conclusions that your sources spell out are only conclusions for that issue. If you believe that the moon was really behaving that way over that course of time, how can you expand that as evidence of an all powerful entity?
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Raist on April 19, 2009, 09:13:19 PM

If the gap was say between 4,000 and 20,000 years, that means the maximum is 5x greater than the minimum.

4billion is only 4 times larger than 1 billion.

The max and the min were found using different systems, meaning that it has to be within that range but neither number claims to be the actual age of the universe.

If you knew that a basketball player had scored 4 points in the first quarter, and the team finished with 60 points, you know he scored between 4 and 60 points, a huge gap, but still 100% accurate. Am I correct?

Nope. Those two numbers are verifiable by looking at the scoreboard only.  But you didn't watch the game so how can you be sure that an error wasn't made when posting the scores to the board?  For all you know the score ending up only being 10.  What if two people came up to you and presented evidence that 10 was the correct score and two people came up to you with evidence for 60?  Now what do you do?

That would be the first basketballgame I've ever seen that they didn't notice someone sinking baskets. I'd demand the game was thrown out because those refs really were blind.

Also, wow way to take an analogy WAY too far.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on April 19, 2009, 09:17:22 PM

Also, wow way to take an analogy WAY too far.

You started it.



@singularity,  Ill get back to you just not tonite.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Raist on April 19, 2009, 09:18:55 PM

Also, wow way to take an analogy WAY too far.

You started it.



@singularity,  Ill get back to you just not tonite.

Ok, what is the symbolism of someone showing that the scoreboard is wrong? What does that represent at all? Can you seriously justify that nonsense?
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Pongo on April 20, 2009, 12:33:48 AM
SPOILER:  You will not find one.  If you can however debunk the age of the earth, your name will survive the ages along with Newton and Einstein.

And what was the guys name that proved 100%, beyond a shadow of a doubt the age of the earth again?  Newton and Einstein I know.  But this guy seems to have slipped my mind.

Let me put this into perspective for you.  What was the person's name that invented an antimalarial drug saving millions of lives?  What was the person's name that pioneered cardiac bypass operations?  Who was it that first timed the speed of light, calculated the mass of carbon, or invented an internal combustible engine?  I'm not testing your Google skills here, I'm trying to show you that these accomplishments are all worthy of acknowledgment yet very few people could pull a name off the top of their head for any of them.  I can't.  What you are trying to do is belittle my points by saying that the person (it's really persons) that used data derived from science to calculate the age of the earth aren't worth remembering (or possibly, that the feat itself isn't note worthy). 

Allow me to let you in on a little secret; a secret that if you comprehended, you would not post these posts.  If you could prove the age of the earth to be young, it would effectively disprove the vast majority of the geological, astronomical, evolutionary, and anthropological sciences.  These are broad fields of science that you can find a 101 class for at any university, the amount of sub fields that you would also be dislodging is mind staggering.  So when I tell you that if you can prove a young earth, I want you to understand the full meaning.  You would dethrone the cornerstones of so many fields of science that your name would be the title of every first chapter of every new science book written about these topics.  You would have campus buildings named after you, library wings dedicated to you, and busts sculpted in your likeness.  You would be given honorary doctorates by the hand full, multimillion dollar grants, and teams of scholastic people to do your bidding.  Your name would truly survive the ages laying shame to Einstein and Newton.  This is because, to do what I am proposing, would be to single-handedly rewrite over three hundred years of tested, repeatable, reviewed, retested, rerepeatable, and rereviewed works of science.  It would be making the life-works of thousands of the greatest minds that have graced this lonely rock obsolete. 

This is what you fight against.  This is why, if you comprehended it, you wouldn't post your posts.  This is why you will never disprove the age of the earth.  This is why you will die without anyone remembering you.  And finally, this is why are wrong; the collective minds of scores of thousands of scientists toiling and triumphing is greater than the false hopes and misguided morals of your archaic tome.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on April 20, 2009, 05:57:25 PM

Also, wow way to take an analogy WAY too far.

You started it.



@singularity,  Ill get back to you just not tonite.

Ok, what is the symbolism of someone showing that the scoreboard is wrong? What does that represent at all? Can you seriously justify that nonsense?

Nonsense?  It was your analogy!  I was just expounding on it.  The symbolism is evidence of two different outcomes.  And evidence to support each.  Considering you did none of the investigating yourself you now have to believe, or to put it another way, have faith, one of them is correct based on the evidence.




OK lets get this one out of the way.
SPOILER:  You will not find one.  If you can however debunk the age of the earth, your name will survive the ages along with Newton and Einstein.

And what was the guys name that proved 100%, beyond a shadow of a doubt the age of the earth again?  Newton and Einstein I know.  But this guy seems to have slipped my mind.

Let me put this into perspective for you.  What was the person's name that invented an antimalarial drug saving millions of lives?

No idea but Ive taken his medicine.


  What was the person's name that pioneered cardiac bypass operations?

Dunno.


  Who was it that first timed the speed of light, calculated the mass of carbon, or invented an internal combustible engine? 

Dunno, not sure, and Gottlieb Daimler invented the prototype for what combustible engines are based off of today.


I'm not testing your Google skills here,

I didn't use them.


I'm trying to show you that these accomplishments are all worthy of acknowledgment yet very few people could pull a name off the top of their head for any of them.  I can't.  What you are trying to do is belittle my points by saying that the person (it's really persons) that used data derived from science to calculate the age of the earth aren't worth remembering (or possibly, that the feat itself isn't note worthy). 

Wrong.  What Im saying is no one has proven the age of the earth beyond a shadow of doubt.  Hence no ones name is attached to it.  If it was proven, don't you think Christians would then be trying to explain religion based on the old earth theory?



Allow me to let you in on a little secret; a secret that if you comprehended, you would not post these posts. 

Ok, shoot.  I'm bored.


If you could prove the age of the earth to be young, it would effectively disprove the vast majority of the geological, astronomical, evolutionary, and anthropological sciences.  These are broad fields of science that you can find a 101 class for at any university, the amount of sub fields that you would also be dislodging is mind staggering.  So when I tell you that if you can prove a young earth, I want you to understand the full meaning.  You would dethrone the cornerstones of so many fields of science that your name would be the title of every first chapter of every new science book written about these topics.  You would have campus buildings named after you, library wings dedicated to you, and busts sculpted in your likeness.  You would be given honorary doctorates by the hand full, multimillion dollar grants, and teams of scholastic people to do your bidding.  Your name would truly survive the ages laying shame to Einstein and Newton.  This is because, to do what I am proposing, would be to single-handedly rewrite over three hundred years of tested, repeatable, reviewed, retested, rerepeatable, and rereviewed works of science.  It would be making the life-works of thousands of the greatest minds that have graced this lonely rock obsolete. 

And if you could prove the age of the earth to be old, it would unravel not only Christianity but multiple different religions with a creation story around the world.  Do you know why most creation evidence isn't peer reviewed?  The scientific establishment won't allow creationists to publish.  Both creationists and evolutionists have the same evidence. The difference is in how that evidence is interpreted.  As I've said before, both creation and evolution are faith positions based on different worldviews. Evolutionists exclude God from consideration a priori, not because of the evidence.   Besides, who wants their bust scuplted.  I have alot of chest hair.  It probably wouldn't look good.



This is what you fight against.  This is why, if you comprehended it, you wouldn't post your posts.  This is why you will never disprove the age of the earth. 

And neither will you.


This is why you will die without anyone remembering you. 

Lots of people will remeber me.  Don't lump me in with your sad and lonely excuse for a life.


And finally, this is why are wrong; the collective minds of scores of thousands of scientists toiling and triumphing is greater than the false hopes and misguided morals of your archaic tome.

We shall see, eventually we will all know the truth.





Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: optimisticcynic on April 20, 2009, 06:09:15 PM

We shall see, eventually we will all know the truth.



and technically you are right the fact of the age of the earth has not been decided for certain. We also don't know for certain that the sun will rise tomorrow. it however is the safe bet.
And what would you say if you were wrong.
Second what if the Hinduism or atheist or Buddhist are right we will never know the truth.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Raist on April 20, 2009, 06:13:13 PM
No. You are wrong warrdog, you can't simply bring up an unrelated point to prove an analogy wrong. If someone says that the money return at a bank works with pressure like a gun, you can't say, what if there was a gun that didn't work with pressure?
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on April 20, 2009, 06:15:31 PM
No. You are wrong warrdog, you can't simply bring up an unrelated point to prove an analogy wrong. If someone says that the money return at a bank works with pressure like a gun, you can't say, what if there was a gun that didn't work with pressure?

Sorry dude, that one made my eyes hurt.

Throw the analogy out then.  What were we talking about?
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Raist on April 20, 2009, 06:16:55 PM
That the age of the Universe was narrowed down to two extremes. We can tell for sure it has to be older than a certain date, and younger than another date.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on April 20, 2009, 06:18:47 PM
That the age of the Universe was narrowed down to two extremes. We can tell for sure it has to be older than a certain date, and younger than another date.

Ahhh yes, 'cept there is evidence that you refuse to look at.  So in actuality, the range is about 10,000 years to 4,500,000,000 years.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: optimisticcynic on April 20, 2009, 06:57:38 PM
That the age of the Universe was narrowed down to two extremes. We can tell for sure it has to be older than a certain date, and younger than another date.

Ahhh yes, 'cept there is evidence that you refuse to look at.  So in actuality, the range is about 10,000 years to 4,500,000,000 years.
I have looked at it. I wasn't that impressed. there is a chance that the earth is 10000 years old however again I put it with the same likeliness As me throwing a ball at a wall and having it quantum tunnel through the wall. Technically it is possible however the chance is so minuet it is not even worth considering.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on April 20, 2009, 06:59:18 PM
That the age of the Universe was narrowed down to two extremes. We can tell for sure it has to be older than a certain date, and younger than another date.

Ahhh yes, 'cept there is evidence that you refuse to look at.  So in actuality, the range is about 10,000 years to 4,500,000,000 years.
I have looked at it. I wasn't that impressed. there is a chance that the earth is 10000 years old however again I put it with the same likeliness As me throwing a ball at a wall and having it quantum tunnel through the wall. Technically it is possible however the chance is so minuet it is not even worth considering.

And Im the one thats stubborn.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Raist on April 20, 2009, 07:08:24 PM
That the age of the Universe was narrowed down to two extremes. We can tell for sure it has to be older than a certain date, and younger than another date.

Ahhh yes, 'cept there is evidence that you refuse to look at.  So in actuality, the range is about 10,000 years to 4,500,000,000 years.

Where is the evidence that it is any younger than 3 billion years old? Show me one bit of evidence that says, "this couldn't have been happening for 3 billion years"
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on April 20, 2009, 07:20:50 PM
That the age of the Universe was narrowed down to two extremes. We can tell for sure it has to be older than a certain date, and younger than another date.

Ahhh yes, 'cept there is evidence that you refuse to look at.  So in actuality, the range is about 10,000 years to 4,500,000,000 years.

Where is the evidence that it is any younger than 3 billion years old? Show me one bit of evidence that says, "this couldn't have been happening for 3 billion years"

How many do you want.  Lets start with 5.

1. Galaxies wind themselves up too fast.

The stars of our own galaxy, the Milky Way, rotate about the galactic center with different speeds, the inner ones rotating faster than the outer ones. The observed rotation speeds are so fast that if our galaxy were more than a few hundred million years old, it would be a featureless disc of stars instead of its present spiral shape. Yet our galaxy is supposed to be at least 10 billion years old. Evolutionists call this "the winding-up dilemma," which they have known about for fifty years. They have devised many theories to try to explain it, each one failing after a brief period of popularity. The same "winding-up" dilemma also applies to other galaxies. For the last few decades the favored attempt to resolve the puzzle has been a complex theory called "density waves." The theory has conceptual problems, has to be arbitrarily and very finely tuned, and has been called into serious question by the Hubble Space Telescope's discovery of very detailed spiral structure in the central hub of the "Whirlpool" galaxy, M51.

2. Too few supernova remnants.

According to astronomical observations, galaxies like our own experience about one supernova (a violently-exploding star) every 25 years. The gas and dust remnants from such explosions (like the Crab Nebula) expand outward rapidly and should remain visible for over a million years. Yet the nearby parts of our galaxy in which we could observe such gas and dust shells contain only about 200 supernova remnants. That number is consistent with only about 7,000 years worth of supernovas.

3. Comets disintegrate too quickly.

According to evolutionary theory, comets are supposed to be the same age as the solar system, about five billion years. Yet each time a comet orbits close to the sun, it loses so much of its material that it could not survive much longer than about 100,000 years. Many comets have typical ages of less than 10,000 years. Evolutionists explain this discrepancy by assuming that (a) comets come from an unobserved spherical "Oort cloud" well beyond the orbit of Pluto, (b) improbable gravitational interactions with infrequently passing stars often knock comets into the solar system, and (c) other improbable interactions with planets slow down the incoming comets often enough to account for the hundreds of comets observed.5 So far, none of these assumptions has been substantiated either by observations or realistic calculations. Lately, there has been much talk of the "Kuiper Belt," a disc of supposed comet sources lying in the plane of the solar system just outside the orbit of Pluto. Some asteroid-sized bodies of ice exist in that location, but they do not solve the evolutionists' problem, since according to evolutionary theory, the Kuiper Belt would quickly become exhausted if there were no Oort cloud to supply it.

4. Not enough mud on the sea floor.

Each year, water and winds erode about 20 billion tons of dirt and rock from the continents and deposit it in the ocean. This material accumulates as loose sediment on the hard basaltic (lava-formed) rock of the ocean floor. The average depth of all the sediment in the whole ocean is less than 400 meters. The main way known to remove the sediment from the ocean floor is by plate tectonic subduction. That is, sea floor slides slowly (a few cm/year) beneath the continents, taking some sediment with it. According to secular scientific literature, that process presently removes only 1 billion tons per year. As far as anyone knows, the other 19 billion tons per year simply accumulate. At that rate, erosion would deposit the present mass of sediment in less than 12 million years. Yet according to evolutionary theory, erosion and plate subduction have been going on as long as the oceans have existed, an alleged three billion years. If that were so, the rates above imply that the oceans would be massively choked with sediment dozens of kilometers deep. An alternative (creationist) explanation is that erosion from the waters of the Genesis flood running off the continents deposited the present amount of sediment within a short time about 5,000 years ago.

5. Not enough sodium in the sea.

Every year, rivers and other sources dump over 450 million tons of sodium into the ocean. Only 27% of this sodium manages to get back out of the sea each year. As far as anyone knows, the remainder simply accumulates in the ocean. If the sea had no sodium to start with, it would have accumulated its present amount in less than 42 million years at today's input and output rates. This is much less than the evolutionary age of the ocean, three billion years. The usual reply to this discrepancy is that past sodium inputs must have been less and outputs greater. However, calculations that are as generous as possible to evolutionary scenarios still give a maximum age of only 62 million years. Calculations for many other seawater elements give much younger ages for the ocean.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Raist on April 20, 2009, 07:29:35 PM
That the age of the Universe was narrowed down to two extremes. We can tell for sure it has to be older than a certain date, and younger than another date.

Ahhh yes, 'cept there is evidence that you refuse to look at.  So in actuality, the range is about 10,000 years to 4,500,000,000 years.

Where is the evidence that it is any younger than 3 billion years old? Show me one bit of evidence that says, "this couldn't have been happening for 3 billion years"

How many do you want.  Lets start with 5.

1. Galaxies wind themselves up too fast.

The stars of our own galaxy, the Milky Way, rotate about the galactic center with different speeds, the inner ones rotating faster than the outer ones. The observed rotation speeds are so fast that if our galaxy were more than a few hundred million years old, it would be a featureless disc of stars instead of its present spiral shape. Yet our galaxy is supposed to be at least 10 billion years old. Evolutionists call this "the winding-up dilemma," which they have known about for fifty years. They have devised many theories to try to explain it, each one failing after a brief period of popularity. The same "winding-up" dilemma also applies to other galaxies. For the last few decades the favored attempt to resolve the puzzle has been a complex theory called "density waves." The theory has conceptual problems, has to be arbitrarily and very finely tuned, and has been called into serious question by the Hubble Space Telescope's discovery of very detailed spiral structure in the central hub of the "Whirlpool" galaxy, M51.

Actually they should break up much sooner than that Blackholes observed at the center of galaxies could be an explanation for this. Or dark matter. Or we lack understanding of gravity at supermassive distances.

2. Too few supernova remnants.

According to astronomical observations, galaxies like our own experience about one supernova (a violently-exploding star) every 25 years. The gas and dust remnants from such explosions (like the Crab Nebula) expand outward rapidly and should remain visible for over a million years. Yet the nearby parts of our galaxy in which we could observe such gas and dust shells contain only about 200 supernova remnants. That number is consistent with only about 7,000 years worth of supernovas.

3. Comets disintegrate too quickly.

According to evolutionary theory, comets are supposed to be the same age as the solar system, about five billion years. Yet each time a comet orbits close to the sun, it loses so much of its material that it could not survive much longer than about 100,000 years. Many comets have typical ages of less than 10,000 years. Evolutionists explain this discrepancy by assuming that (a) comets come from an unobserved spherical "Oort cloud" well beyond the orbit of Pluto, (b) improbable gravitational interactions with infrequently passing stars often knock comets into the solar system, and (c) other improbable interactions with planets slow down the incoming comets often enough to account for the hundreds of comets observed.5 So far, none of these assumptions has been substantiated either by observations or realistic calculations. Lately, there has been much talk of the "Kuiper Belt," a disc of supposed comet sources lying in the plane of the solar system just outside the orbit of Pluto. Some asteroid-sized bodies of ice exist in that location, but they do not solve the evolutionists' problem, since according to evolutionary theory, the Kuiper Belt would quickly become exhausted if there were no Oort cloud to supply it.

our solar system is not as old as the universe. The ort cloud solves this.

4. Not enough mud on the sea floor.
Rivers and dust storms dump mud into the sea much faster than plate tectonic sub-duction can remove it.

Each year, water and winds erode about 20 billion tons of dirt and rock from the continents and deposit it in the ocean. This material accumulates as loose sediment on the hard basaltic (lava-formed) rock of the ocean floor. The average depth of all the sediment in the whole ocean is less than 400 meters. The main way known to remove the sediment from the ocean floor is by plate tectonic subduction. That is, sea floor slides slowly (a few cm/year) beneath the continents, taking some sediment with it. According to secular scientific literature, that process presently removes only 1 billion tons per year. As far as anyone knows, the other 19 billion tons per year simply accumulate. At that rate, erosion would deposit the present mass of sediment in less than 12 million years. Yet according to evolutionary theory, erosion and plate subduction have been going on as long as the oceans have existed, an alleged three billion years. If that were so, the rates above imply that the oceans would be massively choked with sediment dozens of kilometers deep. An alternative (creationist) explanation is that erosion from the waters of the Genesis flood running off the continents deposited the present amount of sediment within a short time about 5,000 years ago.

5. Not enough sodium in the sea.

Every year, rivers and other sources dump over 450 million tons of sodium into the ocean. Only 27% of this sodium manages to get back out of the sea each year. As far as anyone knows, the remainder simply accumulates in the ocean. If the sea had no sodium to start with, it would have accumulated its present amount in less than 42 million years at today's input and output rates. This is much less than the evolutionary age of the ocean, three billion years. The usual reply to this discrepancy is that past sodium inputs must have been less and outputs greater. However, calculations that are as generous as possible to evolutionary scenarios still give a maximum age of only 62 million years. Calculations for many other seawater elements give much younger ages for the ocean.


Most of these are about the Earth itself and do not in any way date the universe.

Many of them are just blatant attempts at claiming they don't know enough about a subject to answer it.


My google search on the age of the ocean and salinity showed this. A researcher used things that are not removed from the ocean over the years to estimate it's age. (calcium is formed into sea shells, various things like that) He came up with 1.1 * 10^8. this is 110,000,000.


So the age of the ocean is at least higher than what you claim.

This means all your other predictions can not predict the earth any younger than 100 million years. Thank you for disproving creationism.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on April 20, 2009, 07:33:35 PM
Covering 3 out of 5, not bad.  And one of those came up with way less than even 1 billion.  So by your own confession we are now at a range of 110,000,000 and 4.5 billion.  Thanx for disproving your own theory.  Great Job

I have more if you want.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Raist on April 20, 2009, 07:35:54 PM
Covering 3 out of 5, not bad.  And one of those came up with way less than even 1 billion.  So by your own confession we are now at a range of 110,000,000 and 4.5 billion.  Thanx for disproving your own theory.  Great Job

I have more if you want.

My range still fits. My minimum age was 110,000,000. Also, that figure was for how long the ocean has been around. The ocean is not the age of the universe.

So my age is at minimum greater than 110,000,000. This figure does not mean when the earth was created either. It means when the current ocean we have now happened. It also is a minimum.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on April 20, 2009, 07:38:21 PM
Covering 3 out of 5, not bad.  And one of those came up with way less than even 1 billion.  So by your own confession we are now at a range of 110,000,000 and 4.5 billion.  Thanx for disproving your own theory.  Great Job

I have more if you want.

My range still fits. My minimum age was 110,000,000. Also, that figure was for how long the ocean has been around. The ocean is not the age of the universe.

Not in your theory anyway.

Do you want 5 more?
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: optimisticcynic on April 20, 2009, 08:04:35 PM
That the age of the Universe was narrowed down to two extremes. We can tell for sure it has to be older than a certain date, and younger than another date.

Ahhh yes, 'cept there is evidence that you refuse to look at.  So in actuality, the range is about 10,000 years to 4,500,000,000 years.

Where is the evidence that it is any younger than 3 billion years old? Show me one bit of evidence that says, "this couldn't have been happening for 3 billion years"

How many do you want.  Lets start with 5.

1. Galaxies wind themselves up too fast.

The stars of our own galaxy, the Milky Way, rotate about the galactic center with different speeds, the inner ones rotating faster than the outer ones. The observed rotation speeds are so fast that if our galaxy were more than a few hundred million years old, it would be a featureless disc of stars instead of its present spiral shape. Yet our galaxy is supposed to be at least 10 billion years old. Evolutionists call this "the winding-up dilemma," which they have known about for fifty years. They have devised many theories to try to explain it, each one failing after a brief period of popularity. The same "winding-up" dilemma also applies to other galaxies. For the last few decades the favored attempt to resolve the puzzle has been a complex theory called "density waves." The theory has conceptual problems, has to be arbitrarily and very finely tuned, and has been called into serious question by the Hubble Space Telescope's discovery of very detailed spiral structure in the central hub of the "Whirlpool" galaxy, M51.

Creationist Claim: Spiral Galaxies ?Wind Up? Too Fast for an Old Universe
Filed under: creationism, galaxies ? astrostu206265 @ 6:06 pm
Tags: creationism, institute for creation research, answers in genesis, Russ Humphreys, young-earth creationism, galaxies, spiral galaxies, formation of spiral arms, russel humphreys, spiral galaxies wind up too fast, creation wiki, creationwiki
Introduction

In preparation for a few public lectures I?ll be doing in the next 6 months, I wanted to address another one of the three main (that I?ve see) straight-forward young-earth Creationist claims about astronomy that ?prove? we live in a young universe: Spiral galaxies ?wind themselves up too fast.?

This is actually the #1 claim in Russ Humphrey?s treatise on ?Evidence for a Young World? that you can find on sites such as Answers in Genesis or the Institute for Creation Research (e.g., this link).

Note that the #2 reason presented is that comets would disintegrate too quickly (which I?ve addressed here) and the #5 claim (#3 astronomy claim) is that the Earth?s magnetic field is decaying too quickly, which I will address in a future blog post.
About Spiral Galaxies

Spiral galaxies, such as the one above (M101), are generally medium- to large-sized congregations of stars. They have either a bulge in the center or a bar in the center. The bulk of the galaxy is a disk (much wider than it is thick) that contains spiral arms. For more basic information on galaxies, see this link.

The feature in question in creationist circles is these subjectively beautiful spiral arms themselves. The trick is that these arms are not ?solid.? It is not the case that stars either always exist within a spiral arm or they always exist outside of an arm. Rather, the arms are constantly picking up stars and losing others. What the arms represent are just density waves.

The common analogy to think of is cars on a highway. You may be driving along with many dozens or hundreds of meters between you and the car in front of you. Then, for no apparent reason, you start to get much closer to the car in front of you. And then, for the next several kilometers, there are only maybe five to ten meters between you and the car ahead of you. Afterwards, traffic seems to thin out again and there?s a large distance between you and the next car.

What you have just experienced is a density wave. You are a star, traveling the road that is an orbit around the galaxy, and every now-and-then you find yourself in a density wave where you have to slow down.

The mechanism that perpetuates the density waves - why they don?t just dissipate - is that as a star approaches a density wave, it will speed up slightly due to the gravity of the stars there. And as a star is about to leave a density wave, it will slow down a little, again because of the higher gravity there. So they won?t just smooth out over time.

How did the spiral arms get there in the first place? The main idea here is that all you need is a disk of stars. Stars closest to the center of the disk will need to rotate around it faster than those near the edge, just like planets in our solar system (Mercury?s velocity around the sun is much faster than Earth?s). This can easily set up the initial differential rotation needed to start them.

In addition to this, stars do not orbit on circular paths, rather on elliptical ones (Kepler?s first law). When farthest from the center, their velocity will be at its slowest (Kepler?s second law). When you have just a few extra stars traveling a little slower in some parts of a differentially rotating disk, then you will get spiral patterns.

I might add this has much more numbers and stuff to compare it to with evidence supporting it. basically it says that the arms form then disappear over time and the fact they are hear right now does not disprove anything
.
2. Too few supernova remnants.

According to astronomical observations, galaxies like our own experience about one supernova (a violently-exploding star) every 25 years. The gas and dust remnants from such explosions (like the Crab Nebula) expand outward rapidly and should remain visible for over a million years. Yet the nearby parts of our galaxy in which we could observe such gas and dust shells contain only about 200 supernova remnants. That number is consistent with only about 7,000 years worth of supernovas.


As for the supernova remnants, Keith Davies (self taught astronomer; his degree is in education) assumes that supernova remnants (SNR) should be visible for millions of years (wrong), that we see all or most of the ones it is possible to see (wrong again), and so derives from these very bad assumptions a very large number of SNRs in various states that we "should see" but don't.

Obviously, Davies never went SNR hunting in a galactic environment, but I have. For one thing, an SNR becomes essentially invisible, even in a non-crowded environment, within 1,000,000 year tops, maybe less, depending on the specifics of the supernova and environment. But in practice they become essentially invisible long before.

3. Comets disintegrate too quickly.

According to evolutionary theory, comets are supposed to be the same age as the solar system, about five billion years. Yet each time a comet orbits close to the sun, it loses so much of its material that it could not survive much longer than about 100,000 years. Many comets have typical ages of less than 10,000 years. Evolutionists explain this discrepancy by assuming that (a) comets come from an unobserved spherical "Oort cloud" well beyond the orbit of Pluto, (b) improbable gravitational interactions with infrequently passing stars often knock comets into the solar system, and (c) other improbable interactions with planets slow down the incoming comets often enough to account for the hundreds of comets observed.5 So far, none of these assumptions has been substantiated either by observations or realistic calculations. Lately, there has been much talk of the "Kuiper Belt," a disc of supposed comet sources lying in the plane of the solar system just outside the orbit of Pluto. Some asteroid-sized bodies of ice exist in that location, but they do not solve the evolutionists' problem, since according to evolutionary theory, the Kuiper Belt would quickly become exhausted if there were no Oort cloud to supply it.

4. Not enough mud on the sea floor.

Each year, water and winds erode about 20 billion tons of dirt and rock from the continents and deposit it in the ocean. This material accumulates as loose sediment on the hard basaltic (lava-formed) rock of the ocean floor. The average depth of all the sediment in the whole ocean is less than 400 meters. The main way known to remove the sediment from the ocean floor is by plate tectonic subduction. That is, sea floor slides slowly (a few cm/year) beneath the continents, taking some sediment with it. According to secular scientific literature, that process presently removes only 1 billion tons per year. As far as anyone knows, the other 19 billion tons per year simply accumulate. At that rate, erosion would deposit the present mass of sediment in less than 12 million years. Yet according to evolutionary theory, erosion and plate subduction have been going on as long as the oceans have existed, an alleged three billion years. If that were so, the rates above imply that the oceans would be massively choked with sediment dozens of kilometers deep. An alternative (creationist) explanation is that erosion from the waters of the Genesis flood running off the continents deposited the present amount of sediment within a short time about 5,000 years ago.


Humphreys claims that not enough mud exists on the sea-floor since after 3 billion years at current levels of erosion the ocean should be 'choked' with kilometres of mud. This argument makes so many geological errors it's hard to know where to start. Firstly, only so much sediment can be eroded into the sea, unless it is replaced somehow. Where new sediment comes from solves Humphrey's supposed puzzle, as we shall see.

Secondly, the more sediment that is eroded, the more water it displaces, not replaces. The ocean can never be ?choked? by mud. That might seem like a minor point, but it shows the carelessness of Humphreys? arguments.

Third, Humphreys ignores the fact that no mainstream geologist claims that the ocean floors are 3 billion years old. Based on plate tectonic theory and direct measurements of seafloor age, the oldest oceanic crust is a mere 180 million years old. Most of it is a lot younger, as new seafloor is continually formed along the mid-oceanic ridges. Older seafloor is subducted into the Earth's mantle, and most of its sediments are scoured off and found in uplifted mountain chains around the world.

Finally Humphreys misrepresents the nature of sea-floor sediments. Out in the deepest oceans, furthermost from land, the sediments are mostly composed of materials formed by plankton, and minerals that precipitate slowly around nodules on the sea-floor. This material does average about 400 metres in thickness and accumulates very slowly. Very little of this sediment is derived directly from river outflow off the land.




Along the edges of the continents, however, are extremely thick layers of sediment derived from river outflows. The actual average amount of sediment in the ocean is about 2,300 metres, some 5.75 times Humphreys' 400 metre average. Hence over 90 million years of erosive sediment exists in the ocean - if erosion was lower in the past it might have taken even longer to accumulate. Subduction is not the main cause of removal of such sediment. Instead it accumulates along what are known as inactive continental margins, until that continent eventually collides with another continental plate and is uplifted, to be eroded into the sea once more. Thus new sediment is created from old sediment that has been solidified and uplifted.

5. Not enough sodium in the sea.

Every year, rivers and other sources dump over 450 million tons of sodium into the ocean. Only 27% of this sodium manages to get back out of the sea each year. As far as anyone knows, the remainder simply accumulates in the ocean. If the sea had no sodium to start with, it would have accumulated its present amount in less than 42 million years at today's input and output rates. This is much less than the evolutionary age of the ocean, three billion years. The usual reply to this discrepancy is that past sodium inputs must have been less and outputs greater. However, calculations that are as generous as possible to evolutionary scenarios still give a maximum age of only 62 million years. Calculations for many other seawater elements give much younger ages for the ocean.
Humphreys takes another process and extrapolates it to an absurd degree. This time it is sodium, the metallic half of the ocean?s most common salt. He claims that only 27% of what flows into the ocean is removed. Does he explain all the sources of removal? And does the sodium need to ?leave? the ocean in order to be removed from solution in the ocean? In all probability he has neglected all the removal processes. Vast amounts of salt are known to be buried beneath sediment along the continental margins. As sea-levels have changed over time, shallow lagoons and land-locked bays ? even seas like the Mediterranean ? have become super-saturated with salt, causing it be precipitated on the sea-floor. Also the various minerals dissolved in sea-water can, in the open ocean, interact with the chemically active mid-ocean ridges and be locked away beneath the seafloor.

Humphreys has assumed that the few processes of removal he has calculated with are the ONLY means for sodium and other dissolved minerals to be removed. But as we have seen from previous 'evidences' he drastically over-simplifies for the sake of a cheap point.


Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on April 20, 2009, 08:06:44 PM
Can you go through the trouble of separating that somehow so I can tell whats yours and whats mine? 
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: optimisticcynic on April 20, 2009, 08:15:35 PM
there you go. ;D
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on April 20, 2009, 08:49:13 PM
Great thanx.  So is this one a draw then?  Becuase this is my favorite part of this guys rebuttal.

Quote
As for the supernova remnants, Keith Davies (self taught astronomer; his degree is in education) assumes that supernova remnants (SNR) should be visible for millions of years (wrong), that we see all or most of the ones it is possible to see (wrong again), and so derives from these very bad assumptions a very large number of SNRs in various states that we "should see" but don't.

I think I will just type a rebuttal to his arguments with some "wrongs" typed in there.  That should be good. 

There is plenty more where this came from. 
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: optimisticcynic on April 20, 2009, 08:50:59 PM
Great thanx.  So is this one a draw then?  Becuase this is my favorite part of this guys rebuttal.

Quote
As for the supernova remnants, Keith Davies (self taught astronomer; his degree is in education) assumes that supernova remnants (SNR) should be visible for millions of years (wrong), that we see all or most of the ones it is possible to see (wrong again), and so derives from these very bad assumptions a very large number of SNRs in various states that we "should see" but don't.

I think I will just type a rebuttal to his arguments with some "wrongs" typed in there.  That should be good. 

There is plenty more where this came from. 
what time is it where you are. I notice at this time every night your arguments tend to go down hill.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on April 20, 2009, 08:53:10 PM
Close to midnight.  And im going here shortly.  LOL. 
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: optimisticcynic on April 20, 2009, 09:34:34 PM
anyway it makes sense that yo would not be able to see the remnants after much less then a million years. they were blown away by  a supernova at speeds well above escape velocity. They would not just get to a certain size then stay in a cloud formation. they would keep expanding and getting less dense(and harder to see) at a high speed. the fact we are able to see the remnants after a few thousand years is surprising expecting to be able to see them after 10s of thousands of years is like expecting to see dust in the air from blowing up a stick of explosives after a week.
 
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Pongo on April 21, 2009, 02:06:33 AM
That the age of the Universe was narrowed down to two extremes. We can tell for sure it has to be older than a certain date, and younger than another date.

Ahhh yes, 'cept there is evidence that you refuse to look at.  So in actuality, the range is about 10,000 years to 4,500,000,000 years.

You are so wrong that even genetics can disprove that statement.  You can literary call on a completely different field of science to disprove you.  Like, the overwhelming, undeniable, provable points in geology aren't enough, you can see in biology that you are wrong.  If you stick your fingers in your ears and scream any louder you may go deaf.


And if you could prove the age of the earth to be old, it would unravel not only Christianity but multiple different religions with a creation story around the world.  Do you know why most creation evidence isn't peer reviewed?  The scientific establishment won't allow creationists to publish.  Both creationists and evolutionists have the same evidence. The difference is in how that evidence is interpreted.  As I've said before, both creation and evolution are faith positions based on different worldviews. Evolutionists exclude God from consideration a priori, not because of the evidence.   Besides, who wants their bust scuplted.  I have alot of chest hair.  It probably wouldn't look good.

This is my favorite part.  It is so full of blatant and proud ignorance that I can hardly decide where to begin.  Seriously, I could write pages of information on that paragraph alone.  For the sake of sanity, I shall stay succinct.  You cannot unravel religion with facts.  If they don't kill you for proposing them, they will deny the facts or change the church.  A few hours in a library is more than enough time to disprove your religion.

The next point is where your ignorance truly shines.  It's almost like it's a point of pride.  You have a gross misunderstanding of how the scientific community operates.  You think that it has a governing body that discriminates on religious ideas and puts them down before they can gain momentum.  No one is keeping creationists from publishing.  If you have a new idea or theory and the evidence to back it up, it will be peer reviewed.  You think people are trying to keep creationists down because that's what you have been told.  The truth is much different.  The reason that creationists don't get published is because they have no science on their side.  You cannot publish in a scientific arena with no science.  I'm going to bold this next part because I think it's very important that you understand your hypocrisy.  The church has had 2000 + years of mainstream science where they disallowed scientific people to publish by killing them.  Science came along and explained things better.  Science is not trying to suppress religion, religion is trying to suppress science through any means necessary.

You argue that the evidence is interpreted differently.  Saying that a half a dozen different dating methods are wrong is not interpreting the data differently.  Saying that geological proof in the fossil record is wrong is not interpreting the data differently.  Saying genetics is wrong is not interpreting the data differently.  Saying astronomical evidence is wrong is not interpreting the data differently.  Saying tectonic science is wrong is not interpreting the data differently.  You can't simply say that everything in science that contradicts you beliefs is wrong then in the very next breath say that you interpret the same data differently.  You don't interpret it differently, you dismiss it outright.

Faith: "belief that is not based on proof."
Science: "systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation."
Do you cross your fingers behind your back when you liken these two things?  Are you being purposefully obtuse?  Do you truly think your argument gains something by saying science is synonymous to faith?  You lack a child's understanding of what science is. 


Moving on, you argue repeatedly that because the age of the earth cannot be determined exactly, it must not be accurate.  I cannot count the exact number of molecules in the ocean.  Must I disregard all other evidence for the ocean's existence and conclude because I cannot know exactly how many molecules it contains that it is false?  This is a typical "all-or-nothing" creationist argument.  It is not how science works.

Finally, how can anyone prove the age of the earth beyond a shadow of a doubt?  Are you looking for the exact second it formed?   I think that you would have trouble distinguishing when you would classify it as a planet, let alone earth.  This is a feat that is likely to never be obtained, yet it does nothing to belittle the science of the age of the earth.  I hope that one day you can understand why this is.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Parsifal on April 21, 2009, 03:06:17 AM
This thread is one big tl;dr.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: optimisticcynic on April 21, 2009, 11:40:48 AM
This thread is one big tl;dr.
thanks for your helpful insights. ::)
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: ﮎingulaЯiτy on April 22, 2009, 07:39:18 PM
@singularity,  Ill get back to you just not tonite.
....   :'(
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: optimisticcynic on April 22, 2009, 07:42:03 PM
I think he forgot about us.  :-\
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: optimisticcynic on April 23, 2009, 10:39:15 AM
Covering 3 out of 5, not bad.  And one of those came up with way less than even 1 billion.  So by your own confession we are now at a range of 110,000,000 and 4.5 billion.  Thanx for disproving your own theory.  Great Job

I have more if you want.

My range still fits. My minimum age was 110,000,000. Also, that figure was for how long the ocean has been around. The ocean is not the age of the universe.

Not in your theory anyway.

Do you want 5 more?
yes please.  :)
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: ﮎingulaЯiτy on April 23, 2009, 06:03:52 PM
I think he forgot about us.  :-\
WardoggKC130FE
Last Active:     Today [April 23 2009] at 08:26:09 PM

 >:(
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Pongo on April 23, 2009, 09:01:37 PM
Patience people, Wardogg will be back any day telling us that he has better things to do than post replies to our ludicrous ideas and concepts.  He will undoubtedly tell us to get lives and then pick a single argument to refute (My money is on one of Singularity's).  He will ignore the rest.  No worries though, we will all jump on his reply and the game will begin anew. 
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: optimisticcynic on April 23, 2009, 09:14:21 PM
I was arguing with him about his "proof" though. I was hoping he would find holes in my evidence.   :'(
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on April 23, 2009, 09:20:47 PM
5 v 1 can be exhausting you know.  I will be back when I get bored and nothing to do.  I love to talk about this.  SO I will come back to it.

Patience people, Wardogg will be back any day telling us that he has better things to do than post replies to our ludicrous ideas and concepts.  He will undoubtedly tell us to get lives and then pick a single argument to refute (My money is on one of Singularity's).  He will ignore the rest.  No worries though, we will all jump on his reply and the game will begin anew. 


You know I have better things to do than come on here and post replies to your ludicrous ideas and concepts.  You need to get a life.  But this one post does need a reply.

A vague story passed down orally for generations, before being written by men, edited by men, and rewritten by men, with no actual factual verification, filled with obvious contradictions and absurdities has little sway over me. I filter my sources only to ensure that the messages I would be relying on are factual.

Yeah like ancient Egypt.  Good to know those fuckers never existed either.
I'm not sure I follow. I have every reason to believe Egyptians existed. It seems you are replacing my argument with a flawed analogy to suit your own purpose in convincing yourself that my argument is also flawed. It seems to carry the essence of any strawman, but I don't think it's intentional.


You believe ancient Egypt existed exactly as it has been passed down from person to person to today's version?  Isn't that exactly what you are arguing against here?   Regardless it is definitely not a strawman.



Hey Pongo.  Blow me fucktard. 
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Pongo on April 23, 2009, 09:24:10 PM
I was arguing with him about his "proof" though. I was hoping he would find holes in my evidence.   :'(

Oh, I see.  I've been more attacking his beliefs and berating his person.  I think I called him ignorant a few times, kinda wish I'd alternated in a few other adjectives.  Anyways, when posts like that aren't replied to it's not overly bothersome.  If he does eventually reply to me, he'll probably take the high road and not stoop to my level.  I will however most likely, continue posting trite, trivial, and terse attacks on his religion.  It's what I do.


EDIT NOTE:  Apparently I was wrong.  He made me LOL tho!
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on April 23, 2009, 09:32:10 PM
I think he forgot about us.  :-\
WardoggKC130FE
Last Active:     Today [April 23 2009] at 08:26:09 PM

 >:(


Quit stalking me. I'm armed you know.  No seriously, I am.  ;)
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: ﮎingulaЯiτy on April 23, 2009, 09:52:31 PM
Quit stalking me. I'm armed you know.  No seriously, I am.  ;)
E-stalking is safe enough where I'm not worried.

You believe ancient Egypt existed exactly as it has been passed down from person to person to today's version?  Isn't that exactly what you are arguing against here? Regardless it is definitely not a strawman.
No. I believe only what we can learn about the ancient Egyptians by studying artifacts, hieroglyphics, relics, documentation by neighboring civilizations, et cetera.

Quote
Yeah like ancient Egypt.  Good to know those fuckers never existed either.
Are you suggesting that we believe that the Egyptians existed soley by word of mouth since ancient Egyptian times?

I thought it was strawman only because I assumed you knew that there are people in Egypt studying the remains and finding out more about that civilization every day. They publish there studies, magazines or the discovery channel picks up in it, and it leaks back into common knowledge.

Do you have another example of myth and legend that we should take seriously besides the scope of the bible?
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on April 23, 2009, 10:53:46 PM
I don't want to go off on a wild tangent here but....are you telling me we get all this from hieroglyphics?

"Cleopatra was born in 69 B.C. in Alexandria. She was the third daughter in line to her father Ptolemy XII; she later had another sister and two younger brothers. Her younger brother Ptolemy XIII later reigned with her.

Cleopatra?s story is one of the most famous ever.

Not only because of her great love, but because she was deeply in love of Egypt and she is classified by historians to be the last Pharoah of Egypt.

Cleopatra came to the throne after death of her two elder sisters and after death of her father whom was much hated by the Egyptian and had fled to Rome several years before.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Pongo on April 23, 2009, 11:35:32 PM
"Cleopatra was born in 69 B.C. in Alexandria."

I am going to attempt to thwart your argument in the first sentence of your citation.  Do you know why the city of Alexandria is named such?  It's because Alexander the Great conquered it 200 years before Cleopatra was born. 

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

There is a wealth of information on Alex and I doubt very much that any of it was discovered translating hieroglyphs.  Do you believe that Alexander the Great was real? 
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: ﮎingulaЯiτy on April 24, 2009, 10:26:40 AM
I don't want to go off on a wild tangent here but....are you telling me we get all this from hieroglyphics?

"Cleopatra was born in 69 B.C. in Alexandria. She was the third daughter in line to her father Ptolemy XII; she later had another sister and two younger brothers. Her younger brother Ptolemy XIII later reigned with her.

Cleopatra?s story is one of the most famous ever.

Not only because of her great love, but because she was deeply in love of Egypt and she is classified by historians to be the last Pharoah of Egypt.

Cleopatra came to the throne after death of her two elder sisters and after death of her father whom was much hated by the Egyptian and had fled to Rome several years before.
Well the Rosetta stone helped a lot, but I am including all other investigatory sources and not simply rumors from two more than millennium ago. You're telling me we know all this from word of mouth? Where did you pull it from? Your common knowledge or the internet?

My first hit on Google:
http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Egypt/ptolemies/cleopatra_vii.htm
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on April 24, 2009, 09:11:26 PM
That the age of the Universe was narrowed down to two extremes. We can tell for sure it has to be older than a certain date, and younger than another date.

Ahhh yes, 'cept there is evidence that you refuse to look at.  So in actuality, the range is about 10,000 years to 4,500,000,000 years.

You are so wrong that even genetics can disprove that statement.  You can literary call on a completely different field of science to disprove you.  Like, the overwhelming, undeniable, provable points in geology aren't enough, you can see in biology that you are wrong.  If you stick your fingers in your ears and scream any louder you may go deaf.

Bold statement, yet no proof to back your ridiculous claim.

And if you could prove the age of the earth to be old, it would unravel not only Christianity but multiple different religions with a creation story around the world.  Do you know why most creation evidence isn't peer reviewed?  The scientific establishment won't allow creationists to publish.  Both creationists and evolutionists have the same evidence. The difference is in how that evidence is interpreted.  As I've said before, both creation and evolution are faith positions based on different worldviews. Evolutionists exclude God from consideration a priori, not because of the evidence.   Besides, who wants their bust scuplted.  I have alot of chest hair.  It probably wouldn't look good.

This is my favorite part.  It is so full of blatant and proud ignorance that I can hardly decide where to begin.  Seriously, I could write pages of information on that paragraph alone.  For the sake of sanity, I shall stay succinct.  You cannot unravel religion with facts.  If they don't kill you for proposing them, they will deny the facts or change the church.  A few hours in a library is more than enough time to disprove your religion.
  Funny no one has done that yet then.


The next point is where your ignorance truly shines.  It's almost like it's a point of pride.  You have a gross misunderstanding of how the scientific community operates.  You think that it has a governing body that discriminates on religious ideas and puts them down before they can gain momentum.  No one is keeping creationists from publishing.  [/b]
  Really?  Have you seen Ben Stein's Expelled.  The funny thing is put that in google and find out how many websites ATTACK that movie.



You argue that the evidence is interpreted differently.  Saying that a half a dozen different dating methods are wrong is not interpreting the data differently.  Saying that geological proof in the fossil record is wrong is not interpreting the data differently.  Saying genetics is wrong is not interpreting the data differently.  Saying astronomical evidence is wrong is not interpreting the data differently.  Saying tectonic science is wrong is not interpreting the data differently.  You can't simply say that everything in science that contradicts you beliefs is wrong then in the very next breath say that you interpret the same data differently.  You don't interpret it differently, you dismiss it outright.
  And science doesn't when it comes to ID?


Faith: "belief that is not based on proof."
Science: "systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation."
Do you cross your fingers behind your back when you liken these two things?  Are you being purposefully obtuse?  Do you truly think your argument gains something by saying science is synonymous to faith?  You lack a child's understanding of what science is. 
The point is you are trusting someone else with your belief if you haven't done the experiment yourself.  True or false?


Moving on, you argue repeatedly that because the age of the earth cannot be determined exactly, it must not be accurate.  I cannot count the exact number of molecules in the ocean.  Must I disregard all other evidence for the ocean's existence and conclude because I cannot know exactly how many molecules it contains that it is false?  This is a typical "all-or-nothing" creationist argument.  It is not how science works.

Yeah typical.   ::)


Finally, how can anyone prove the age of the earth beyond a shadow of a doubt?  Are you looking for the exact second it formed?   I think that you would have trouble distinguishing when you would classify it as a planet, let alone earth.  This is a feat that is likely to never be obtained, yet it does nothing to belittle the science of the age of the earth.  I hope that one day you can understand why this is.
  The point being if you can't nail down a date then 6000 years is as good as number as 4 billion.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: optimisticcynic on April 24, 2009, 09:20:04 PM


Finally, how can anyone prove the age of the earth beyond a shadow of a doubt?  Are you looking for the exact second it formed?   I think that you would have trouble distinguishing when you would classify it as a planet, let alone earth.  This is a feat that is likely to never be obtained, yet it does nothing to belittle the science of the age of the earth.  I hope that one day you can understand why this is.
  The point being if you can't nail down a date then 6000 years is as good as number as 4 billion.
That is like looking at a middle age man and since I don't know his true age so it is possible for him to be 6 years old. Gray hair and all.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on April 24, 2009, 09:22:28 PM


Finally, how can anyone prove the age of the earth beyond a shadow of a doubt?  Are you looking for the exact second it formed?   I think that you would have trouble distinguishing when you would classify it as a planet, let alone earth.  This is a feat that is likely to never be obtained, yet it does nothing to belittle the science of the age of the earth.  I hope that one day you can understand why this is.
  The point being if you can't nail down a date then 6000 years is as good as number as 4 billion.
That is like looking at a middle age man and since I don't know his true age so it is possible for him to be 6 years old. Gray hair and all.

No but you can narrow it down to a decade.  Raist is talking a 3.5 billion year gap.  Thats fucking huge.  Ive said myself the earth is 6K to 10K.  No one knows for sure.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Proleg on April 24, 2009, 09:34:37 PM
No but you can narrow it down to a decade.  Raist is talking a 3.5 billion year gap.  Thats fucking huge.  Ive said myself the earth is 6K to 10K.  No one knows for sure.
Just out of curiosity, how long do you think the formation of crude oil and natural gas takes?
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Raist on April 24, 2009, 09:53:28 PM


Finally, how can anyone prove the age of the earth beyond a shadow of a doubt?  Are you looking for the exact second it formed?   I think that you would have trouble distinguishing when you would classify it as a planet, let alone earth.  This is a feat that is likely to never be obtained, yet it does nothing to belittle the science of the age of the earth.  I hope that one day you can understand why this is.
  The point being if you can't nail down a date then 6000 years is as good as number as 4 billion.
That is like looking at a middle age man and since I don't know his true age so it is possible for him to be 6 years old. Gray hair and all.

No but you can narrow it down to a decade.  Raist is talking a 3.5 billion year gap.  Thats fucking huge.  Ive said myself the earth is 6K to 10K.  No one knows for sure.

The evidence you posted said it is at least 10,000,000 years old. Meaning all your dates are wrong.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on April 24, 2009, 10:07:23 PM
No but you can narrow it down to a decade.  Raist is talking a 3.5 billion year gap.  Thats fucking huge.  Ive said myself the earth is 6K to 10K.  No one knows for sure.
Just out of curiosity, how long do you think the formation of crude oil and natural gas takes?


By a geologist.  With a PHd no less.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n1/origin-of-oil
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Raist on April 24, 2009, 10:39:16 PM
No but you can narrow it down to a decade.  Raist is talking a 3.5 billion year gap.  Thats fucking huge.  Ive said myself the earth is 6K to 10K.  No one knows for sure.
Just out of curiosity, how long do you think the formation of crude oil and natural gas takes?


By a geologist.  With a PHd no less.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n1/origin-of-oil

Lol. A woman with a PHd the other day gave me a lecture on "fiction." This was physics class, not english.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on April 24, 2009, 10:43:04 PM
No but you can narrow it down to a decade.  Raist is talking a 3.5 billion year gap.  Thats fucking huge.  Ive said myself the earth is 6K to 10K.  No one knows for sure.
Just out of curiosity, how long do you think the formation of crude oil and natural gas takes?


By a geologist.  With a PHd no less.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n1/origin-of-oil

Lol. A woman with a PHd the other day gave me a lecture on "fiction." This was physics class, not english.

Thats a very funny and interesting story. 
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Pongo on April 24, 2009, 10:43:24 PM
That the age of the Universe was narrowed down to two extremes. We can tell for sure it has to be older than a certain date, and younger than another date.

Ahhh yes, 'cept there is evidence that you refuse to look at.  So in actuality, the range is about 10,000 years to 4,500,000,000 years.

You are so wrong that even genetics can disprove that statement.  You can literary call on a completely different field of science to disprove you.  Like, the overwhelming, undeniable, provable points in geology aren't enough, you can see in biology that you are wrong.  If you stick your fingers in your ears and scream any louder you may go deaf.

Bold statement, yet no proof to back your ridiculous claim.

And if you could prove the age of the earth to be old, it would unravel not only Christianity but multiple different religions with a creation story around the world.  Do you know why most creation evidence isn't peer reviewed?  The scientific establishment won't allow creationists to publish.  Both creationists and evolutionists have the same evidence. The difference is in how that evidence is interpreted.  As I've said before, both creation and evolution are faith positions based on different worldviews. Evolutionists exclude God from consideration a priori, not because of the evidence.   Besides, who wants their bust scuplted.  I have alot of chest hair.  It probably wouldn't look good.

This is my favorite part.  It is so full of blatant and proud ignorance that I can hardly decide where to begin.  Seriously, I could write pages of information on that paragraph alone.  For the sake of sanity, I shall stay succinct.  You cannot unravel religion with facts.  If they don't kill you for proposing them, they will deny the facts or change the church.  A few hours in a library is more than enough time to disprove your religion.
  Funny no one has done that yet then.


The next point is where your ignorance truly shines.  It's almost like it's a point of pride.  You have a gross misunderstanding of how the scientific community operates.  You think that it has a governing body that discriminates on religious ideas and puts them down before they can gain momentum.  No one is keeping creationists from publishing.  [/b]
  Really?  Have you seen Ben Stein's Expelled.  The funny thing is put that in google and find out how many websites ATTACK that movie.



You argue that the evidence is interpreted differently.  Saying that a half a dozen different dating methods are wrong is not interpreting the data differently.  Saying that geological proof in the fossil record is wrong is not interpreting the data differently.  Saying genetics is wrong is not interpreting the data differently.  Saying astronomical evidence is wrong is not interpreting the data differently.  Saying tectonic science is wrong is not interpreting the data differently.  You can't simply say that everything in science that contradicts you beliefs is wrong then in the very next breath say that you interpret the same data differently.  You don't interpret it differently, you dismiss it outright.
  And science doesn't when it comes to ID?


Faith: "belief that is not based on proof."
Science: "systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation."
Do you cross your fingers behind your back when you liken these two things?  Are you being purposefully obtuse?  Do you truly think your argument gains something by saying science is synonymous to faith?  You lack a child's understanding of what science is. 
The point is you are trusting someone else with your belief if you haven't done the experiment yourself.  True or false?


Moving on, you argue repeatedly that because the age of the earth cannot be determined exactly, it must not be accurate.  I cannot count the exact number of molecules in the ocean.  Must I disregard all other evidence for the ocean's existence and conclude because I cannot know exactly how many molecules it contains that it is false?  This is a typical "all-or-nothing" creationist argument.  It is not how science works.

Yeah typical.   ::)


Finally, how can anyone prove the age of the earth beyond a shadow of a doubt?  Are you looking for the exact second it formed?   I think that you would have trouble distinguishing when you would classify it as a planet, let alone earth.  This is a feat that is likely to never be obtained, yet it does nothing to belittle the science of the age of the earth.  I hope that one day you can understand why this is.
  The point being if you can't nail down a date then 6000 years is as good as number as 4 billion.



A) Are you asking me for evidence of evolution?  Any of these books will do.  I think that the first two will be the best read for you.  I strongly recommend the first one.  Dawkins's books are a bit of a long read, but very interesting.  The last one is a different way to look at everyday life when you apply evolution to it.

http://www.amazon.com/Finding-Darwins-God-Scientists-Evolution/dp/0060930497/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1240637206&sr=1-1
http://www.amazon.com/Science-Evolution-Creationism-National-Sciences/dp/0309105862/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1240637328&sr=1-4
http://www.amazon.com/Why-Evolution-True-Jerry-Coyne/dp/0670020532/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1240637328&sr=1-1
http://www.amazon.com/Origin-Species-150th-Anniversary/dp/0451529065/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1240637174&sr=8-1
http://www.amazon.com/Selfish-Gene-Anniversary-Introduction/dp/0199291152/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1240637237&sr=1-2
http://www.amazon.com/Blind-Watchmaker-Evidence-Evolution-Universe/dp/0393315703/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1240637237&sr=1-3
http://www.amazon.com/Ancestors-Tale-Pilgrimage-Dawn-Evolution/dp/061861916X/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1240637237&sr=1-4
http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Dummies-Math-Science/dp/0470117737/ref=sr_1_12?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1240637866&sr=1-12
http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Everyone-Darwins-Theory-Change/dp/0385340923/ref=sr_1_11?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1240637328&sr=1-11



B) A five year-old can disprove your religion (I'm not talking about disproving the idea God, that's a concept intentionally created as unprovable.  It's as easy to disprove God as it is to prove it).  Anyone can do it.  I was being generous by allowing a few hours in the library.

C) I have not seen Expelled, but the reasons that people attack that movie is because he used dubious methods in gaining interviews and misrepresented information.  Furthermore, this is not an applicable example to the situation because Stein isn't proposing a theory or submitting any new evidence.  He is simply shooting holes in evolution (ineffectively).

D) Intelligent Design isn't an aspect of science, it's a facet of creationism.  The Dover trial saw to the crushing defeat of ID.  The idea was thoroughly and effectively routed.  ID does not interpret data differently, it denies or manipulates it.  It's also worthy to note that the ID lawyers didn't have a response to the evidence of how androgynous retroviruses proved evolution.  They simply said they had nothing to say.  They didn't try to argue the evidence or submit an alternate hypotheses.  Ask your preacher how we can find androgynous retroviruses (<---That's a plural word) in the exact same DNA sequence locations in chimpanzee's and humans.  

E) True, I am trusting anothers conclusions on their experiment.  However, if so inclined, I could repeat their experiments for myself.  That's why it's science.  If someone tells me that birds are decedents of dinosaurs, I can go look at the fossils, compare DNA of birds, compare bone structures, and many other things.  If someone tells me that Noah and his family are the only survivors of a global flood, Not only can I not find any evidence of this, but if I ask them how they know, they will say, "Because I know."  Also, you can disprove the Noah story with genetics as well!

F) Refine your argument.

G) I want you to think awhile on your closing argument.  Try and think of analogies that apply.  If you truly think it's a sound argument then post back saying so and I will tell you why it's not.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Proleg on April 24, 2009, 11:00:06 PM
No but you can narrow it down to a decade.  Raist is talking a 3.5 billion year gap.  Thats fucking huge.  Ive said myself the earth is 6K to 10K.  No one knows for sure.
Just out of curiosity, how long do you think the formation of crude oil and natural gas takes?


By a geologist.  With a PHd no less.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n1/origin-of-oil
I love how the guy cites himself.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on April 24, 2009, 11:21:40 PM
A) Are you asking me for evidence of evolution?  Any of these books will do.  I think that the first two will be the best read for you.  I strongly recommend the first one.  Dawkins's books are a bit of a long read, but very interesting.  The last one is a different way to look at everyday life when you apply evolution to it.

http://www.amazon.com/Finding-Darwins-God-Scientists-Evolution/dp/0060930497/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1240637206&sr=1-1
http://www.amazon.com/Science-Evolution-Creationism-National-Sciences/dp/0309105862/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1240637328&sr=1-4
http://www.amazon.com/Why-Evolution-True-Jerry-Coyne/dp/0670020532/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1240637328&sr=1-1
http://www.amazon.com/Origin-Species-150th-Anniversary/dp/0451529065/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1240637174&sr=8-1
http://www.amazon.com/Selfish-Gene-Anniversary-Introduction/dp/0199291152/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1240637237&sr=1-2
http://www.amazon.com/Blind-Watchmaker-Evidence-Evolution-Universe/dp/0393315703/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1240637237&sr=1-3
http://www.amazon.com/Ancestors-Tale-Pilgrimage-Dawn-Evolution/dp/061861916X/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1240637237&sr=1-4
http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Dummies-Math-Science/dp/0470117737/ref=sr_1_12?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1240637866&sr=1-12
http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Everyone-Darwins-Theory-Change/dp/0385340923/ref=sr_1_11?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1240637328&sr=1-11



B) A five year-old can disprove your religion (I'm not talking about disproving the idea God, that's a concept intentionally created as unprovable.  It's as easy to disprove God as it is to prove it).  Anyone can do it.  I was being generous by allowing a few hours in the library.

C) I have not seen Expelled, but the reasons that people attack that movie is because he used dubious methods in gaining interviews and misrepresented information.  Furthermore, this is not an applicable example to the situation because Stein isn't proposing a theory or submitting any new evidence.  He is simply shooting holes in evolution (ineffectively).

D) Intelligent Design isn't an aspect of science, it's a facet of creationism.  The Dover trial saw to the crushing defeat of ID.  The idea was thoroughly and effectively routed.  ID does not interpret data differently, it denies or manipulates it.  It's also worthy to note that the ID lawyers didn't have a response to the evidence of how androgynous retroviruses proved evolution.  They simply said they had nothing to say.  They didn't try to argue the evidence or submit an alternate hypotheses.  Ask your preacher how we can find androgynous retroviruses (<---That's a plural word) in the exact same DNA sequence locations in chimpanzee's and humans.  

E) True, I am trusting anothers conclusions on their experiment.  However, if so inclined, I could repeat their experiments for myself.  That's why it's science.  If someone tells me that birds are decedents of dinosaurs, I can go look at the fossils, compare DNA of birds, compare bone structures, and many other things.  If someone tells me that Noah and his family are the only survivors of a global flood, Not only can I not find any evidence of this, but if I ask them how they know, they will say, "Because I know."  Also, you can disprove the Noah story with genetics as well!

F) Refine your argument.

G) I want you to think awhile on your closing argument.  Try and think of analogies that apply.  If you truly think it's a sound argument then post back saying so and I will tell you why it's not.

A Ill buy yours if you buy mine.

http://www.amazon.com/Intelligent-Design-Between-Science-Theology/dp/0830815813
http://www.amazon.com/Evidence-Universe-Proceedings-Wethersfield-Institute/dp/0898708095/ref=pd_sim_b_2
http://www.amazon.com/Icons-Evolution-Science-Teach-About/dp/0895262002/ref=pd_sim_b_4
http://www.amazon.com/Intelligent-Design-101-Leading-Experts/dp/0825427819/ref=pd_sim_b_6
http://www.amazon.com/Cells-Design-Chemistry-Creators-Artistry/dp/0801068274/ref=pd_sim_b_1
http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Intelligent-Design-Everything-ConversantLife-com%C2%AE/dp/0736924426/ref=pd_sim_b_4
http://www.amazon.com/Why-Universe-Way-Hugh-Ross/dp/0801013046/ref=pd_sim_b_12

I could post as many as you did but you get my point.


B Disprove my religion please.

C So you havent seen it yet you criticize it.  Interesting.

D I did.  He said God created that way for no reason.

E And yet you have done of those things.  Blind faith anyone?
Also in regards to the Ark

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40060
http://www.grmi.org/Richard_Riss/evidences2/08ark.html

F what was my argument again?

G ok sounds good.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Pongo on April 25, 2009, 12:15:59 AM
A) How many of those books on your list have you read?  Can you recommend any one in particular?  If you read Ken Miller's book (the first link) I swear I'll read any book on that list that you want me to.  However, I think you missed the point of me posting them.  You asked how evolution can prove the age of the earth older than 10K years.  Any book on that list will suffice in meeting this criteria.  What was your list proving?  That there are ID books published?  ID says that the earth is old anyways, so I am in fact missing your point.

B) Is there any particular part of your religion that you would like me to disprove?  Do I get to pick what part?  If you want to read a well written attack on God in general, I would recommend another one of Dawkin's books, The God Delusion.  If you are really interested in me logically disproving your religion, I will, but if you are asking me to do it simply because you think I can't, then I shall save my fingers the trouble of typing. 

C) I haven't seen Expelled but I have seen reviews of it on youtube.  From them I learned that Stein is dishonest and manipulative (They even kicked someone out of the theater who was thanked in the credits before the showing of the premiere because they thought he might cause a scene from all the dishonesty in the film).  If you think that because I have not personally seen it, then I cannot form an opinion is a very strange way to view things.  I did not witness the holocaust but I have a very strong opinion on the topic. 

D) God created androgynous retroviruses to definitively prove the theory of evolution for no reason?  He added that to our DNA in such a way to perfectly prove we are descended from a common ancestor as chimpanzees for absolutely no reason?  Let me ask this question one more time.  God, an all-knowing being, created unarguable proof of evolution for no reason what so ever?  I find it mind boggling that you propose that an all-knowing being would create something in such a way to prove himself wrong.  Is this all-loving being trying to throw us off the scent?  No, that would be a reason.  So no reason?  He just threw those retroviruses in because he needed some space to fill? (<--still a reason)  Not only that, but he threw them in, in such a way as to make it look like we evolved?  I'm asking so many questions here in hopes that you fell really really dumb trying to verbalize your answers.

E) No, I haven't, but you again missed the point.  I COULD do them.  Also, your Noah's arc proofs are laughable at best.  Find me something scientific or don't play in the big-kids playground.

F) I don't know, I didn't understand it.

G) I'm glad you accepted, let me know when you are done considering all the angles of your words.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Soze on April 25, 2009, 12:21:49 AM
C) I haven't seen Expelled but I have seen reviews of it on youtube.  From them I learned that Stein is dishonest and manipulative (They even kicked someone out of the theater who was thanked in the credits before the showing of the premiere because they thought he might cause a scene from all the dishonesty in the film).  If you think that because I have not personally seen it, then I cannot form an opinion is a very strange way to view things.  I did not witness the holocaust but I have a very strong opinion on the topic.
I know many creationists who picked at the movie for its numerous problems.  ;D
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Sir_Drainsalot on April 25, 2009, 01:46:55 PM
You know I have better things to do than come on here and post replies to your ludicrous ideas and concepts.  You need to get a life. 

(http://loudounlady.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/pot-kettle-black.jpg)

That is all.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on April 25, 2009, 04:03:35 PM
You know I have better things to do than come on here and post replies to your ludicrous ideas and concepts.  You need to get a life. 
*stupid picture*

That is all.

Wow, you totally missed the point of that whole post.

Way to fail.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Raist on April 25, 2009, 04:04:26 PM
You know I have better things to do than come on here and post replies to your ludicrous ideas and concepts.  You need to get a life. 
*stupid picture*

That is all.

Wow, you totally missed the point of that whole post.

Way to fail.

Actually his picture was pretty dead on.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on April 25, 2009, 10:50:54 PM
You know I have better things to do than come on here and post replies to your ludicrous ideas and concepts.  You need to get a life. 
*stupid picture*

That is all.

Wow, you totally missed the point of that whole post.

Way to fail.

Actually his picture was pretty dead on.

Not in the context of the post.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: optimisticcynic on April 25, 2009, 11:51:16 PM
Covering 3 out of 5, not bad.  And one of those came up with way less than even 1 billion.  So by your own confession we are now at a range of 110,000,000 and 4.5 billion.  Thanx for disproving your own theory.  Great Job

I have more if you want.

My range still fits. My minimum age was 110,000,000. Also, that figure was for how long the ocean has been around. The ocean is not the age of the universe.

Not in your theory anyway.

Do you want 5 more?
yes please.  :)
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on April 26, 2009, 12:00:27 AM
Covering 3 out of 5, not bad.  And one of those came up with way less than even 1 billion.  So by your own confession we are now at a range of 110,000,000 and 4.5 billion.  Thanx for disproving your own theory.  Great Job

I have more if you want.

My range still fits. My minimum age was 110,000,000. Also, that figure was for how long the ocean has been around. The ocean is not the age of the universe.

Not in your theory anyway.

Do you want 5 more?
yes please.  :)


*yawn*

Read for yourself.

http://www.icr.org/article/1842/
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Pongo on April 26, 2009, 12:16:33 AM
http://www.icr.org/article/1842/

It only took the third sentence for them to misuse the term evolutionary.  This is a dead give away that the author will be arguing against evolution rather than the age of the earth.  Normally there would be nothing wrong with that, except for the fact that he will be spreading deceit, but in this case it's bad because the title of the work is Evidence for a Young Earth, not Evidence Evolution Didn't Happen.



Upon reading further, it is very apparent that the author has no idea what an evolutionist is. 

"Many comets have typical ages of less than 10,000 years.4 Evolutionists explain this discrepancy by assuming that (a) comets come from an unobserved spherical "Oort cloud" well beyond the orbit of Pluto..." 

What the hell does this guy think that evolutionists are doing?
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Parsifal on April 26, 2009, 12:23:35 AM
It only took the third sentence for them to misuse the term evolutionary.  This is a dead give away that the author will be arguing against evolution rather than the age of the earth.  Normally there would be nothing wrong with that, except for the fact that he will be spreading deceit, but in this case it's bad because the title of the work is Evidence for a Young Earth, not Evidence Evolution Didn't Happen.



Upon reading further, it is very apparent that the author has no idea what an evolutionist is. 

"Many comets have typical ages of less than 10,000 years.4 Evolutionists explain this discrepancy by assuming that (a) comets come from an unobserved spherical "Oort cloud" well beyond the orbit of Pluto..." 

What the hell does this guy think that evolutionists are doing?

This isn't the first time I've come across a Christian who thinks that evolution makes statements regarding every natural process from the Big Bang to the present. In fact, one other person I've spoken to even goes so far as to claim that "evolution" and "Big Bang theory" are two different ways of saying the same thing.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Raist on April 26, 2009, 02:34:15 AM
And I know of young earth creationists that claim they have a phd in subjects that don't exist in any accredited college in the world.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: blackrose on June 03, 2009, 01:46:00 AM
Did you found a good enough reason to go against that teaching?what exactly video from that things..




Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Trekky0623 on June 03, 2009, 06:32:22 AM
Did you found a good enough reason to go against that teaching?what exactly video from that things..

THE GRAMMAR!  IT HURTS!
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Soze on June 03, 2009, 09:03:36 PM
*yawn*

Read for yourself.

http://www.icr.org/article/1842/
Would you be able to argue these points yourself, or are you trusting an authority source that coincides with your views?

Also, please find an atheist scientist who has come to the conclusion that the Earth is young. If evidence really indicates that the Earth was young, surely someone without a religious agenda would still come to those conclusions.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Slashdot on June 21, 2009, 02:05:40 PM
I love this series, thanks for reminding me of them!
I share much of the same thoughts as the creator of the series
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Soze on June 21, 2009, 02:31:55 PM
Quote from: cinlef
Alternative Science is loosely defined as any theory that

1) is not accepted by the academic community at large.
Why is this thread here anyways?
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: optimisticcynic on June 21, 2009, 06:03:17 PM
Quote from: cinlef
Alternative Science is loosely defined as any theory that

1) is not accepted by the academic community at large.
Why is this thread here anyways?
because it is fun to discuss.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Soze on June 21, 2009, 06:56:07 PM
Evolution is widely accepted.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Raist on June 21, 2009, 09:44:21 PM
Evolution is widely accepted.

Alternative science is pretty much for all science topics, anywho this topic is on Creationism and the debunking thereof. Not evolution.

Disproving creationism /= proving evolution, and in fact they are two completely exclusive topics. Creationism is about how the universe formed evolution is about the diversity of life. You can do better soze.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: ﮎingulaЯiτy on June 21, 2009, 09:56:08 PM
Evolution is widely accepted.
Watch more than the first video.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Trekky0623 on June 21, 2009, 11:05:38 PM
Quote
The stars of our own galaxy, the Milky Way, rotate about the galactic center with different speeds, the inner ones rotating faster than the outer ones. The observed rotation speeds are so fast that if our galaxy were more than a few hundred million years old, it would be a featureless disc of stars instead of its present spiral shape.

THOU HAS SPOKEN, THEREFORE IT IS TRUE.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Eddy Baby on June 25, 2009, 08:31:49 AM
I don't understand how the existence of Evolution can be queried. It can be proven in an almost mathematical sense.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Raist on June 25, 2009, 08:34:01 AM
I don't understand how the existence of Evolution can be queried. It can be proven in an almost mathematical sense.

They can prove it is possible, but no one can go back in time and observe it.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Eddy Baby on June 25, 2009, 08:41:49 AM
I don't understand how the existence of Evolution can be queried. It can be proven in an almost mathematical sense.

They can prove it is possible, but no one can go back in time and observe it.

What I mean to say is, it feels a bit like trying to argue against something like friction. When you assumesthe existence of matter, you can't say friction doesn't exist, much like when you assume life exists, I think it goes hand in hand with Evolution.
ie.

1. People/animals inherit things from their parents. This can be observed.
2. Some people/animals are better at things than others.
3. Sometimes, particularly in 'the olden days', people/animals got into life threatening situations, where they got saved or killed because of characteristics.

Ergo, over a period of time, evolution must happen.

All very silly.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Raist on June 25, 2009, 08:59:40 AM
I don't understand how the existence of Evolution can be queried. It can be proven in an almost mathematical sense.

They can prove it is possible, but no one can go back in time and observe it.

What I mean to say is, it feels a bit like trying to argue against something like friction. When you assumesthe existence of matter, you can't say friction doesn't exist, much like when you assume life exists, I think it goes hand in hand with Evolution.
ie.

1. People/animals inherit things from their parents. This can be observed.
2. Some people/animals are better at things than others.
3. Sometimes, particularly in 'the olden days', people/animals got into life threatening situations, where they got saved or killed because of characteristics.

Ergo, over a period of time, evolution must happen.

All very silly.

Yes, and most will agree with you there. Where they disagree is when you say one animal could turn into another. They don't believe it is statistically possible to have that many lucky mutations.

And yes I know all the reasons this is a stupid belief, but I am just explaining their point of view.
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: ﮎingulaЯiτy on June 25, 2009, 10:45:04 AM
I am just explaining their point of view.
When did ignorance become a point of view?  ;)
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Raist on June 25, 2009, 11:14:53 AM
I am just explaining their point of view.
When did ignorance become a point of view?  ;)
Ever since there were ignorant people?
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: ﮎingulaЯiτy on June 25, 2009, 11:28:59 AM
Dilbert reference.  :P
Title: Re: Youtube - Foundational Falsehood of Creationism
Post by: Marcus Aurelius on July 02, 2009, 10:00:02 AM
Another good series from an different guy: