- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (seekingtruth @ April 27 2012,23:06) Stu, Quote If you think the earth is younger than 10,000 years then there is no question you are a moron. Of course if you could give unambiguous evidence that contradicts the current massive pile of evidence that the earth is 4.55 billion years old, then you would not be a moron, but a genuine scientific theory. Depending on your interpretation of scriptures it allows for either an old earth, or a new one (not so with life though).
OK, well anyone who doesn’t believe that there has been life on earth for billions of years is a moron. Perhaps this is gratuitous name-calling on my part, but creationists who deny history are the ones who deserve the abuse, if anyone does. There are only so many ways of saying someone is wrong, but there are many ways of commenting on the personal qualities of those who perpetuate lies about history.Quote “unambiguous evidence” All we can do today is speculate at the aftermath. I see some flaws with young earth but at the same time it gives a better explanation of what I see around us (so maybe I'll go from just plain stupid to a real moron).
Maybe you will.Quote So what is this “unambiguous evidence” that the earth is 4.55 billion years old? (not 4 1/2 billion but 4.55… sounds much more “factual” that way)
No, it’s not a matter of speculation, and it is not a matter of making it sound more factual, the measurement has an uncertainty value attached to it, so it is appropriate to quote it to three significant figures. To use the introduction to the relevant Wikipedia page, it is:The age of the Earth is 4.54 ± 0.05 billion years (4.54 × 109 years ± 1%).[1][2][3] This age is based on evidence from radiometric age dating of meteorite material and is consistent with the ages of the oldest-known terrestrial and lunar samples. Following the scientific revolution and the development of radiometric age dating, measurements of lead in uranium-rich minerals showed that some were in excess of a billion years old.
Quote Just like scriptures “facts” are interpreted with bias and the line between facts and interpretations becomes blurred
Only by religious zealots. There is no confusion here, no blurring or bias in interpretation that can be credibly wedged into this discussion. It’s as good a pair of facts as any we have. The earth is unquestionably over 4 billion years old. Life has been on it for billions of years.Quote (such as the theory of evolution being fact). You believe that creationists lie (and some have) but an evolutionist never would… oh wait.. they have.
Provide a reference to an “evolutionist lie” please, preferably one which is relevant to your claim about whether or not evolution is a fact. Otherwise perhaps you would care to withdraw your libel. Perhaps while you are at it, you could demonstrate for us that evolution is not a fact of natural history.Quote Try an open mind it can be very enlightening in a search for truth.
I agree. When were you considering taking that approach?Stuart
Quote (Stu @ April 28 2012,14:21) Quote (seekingtruth @ April 27 2012,23:06) Stu, Quote If you think the earth is younger than 10,000 years then there is no question you are a moron. Of course if you could give unambiguous evidence that contradicts the current massive pile of evidence that the earth is 4.55 billion years old, then you would not be a moron, but a genuine scientific theory. Depending on your interpretation of scriptures it allows for either an old earth, or a new one (not so with life though).
OK, well anyone who doesn’t believe that there has been life on earth for billions of years is a moron. Perhaps this is gratuitous name-calling on my part, but creationists who deny history are the ones who deserve the abuse, if anyone does. There are only so many ways of saying someone is wrong, but there are many ways of commenting on the personal qualities of those who perpetuate lies about history.Quote “unambiguous evidence” All we can do today is speculate at the aftermath. I see some flaws with young earth but at the same time it gives a better explanation of what I see around us (so maybe I'll go from just plain stupid to a real moron).
Maybe you will.Quote So what is this “unambiguous evidence” that the earth is 4.55 billion years old? (not 4 1/2 billion but 4.55… sounds much more “factual” that way)
No, it’s not a matter of speculation, and it is not a matter of making it sound more factual, the measurement has an uncertainty value attached to it, so it is appropriate to quote it to three significant figures. To use the introduction to the relevant Wikipedia page, it is:The age of the Earth is 4.54 ± 0.05 billion years (4.54 × 109 years ± 1%).[1][2][3] This age is based on evidence from radiometric age dating of meteorite material and is consistent with the ages of the oldest-known terrestrial and lunar samples. Following the scientific revolution and the development of radiometric age dating, measurements of lead in uranium-rich minerals showed that some were in excess of a billion years old.
Quote Just like scriptures “facts” are interpreted with bias and the line between facts and interpretations becomes blurred
Only by religious zealots. There is no confusion here, no blurring or bias in interpretation that can be credibly wedged into this discussion. It’s as good a pair of facts as any we have. The earth is unquestionably over 4 billion years old. Life has been on it for billions of years.Quote (such as the theory of evolution being fact). You believe that creationists lie (and some have) but an evolutionist never would… oh wait.. they have.
Provide a reference to an “evolutionist lie” please, preferably one which is relevant to your claim about whether or not evolution is a fact. Otherwise perhaps you would care to withdraw your libel. Perhaps while you are at it, you could demonstrate for us that evolution is not a fact of natural history.Quote Try an open mind it can be very enlightening in a search for truth.
I agree. When were you considering taking that approach?Stuart
Quote OK, well anyone who doesn’t believe that there has been life on earth for billions of years is a moron. Heresay unproven.
Quote Perhaps this is gratuitous name-calling on my part Perhaps??
Quote but creationists who deny history are the ones who deserve the abuse, if anyone does. You would not have science if it weren't for it's pre Darwinian creators…Christians.
Quote There are only so many ways of saying someone is wrong We know, evolutionists still don't get it.
Quote but there are many ways of commenting on the personal qualities of those who perpetuate lies about history. What, like Java Man etc?
Quote history It is not history you silly boy, it is conjecture.
Quote No, it’s not a matter of speculation, and it is not a matter of making it sound more factual, the measurement has an uncertainty value attached to it, so it is appropriate to quote it to three significant figures. To use the introduction to the relevant Wikipedia page, it is: The age of the Earth is 4.54 ± 0.05 billion years (4.54 × 109 years ± 1%).[1][2][3] This age is based on evidence from radiometric age dating of meteorite material and is consistent with the ages of the oldest-known terrestrial and lunar samples. Following the scientific revolution and the development of radiometric age dating, measurements of lead in uranium-rich minerals showed that some were in excess of a billion years old.
Stu's borrowed “knowledge” is from an elitist group that strangles true science and it's workings. You can say it is fact till the cows come home, but nobody was there to record it all in person, no testimony or eyewitness accounts…therefore, it is conjecture…based on dubious dating method
s whose flaws are conveniently shielded from view.100 % factual history REQUIRES a verifiable/observed base point to proceed from. Your base point is an hypothesized and imagined starting point…an enforced time frame, one of which, any recorded times lodged, which contradict that biased frame, are immediately rejected for not fitting into the imagined scale.
So the dates are not the main driving factor, but the theory itself is. The dates MUST match the theory..NOT the other way round. This is willingly blinding oneself to truth. So we see, Stu's religion is 100% pure conjecture…biased faulty conjecture at that.
Quote Only by religious zealots. Like Darwinists?
Quote There is no confusion here, Oh really? Then why do evolutionists hold different interpretations on dates v's species emergence when arguing over the same fossils etc? I'd call that confusion!
You have no truth to your word Stu. You are compromised by your zealotry.Quote no blurring or bias in interpretation that can be credibly wedged into this discussion. As above, eyes wide shut! I wouldn't call your input as debating, more like degrading. Your contempt is deplorable…animalistic…oh wait…i forgot..you are an animal…silly me.
Quote It’s as good a pair of facts as any we have. The earth is unquestionably over 4 billion years old. Life has been on it for billions of years. NO it is/has not. Our belief in a creator sits comfortably with human history and the topography of the earth and all it contains. Scientists agree that the last major earth shaping forces on the topography of our planet was WATER….except your looney crew say it happened over millions of years, trying desperately to come up with a unified evolutionary answer…its only been 140-150 odd years…still waiting!
Yet the flood of genesis fits like a glove.
Square pegs into round holes sound familiar Stu?Quote Provide a reference to an “evolutionist lie” please, preferably one which is relevant to your claim about whether or not evolution is a fact. UNBELIEVABLE!!! Which was it? The Emu or the Ostrich? You know, that saying, the one that puts it's head in the sand at the first sign of coming threats!
Otherwise perhaps you would care to withdraw your libel.
I feel nauseated….i can't believe the blind self righteous attitude of this man ape!! The libel stands and is VERY EASILY proved…oh, for some integrity!
Quote Perhaps while you are at it, you could demonstrate for us that evolution is not a fact of natural history. Pointless…we were wrong Stu…YOU have proved beyond a doubt that man surely came from baboons…or was that apes? Ugh, somebody hand me a Banana!
Quote Stu's borrowed “knowledge” is from an elitist group that strangles true science and it's workings. You can say it is fact till the cows come home, but nobody was there to record it all in person, no testimony or eyewitness accounts…therefore, it is conjecture…based on dubious dating methods whose flaws are conveniently shielded from view. Who was there to record what God supposedly said in Genesis before he made Adam? Would that have been Moses, who's was written about 1,000 years after he lived by the priestly editors of the Babylonian captivity period?
They NEVER said they were writing the word of God, rather it was an exaggerated story designed to sustain the faith of the scattered Israelites. It was latter generations who made a fetish out of the words of holy men.
Colter
Colter
Quote (Devolution @ April 28 2012,21:28) Devolution (Part 1) Stuu: OK, well anyone who doesn’t believe that there has been life on earth for billions of years is a moron.
Stu,April wrote:Heresay unproven.
seekingtruth,April wrote:
Well you could confirm whether you are a moron or not by being clearer about what you believe. Then it wouldn’t be a matter of hearsay, we would all know for sure.Quote You would not have science if it weren't for it's pre Darwinian creators…Christians.
I think you mean ancient Greeks and Chinese, don’t you? Science is an endeavour that has little to do with the beliefs of the scientists doing the science. 40% of professional scientists have some kind of god belief, although interestingly only 4% of them believe in young earth moronism, and pretty much none of those are cosmologists, geologists or biologists.Quote It is not history you silly boy, it is conjecture.
Sorry, what exactly is conjecture? The evolutionary changes that have happened since the 1940s that have stopped penicillin from working on many different strains of bacterium? That’s speculation, is it?Quote Stu's borrowed “knowledge” is from an elitist group that strangles true science and it's workings.
You have no evidence which contradicts the standard models in science, so you go straight for the ad hominem. We accept your concession that you have nothing relevant to say about the science.Quote You can say it is fact till the cows come home, but nobody was there to record it all in person, no testimony or eyewitness accounts…therefore, it is conjecture…based on dubious dating methods whose flaws are conveniently shielded from view.
Please explain to me in detail EXACTLY what is wrong with the dating techniques, or else acknowledge that what you are doing is blind speculation based on what you just reckon must be true because of your celestial conspiracy theory of Imaginary Friends running the universe.What you are doing here is the same as what you accused me of above, except that the people from whom you source your material are not elite at anything, and are the ones who really are strangling science by wedging in their Imaginary Friend at every opportunity. There is no unambiguous evidence that this god thing exists, so it has no place in science, but there they are asserting it without evidence.
They are not moron creationists, they are lying cretin creationists because they know they are lying. Whereas those who copy and paste without comprehenstion are the moron creationists. They live up to the reputation of fundamentalist christians as living the life of the sheep.
Regarding the need for there to be witnesses to history, you better not commit any crimes thinking that forensic science doesn’t exist. And maybe you could take up this point with all those on this forum who have at some stage been keen to post on the subject of archeology supporting biblical stories. You should tell them that they are wasting their time because there are no living eyewitnesses to ancient history.
Quote 100 % factual history REQUIRES a verifiable/observed base point to proceed from. Your base point is an hypothesized and imagined starting point…an enforced time frame, one of which, any recorded times lodged, which contradict that biased frame, are immediately rejected for not fitting into the imagined scale.
Sorry, are you talking about Bishop Ussher adding up the ridiculous mythological lifespans of the patriarchs in the bible to come up with a 6000 year old earth, or radioisotope dating?I don’t think you are very good at determining the difference between fantasy and reality; you certainly don’t understand the provisional nature of scientific conclusions, which makes your stealing of others’ pseudoscientific writing and posting it beside your name all the more disingenuous.
Quote So the dates are not the main driving factor, but the theory itself is. The dates MUST match the theory..NOT the other way round. This is willingly blinding oneself to truth. So we see, Stu's religion is 100% pure conjecture…biased faulty conjecture at that.
Once again, you are talking about Bishop Ussher and the bible, not science. If you knew something about the history of science you would understand the discoveries that changed our estimates of the age of the earth.Darwin knew that the earth would have to be very old for his theory to have credibility, but science is not about massaging our confirmation biases here, it is about trying to make a better model of the universe. If geologists demonstrated that indeed the earth is only a few thousand years old then Darwin’s theory would have to go, and neither the geologists (nor Darwin were he to know about it) should have any qualms about ditching evolution by natural selection, and I share that view.
If it’s wrong, out it goes.The age of the earth was established as at least millions of years old by 19th Century physicists using the limited tools available to them, and the discovery of radiation and its effects filled in the rest of the picture, explaining why the earth has not completely solidified over billions of years, and giving the dating techniques which you rail against but have only a Luddite answer to.
Do you feel that kind of honesty towards scripture? I think not, given how wrong it is. If we go back to the question of archeology and bible “history”, there was a time a few decades ago when the leaders of the newly created modern state of Israel said to the university of Tel Aviv, go and dig up our title deeds, the evidence that shows the stories of the chosen people to be historical.
Israel Finkelstein and other archeologists have done exactly that, and despite the fact that it would be overwhelmingly convenient for them to find evidence for the exodus story, there is none. There is no archeological evidence to support that story in a case where archeologists know exactly what you should expect given the scriptural description. Now, if you are honest, I would expect you to open the Jewish section of your bible and annotate the exodus story with a footnote saying that it has been discovered not to have happened.
Stuart
Devolution (Part 2)
Quote Then why do evolutionists hold different interpretations on dates v's species emergence when arguing over the same fossils etc? I'd call that confusion!
No, actually it’s called science. Just with the changes in view about the age of the earth, there are changes in view about the time when species diverged from their common ancestor. Until the 1970s it was the view that the line of descent leading to humans diverged from that leading to chimpanzees about 30 million years ago.The problem is that rainforests are pretty poor at producing fossil remains, so the evidence was fairly sparse. That estimate of 25 million years was changed to about 6 million years when research began that didn’t use fossils at all, but looked at the genome, firstly through the differences in the haemoglobin molecules of different ape species and their reactions to antibodies, and later by looking at the DNA differences directly.
This new molecular evidence matches the old tree of life made from fossil morphology almost perfectly, and has been used to correct the relationships between species where the fossil evidence hasn't been strong. You can even extract DNA from some very old fossils and do the same kind of experiments. But evolution, common descent with modification, has been “proved” beyond any doubt, certainly beyond any doubt you have raised.
Quote You have no truth to your word Stu. You are compromised by your zealotry.
So you are saying that zealotry is a bad thing? Truth is a personal construct for everyone. I try to base my “truth” on things that can be shown to be true. If I am shown to be wrong, I will change my truth construction. Can you say the same for yourself? Or do you have the Truth™ no matter what?Quote As above, eyes wide shut! I wouldn't call your input as debating, more like degrading. Your contempt is deplorable…animalistic…oh wait…i forgot..you are an animal…silly me.
I would expect you to do the same to me if the ideas in my head were so obviously wrong as yours are. Creationism is not about science, it is about religious politics. If you are going to spread religious propaganda without comprehension, then you should expect a political response, and as we know, politics is not a subject for polite discourse. Neither is religion, for that matter.Yes, I am an animal, and so are you. We are African great apes of the kingdom Animalia, the phylum Chordata, the class Mammalia, the order Primates, the family Hominidae, the tribe Hominini, the genus Homo and the species Homo sapiens, “wise man”.
If you are going to post creationist literature, perhaps you could consider including the work of the creationist Carl Linnaeus who designed this classification system that includes us as African great apes.
Quote Our belief in a creator sits comfortably with human history and the topography of the earth and all it contains.
Does your belief contain a literal view of Genesis. If not, why not? If so, then please explain how it is that the creation of the “lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years” happened three days after the designation of the terms “day” and “night”, or how it is possible for there to be a planet in existence before light existed. That doesn’t sound like something that sits “comfortably” to me.Quote Scientists agree that the last major earth shaping forces on the topography of our planet was WATER….
No they don’t. Have you never seen pictures of roads in Hawaii where the lava spreads across the roads? Have you not watched on TV as the surface of the landscape in Iceland was transformed by volcanic ash in 2010? Do you not know that rain does not fall on Antarctica? Certainly snow is made of water, but you mean liquid water.Quote except your looney crew say it happened over millions of years, trying desperately to come up with a unified evolutionary answer…its only been 140-150 odd years…still waiting! Yet the flood of genesis fits like a glove. Square pegs into round holes sound familiar Stu?
Please tell me in what year you believe this global flood event took place. I’ll give you a generous error range of ±5 percent. That means if you believe as many fundies do that the flood happened about 4500 years ago, you have a margin of 200 years. Do tell us what you think.Then we can talk about Antarctica again.
Stuu: Provide a reference to an “evolutionist lie” please, preferably one which is relevant to your claim about whether or not evolution is a fact.
Quote UNBELIEVABLE!!! Which was it? The Emu or the Ostrich? You know, that saying, the one that puts it's head in the sand at the first sign of coming threats! I feel nauseated….i can't believe the blind self righteous attitude of this man ape!! The libel stands and is VERY EASILY proved…oh, for some integrity!
Perhaps if I restate the request it might help you to focus: “Provide a reference to an “evolutionist lie” please, preferably one which is relevant to your claim about whether or not evolution is a fact.”By the way, neither emus nor ostriches put their heads in the sand. Neither do turkeys, as t8 was suggesting recently.
Stuu: Perhaps while you are at it, you could demonstrate for us that evolution is not a fact of natural history.
Quote Pointless…we were wrong Stu…YOU have proved beyond a doubt that man surely came from baboons…or was that apes? Ugh, somebody hand me a Banana!
So it is pointless for you to support your claims. I agree. I accept your concession of defeat on the point. Perhaps you could do us the courtesy of not flooding the forum with Gish Gallop. If you have genuine points you would like more information about, I’m sure there are people who could provide it, but one point at a time, and it is more personal if you ask the question yourself, like seekingtruth did, than just post screeds of religious political propaganda consisting of fantasy stories and lies about science.Thanks.
Stuart
PS: I must just make a correction to a claim I made above about it not raining in Antarctica: the continent does get rain on the peninsula and around the coastal margins, as you would expect in any maritime environment, and indeed there is more rain now because of global warming and this is endangering the coastal glaciers, but on most of the continent, and especially the central high plateau, it doesn't rain.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ April 29 2012,11:52)
This new molecular evidence matches the old tree of life made from fossil morphology almost perfectly, and has been used to correct the relationships between species where the fossil evidence hasn't been strong. You can even extract DNA from some very old fossils and do the same kind of experiments. But evolution, common descent with modification, has been “proved” beyond any doubt, certainly beyond any doubt you have raised.Thanks.
Stuart
Hi Stuart,So you're suggesting one unsubstantiated idea was used
to correct another? …is what you are calling “Science”?God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Stu @ April 29 2012,11:52)
I try to base my “truth” on things that can be shown to be true. If I am shown to be wrong, I will change my truth construction.
Can you say the same for yourself? Or do you have the Truth™ no matter what?Thanks.
Stuart
Hi Stuart,That is very the reason we have all turned to the “Judeo Christian GOD of The Bible”.
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Ed J @ April 30 2012,00:24) Quote (Stu @ April 29 2012,11:52)
This new molecular evidence matches the old tree of life made from fossil morphology almost perfectly, and has been used to correct the relationships between species where the fossil evidence hasn't been strong. You can even extract DNA from some very old fossils and do the same kind of experiments. But evolution, common descent with modification, has been “proved” beyond any doubt, certainly beyond any doubt you have raised.Thanks.
Stuart
Hi Stuart,So you're suggesting one unsubstantiated idea was used
to correct another? …is what you are calling “Science”?God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
No.Stuart
Quote (Ed J @ April 30 2012,00:28) Quote (Stu @ April 29 2012,11:52)
I try to base my “truth” on things that can be shown to be true. If I am shown to be wrong, I will change my truth construction.
Can you say the same for yourself? Or do you have the Truth™ no matter what?Thanks.
Stuart
Hi Stuart,That is very the reason we have all turned to the “Judeo Christian GOD of The Bible”.
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Yes I know. You think you have the Truth™ no matter what.Stuart
Quote (Stu @ April 30 2012,18:58) Quote (Ed J @ April 30 2012,00:28) Quote (Stu @ April 29 2012,11:52)
I try to base my “truth” on things that can be shown to be true. If I am shown to be wrong, I will change my truth construction.
Can you say the same for yourself? Or do you have the Truth™ no matter what?Thanks.
Stuart
Hi Stuart,That is very the reason we have all turned to the “Judeo Christian GOD of The Bible”.
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Yes I know. You think you have the Truth™ no matter what.Stuart
Hi Stuart,That's because no evidence exists to discount “The Bible”,
and plenty of evidence to suggest the authenticity of its Author.God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Ed J @ April 30 2012,19:32) Quote (Stu @ April 30 2012,18:58) Quote (Ed J @ April 30 2012,00:28) Quote (Stu @ April 29 2012,11:52)
I try to base my “truth” on things that can be shown to be true. If I am shown to be wrong, I will change my truth construction.
Can you say the same for yourself? Or do you have the Truth™ no matter what?Thanks.
Stuart
Hi Stuart,That is very the reason we have all turned to the “Judeo Christian GOD of The Bible”.
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Yes I know. You think you have the Truth™ no matter what.Stuart
Hi Stuart,That's because no evidence exists to discount “The Bible”,
and plenty of evidence to suggest the authenticity of its Author.God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
That's not true, of course.But if you have the Truth™ no matter what, then the evidence is irrelevant.
And at that point your religion may as well be dead.
Stuart
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
