Author Topic: Sci Am -- How old is the Earth? Who knows?  (Read 6200 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Dante

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2256
  • Darwins +76/-9
  • Gender: Male
  • Hedonist Extraordinaire
Re: Sci Am -- How old is the Earth? Who knows?
« Reply #58 on: September 23, 2011, 12:02:32 PM »

Since I have provided a significant amount more than 10 dating methods below which “show the world to be a few thousand years old”, I will be waiting for Raymond to “straight up convert to Christianity RIGHT NOW”. Let’s see if he is honorable to his word, or simply a “straight up” liar.

I wonder what you would be willing to renounce if/when your evidence is contradicted by science.
Actually it doesn't. One could conceivably be all-powerful but not exceptionally intelligent.

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 13027
  • Darwins +354/-85
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Sci Am -- How old is the Earth? Who knows?
« Reply #59 on: September 23, 2011, 12:51:23 PM »
(sorry I'm late in this...)
Quote from: raisemeup
« Reply #13 on: September 21, 2011, 02:09:08 PM »

I would certainly be extremely interested to find out why anyone posts on this forum.

I post on this forum 'cause I like to argue with people -- I don't care if they are religious or not.  I treat everyone equal, in such regard.

Quote
I suspect that since participants are primarily atheist (in fact, I’ve seen no Christians here so far),

I doubt you've looked.  How many topics have been to?  There are Christians here, in fact there are many ex-Christians here -- I'm one of them: former Southern Baptist.  It's just many of the Christians who think they can argue against us, find that they can't and they give up.

Quote
...that most participate because it makes them feel good about the poor theological choice they have made and need some rationalization, encouragement and propaganda from fellow believers to get them by.

I'm not about propaganda -- however, I can point out hundreds of websites of religous propaganda.  This is not to say that atheist do not spew such ridiculous anecdotes around, some do, but, I do believe many try not to.
 
Quote
Regarding my own reasons, I came across this site quite accidently, but it caught my attention. While it was good marketing, as I read the first “reason why God is imaginary”, it affirmed to me that atheists are not at all interested in the truth, but simply rationalization for their own worldview.

And, what is the truth?  I'm all ears or eyes in this case.

Quote
There was no balance or holistic search for truth in the reasoning behind why God doesn’t appear to answer atheists’ prayers, but rather it was simply cherry picking Bible verses to rationalize a belief they already had. This is not only a disservice to readers but an attempt to fool oneself as well.

Foot insert mouth.

Quote
While we all probably have better things to do, I thought it might be fun to see what would happen if I challenged any of those beliefs with the truth in a forum where I would definitely be the minority. This was the first current topic that peaked my interest since I have been researching creation vs evolution for some time now. I do have a few pet peeves in regards to that and one of the most “annoying” is the logical fallacy that if you do not agree with evolution that you are somehow “unscientific” or anti-science. This is a particularly strange allegation when you realize that creation scientists founded most of the science we enjoy today. So when I read the posted article that used those same fallacies and that it was applauded by one participant as a “good find”, I simply felt compelled to respond.

Just because some here may see the positives in such things, doesn't mean that all agree with such an assessment, and/or opinion.  Many here may but you see to be thinking that "we" all do.  Who's the idiot, in such regard?

Quote
Now, as I’ve said, atheists on this forum do not appear to be searching for truth, but rather rationalization, so I’m not naïve enough to think I’m going to convince anyone with the truth. I was more curious to see if anyone would actually propose good arguments to challenge my own beliefs rather than the typical atheist responses I usually see which consist primarily of character attacks and blind assertions.

I am not searching for anything; as I stated: I'm here to argue.  But, I am quite sure there are those here searching for truth; you seem to be making up your mind without reading the vast majority of topics on this forum.  I've been here 4 years, some others have been here quite longer than that -- you've been here, how long?  And, you seem to think you already know everything.  I never am so egotistical think such a thing.  It must be nice.

-Nam
This thread is about lab-grown dicks, not some mincy, old, British poof of an actor. 

Let's get back on topic, please.


Online jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5242
  • Darwins +599/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Sci Am -- How old is the Earth? Who knows?
« Reply #60 on: September 23, 2011, 01:25:11 PM »
So here is partial list of evidence which indicates that the earth is young in no particular order. I’ve provided only brief commentary. If anyone would like to have a civil conversation about any one of these, I would be glad to participate. Otherwise, I’ve met my obligation and certainly learned what I needed to regarding typical atheist behavior. I will not respond to any belligerent posts which is my right and necessary due to time constraints. If I feel you are being sincere, I may choose to respond further.
I'm not an atheist, but I have not yet seen any legitimate evidence that shows the Earth being 'young' (less than 6,000 years old).  I was intending to address the evidence you provided; however, you did not provide any actual evidence.  You provided statements (and arguments/calculations in favor of those statements) which you expected us to take for granted without providing one single source to back up those statements individually.  You provided exactly one source link at the end of your post, to a creation website, which is itself highly questionable since virtually all of the links it uses go to other pages on that website.

While I appreciate the effort you went to in writing this post, you clearly did not understand what you needed to do in order to write something that was scientifically convincing.  My suggestion, if you are actually interested in doing this, would be to research the methods you cited using external sources that independently verify them, then write a post about them utilizing the research you did as well as citing all of the sources you actually used.  That is how scientists do things, and it is why they can convince other scientists that they are worth listening to, because it is for sure that no scientist has a vested interest in giving another scientist a 'pass' on bad research.

Offline raisemeup

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 12
  • Darwins +2/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Sci Am -- How old is the Earth? Who knows?
« Reply #61 on: September 23, 2011, 02:36:23 PM »
Jaimehlers,
LOL. So you are actually trying to tell me that all of the atheists on this forum are scientists? I highly doubt legitimate scientists would behave in the manner that I have experienced on this site, but perhaps I’m wrong and that is the way atheist scientists normally conduct themselves. Therefore, please provide me with all of their credentials. Once you do that, I will be glad to write a scientific paper detailing my research so as to “convince” my fellow scientists. Apparently those same standards don’t apply to yourself or the atheists on this forum as I’ve not seen any “legitimate evidence” with external sources to demonstrate that the earth is old nor any posts that provide a detailed explanation of the independent scientific research that they’ve done. Apparently you expect me to accept on blind faith what an atheist on this forum states, but I am to provide independent research!

In the meantime you will have to be satisfied with a conversation on a forum that has not been advertised as a scientific research site. You apparently didn’t read my post very closely as I provided an external source to nearly all of the points I raised. If you do not find the evidence convincing, that is fine, but to misrepresent it as not having been referenced and claim that it is not legitimate is dishonest. If you do not consider this evidence “legitimate”, then I would suggest you would not find any evidence contrary to your beliefs as legitimate. I have offered this evidence as a first pass to anyone with an open mind that cares to do further research themselves. I cannot inject it into their brains. It has been my experience that someone who does not accept God’s existence will not accept Him regardless of what evidence is presented. Therefore, it was neither my intent nor belief that this evidence would “convince” anyone who wishes to be willfully ignorant of God’s existence. Only the spirit can do that.   

If you read my post, I stated I was willing to go into more detail/research on any of these evidences if one expressed a sincere desire to know more. I stand by that. If one wishes to ignore the clear evidence that is staring them in the face, it is still a free country.


Offline Ambassador Pony

  • You keep what you kill.
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 6858
  • Darwins +71/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • illuminatus
Re: Sci Am -- How old is the Earth? Who knows?
« Reply #62 on: September 23, 2011, 02:50:20 PM »
Let me guess, raisemeup, you're in IT? Right?

You believe evolution and there is no evidence for that. Where is the fossil record of a half man half ape. I've only ever heard about it in reading.

Offline hypagoga

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 59
  • Darwins +1/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Sci Am -- How old is the Earth? Who knows?
« Reply #63 on: September 23, 2011, 03:31:31 PM »
Since I have provided a significant amount more than 10 dating methods below which “show the world to be a few thousand years old”, I will be waiting for Raymond to “straight up convert to Christianity RIGHT NOW”. Let’s see if he is honorable to his word, or simply a “straight up” liar.

So here is partial list of evidence which indicates that the earth is young in no particular order. I’ve provided only brief commentary. If anyone would like to have a civil conversation about any one of these, I would be glad to participate. Otherwise, I’ve met my obligation and certainly learned what I needed to regarding typical atheist behavior. I will not respond to any belligerent posts which is my right and necessary due to time constraints. If I feel you are being sincere, I may choose to respond further.

Really, rather than waste my and everyone else's time, there are a few links you should read before bringing such nonsense that has long been recognized as such. I don't see that it's worth reiterating the evidence against these things, because your claims have been so thoroughly debunked as to be worthless, and it's been done so many times. Most of these are even recognized by your fellow creationists as worthless, and as such have moved on. Here are a few resources to get you started.

From *1998* - A Close Look at Dr. Hovind's List of Young-Earth Arguments and Other Claims by Dave Matson.

There also plenty of other information on the age of the earth at Talk Origins, which most people here are familiar with, which you it seems are not.

Another from *2000* - Is There Really Scientific Evidence for a Young Earth?, by Matt Tiscareno.

Just for fun, I thought I'd throw in a christian site as well - from BioLogos: How are the ages of the Earth and universe calculated?  How accurate are those figures?

I don't see you being able to even remotely address any of the issues, even in relation to the tripe you posted, nevermind the other bizarre creationist fantasies. The reason the onus is on you to provide evidence is that the evidence contrary to your position is so overwhelming that it need not be continually recycled, the same thing over and over. Just learn to find good resources, and you'll end up being a far happier person, and you'll embarrass yourself less often.

Offline Astreja

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3082
  • Darwins +280/-3
  • Gender: Female
  • Agnostic goddess with Clue-by-Four™
    • The Springy Goddess
Re: Sci Am -- How old is the Earth? Who knows?
« Reply #64 on: September 23, 2011, 03:51:45 PM »
I do want to recognize a few for their relatively polite comments which include Astreja (I’d like to learn more about your brother’s research into creation theory)...

My brother does not do research into 'creation theory'.  He deals with evolution at a cellular level, not abiogenesis.

The very fact that you cannot or will not distinguish between abiogenesis and evolution raises serious questions about your ability to discuss scientific matters.  I therefore recuse Myself from this thread rather than waste any more of My time.

But if you are sincere about wanting to learn more, Raisemeup, read one of these papers:

(Various articles on probabilistic transcription in genetics)

Reality Checkroom — Not Responsible for Lost Articles

Offline Omen

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5955
  • Darwins +105/-15
  • One of the fucking bad guys; not friendly, tiger!
Re: Sci Am -- How old is the Earth? Who knows?
« Reply #65 on: September 23, 2011, 03:54:12 PM »
I cannot have a discussion with an individual that makes accusations without citation, cannot reasonably use the terminology as used by mainstream science, and refuses to acknowledge rebuttals/responses.

The irony is that you're so disconnected from any extent of what would be considered an honest or even standard discussion on the subject, that we can't separate your position from the parody of your position.  Its common for other atheist to mock creationist by repeating their arguments as if they were creationist themselves, this parody is inseparable from the real thing and we call it 'poe'.
« Last Edit: September 23, 2011, 03:56:56 PM by Omen »
"Religious faith is the antithesis to knowledge, it is the opposition to education, and it has to act in animosity against the free exchange of ideas.  Why? Because those things are what cause harm to a religions place in society most." - Me

Offline Omen

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5955
  • Darwins +105/-15
  • One of the fucking bad guys; not friendly, tiger!
Re: Sci Am -- How old is the Earth? Who knows?
« Reply #66 on: September 23, 2011, 04:03:49 PM »
Yeeeeah. This is going to be priceless. Please, PLEASE, stick around. Don't ever leave us. EVER. This stuff is gold.

I was reading your post looking for information content. Seemed to be none. Can you throw in your insults without drawing them out like an epic novel.

There were plenty, you just couldn't be bothered look.

You are also a hypocrite, 'raise' is lathering condescending accusations and generalizations upon all atheist, delivered upon baseless grounds and the complete lack of sincerity to even participate in an open discussion.  Yet, you take aim at someone delivering the same condescension back at them without even bothering to read the post.
"Religious faith is the antithesis to knowledge, it is the opposition to education, and it has to act in animosity against the free exchange of ideas.  Why? Because those things are what cause harm to a religions place in society most." - Me

Offline Avatar Of Belial

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 499
  • Darwins +30/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm not an Evil person; I just act like one!
Re: Sci Am -- How old is the Earth? Who knows?
« Reply #67 on: September 23, 2011, 04:25:00 PM »

   Okay, hopefully, this post will not be as long as my previous one, however long it still will be.

In addition, at least at this time, I’m going along with the unreasonable condition that only I am required to provide any evidence for my assertions while the atheists on this forum apparently believe they are above that requirement.

   The reasoning is simple: atheism is basically taking the NULL hypothesis. In other words, with no compelling evidence to support a thing's (your God's) existence, we must assume it does not.

   Try this: Prove that there is no normal-sized magical teapot orbiting saturn. Prove that dragons do not exist. Prove that there are no invisible intangible men dancing out in your yard at this very moment. These are all things that are either difficult to find or detect, with a very large amount of space to look. It is simply impractical, if not insane, to try and prove to perfect satisfaction that any of these things do not exist anywhere (or within a reasonable search area for the teapot).

   You are asking us to prove there is no apple in the fridge, but claim the apple is invisible and the fridge encompasses the universe.

   So yes, as you have the positive claim (God DOES exist) the Burden of Proof is on you.

In addition, Belial’s long post deserves a response since I believe it displays a lot of misunderstanding of the issues that demand clarification.

   Although clarification is always good, I certainly hope you'll be looking up what you think are "corrections" from a decent source so we don't have any more of... well... the stuff below.

I’ve [...] certainly learned what I needed to regarding typical atheist behavior.
   "Typical atheist behavior" is not dissimilar to "typical human behavior". You should note that although many here are hostile to you, their various reasons center around how you present yourself to us. Note that, despite being clearly atheist-dominated (there are others, like OldChurchGuy, TruthOT, and jaimehlers who are not) you were not immediately banned for expressing a differing opinion, as we would have been in most any Christian forum.


1) Accurate eyewitness accounts

   Which "eyewitness" accounts are you referring to? Adam and Eve? You are using the bible to prove the bible, as there is nothing external that actually corroborates these supposed events. Worse, "Adam and Eve" didn't witness the Earth being created - they came about after everything was already in place . Worse even than that - the entire description is proven incorrect by geology, cosmology, and basic physics. With no external source to prove God exists, we cannot assume he created light before he even had a light source. Then there's if an "Adam and Eve" existed in the first place. The whole thing is a gigantic mess.

   If you are referencing something else, you will have to specify who the eyewitnesses were, and give us something that actually shows their records to be accurate. Of course, eyewitness accounts can have issues of their own - but if you can't actually give some support that even the eyewitnesses themselves existed we aren't going to get anywhere.

   By the way, I like the language you use to try and poison the well here. "Obvious evidence", when you don't even specify any evidence let alone obvious pieces. "Fallible imaginations of the Greeks" when the strongest evidence comes not from imagination, but from recent advances in genetics, multitudes of archeology sites, and a range of biological studies. Most all recent. "Actual eyewitnesses" whom you don't even mention the identities of, nor what makes them so "accurate". Oh, and "no information [...] shown to be false" when (assuming Adam and Eve) the whole thing contradicts itself.

The accuracy of these accounts has been substantiated by an overwhelming amount of scientific evidence in every field of science, archeological/historical evidence, the accuracy of its predictions, logical and spiritual evidence. Since evolutionists ASSUME there is no Biblical God, they simply ignore these eye-witness accounts.

   No, they haven't. Archeology has found remnants of civilizations from the Paleolithic era, 2.6 million years ago. Well over 6-7000.
   Actual Historical records say nothing about the beginning of the Earth, only detailing contemporary events. The Bible, having no external source that can actually verify it, cannot be considered a historical source - its only "proof" is itself. Insufficient for the types of claims it makes.
   What "predictions" has it made accurately?
   What is your "logical" evidence?
   And how do you detect this "spiritual" evidence?

   Again, I'm seeing you attempt to use words without any backing. You are clearly adept at using language to sway people who don't look deeper than your surface words, but that will not fly here. This is a large part of the reason you have received the reception you complain about and attribute to "typical atheist behavior".

2) Supernovas

   You have incorrect information here. First off, the nitpick: Plural of Supernova is "Supernovae", not "Supernovas". Second, you may want to get a better source - the average rate is every 50 years[1] in our galaxy, not 25. Next, there is no reason to assume a constant rate of supernovae - the galaxy will not have many supernovae in its beginning because most of its stars are going to be young. Then you have to realise that if a star is going supernovae, it needs to have lived more than a pitiful 6-7000 years. Worse, there are a number of supernovae remnants that are too far away for the light to have reached us if they were only created 6-7000 years ago. W49BWiki, for example, needs 35,000 years just for the light to reach us

   Even Puppis AWiki defeats your 6-7000 years idea. It was observed 3,700 years ago. The actual explosion that is. But the light from said explosion would need to travel for 7000 years just to reach us. It had to have exploded about 4000 years before you think the universe even came into existence.

3) Disintegration of Comets - According to evolutionary theory

   Okay, stop right there. Evolution says absolutely nothing about comets. Comets are not a living organism, they did not get birthed, nor do they get pregnant. They do not reproduce through any biological means. Comets do not have ancestors, nor progeny, therefore, evolution says nothing about them. You say I'm the one who has some misunderstanding, and then you make a mistake like this? I don't think so, buddy.

comets are supposed to be the same age as the solar system (billions of years). However, since they typically have ages of less than 10,000 years based on the observed rate of disintegration, all comets should have disappeared by now, and certainly no longer than a million years. This is contradictory to a billion year old earth but completely consistent with a young earth of 6-7000 years old.

   Ok, no... no it isn't. 6-7000 years is less than 10,000, and certainly less than 1,000,000. So no, even if the information you are basing this off of is correct and accounts for everything, you're shooting yourself in the foot. I would, however, like to see the secular sources that are cited for this, since I can't find any decent sources on comet disintegration.

An ad-hoc device used to explain away this discrepancy is the “Oort Cloud” said to be a source of comets. However, it has never been observed and there is not a shred of evidence that it exists. In more recent years, the Kuiper Belt has been postulated to fulfill this role, however, no comets have ever been observed in this belt either.

   Uh huh... this might explain some of the oddities in what you're talking about. Your info is outdated here. About 15 years out of date, in fact. The Scattered discWiki is a tad more current in relation to comets.

4) The earth’s magnetic field – Measurements indicate that the earth’s magnetic field is decaying at a rate of about 5% per century.

Again, you're making an unwarranted assumption that the rate is constant, or even exponential - since this argument is most likely based off of Thomas G. BarnesWiki's magnetic field decay argument (1973), which had many problems.
First, and probably worst; Barnes employed an obsolete model of the earth's interior. A good deconstruction of the whole thing can be read here.

   Ugh, you end up making similar fallacies in the rest of these... I'll try and address them later, but I've run out of time and this is long enough for now. If you have more questions on the nature of any of the above, I will be quite happy to correct you, but please go read up on some of the actual science and experiments. Snelling is very much in the minority with his views on Geology within the Geologist community. In addition, your confusion between scientific fields is appalling, and really should be rectified.
 1. http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Integral/SEMACK0VRHE_0.html
"You play make-believe every day of your life, and yet you have no concept of 'imagination'."
I do not have "faith" in science. I have expectations of science. "Faith" in something is an unfounded assertion, whereas reasonable expectations require a precedent.

Offline jetson

  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 7312
  • Darwins +170/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Meet George Jetson!
    • Jet Blog
Re: Sci Am -- How old is the Earth? Who knows?
« Reply #68 on: September 23, 2011, 04:52:04 PM »
Quote from: raisemeup
As promised, I have ignored the presumptuous, impatient, arrogant, hateful, lying, vulgar, insulting, incendiary, offensive, sarcastic and uneducated comments since my last post as well as unsupported assertions, attempts at mindreading and the like. In addition, at least at this time, I’m going along with the unreasonable condition that only I am required to provide any evidence for my assertions while the atheists on this forum apparently believe they are above that requirement. My requests for evidence to support your assertions have been flatly refused and are non-existent in any of the replies in favor of disingenuous insults and accusations.

Now here's something we've never heard from a young earth creationist.  Unsubstantiated accusations, lies, hypocrisy, and the ever popular persecution complex.  Cry me a fucking river.

Honestly, it's been awhile since this forum has seen the likes of this much bullshit from one person.  And even after suggestions to slow down, get to know the members, follow some basic rules and etiquette, we continue to get this sort of pointless rhetoric.

I suppose I need to say that at least you attempted to load up some defense of your position, as weak as it is, so that's good.  But yeah, you're still in way over your head, and you might want to consider that everything you are accusing the members of, is wrong, and you really ought to back off before you make things worse.

I can barely read the crap you supplied that you think is worthy of consideration, but others have already made it clear that you are parroting nonsense.  In some ways, it's hard to look, but I can't help it...kind of like watching a spectacular disaster, you don't want to look, but morbid curiosity just takes over.  Yes, you believe the earth is thousands of years old.  And you think you have evidence for it.  Quaint, but so very sad. 


Online nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6949
  • Darwins +941/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Sci Am -- How old is the Earth? Who knows?
« Reply #69 on: September 23, 2011, 05:20:12 PM »
I think I am finished here. I did not get my answer about operational versus historical science and where those terms come from. But our scientifically challenged friend raisemeup does believe that there was a "global flood event".

Where, a few thousand years ago, one family kept every species (not just all known species, which would have been impossible anyway) but every species of living thing on the planet alive for some length of time on a homemade wooden boat.

That one family was able to provide, on this wooden boat, all the microclimactic conditions for tropical, temperate and polar life forms. Before refrigeration, heating, airconditioning, sanitation measures, modern vet treatment or even accurate thermometers.

A global flood event powerful enough to destroy every sign of human civilization, but left China, India and Egyptian life unchanged.

A global flood event that left no geological evidence. No jumbled sediments of mammal, reptile and human fossils.

And afterwards, all the species were somehow able to return to their proper climate region. Cave dwelling bats found their blind way down to the right depth, redwoods clumped over to the California coast, land marsupials swam to Australia, freshwater fish divvied themselves up between the rivers and lakes.  Even symbiotic species were able to pair up again!

And, even though everything was soaked and destroyed (although nothing was able to decay and disintegrate because all the bacteria were on that boat, remember?) all the plants, animals, insects, birds and disease germs found enough food among the dead bodies bloated by sea water to survive, reproduce and flourish to what we have today.

As I said, I am done here. Good luck. 
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Online jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5242
  • Darwins +599/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Sci Am -- How old is the Earth? Who knows?
« Reply #70 on: September 23, 2011, 05:23:10 PM »
Jaimehlers,
LOL. So you are actually trying to tell me that all of the atheists on this forum are scientists?
No, actually, I'm not.  But you're trying to present an argument about science, are you not?  You're trying to counter various branches of science (which you repeatedly called "evolution" even though most of them weren't), so you have to use arguments which are based on real science to do so.

I highly doubt legitimate scientists would behave in the manner that I have experienced on this site,
It seems you don't really have much experience dealing with scientists.  They might go about it differently, but you had better believe that they would shred any of your statements that weren't rock-solid.

but perhaps I’m wrong and that is the way atheist scientists normally conduct themselves.
Given that I didn't suggest that this was a group of atheistic scientists to begin with...

Therefore, please provide me with all of their credentials.
Can't, for reasons given above.

Once you do that, I will be glad to write a scientific paper detailing my research so as to “convince” my fellow scientists.
I highly doubt you're a scientist to begin with.  Nobody who's actually been through the kind of real education that one needs to be called a scientist would make the mistake of conflating evolutionary theory with things like comets, which are part of astronomy.  I mean, most people learn that a comet isn't any part of a biological theory before they get to high school.

Since you missed my point, here it is in a much plainer form; if you want to convince people you know what you're talking about, you have to actually do the work to prove it.  Since you're trying to counter several fields of science, that means you have to do the work to show that you have a good idea of what you're talking about, and that means using science.

Apparently those same standards don’t apply to yourself or the atheists on this forum
Of course they do.  The difference is that we're not trying to go against several fields of conventional science all at once in an attempt to prove that a religious holy book is literally true.  Since you are, you bear the burden of proof in this case.

as I’ve not seen any “legitimate evidence” with external sources to demonstrate that the earth is old nor any posts that provide a detailed explanation of the independent scientific research that they’ve done.
Have you actually looked?  There's a large number of threads one forum down which cover various things to do with science.

Apparently you expect me to accept on blind faith what an atheist on this forum states, but I am to provide independent research!
I don't expect you to accept anything on blind faith.  What I expect is that you actually take the time to read and understand the science that you're criticizing.  Right now, it's very obvious that you haven't even done that much.  Most of what you called "evolution" in your last post isn't, and that would be a good place to start correcting the deficiencies in your understanding, if you're so inclined.

In the meantime you will have to be satisfied with a conversation on a forum that has not been advertised as a scientific research site.
If you're going to criticize branches of science, then you have to do enough research to make sure what you're claiming holds together.  Right now, it's a house of cards.

You apparently didn’t read my post very closely as I provided an external source to nearly all of the points I raised.
Your one external source that I can check easily is a creationist website.  Giving just one source doesn't even fly in school, let alone in real life.

If you do not find the evidence convincing, that is fine, but to misrepresent it as not having been referenced and claim that it is not legitimate is dishonest.
Very well, I'll retract my original statement, as it was poorly written and didn't convey what I wanted it to convey.  My intent was to point out that you need to provide actual citations that people can check individually when you present stuff like this; providing a generic website link and telling people to go look at it if they want to check what you wrote is not effective.

If you do not consider this evidence “legitimate”, then I would suggest you would not find any evidence contrary to your beliefs as legitimate.
It would be more accurate to say that I don't accept 'theories' which use as their basis an overly-literal interpretation of a religious book that was written thousands of years ago.  I also wouldn't accept 'creationism' based on the Greek pantheon, or the Norse one, for the same reason.

I have offered this evidence as a first pass to anyone with an open mind that cares to do further research themselves.
In other words, you're proselytizing.  I've done research into some of these claims and found that they have horrible flaws.  The fact that you're presenting them with all the rest suggests that you haven't critically examined most of them beyond the basic idea that they fit your Christian religious worldview.

I cannot inject it into their brains. It has been my experience that someone who does not accept God’s existence will not accept Him regardless of what evidence is presented. Therefore, it was neither my intent nor belief that this evidence would “convince” anyone who wishes to be willfully ignorant of God’s existence. Only the spirit can do that.
I've dealt with this kind of cop-out before.  You are in effect saying that you have no actual, verifiable evidence of God's existence to use to convince people who disagree with you, so your only recourse is to move on and hope the Holy Spirit tells them differently.  If you had such evidence, you would use it; therefore you do not have it and your statement that you don't think you can convince people is nothing more than a rationalization.

If you read my post, I stated I was willing to go into more detail/research on any of these evidences if one expressed a sincere desire to know more. I stand by that. If one wishes to ignore the clear evidence that is staring them in the face, it is still a free country.
More proselytizing.  You're only trying to get people who are interested in learning more, but you aren't interested in actually defending what you've actually said.  If science worked like this, then we'd still be using coal stoves and horse-drawn carriages.  I could not think of a method that is worse-suited to talking with skeptics who believe passionately in defending what they believe and in challenging the beliefs of others.

Offline rickymooston

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1757
  • Darwins +13/-11
Re: Sci Am -- How old is the Earth? Who knows?
« Reply #71 on: September 23, 2011, 06:38:35 PM »
Let me guess, raisemeup, you're in IT? Right?

Why this remark?

The relationship between IT and creationism is ...?  :police:
"i had learn to focus i what i could do rather what i couldn't do", Rick Hansen when asked about getting a disabling spinal cord injury at 15. He continues to raise money for spinal cord research and inspire peoople to "make a difference". He doesnt preach any religion.

Offline rickymooston

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1757
  • Darwins +13/-11
Re: Sci Am -- How old is the Earth? Who knows?
« Reply #72 on: September 23, 2011, 06:57:20 PM »
So you are actually trying to tell me that all of the atheists on this forum are scientists?

Why do you make this comment? Are you suggested a science degree is required in order to conclude God doesn't exist?

Are you suggesting that a science degree is required to prefer mainstream fact based science over "creation based" religious inspired "science"?

Quote
I highly doubt legitimate scientists would behave in the manner that I have experienced on this site

You've not met DaveDave or watched ThunderFoot's videos.  ;)

Quote
, but perhaps I’m wrong and that is the way atheist scientists normally conduct themselves.

As a whole, no, they don't. But a range of personalities probably exists.

Quote
Therefore, please provide me with all of their credentials. Once you do that, I will be glad to write a scientific paper detailing my research so as to “convince” my fellow scientists.

What area of science are you claiming to study.

Quote
I’ve not seen any “legitimate evidence” with external sources to demonstrate that the earth is old

You've clearly not looked.

Quote
nor any posts that provide a detailed explanation of the independent scientific research that they’ve done. Apparently you expect me to accept on blind faith what an atheist on this forum states, but I am to provide independent research!

Several hundred years of published is available showing the age of the earth using various dating methods.

Quote
In the meantime you will have to be satisfied with a conversation on a forum that has not been advertised as a scientific research site.

Its not a research site but in context, it doesn't need to be.

Quote
You apparently didn’t read my post very closely as I provided an external source to nearly all of the points I raised. If you do not find the evidence convincing, that is fine, but to misrepresent it as not having been referenced and claim that it is not legitimate is dishonest. If you do not consider this evidence “legitimate”, then I would suggest you would not find any evidence contrary to your beliefs as legitimate. I have offered this evidence as a first pass to anyone with an open mind that cares to do further research themselves. I cannot inject it into their brains. It has been my experience that someone who does not accept God’s existence will not accept Him regardless of what evidence is presented. Therefore, it was neither my intent nor belief that this evidence would “convince” anyone who wishes to be willfully ignorant of God’s existence. Only the spirit can do that.   

If you read my post, I stated I was willing to go into more detail/research on any of these evidences if one expressed a sincere desire to know more. I stand by that. If one wishes to ignore the clear evidence that is staring them in the face, it is still a free country.
"i had learn to focus i what i could do rather what i couldn't do", Rick Hansen when asked about getting a disabling spinal cord injury at 15. He continues to raise money for spinal cord research and inspire peoople to "make a difference". He doesnt preach any religion.

Offline raisemeup

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 12
  • Darwins +2/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Sci Am -- How old is the Earth? Who knows?
« Reply #73 on: September 23, 2011, 11:08:45 PM »
I stated I would not reply to abusive posts, but I’ll make an exception in hypagoga’s case to make a point because his response is so similar to nearly all of the responses I’ve seen so far. Do you people really think a valid argument consists of ad hominem attacks? I’ve been in enough debates to know that when people resort to such tactics it only reinforces the fact that you have absolutely no evidence in your favor. In addition, it tells me you know absolutely nothing about what you are talking about and are simply resorting to evolutionary propaganda sites, talkorigins being one of the worst. I have frequented talk origins and they are absolutely the most dishonest and deceitful site I have ever seen with a stated purpose of refuting creationist “nonsense” regardless of what dishonest tactics they must use. I have repeatedly and personally seen complete and outright lies and deceptions on their site and if that is what you are relying on it is no wonder that all you can do is resort to ad hominem attacks. Now, I’m perfectly aware that you will probably say the same thing about creationist sites. But that just reinforces the fact that we should be looking at the arguments and not the sites.

In addition, simply because you cite a source, that makes you correct? How absolutely absurd! In a reasonable discussion or debate, it is the quality of the arguments and education of the participants that matter, not how many sources you can cite or how often you can use that as an excuse not to face the facts. Simply because some idiot arrogantly states on their site that these claims have been debunked, doesn’t mean they have been. I can certainly point you to many creationist sites which claim that they have debunked the evolutionist claims you say have debunked the creationist claims! What does that prove? Why don’t I have your agent call my agent and we’ll forgo wasting the time to even have these discussions. Why don’t you have the balls to actually refute any of these claims yourself? In all probability it is because you can’t.

Now having said all that, we should step back for a moment. Not all of us here are scientists, so it is perfectly acceptable to rely on the expertise of others. However, all humans are fallible including scientists, evolutionists and creationist alike, and all of our theories are going to change over time based on new evidence. That is why it is doubly ridiculous to attack and ridicule creationists simply because an evolutionist says they have supposedly debunked creation scientists’ research, particularly while in all reality you have never even looked at the creationist research.

To demonstrate the fallacy of some of the evolutionist claims you cite, in a future post (and probably most appropriate in a new thread) I’ll take one of those claims and dissect it in detail. In the meantime, almost any creationist site is available (and I’ll suggest the creation wiki or the true origin archive) to refute the claims at talkorigins. And by the way, BioLogos is not a “Christian” site, it is an evolutionist site, so don’t make it appear as if you are citing a non-biased source.

Lastly, it is the opinion of the majority of Americans that the creationist arguments are the ones that are so “overwhelming” that they need not be repeated continually. Therefore that is no reason not to defend your “bizarre [evolutionist] fantasies”.

Offline jetson

  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 7312
  • Darwins +170/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Meet George Jetson!
    • Jet Blog
Re: Sci Am -- How old is the Earth? Who knows?
« Reply #74 on: September 23, 2011, 11:31:25 PM »
Seriously raisemeup, this has become laughable and embarrassing.  You have completely failed to even recognize that no one is taking you seriously.  You have brought absolutely nothing to this discussion.  You are blathering on about creationism as though it is some accepted idea among intelligent people.  It's completely sad, actually.

Creationism is nothing more than God did it.  It cannot be falsified, it cannot be proven, and it certainly cannot be used to predict anything (with the obvious exception that it can predict an occasional creationist blowhard will stop by an atheist forum and make a fool out of himself).

On the upside, your posts are forever stored for all to see, and serve as a reminder of the willful ignorance, arrogance, and pseudo-scientific psycho babble that you seem to think is meaningful.  Maybe we can sticky this thread as an example of what it looks like when someone chooses to expose their ignorance in such a spectacular way, for all to see and digest.

Really, you should be quite embarrassed, and the fact that you keep coming back and "debating" yourself in front of everyone should be enough for even you to recognize.  So sad.

Good luck in heaven.

Online wright

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1997
  • Darwins +85/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • "Sleep like a log, snore like a chainsaw."
Re: Sci Am -- How old is the Earth? Who knows?
« Reply #75 on: September 24, 2011, 12:32:53 AM »
Greetings, raisemeup. 

I am curious as to what you think you're accomplishing here. Almost all the regulars, theist and atheist alike (AFAIK), accept that current evolutionary theory is the best explanation for the development and diversity of life. This was surely evident to you from even a cursory look around the forum. Also evident is the relatively aggressive debate style.

Knowing that, you must have expected a strong reaction when you started making extraordinary claims like:

Quote
Properly interpreted, radiometric dating indicates the earth is only thousands of years old, which agrees with probably a hundred other dating methods I have come across.

Are you simply confirming your own beliefs about evolution and atheists? You are certainly not giving most (if any) of us good reasons to take you seriously. I mean, conflating evolutionary theory with abiogenesis is a common mistake, but conflating evolution with astronomy?

Quote
According to evolutionary theory, comets are supposed to be the same age as the solar system (billions of years).

That is a dismaying level of ignorance, even allowing for hyperbole.


Live a good life... If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones. I am not afraid.
--Marcus Aurelius

Offline raisemeup

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 12
  • Darwins +2/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Sci Am -- How old is the Earth? Who knows?
« Reply #76 on: September 24, 2011, 12:33:21 AM »
Ok, Belial and jaimehlers have some reasoned questions and arguments that deserve a response. Unfortunately, I need to take a potentially lengthy break to get some other work done, but I’ll be back. In the meantime, let me address two issues, one raised by both Belial and Jaime and a somewhat related issue raised by Jetson’s latest post (although that is certainly one post that doesn’t deserve a response!) which should also answer his prior question about where the animals came from.

“Evolutionary Theory” certainly encompasses comets! If you don’t think so, it is your mistake, not mine. You need only look at the world book encyclopedia to recognize that “evolutionary theory” encompasses all of the various evolutionary theories that have been put forth to explain the origin of the universe and everything in it by purely materialistic processes. Biological evolution obviously deals only with living organisms and depending on which sources you use sometimes includes abiogenesis and sometimes does not. In that regard, I don’t care which you choose as long as the comparison with creation theory is consistent. People often refer to biological evolution as simply “evolution”, but not always.

Now if we exclude abiogenesis as most evolutionist are prone to do (since it cannot be explained), biological evolution states that all the diversity of life we see today arose from a common ancestor billions of years ago primarily thorough the processes of mutations and natural selection. Contrary to Jetsons ridiculous and overused characterization of creationism as “God did it”, biological creation theory simply states that the diversity of life we see today arose from a set of original KINDS thousands of years ago primarily through the process of mutations, natural selection and genetic programming. In fact biological creation theory is a purely scientific concept which says absolutely nothing about God. It does not include the creation of the initial Kinds by God just as biological evolution does not include the “creation” of the initial life form from inanimate matter.

Creation theory uses exactly the same evidence, scientific methods and testing that evolution does. This is one reason I referred to Astreja’s brother as doing research into creation theory. We have never observed evolutionary change occurring. The kind of change we observe is not capable of changing one kind of creature into another kind. We are simply observing change within a kind completely consistent with creation theory. None of the work on anti-biotic resistance relies in any way on the notion that a dinosaur supposedly turned into a bird. They use operational science in the present which could have just as well been done by a creation scientist (and much of it probably is) in complete agreement and consistency with creation theory.

Lastly, I have now reviewed dozens of debate threads and numerous pages of debates on this forum and the ones I have looked at are essentially devoid of citations or references to back up any claims made by evolutionists on this site. It appears that this is simply another tactic on your part to ridicule others with beliefs other than your own while not placing the same burdens of proof on yourself. It is ridiculous on an opinion based discussion forum to immediately ridicule people for not citing sources when they are only providing their opinions. Sources come later when the discussion gets more detailed and they are politely requested so people can do further research.

Offline Timo

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1378
  • Darwins +115/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • You know
Re: Sci Am -- How old is the Earth? Who knows?
« Reply #77 on: September 24, 2011, 12:35:15 AM »
Some thoughts

And by the way, BioLogos is not a “Christian” site, it is an evolutionist site, so don’t make it appear as if you are citing a non-biased source.

I was curious about this BioLogos group, so I googled them.  Turns out that their stated goal is to "[promote], and [celebrate] the integration of science and Christian faith."  In other words, they're claiming to be both Christians and dreaded "evolutionists."  Which strikes me as a pretty non-controversial position.  Maybe I'm strange but I'm not sure why the two should be mutually exclusive.  Perhaps it's due to a bad upbringing.  I grew up in a Christian home.  And yet my parents really didn't have any problem with the evolution section of the biology courses I took.  See the thing of it is, for a lot of Christians, Christians like my parents, the message of Christ is just a tad bit more important than whether or not the first few chapters of Genesis are literally true or not.  I mean, you don't have to share their view.  And you can quibble with it theologically.  But please don't pretend that everyone that disagrees with you on matters of science is somehow insufficiently Christian on the strength of that disagreement.

Similarly atheism and evolution or even what we might call the scientific consensus more broadly don't have to go hand in hand.  There are probably atheists that don't accept evolution.  (Though I'm not sure that I've met any.)  And there are certainly atheists out there that will tell you it's a good idea not to vaccinate your child before they go to school or that the jury's still out on climate change.  (I've met some of those.)  Similarly, when we move to the political arena we find that there are atheists like me that are pretty damn liberal.  And yet, there are atheists that are pretty damn conservative.  And there are even atheists that I would consider to be bigoted.  I've heard atheists say some disgusting things about religious folks, homosexuals, blacks, whites, etc.[1]

None of this should be all that surprising though.  Atheism, contrary to what you might have heard in sermons or apologetic courses, is not a worldview.  It is a single belief.  To be sure, it is a belief that can inform a worldview.  But that's not the same as saying that things like morality or political ideologies should follow from it.[2]

Also, I had to do kind of a doubletake reading your 13 or so reasons why the earth has to be young.  See, I remember that you had also written this:

The scientific method involves repeated observations, measurements and testing of things we can see and handle in the present. The concern of historical science (like evolution) is one-time events in the ancient past which have NEVER been observed and CANNOT be repeated or measured. It is NOT subject, nor can be, to the scientific method. The best we can do is make an inference to the best explanation based on ASSUMPTIONS (abductive reasoning). If the assumptions are wrong, then our explanation will also be wrong. In the case of radiometric dating, we must ASSUME the amount of original parent/daughter materials, the constancy of the decay rate and the flow of elements into our out of the system (among many other assumptions). “Modern” methods entail their own assumptions and do not get past these. Properly interpreted, radiometric dating indicates the earth is only thousands of years old, which agrees with probably a hundred other dating methods I have come across.

In other words, you're suspicious of the evidence that we dreaded "evolutionists" offer.  This, in spite of the fact that evolution is a process and not a one time event.  It is something that you can continue to observe in nature.  And it is something whose consequences you most likely have to deal with on at least a yearly basis if you get a flu shot.  This point aside, you're essentially offering the same sort of argumentation in the same breath that you're dismissing evolution and the evidence for an old earth as somehow less than scientific.  You find some phenomena and extrapolate back into the pass assuming that things more or less happen the way they do now or rather that the laws of physics are constant.  That's incidentally not a bad way of doing things.  That's the way you seem to be doing things.

Where it seems we all differ then is on what assumptions we should bring to bear.  Evil geologists, for example, seem to reject the notion that the rate of decay of the earth's magnetic field is evidence for an old earth since they don't believe that this decay was taking place at all points in the earth's history.  But I'm not even sure what that means.  I'll leave it to my more scientifically informed brethren to pick at the specifics though[3]

Anywho, welcome.  I hope you stick around.



Peace
 1. For example, there is this post in which a member brought to our attention the rather backward views of a group of atheists.
 2. On a side note, most moral philosophers, as far as I can tell, don't appeal to a God in their work.  I'm not sure why they should have to or what they lose by not doing so.  But that's another subject entirely.  One I'm currently having a lovely discussion about with one of our non-atheist members, Mathiscool, over on the debate board.
 3. I was but a liberal arts major.
Nah son...

Offline raisemeup

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 12
  • Darwins +2/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Sci Am -- How old is the Earth? Who knows?
« Reply #78 on: September 24, 2011, 12:54:06 AM »
Wright,
I think my last post addressed your level of ignorance regarding evolution but to make it clearer, here is a quote from the world book encyclopedia – “The word EVOLUTION may refer to various types of change. For example, scientists generally describe the formation of the universe as having occurred through EVOLUTION. Many astronomers think that the stars and planets EVOLVED from a huge cloud of hot gases. Anthropologists study the EVOLUTION of human culture from hunting and gathering societies to complex, industrialized societies. Most commonly, however, evolution refers to the FORMATION and development of life on earth. The idea that all living things evolved from simple organisms and changed throughout the ages to produce millions of species is known as the THEORY OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION”. (Emphasis mine).

Now I don’t care what definition you want to use for evolution as long as it’s made clear. There is certainly no reason to call other people “ignorant” simply for using a common definition found extensively in many reference books on evolution.

In addition, I don’t think my claim that radiometric dating indicates a young earth and that there are hundreds of methods that agree is extraordinary in any way. This is a FACT and I have demonstrated that in my prior post. We all have the same evidence. It is just interpreted differently depending on what ASSUMPTIONS you make in advance.

Offline Timo

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1378
  • Darwins +115/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • You know
Re: Sci Am -- How old is the Earth? Who knows?
« Reply #79 on: September 24, 2011, 01:33:21 AM »
Cousin, you're right that the word evolution can refer to anything that has changed over time.  I can talk your ear off about the evolution of hip-hop music, for example.  I can also talk at some length, though decidedly less enthusiastically, about the evolution of political systems.  And yet, it would probably strike everyone as strange if some apologist were to try to reference ideas about the evolution of political systems or hip hop music in a discussion of the theory of evolution.  This is because, evolutionary theory, as it is commonly understood as being a theory of biological evolution.  So yes, stars "evolve."  Yes, the transformation of nonorganic to organic matter would constitute an "evolution" of sorts.  But that doesn't mean that they are part of the theory of evolution, which is much more narrow in scope.  As that passage actually suggests.


Peace
Nah son...

Offline raisemeup

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 12
  • Darwins +2/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Sci Am -- How old is the Earth? Who knows?
« Reply #80 on: September 24, 2011, 01:36:51 AM »
Timo,
I had to reply to your post even though I was calling it a day with my last one. What a breath of fresh air. Thank you so much for your rational, reasoned and polite response. Now that’s how we should all be debating these topics. My first post was a strong criticism of an author of an article that was referenced by the initiator of the thread and in my estimation it was well deserved since the article involved substantial dishonesty. I had never been critical of anyone personally on this forum and while disagreement was expected, I had not anticipated the degree of vile hatred and derogatory name calling directed at me personally that ensued and continues even now.

I’m very familiar with the Biologos group. My comment wasn’t meant to suggest that those who run the site are not Christians, simply that the site’s intention is to primarily promote evolution among Christians, not to promote Christianity. Because of that, it often has the perhaps unintended result of hurting Christianity.

In addition, I would never suggest that you cannot be a Christian (or be saved) simply for believing in evolution. However, believing evolution over accepting God’s plain words creates contradictions and inconsistencies in one’s beliefs that need to be resolved. They are often resolved by converting to atheism. I have chosen a different path. The abundance of scientific evidence that supports God’s words have strengthened my faith rather than weakened it. I am a Christian which simply means I am a follower of Christ. Christ accepted a literally reading of Genesis, so if I’m a follower of Christ, why should I call Him a liar?

Generalizations aren’t always a bad thing. You are clearly an exception when it comes to atheists as clearly seen by all the prior posts. I certainly realize that we are all individuals and have a whole set of beliefs which guide our behavior. Nevertheless, there are also many commonalities among atheists and it certainly qualifies as a world view or “religion” even though they may not all practice it. Many Christians don’t practice their faith either. Atheism guides people’s behavior, beliefs and how they interpret the evidence around them and therefore it qualifies as a worldview.

Lastly, when I say “evolution”, I am referring to the theory of evolution, not a process. What we observe in nature are creatures adapting to their environment which is a core component of creation theory. Since what we observe is completely consistent with creation theory, evolution must obviously consist of more than that. The way evolution and creation theory is investigated is identical and that is why it is disingenuous for atheists to call one science and another not science. However, there is one core difference which makes creation theory more scientific than evolution. Evolution is based on the fallible imaginations of men originating with the ancient Greeks. However, creation theory is based on accurate eye-witness accounts of what actually happened in the past. These accounts are sound scientific evidence that we often use in various types of scientific investigation.

Based on these different worldviews, an evolutionist will extrapolate observed processes we see today far past the creation event into billions of years ago to speculate about things like the “big bang”. However, a creationist knows to stop extrapolating at the creation event since there was nothing before that.

Quote
Where it seems we all differ then is on what assumptions we should bring to bear.

You have nailed it! Absolutely correct. I’ll stick around if they let me. Thanks.

Offline rickymooston

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1757
  • Darwins +13/-11
Re: Sci Am -- How old is the Earth? Who knows?
« Reply #81 on: September 24, 2011, 01:43:14 AM »
You're missing the points does not make it lack content.

What logical points did I miss?  :o He seemed to take a rather long time to get to the point. It could be that I was just in a bad mood when I read the post.  :-X My humanity and impatience has been exposed.  :police:

I definitely  got annoyed half way through. What i read was, "you are an idiot" being presented in lurid and admittedly humorous detail.
"i had learn to focus i what i could do rather what i couldn't do", Rick Hansen when asked about getting a disabling spinal cord injury at 15. He continues to raise money for spinal cord research and inspire peoople to "make a difference". He doesnt preach any religion.

Offline RaymondKHessel

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1914
  • Darwins +73/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • Born with insight, and a raised fist.
Re: Sci Am -- How old is the Earth? Who knows?
« Reply #82 on: September 24, 2011, 01:46:06 AM »
I stated I would not reply to abusive posts, but I’ll make an exception in hypagoga’s case to make a point because his response is so similar to nearly all of the responses I’ve seen so far. Do you people really think a valid argument consists of ad hominem attacks? I’ve been in enough debates to know that when people resort to such tactics it only reinforces the fact that you have absolutely no evidence in your favor. In addition, it tells me you know absolutely nothing about what you are talking about and are simply resorting to evolutionary propaganda sites, talkorigins being one of the worst. I have frequented talk origins and they are absolutely the most dishonest and deceitful site I have ever seen with a stated purpose of refuting creationist “nonsense” regardless of what dishonest tactics they must use. I have repeatedly and personally seen complete and outright lies and deceptions on their site and if that is what you are relying on it is no wonder that all you can do is resort to ad hominem attacks. Now, I’m perfectly aware that you will probably say the same thing about creationist sites. But that just reinforces the fact that we should be looking at the arguments and not the sites.

In addition, simply because you cite a source, that makes you correct? How absolutely absurd! In a reasonable discussion or debate, it is the quality of the arguments and education of the participants that matter, not how many sources you can cite or how often you can use that as an excuse not to face the facts. Simply because some idiot arrogantly states on their site that these claims have been debunked, doesn’t mean they have been. I can certainly point you to many creationist sites which claim that they have debunked the evolutionist claims you say have debunked the creationist claims! What does that prove? Why don’t I have your agent call my agent and we’ll forgo wasting the time to even have these discussions. Why don’t you have the balls to actually refute any of these claims yourself? In all probability it is because you can’t.

Now having said all that, we should step back for a moment. Not all of us here are scientists, so it is perfectly acceptable to rely on the expertise of others. However, all humans are fallible including scientists, evolutionists and creationist alike, and all of our theories are going to change over time based on new evidence. That is why it is doubly ridiculous to attack and ridicule creationists simply because an evolutionist says they have supposedly debunked creation scientists’ research, particularly while in all reality you have never even looked at the creationist research.

To demonstrate the fallacy of some of the evolutionist claims you cite, in a future post (and probably most appropriate in a new thread) I’ll take one of those claims and dissect it in detail. In the meantime, almost any creationist site is available (and I’ll suggest the creation wiki or the true origin archive) to refute the claims at talkorigins. And by the way, BioLogos is not a “Christian” site, it is an evolutionist site, so don’t make it appear as if you are citing a non-biased source.

Lastly, it is the opinion of the majority of Americans that the creationist arguments are the ones that are so “overwhelming” that they need not be repeated continually. Therefore that is no reason not to defend your “bizarre [evolutionist] fantasies”.

Sigh.

Please, please, please, PLEASE stop bitching about people "being mean" to you. You do it in every. single. post. We get it. Your oppressed. Your being persecuted for your beliefs. You want everyone to play nice nice with you and handle you with kid gloves, while you insulate yourself behind a shield of cosmic superiority where everybody who isn't you has it wrong or is closed minded. You want to be able to regurgitate any damn fool thing that crosses your mind and have the forum read in rapt awe while responding with "Well that is just SO interesting!" and "Well isn't that profound?" and "Oh gee I guess you're right about that! No need to fact check here, no sir!"

And when we read something that is laughably false and delusional, demonstrating again and again that you're woefully out of touch with reality, we should respond with "Well, I must respectfully disagree with you there, because I do not believe that comets fall under the category of evolutionary science, sir..."

I'm sorry, I really am, but the world doesn't work that way. When somebody shows up on your doorstep and starts making ludicrous claims, and insisting that what they say is truth and you either believe them or admit to being "willfully ignorant" (maybe coupled by a lovely threat of eternal suffering), you're often going to get a big "f**k you".

Why SHOULDN'T people be rude to you considering how insistant you are that they accept your "truths" at face-value? Or how poorly you handle it when people say you're wrong? Simply because YOU say these things? Who are you? A super special snowflake with his finger on the pulse of the universe? Someone who is just soooooo enlightened, we're all fools for not standing in awe of your cliche'd bite-sized nuggets of ancient superstitious apologia? Because your bible says these things? To most of us, it's just a really old book written for bronze age goatherders. And not a very interesting or convincing one.

I fully understand that to you, these "truths" are self evident. God is obvious everywhere you look, right? As you've said. Of course it is! Because, among other reasons, you've done some really heavy twisting of the word "God".  Amazing display of nature? That's god at work. An amazing coincidence? No, that's god. Something completely unexplainable? More god. Baby's are born. God. A lucky break on your taxes? God. A wood and drywall church burns down and the only thing left standing is a cast-iron Jesus? God. God, god, god, everywhere you look.

The capital-G God of Christianity has been expanded and re-defined so often that the current incarnation has virtually nothing in common with the original Yahweh of the book. YAHWEH walked the Earth and smote motherfuckers with raining Sulphur and boils and plagues of locusts and s**t. 21st Century Christian "God" hides in the cracks "outside the universe/reality" but is also everywhere and in everything, and interacts with humanity through really ambiguous and half-assed miracles, like appearing on toast or curing arthritis.

Hell, for the majority of the 38,000 denominations of Christianity, it's practically a pantheist god with a back-story and a bunch of fan-fiction written in. Capital g "God" in Christianity has become a catch-all phrase and the spackle with which theists use to fill in the cracks of their knowledge and understanding.

But when you spend an entire lifetime being indoctrinated, threatened with eternal punishments, surrounded by friends and loved ones who have been similarily duped... You'll buy whatever god the people you care about are selling. Decades of hearing other religious types use their natural gifts of creativity to weave these stunning tapestries of rationalizations and best-fits when it's convenient and out-and-out indignant dismissal when it's not... They whip up an answer for everything, no matter how convoluted or far-fetched, and when you've got 1,600 years to fill in plot-holes, I'm sure it's all very compelling - assuming you've spent a lifetime being told it's all true ad naseum. 

Though I suppose, alternatively, your faith and belief could be a new occurance, something you've just come across in your life after spending so many years fucking it up flatter than hammered s**t; adulterers, addicts, habitual gamblers, violent criminals, sexual predators, etc... Maybe a good long bid on a prison cellblock brought you to Jesus... Which, if this is the case, only demonstrates religion's ability to make the believer smiley face because it removes the burden of responsiblity from their shoulders  (that was the devil/lack of gawd in you!) and tells them that cosmically, you're a swell guy/gal as long as you believe what you're told. You were circling the drain of life and Jesus saved you and put you on the road to recovery/rehabilitation. Yay.

Either way, point is, however you came to be a part of that culture, a god-operated world is reality to you, and moreover, it's imperitive that you continue to believe it no matter what the cost, because to question it is to question virtually everything you know about the world and reality itself. Not to mention the threat of eternal anguish. It all makes for one massive deterrent.

I get it.

But what YOU need to understand, is that your god is no more a "fact" to anyone outside your faith than is Santa Clause. We don't really secretly believe in it, no more than we secretly believe in Muhammad or Lord Xenu. Honest. I swear. And believe it or not, I actually do know what I do and don't believe better than you do. Hard to swallow, I'm sure, but it's a fact Jack.

Because to those of us on the outside looking in? The entire religion is simply beyond silly. I know that seems offensive; it is what it is. I'm all about respecting people's beliefs as a general rule, but there IS a line which, when crossed, no longer asks for the courtesy of respect and in fact begs for vehement disagreement and yes, even open ridicule.

I can't speak for other atheists on this, but I can speak for the majority I think: Hearing Christians profess the truth of things like talking donkeys and quantum boats-of-unlimited-holding and chicks made out of ribs... That the world is 6,000 years old and humans lived alongside dinosaurs and that the Grand Canyon was formed over the course of 40 days and 40 nights by a global flood (that all of geology agrees there is no evidence for at all)...This stuff is ridiculous. It offends all common sense and rational thought. It would be one thing if it's harmless, but it's not. It harms people every day. Sometimes in truly horrible ways, like starving a toddler for not saying "Amen" at mealtime. Or thinking your children are possessed and drowning them in bathtub.

Can you really not see how people might not believe? Or be actively repulsed by what they preceive to be abhorrant and vile behavior in the deity that you worship and claim to "love"? Truly? Can you REALLY not conceive, at all, how somebody could hear a person like yourself rattle off these fantastic and wholly unbelievable "truths", and couple that with the stories of talking livestock and other magical occurances, and simply say "No, I don't buy it." and then couple it with instructions for stoning cheating wives and disobedient children and homosexuals and how to treat your slaves etc. etc., and then go a step further and say "No, I don't buy it... And I'm disgusted that you would profess to worship such a depraved monster of an imaginary friend."?

When you were told the story of Thor the Thunder God and his magic hammer, did you really give it honest consideration? How much time did you spend weighing the various arguements for and against the Greek pantheon? Days? Weeks? Years? Would you call yourself "closed-minded" for not giving a lot of thought to the idea that the world is carried on the back of a giant turtle, or that Romulus and Reamus were nursed by a giant cosmic she-wolf?

Your religion comes across equally as hokey and unbelievable as any of Aesop's fables. Again, I'm sure this comes across as offensive, but that's what it is to people outside your circle of believers. It has no more evidence to support it than any other god story in history, and it's actually LESS believable because there is SO MUCH content to tear apart. The longer you make your story, the more plotholes and inconsistencies you're going to have. Thus Christianity is one of the easiest old-world religions to dismiss as myth and superstition.

I can not for the life of me comprehend what it must be like in the mind of a fundamentalist or bible literalist. You have to bend over backwards to try and dismiss SO much scientific data, and you need one ENORMOUS ego in order to hand-wave away the work of tens of thousands of men and women who have devoted their lives to science and the pursuit of truth. They're all wrong, and YOU are right, because the bible tells you so. The same bible that spends a huge chunk of it's time making analogies to livestock and farming.

What possible reason does anyone outside your cult have to give any sort of credence to that book over the modern, testable results made by well-educated humans over combined millions of man hours?

The thing says that plants were created before the sun. No photosynthesis? Were they powered by lollipops for a day? It says you can cure leprosy by rubbing bird blood on yourself. That pi = 3. That you can breed striped goats by having them fuc... Sorry, FORNICATE in front of striped sticks. It says the sky is a partition and that space is an ocean. It says the earth sits on pillars. It says Earth is a circle. It says bats are birds and that rabbits chew cud and that bugs have four legs.

It goes on, and on, and on, and on. http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/science/long.html for another few hundred examples. Biology, cosmology, astronomy, physics, geometry, geology... Time after time it makes one embarassing mistake after another. And time after time the believers come up with excuses and rationalizations and apologia for why in the 21st century, reality doesn't line up with the worldview of 1,600 year old desert priests.

With that kind of track record, coupled with dragons and unicorns and whatnot, what possible reason would I, or anyone outside the indoctrination, have to consider this as a viable alternative to the myriad of scientific discoveries over the last few hundred years?

Science's track record in the realm of science is pretty amazing. It's given us clean water, medicine, easy transportation, global communication,The bible's is, frankly, pitiful. So for my money, I'm going with the guy with the microscope who can literally show you that there are no tiny fairies pushing a nucleus around an atom.

You keep saying things like how it's SOOOO obvious that there is a god (not just any god, either, but YOUR god, the one who collects foreskins), that because it's SOOOO apparent, the billions of people who don't buy into your outlandish beliefs are just in denial or something...

Newsflash: Truthfully, I tell you - billions of people REALLY TRULY FOR REALZ do not believe in your god at all. Honest. Hand to heart. No B.S. I know that's impossible for you to fathom. We hear it all the time. You just can't comprehend non-belief. But you can if you try. You don't believe in Zeus, I'm assuming? Or Ra? It is the *EXACT* same thing with the Christian god and everyone who is not a Christian.

Which, I might add, is like 90% of the Asians on the planet, and like what? 80% of the East Indians? Another 85% of Middle-Easterners? Don't know how accurate those percentages are, but they're damn close.

What I'm saying is that entire swaths of humanity, according to your religion, are condemned to an eternity of torture simply based on where they were born and what religion was dominate in their particular culture.

An extrapolation of that... Pretty much the entirity of Asians who have ever lived are in hell now, because Christianity has never managed to get a seriously significant foothold in Asian cultures. A common reason sited is because they find the worship of a man crucified to be morbid, and the deity to be immoral and often incompetent. Up until maybe a hundred years ago I think, Christianity accounted for something like .05% of Chinese religious beliefs. That is a LOT of unjust suffering, I'd say, simply because those poor bastards had the misfortune of being born in a country that wasn't predominately European, or conquered by Europeans in recent history.   

Anyway, rant is nearly concluded... But in conclusion I'd like to ask...

Do you have any idea how insulting it is to be told what you think or believe? Or don't?
Wouldn't it piss you off if I kept insisting that you really believe in the Loch Ness Monster or that Superman was real, and you were just in denial?

Do you have any idea how presumptuous and pretentious you have to be to assume that everybody who doesn't see the world as you see it is an inferior human being not only in life, but COSMICALLY and ETERNALLY?

Sadly, it's far from the first time we've seen that sort of thing here. A huge part of Christianity is being able to dehumanize the non-believers and satanic atheists who would tempt your faith. The faggots and the gamblers and the junkies and the baby-eating atheists and the sinister Jews and the subversive Catholics and the evil Mormons and blah blah blah everybody who doesn't adhere to my particular flavor of delusion.

Because if you can make them sub-human, and put yourself above them, it's a lot easier to digest the idea of them being tortured for eternity by an allegedly "Loving" space genie. Ain't it?

This rant was brought to you by Jameson's Irish whiskey. Sinfully fueling good times for blasphemous heathens since 1780.

You're missing the points does not make it lack content.

What logical points did I miss?  :o He seemed to take a rather long time to get to the point. It could be that I was just in a bad mood when I read the post.  :-X My humanity and impatience has been exposed.  :police:

I definitely  got annoyed half way through. What i read was, "you are an idiot" being presented in lurid and admittedly humorous detail.

Do I really need to advise you to STOP READING if something annoys you halfway through?  :P lol

It's alright though. I definitely find your overuse of emoticons to be annoying, so now we have something in common!  ;D ;) :P :laugh: :)

The logical points I made?  :o Well, for the bulk of the post I attempted to provide advise (albeit hostile advice  >:() on how to actually make some headway in a conversation here, or how to get people to actually acknowledge and consider far-out things someone present as "fact".  :-\

Here I thought I was trying to be helpful. While entertaining myself at the same time. :'(

I apologize if my posting style offends your tender sensibilities to the point where you feel obliged to comment on it and give me a big "thumbs down" though.  :-[ In the future, if you insist on reading things that annoy you, and then cherry-picking things I write in order to summarize them in the form of something like an epically long insult or whatever it was that ruffled yer feathers, you can do us both a favor and simply skip over anything with my name next to it!  8)

I will not complain. Promise.  ;D

Alternatively, I could always submit my posts to you for your approval first?  :police: :-X

Actually, no, scratch that, let's just stick with "Well, don't fuckin' read it then."  :angel:

Yeah. That works for me.  :)
« Last Edit: September 24, 2011, 02:52:45 AM by RaymondKHessel »
Born with insight, and a raised fist.

Online wright

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1997
  • Darwins +85/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • "Sleep like a log, snore like a chainsaw."
Re: Sci Am -- How old is the Earth? Who knows?
« Reply #83 on: September 24, 2011, 01:50:45 AM »
Wright,
I think my last post addressed your level of ignorance regarding evolution but to make it clearer, here is a quote from the world book encyclopedia – “The word EVOLUTION may refer to various types of change. For example, scientists generally describe the formation of the universe as having occurred through EVOLUTION. Many astronomers think that the stars and planets EVOLVED from a huge cloud of hot gases. Anthropologists study the EVOLUTION of human culture from hunting and gathering societies to complex, industrialized societies. Most commonly, however, evolution refers to the FORMATION and development of life on earth. The idea that all living things evolved from simple organisms and changed throughout the ages to produce millions of species is known as the THEORY OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION”. (Emphasis mine).

Now I don’t care what definition you want to use for evolution as long as it’s made clear. There is certainly no reason to call other people “ignorant” simply for using a common definition found extensively in many reference books on evolution.

I stand corrected. However, unless specifics are given, "most commonly, however, evolution refers to the FORMATION and development of life on earth." Simply lumping all materialistic processes under that blanket term is a new one to me.

Quote
In addition, I don’t think my claim that radiometric dating indicates a young earth and that there are hundreds of methods that agree is extraordinary in any way. This is a FACT and I have demonstrated that in my prior post. We all have the same evidence. It is just interpreted differently depending on what ASSUMPTIONS you make in advance.

Looking at your last few posts, no. You have not demonstrated that. You have yet to show any of those "hundreds of methods that agree" as well.

Now if we exclude abiogenesis as most evolutionist are prone to do (since it cannot be explained)

What is your definition of explained? There are currently several theories of abiogenesis, based on what we know of molecular biology / chemistry and probable conditions on the early Earth. Though none of them have yet been definitively proven, they serve well enough as explanations. That is, they make various hypotheses that can be tested by research and experimentation.

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

Quote
Lastly, I have now reviewed dozens of debate threads and numerous pages of debates on this forum and the ones I have looked at are essentially devoid of citations or references to back up any claims made by evolutionists on this site. It appears that this is simply another tactic on your part to ridicule others with beliefs other than your own while not placing the same burdens of proof on yourself. It is ridiculous on an opinion based discussion forum to immediately ridicule people for not citing sources when they are only providing their opinions. Sources come later when the discussion gets more detailed and they are politely requested so people can do further research.

If you really have reviewed dozens of threads here, you might have noticed that theist posters very often present their opinions as facts and then get very upset when asked to back those opinions up. However, the atheists on this forum are far more likely to provide sources for their claims. If you really don't see that, I'm not sure what else to say.
Live a good life... If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones. I am not afraid.
--Marcus Aurelius

Offline Timo

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1378
  • Darwins +115/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • You know
Re: Sci Am -- How old is the Earth? Who knows?
« Reply #84 on: September 24, 2011, 03:02:51 AM »
I'm glad you liked my response, fam.

My comment wasn’t meant to suggest that those who run the site are not Christians, simply that the site’s intention is to primarily promote evolution among Christians, not to promote Christianity. Because of that, it often has the perhaps unintended result of hurting Christianity.

I'm not sure why that should be the case.  Promoting evolution, the consensus view of the scientific community, among Christians strikes me as a pretty worthy enterprise.  I mean, if there were a significant portion of Christians objecting to say, the germ theory of disease, I would think that promoting the scientific view in this case would make sense as well.  I mean, if you want to think the scientific consensus is wrong for whatever reason, that's you.  But I don't think that Christians should feel like maybe they're being bad Christians if they accept the germ theory of disease.  I don't see why the same shouldn't be the case for evolution or any other facet of modern science.

However, believing evolution over accepting God’s plain words creates contradictions and inconsistencies in one’s beliefs that need to be resolved. They are often resolved by converting to atheism. I have chosen a different path. The abundance of scientific evidence that supports God’s words have strengthened my faith rather than weakened it. I am a Christian which simply means I am a follower of Christ. Christ accepted a literally reading of Genesis, so if I’m a follower of Christ, why should I call Him a liar?

Is Christ a follower of a literal Genesis?  Really?  I mean, Christ was clearly a believer in the Old Testament.  And his followers clearly believed that all scripture is profitable.  But I'm not sure that's the same thing as saying that Christ was espousing a literal 6 day creation.  Hell, some of the early church fathers saw problems with it.  Origen, for example, wrote:

Quote from: Origen
For who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? And that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? And who is so foolish as to suppose that God, after the manner of a husbandman, planted a paradise in Eden, towards the east, and placed in it a tree of life, visible and palpable, so that one tasting of the fruit by the bodily teeth obtained life? And again, that one was a partaker of good and evil by masticating what was taken from the tree? And if God is said to walk in the paradise in the evening, and Adam to hide himself under a tree, I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance, and not literally.

from wikipedia

I mean, yeah, you can read passages like Mark 10:6 and insist that Christ has to be maintaining the literal truth of the story of Eve (or Lilith) being created along side Adam, but that's really just one way of looking at things.  It could be that he's merely appealing to a tradition for rhetorical force.  After all, if all scripture is profitable, it should certainly be the case that bits like Genesis 1 or 2, literally true or not, should contain bits of valuable insight.

Anyway, what I'm trying to say is that a non-literal interpretation of the Bible, for a lot of Christians, and for as long as there have been Christians, is not something that has really posed a problem for Christians.  If this was not the case in Origen's time, I fail to see why this shouldn't be the case in Timo's pop's time.  Again, you can say that this is somehow detrimental to Christianity, but that's just your opinion.

Nevertheless, there are also many commonalities among atheists and it certainly qualifies as a world view or “religion” even though they may not all practice it. Many Christians don’t practice their faith either. Atheism guides people’s behavior, beliefs and how they interpret the evidence around them and therefore it qualifies as a worldview.

You can continue to generalize but I don't think you hurt anyone but yourself in doing so.  I mean, let's suppose that you're correct about atheists...in general.  Let's suppose that we do, indeed, share a worldview...generally speaking.  Now suppose you're trying to witness to a group of atheists.  What do you think would be more productive: assuming that the atheists fell into this general category or assuming that the atheists were, like most people, idiosyncratic and heterodox with respect to their beliefs?  I mean, c'mon!  The strategy you're sketching out--that of generalizing--would be like me trying to argue someone like my mother out of her Christianity on the basis of the problems with a literal 6 day creation.  The thing of it is, she doesn't believe in the literal truth of Genesis 1 or 2 to begin with!  You see where I'm going? 

On a more human level, I would think that it'd be better to approach people as individuals.  I mean, by all means, learn from your experiences.  If you find that atheists tend to run a certain kind of argument, be aware of it.  Learn it.  And develop a proper response.  But don't assume that every atheist you meet is going to run that argument or be impressed by it.  You get me?

Lastly, when I say “evolution”, I am referring to the theory of evolution, not a process. What we observe in nature are creatures adapting to their environment which is a core component of creation theory. Since what we observe is completely consistent with creation theory, evolution must obviously consist of more than that. The way evolution and creation theory is investigated is identical and that is why it is disingenuous for atheists to call one science and another not science. However, there is one core difference which makes creation theory more scientific than evolution. Evolution is based on the fallible imaginations of men originating with the ancient Greeks. However, creation theory is based on accurate eye-witness accounts of what actually happened in the past. These accounts are sound scientific evidence that we often use in various types of scientific investigation.

Nah, evolution is a process (adaptation, as you aptly noted, is part of it) that's still going on today.  When scientists use evolutionary theory to think about what probably happened in the past, they're just assuming that evolution was taking place then too.  And they've been convinced because the evolutionary model works better than any others..and especially special creation.

With respect to the whole business about eye-witnesses, I'm sorry, but I have to call BS.  One of the central stories of the Old Testament, the Exodus, doesn't really appear to have much going for it in the way of archaeological evidence...at least as far as I've been able to tell.  I've never seen any good evidence for the slavery in Egypt, nor the exodus from Egypt, nor the conquest of Canaan.  I mean, maybe I'm wrong, I'm open to whatever you've got, but as far as I've been able to tell the whole of Biblical history doesn't have much going for it until you get to time of maybe...Hezekiah.  I mean, hell, just read in context, the whole book of Deuteronomy appears to be a forgery.

Based on these different worldviews, an evolutionist will extrapolate observed processes we see today far past the creation event into billions of years ago to speculate about things like the “big bang”. However, a creationist knows to stop extrapolating at the creation event since there was nothing before that.

See, this is where you're messing up.  If a biologist is trying to figure out how people and everything else came about and they figure evolution to be the best answer, that's a separate question entirely from whether or not the big bang happened.  Even from a strictly creationist perspective, this shouldn't be hard to grasp.  After all, there are folks like you that accept neither an old earth nor biological evolution and folks like Hugh Ross that accept an old earth...though not biological evolution.



Peace
Nah son...

Offline grant

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 407
  • Darwins +4/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Sci Am -- How old is the Earth? Who knows?
« Reply #85 on: September 24, 2011, 05:08:56 AM »
12 posts, all in this thread. I'm always suspicious of the one topic poster.

Quote
simply trying to follow the rules, according to which I could not introduce myself properly until I had 3 posts to my name.

While your rambling has given a pretty good indication of your personality, perhaps you could confirm our suspicions with a short introduction? It may go some way to reduce the vile hatred you feel you are subjected to (although I see no evidence of). By the way, exactly what derogatory names have you personally been called and are continually being called, even now? For the life of me I can't see this "name calling" in the thread.
What if the hokey pokey is what its all about?

Offline jetson

  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 7312
  • Darwins +170/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Meet George Jetson!
    • Jet Blog
Re: Sci Am -- How old is the Earth? Who knows?
« Reply #86 on: September 24, 2011, 07:04:27 AM »
You're missing the points does not make it lack content.

What logical points did I miss?  :o He seemed to take a rather long time to get to the point. It could be that I was just in a bad mood when I read the post.  :-X My humanity and impatience has been exposed.  :police:

I definitely  got annoyed half way through. What i read was, "you are an idiot" being presented in lurid and admittedly humorous detail.

You didn't like the content.  It happens.