Author Topic: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...  (Read 8010 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12280
  • Darwins +272/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #145 on: July 02, 2014, 11:44:49 PM »
The 6,000 years is just a rough estimate.

Actually it's not.  The Bible gives ages.  Bishop Ussher calculated it to the year.
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline Ron Jeremy

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 525
  • Darwins +60/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #146 on: July 03, 2014, 04:59:18 AM »
The 6,000 years is just a rough estimate.

Actually it's not.  The Bible gives ages.  Bishop Ussher calculated it to the year.

And as you are all aware now Creationists, trigonometry has proved this to be nonsense. So we can all move on now and accept the scientific view on a Heliocentric solar system, a spherical Earth, hail and snow not being kept in storerooms, rainbows being made from refracted white light and a universe that is at least 16.5 billion years old? Or will you continue with your delusion?
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - An example of a clearly demonstrably false biblical 'prophesy'.

The biblical myth of a 6000 year old Earth is proven false by the Gaia satellite directly measuring star age.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4933
  • Darwins +563/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #147 on: July 03, 2014, 11:41:45 AM »
a universe that is at least 16.5 billion years old?
Actually, it's about 13.8 billion years old.  Not sure where you're getting the 16.5 from.

Quote from: Ron Jeremy
Or will you continue with your delusion?
Almost certainly this.  Of course, Bishop Ussher wasn't a member of whatever specific Christian sect skeptic believes in (seeing as he was a member of the Church of Ireland), so of course his chronology is going to be suspect, even though it's the basis for young earth creationist beliefs.  That and the absurd notion of the Bible, a book that's full of metaphorical stories, being taken literally.

Offline Ron Jeremy

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 525
  • Darwins +60/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #148 on: July 03, 2014, 02:18:11 PM »
a universe that is at least 16.5 billion years old?
Actually, it's about 13.8 billion years old.  Not sure where you're getting the 16.5 from.

Quote from: Ron Jeremy
Or will you continue with your delusion?
Almost certainly this.  Of course, Bishop Ussher wasn't a member of whatever specific Christian sect skeptic believes in (seeing as he was a member of the Church of Ireland), so of course his chronology is going to be suspect, even though it's the basis for young earth creationist beliefs.  That and the absurd notion of the Bible, a book that's full of metaphorical stories, being taken literally.

Sorry,  you're absolutely right, my bad. Despite all the reading and learning I've done, the wrong figure had stuck in my head!

Edit - going off topic
« Last Edit: July 03, 2014, 02:54:03 PM by Ron Jeremy »
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - An example of a clearly demonstrably false biblical 'prophesy'.

The biblical myth of a 6000 year old Earth is proven false by the Gaia satellite directly measuring star age.

Offline Ron Jeremy

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 525
  • Darwins +60/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #149 on: July 03, 2014, 02:52:33 PM »
Hey, look at that Skep!! I held a worldview that didn't correspond with reality! Jaime pointed out that perhaps I was incorrect in my understanding of universe age, and after a bit of digging it appears I was wrong! So I re-aligned my world-view to correspond with known reality, and the wonderful thing about reality explained by science is that I can carry out the experiments and measurements and get the same result as scientists do!
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - An example of a clearly demonstrably false biblical 'prophesy'.

The biblical myth of a 6000 year old Earth is proven false by the Gaia satellite directly measuring star age.

Online jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2077
  • Darwins +373/-8
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #150 on: July 03, 2014, 04:43:47 PM »
The 6,000 years is just a rough estimate.

Actually it's not.  The Bible gives ages.  Bishop Ussher calculated it to the year.

Do most creationists base their claim of the age of the world on the Ussher chronology though?

skeptic54768, does your view that the world is 6,000-ish years old stem at all from that chronology, or is there another source?
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

- Eddie Izzard

http://deepaksducttape.wordpress.com/

Offline skeptic54768

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2634
  • Darwins +52/-433
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #151 on: July 03, 2014, 10:56:51 PM »
Do most creationists base their claim of the age of the world on the Ussher chronology though?

skeptic54768, does your view that the world is 6,000-ish years old stem at all from that chronology, or is there another source?

I can't speak for all creation scientists, but the Bible does speak of people who are around. "Land of Nod" for example. Who knows how long they were around?

Certainly not "billions" of years though.
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Offline Defiance

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 666
  • Darwins +26/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • Can't be mad at something that doesn't exist.
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #152 on: July 03, 2014, 11:02:54 PM »
Do most creationists base their claim of the age of the world on the Ussher chronology though?

skeptic54768, does your view that the world is 6,000-ish years old stem at all from that chronology, or is there another source?

I can't speak for all creation scientists, but the Bible does speak of people who are around. "Land of Nod" for example. Who knows how long they were around?

Certainly not "billions" of years though.
You just said "Who knows how long...", then said "Certainly not billions of years..."

Lets just assume that your creationists agree on max age 25,000 years. What about fossils? Radio metric dating? Expansion of the universe/ Size?
"God is just and fair"
*God kills 2.5 million of people he KNEW would turn out like this in the flood*
*Humanity turns bad again, when God knew it would*
We should feel guilty for this.

Offline skeptic54768

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2634
  • Darwins +52/-433
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #153 on: July 03, 2014, 11:31:51 PM »
Lets just assume that your creationists agree on max age 25,000 years. What about fossils? Radio metric dating? Expansion of the universe/ Size?

Fossils: Noah's flood.

Radio-metric dating: Too many assumptions to be reliable. I posted a link to AIG's "Problems with the dating methods." Perhaps you can google search. This is the kind of the stuff they don't teach you in science class.

Expansion of the universe: God created it in situ. I recently heard scientists are baffled by how fast the universe is expanding because it doesn't make sense in their calculations. So, they are obviously mistaken about something anyway.
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Offline Defiance

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 666
  • Darwins +26/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • Can't be mad at something that doesn't exist.
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #154 on: July 03, 2014, 11:34:27 PM »
Lets just assume that your creationists agree on max age 25,000 years. What about fossils? Radio metric dating? Expansion of the universe/ Size?

Fossils: Noah's flood.

Radio-metric dating: Too many assumptions to be reliable. I posted a link to AIG's "Problems with the dating methods." Perhaps you can google search. This is the kind of the stuff they don't teach you in science class.

Expansion of the universe: God created it in situ. I recently heard scientists are baffled by how fast the universe is expanding because it doesn't make sense in their calculations. So, they are obviously mistaken about something anyway.
Goodnight.

I'm gonna go throw up this bullshit before going to lay down. Talk in the morning.
"God is just and fair"
*God kills 2.5 million of people he KNEW would turn out like this in the flood*
*Humanity turns bad again, when God knew it would*
We should feel guilty for this.

Online Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12280
  • Darwins +272/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #155 on: July 04, 2014, 02:05:28 AM »
Fossils: Noah's flood.

That is conclusively refuted by the real patterns of fossils observed.

Radio-metric dating: Too many assumptions to be reliable. I posted a link to AIG's "Problems with the dating methods." Perhaps you can google search. This is the kind of the stuff they don't teach you in science class.

Yes, it assumes that radioactive decay of specific isotopes has been a constant throughout geological time.  In other words, that the laws of physics now are the same as in the past, at least with respect to radioisotope decay.

As for AIG's own attempts to refute radiometric dating by doing it improperly and then showing their results, that just demonstrates that if you don't know what you're doing, or if you deliberately do something wrong, then you won't get the results that that something is suppoesd to yield.

Case in point:  They sampled some fresh volcanic material from Mount St. Helens and ran it for Potassium-Argon dating.  But K-Ar dating doesn't work on samples so young, because Ar-40 decays far too slowly for meaningful amounts to be detected.  And that's just one of the mistakes they made.

The folks at AIG either don't know anything about radiometric dating, or they do and have deliberately fucked it up when they tried it.  If the former, then theirs are the last opinions we should be polling on whether radiometric dating is accurate.  If the latter, then the same holds true, as they're just outright lying.

Given the other material put out by AIG in the past, I'm leaning toward option #2.  Why do you think they're trustworthy, skep?

Expansion of the universe: God created it in situ.

Then it would not be expanding.  Unless the god in question wished to trick its creation into believing that the universe was older and expanded from a point.  The same is true for why a god would decide to add microwave background radiation to the cosmos.

I recently heard scientists are baffled by how fast the universe is expanding because it doesn't make sense in their calculations. So, they are obviously mistaken about something anyway.

Mistaken about something doesn't mean mistaken about everything.
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline Ron Jeremy

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 525
  • Darwins +60/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #156 on: July 04, 2014, 03:11:12 AM »
Do most creationists base their claim of the age of the world on the Ussher chronology though?

skeptic54768, does your view that the world is 6,000-ish years old stem at all from that chronology, or is there another source?

Certainly not "billions" of years though.

Why?
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - An example of a clearly demonstrably false biblical 'prophesy'.

The biblical myth of a 6000 year old Earth is proven false by the Gaia satellite directly measuring star age.

Online Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12280
  • Darwins +272/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #157 on: July 04, 2014, 07:40:56 AM »
Why?

Because that's an absurd amount of time for people to be around.  You quoted him out of his own context.
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4933
  • Darwins +563/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #158 on: July 04, 2014, 09:44:43 AM »
Fossils: Noah's flood.
Doesn't explain them at all - the patterns of fossil distribution are nothing like what we'd expect from a global, massive flood.  For that matter, there wouldn't many fossils left over from such an event; the physical remains of land animals would have been eaten, not left to become fossils.

Quote from: skeptic54768
Radio-metric dating: Too many assumptions to be reliable. I posted a link to AIG's "Problems with the dating methods." Perhaps you can google search. This is the kind of the stuff they don't teach you in science class.
And rightly so, because these so-called 'problems' are pretty much made up.  I looked at the AIG page you mentioned, and it's pretty much as I expected - they're things that will look reasonably convincing to non-scientists, people who don't understand how radiometric dating works in the first place, but there's nothing in there that actually causes problems for science.  I'll take each of their objections in turn and explain why they're flawed.

Objection 1:  Conditions at Time Zero - this is based on the idea that no humans were around when rocks were formed, and therefore scientists cannot know whether daughter isotopes were present alongside their parents or not, but all this is intended to do is cast doubt, not to actually point out real problems with the science.  It goes on to make the claim that newly-formed rocks have much more of the daughter isotopes in them than expected (which does happen part of the time; this is why scientists have to be very careful as to which rocks they pick).  However, all this proves is that the techniques used are not infallible and need additional refinement.  Indeed, that is the point of science - it is intended to find problems and correct them.  It concludes with more of the same obfuscation - "if recent lava flows of known age yield incorrect old potassium-argon ages due to the extra argon-40 that they inherited from the erupting volcanoes, then ancient lava flows of unknown ages could likewise have inherited extra argon-40 and yield excessively old ages".  Some of them, maybe.  But all of them?

And as additional obfuscation, they use dating done by ICR scientists - specifically, the ICR Grand Canyon Dating Project - which has been shown to be very problematic.  For example, the scientist who headed the project had previously 'dated' things by cherry-picking data that a different scientist had come up with.  If you massage data enough, you can make it say anything.

Objection 2:  No Contamination - this is actually a very short objection, approximately one paragraph.  Probably because scientists acknowledge that it is something they have to take into account.  However, it is not an 'assumption' as AIG claims.  Scientists undergo a lot of training to avoid contaminating samples, and to identify rocks that wouldn't have been thus contaminated.  Instead, AIG points to one example - very recent lava flows in New Zealand - which gave different ages depending on the dating method used.  However, the actual study performed was not to find the ages of these lava flows, but to test whether it was feasible to use radiometric dating on relatively recent geological formations.  In short, the fact that the ages didn't agree demonstrated that it was not feasible to use radiometric dating on recently-formed rock.

Objection 3:  Constant Decay Rate - this is the typical creationist objection to every form of radiometric dating, so I'm not surprised to see it here.  In essence, this objection boils down to "scientists haven't been testing decay rates for more than a hundred years, so how can they be so certain that they've always remained constant?"  It's true that scientists haven't been testing decay rates for especially long, but the salient point - that AIG would prefer people not pay attention to - is that they have never observed a shift in a decay rate.  Not once.  So it is not reasonable to conclude that this is a problem until we actually find evidence that decay rates do actually change.

AIG also claims that "new evidence" has been found which "can only be explained" by changing decay rates.  They pointed to a specific instance of crystals in New Mexico granite which had been dated to 1.5 billion years by uranium-lead dating, but only had allowed helium to leak for 6,000 years, and use this to claim that the rate of decay must have been 250,000 times greater than anticipated.  They failed to 'anticipate' a very serious problem with their idea, though - a rate of decay that high would have released so much energy that it would have been clearly noticeable, not to mention probably searing Earth clean of life.

In addition, a scientist affiliated with Old Earth Ministries, an old-earth creationist movement, critiques the flaws in RATE's measurements and assumptions here.  A couple of important things to note from it are that zircons apparently are more likely to diffuse helium at lower temperatures (which would explain why so much helium is still in the zircon crystals in New Mexico), and that other zircons found elsewhere in the world where the temperature remained low follow the expected diffusion pattern.  In short, AIG's conclusion that the decay rate must have changed is extremely suspect.

And that's pretty much that.  All three of AIG's objections are either known and accounted for by scientists, or based on false assumptions and bad research.

Quote from: skeptic54768
Expansion of the universe: God created it in situ. I recently heard scientists are baffled by how fast the universe is expanding because it doesn't make sense in their calculations. So, they are obviously mistaken about something anyway.
Are you intentionally trying to be dense here?  "God created it in situ" = "God made things so that the universe would look older than it was".  Which begs the question of why.  If you can't answer that question, you don't have any business proposing this to begin with; even if you can answer it, that doesn't get you out of the woods.

The reason scientists are 'baffled' is because it's difficult to figure stuff like this out until we have a working, solid theory that explains it.

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2720
  • Darwins +221/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburger™
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #159 on: July 07, 2014, 01:50:30 AM »
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD241.html

Varve deposits.


There's something very comforting about well versed creationists. They come with an implicit acknowledgement that if anything is found wrong in Genesis, that their faith would fall in a screaming heap. As my brother-in-law says "If you can't believe Genesis, then what can you believe?"
« Last Edit: July 07, 2014, 02:04:08 AM by Add Homonym »
Humans, in general, don't waste any opportunity to be unfathomably stupid - Dr Cynical.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12338
  • Darwins +677/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #160 on: July 07, 2014, 09:41:44 AM »
Did you know that a world famous creation scientist invented the MRI machine? Aren't you happy that "ignorant jackhole" did that for mankind?

meh.  If he hadn't, someone else would have.  Plus, just because a person has technical aptitude in one area does not mean they know squat in other areas nor does it mean they cannot believe ridiculous things.  He's still an ignorant jackhole when it comes to creationism.

As a mechanical engineer I know lots and lots about certain things.  I am quite ignorant about electricity, however.  What keeps me from being an ignorant jackhole is I refrain from shooting off my mouth about it. 

I notice that many creationists hold higher degrees in areas that have absolutely nothing to do with cosmology, biology or evolution.  Yet because they have a PhD at the end of their name they feel entitled to conflate their ignorant religious opinions with science.  This is what makes them jackholes.

I hope this helps.



I was browsing that wikipedia link and Lucy seems like an ape to me. How is that evidence of evolution?

Yes, well, we have already established you are completely unqualified to make that judgment.




I'm not sure I understand this........

If you are saying that my beliefs are wrong because they are old, ...

No, that is not what I said.  Not at all.  I did not say they were wrong because they are old.  I have no idea how you got that from my post.     

I said your wrong beliefs are wrong because there is demonstrable evidence to the contrary.  You believe things that were proven wrong centuries ago.  Your beliefs are nearly as outdated as believing in the four elements. 



How do they know a planet takes 5 million years to form if they aren't watching it for 5 million years?

Maybe you could, you know, look it up?  Preferably from a source that has actual information and not AiG.

Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline skeptic54768

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2634
  • Darwins +52/-433
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #161 on: July 08, 2014, 08:08:29 PM »
meh.  If he hadn't, someone else would have. 

That renders everyone useless, then.

"Eh Mozart wasn't that good. if it wasn't him, someone else would have wrote all that stuff."

Or a famous scientist you guys all like: "Eh, Einstein deserves no praise. if he hadn't did the stuff he did, someone else would have."

See?

I said your wrong beliefs are wrong because there is demonstrable evidence to the contrary.  You believe things that were proven wrong centuries ago.  Your beliefs are nearly as outdated as believing in the four elements. 

I haven't heard of this. Proof of my beliefs being proven wrong "centuries ago"?



Maybe you could, you know, look it up?  Preferably from a source that has actual information and not AiG.

The most they have is speculation and imagining. Some of the stuff makes sense, but you can not assume a planet forming will act the SAME WAY for 5 million years just because you observed it for a hundred years. To me, that is pure silliness. I don't know how someone can believe it with a straight face.
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Online Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12280
  • Darwins +272/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #162 on: July 08, 2014, 09:51:54 PM »
The most they have is speculation and imagining. Some of the stuff makes sense, but you can not assume a planet forming will act the SAME WAY for 5 million years just because you observed it for a hundred years. To me, that is pure silliness. I don't know how someone can believe it with a straight face.

Good thing nobody believes that.  If you were willing to put out any effort toward learning things, you'd be able to find what educated people do believe.

But then, you'd be faced with the dilemma of having to lie about them, instead of just being intentionally misinformed.
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline Defiance

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 666
  • Darwins +26/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • Can't be mad at something that doesn't exist.
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #163 on: July 08, 2014, 11:23:16 PM »
meh.  If he hadn't, someone else would have. 

That renders everyone useless, then.

"Eh Mozart wasn't that good. if it wasn't him, someone else would have wrote all that stuff."

Or a famous scientist you guys all like: "Eh, Einstein deserves no praise. if he hadn't did the stuff he did, someone else would have."

See?

I said your wrong beliefs are wrong because there is demonstrable evidence to the contrary.  You believe things that were proven wrong centuries ago.  Your beliefs are nearly as outdated as believing in the four elements. 

I haven't heard of this. Proof of my beliefs being proven wrong "centuries ago"?



Maybe you could, you know, look it up?  Preferably from a source that has actual information and not AiG.

The most they have is speculation and imagining. Some of the stuff makes sense, but you can not assume a planet forming will act the SAME WAY for 5 million years just because you observed it for a hundred years. To me, that is pure silliness. I don't know how someone can believe it with a straight face.
The most Christians have is fairy tales and imagining. Some of the bible fairy tales makes sense, but you can not assume your god was the only god AND the SAME GOD for eternity just because you believe it for 2000 years. To me, that is pure silliness. I don't know how someone can believe it with a straight face.
"God is just and fair"
*God kills 2.5 million of people he KNEW would turn out like this in the flood*
*Humanity turns bad again, when God knew it would*
We should feel guilty for this.

Offline skeptic54768

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2634
  • Darwins +52/-433
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #164 on: July 09, 2014, 12:37:27 AM »

The most Christians have is fairy tales and imagining. Some of the bible fairy tales makes sense, but you can not assume your god was the only god AND the SAME GOD for eternity just because you believe it for 2000 years. To me, that is pure silliness. I don't know how someone can believe it with a straight face.

Tu quoque fallacy, again? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

Why do a bunch of you guys use Tu Quoque so much?

All your argument proves is that we BOTH have beliefs and imagining. It does nothing to bolster your position of NOT having beliefs nor mere imagination.
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Offline skeptic54768

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2634
  • Darwins +52/-433
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #165 on: July 09, 2014, 12:57:08 AM »
Good thing nobody believes that.  If you were willing to put out any effort toward learning things, you'd be able to find what educated people do believe.

But then, you'd be faced with the dilemma of having to lie about them, instead of just being intentionally misinformed.

I do believe I know what the "educated" people do believe, which is actually kind of misleading because the "educated" is defined by the atheists as "people who support godless evolution." So already, they have discretely defined creationists out of being considered "educated."
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Jesus (said 2,000 years ago and still true today.)

Online Mrjason

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1280
  • Darwins +92/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #166 on: July 09, 2014, 06:42:34 AM »
Good thing nobody believes that.  If you were willing to put out any effort toward learning things, you'd be able to find what educated people do believe.

But then, you'd be faced with the dilemma of having to lie about them, instead of just being intentionally misinformed.

I do believe I know what the "educated" people do believe, which is actually kind of misleading because the "educated" is defined by the atheists as "people who support godless evolution." So already, they have discretely defined creationists out of being considered "educated."

You seem to forget that most of the people here did at one time believe in a deity but upon furthering their education found that belief in a deity was not consistant with what the evidence lead to

Online Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12280
  • Darwins +272/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #167 on: July 09, 2014, 08:25:13 AM »
I do believe I know what the "educated" people do believe, which is actually kind of misleading because the "educated" is defined by the atheists as "people who support godless evolution." So already, they have discretely defined creationists out of being considered "educated."

See, you're lying already.  Head start!
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4933
  • Darwins +563/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #168 on: July 09, 2014, 09:01:22 AM »
Tu quoque fallacy, again? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

Why do a bunch of you guys use Tu Quoque so much?
Tu quoque is when someone argues that a position is unsound because the person holds it inconsistently.  Defiance isn't arguing that.  He's arguing that the position itself is inconsistent, whatever the believers might think.

Quote from: skeptic54768
All your argument proves is that we BOTH have beliefs and imagining. It does nothing to bolster your position of NOT having beliefs nor mere imagination.
And this is irrelevant, as well as being possibly nonsensical.  What does being an atheist have to do with not having beliefs or imagination?  Atheism is nothing but the lack of belief in gods.  Why would you even try to argue that atheists didn't have beliefs or imaginations based on that?

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4933
  • Darwins +563/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #169 on: July 09, 2014, 09:07:16 AM »
I do believe I know what the "educated" people do believe, which is actually kind of misleading because the "educated" is defined by the atheists as "people who support godless evolution." So already, they have discretely defined creationists out of being considered "educated."
Care to provide some support for the assertion that atheists define "the educated" as "people who support godless evolution"?  I'm willing to bet that you can't (because it's an ad hominem you came up with), and that this is therefore another of your baseless assertions.  I'm pretty sure that atheists define "the educated" as being people who a high school education or better.

Offline Jag

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1786
  • Darwins +191/-7
  • Gender: Female
  • Official WWGHA Harpy, Ex-rosary squad
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #170 on: July 09, 2014, 09:23:13 AM »


I do believe I know what the "educated" people do believe
What makes you think so?

Quote
, which is actually kind of misleading because the "educated" is defined by the atheists
Do you think that atheists have a special dictionary than isn't available to theists?

Quote
as "people who support godless evolution."
Really? You think this is the definition of "educated" as understood by atheists? It all hinges on one's understanding of evolution? That's some f-ed up criteria there skepdude..... and made up in your own head, BTW.

Quote
So already, they have discretely defined creationists out of being considered "educated."

Oh, now I get it. No skep, that's not the sticking point. The sticking point is that creationists refuse to formulate an actual working hypothesis and follow up with actual experiments to determine if their hypothesis is valid. This has been explained to you at least dozens, if not hundreds of times already. I can only conclude that you are holding on to your ignorant position out of a desire to continue trolling for the attention you so desperately crave.

You might be happier with a dog than with us.

edit: formatting
"It's hard to, but I'm starting to believe some of you actually believe these things.  That is completely beyond my ability to understand if that is really the case, but things never cease to amaze me."

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12338
  • Darwins +677/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #171 on: July 09, 2014, 11:37:56 AM »
That renders everyone useless, then.

"Eh Mozart wasn't that good. if it wasn't him, someone else would have wrote all that stuff."

So MRI-guy is on par with Mozart?  A more or less inevitable technological innovation is the same as Symphony 25 in G minor? Riiiight. 

Or a famous scientist you guys all like: "Eh, Einstein deserves no praise. if he hadn't did the stuff he did, someone else would have."

That is mostly true - someone else would have figued it out eventually.  But I think that also misses the thread of the conversation. You tried to put famous guy forward as a non-jackhole.  But he's a jackhole.  And his invention of the MRI does not change that. He is not indespensible to science or technology, and his discovery was in spite of, not due to, his creationism. 


I haven't heard of this. Proof of my beliefs being proven wrong "centuries ago"?

geologically, the basic concept was introduced in the mid 17th century
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-science-figured-out-the-age-of-the-earth/
It also shows you cling to a belief that was formulated in 1654 and refuse to update based on better data.

Shortly after the American Revolution, a guy named John Phillips estimated the age of the earth to be about 16,000 times older than Bishop Usher's estimation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth#Development_of_modern_geologic_concepts

pretty much every "naturalist" of the 18th century is ahead of you.

This woman too, over 100 years ago:
http://cosmology.carnegiescience.edu/timeline/1912



The most they have is speculation and imagining. Some of the stuff makes sense, but you can not assume a planet forming will act the SAME WAY for 5 million years just because you observed it for a hundred years. To me, that is pure silliness. I don't know how someone can believe it with a straight face.

So in other words, you didn't bother to look it up because you prefer your iron age science.  What bugs me most about you is not your abject and complete ignorance.  It is your stubborn determination to stay that way. 

I suppose ignorance is the best way to maintain your faith. 

Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline wow

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 56
  • Darwins +24/-0
  • Gender: Female
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #172 on: July 09, 2014, 12:28:33 PM »
Lets just assume that your creationists agree on max age 25,000 years. What about fossils? Radio metric dating? Expansion of the universe/ Size?

Fossils: Noah's flood.

Radio-metric dating: Too many assumptions to be reliable. I posted a link to AIG's "Problems with the dating methods." Perhaps you can google search. This is the kind of the stuff they don't teach you in science class.

Expansion of the universe: God created it in situ. I recently heard scientists are baffled by how fast the universe is expanding because it doesn't make sense in their calculations. So, they are obviously mistaken about something anyway.

Skeptic, have you read my post where I explain why the link and research you provided with respect to the radio-metric dating scheme is not reliable? The reason why they don't teach this in science class is because this is the textbook example of how not to do research. I hope you understand that. The research itself was discredited by the researches itself by admitting that they used the wrong model on the wrong data/sample, which makes conclusions drawn from it likely invalid.

As for your note on the expansion of the universe and scientists being baffled by how fast the universe is expanding. Could you perhaps please provide a link of where you've read this? I think that you are probably a little bit confused with respect to the matter here, but please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong :). I think you are referring to the growth spurt scientist call inflation right after the BB. Einstein's special relativity theory states that no object in space can travel faster than light. While special relativity constrains objects in the universe from moving faster than the speed of light with respect to each other, it places no theoretical constraint on changes to the scale of space itself, i.e. no contradictions. It is thus possible for two objects to be stationary or moving at speeds below that of light, and yet to become separated in space by more than the distance light could have travelled.

"To better visualize the theory, astronomers often illustrate the expanding universe as a loaf of raisin bread rising in the oven. The raisins are galaxies and the rising dough represents space-time. As the dough expands, the raisin galaxies find themselves farther apart from each other, even though they are not moving relative to the dough between them. Now let’s imagining that there’s a beetle in the loaf and it starts crawling toward a faraway raisin. The beetle represents anything within space, such as baseballs, spaceships or photons. When the beetle burrows through the bread, he is moving relative to the dough, and all the other raisins. The speed of light limits how fast the beetle can travel, but not how quickly the bread can rise. So, while the speed of light remains an unbreakable barrier for those of us within the universe, it can’t limit the expansion of space-time itself.". Reference of this example: http://scienceline.org/2007/07/ask-romero-speedoflight/

meh.  If he hadn't, someone else would have. 

That renders everyone useless, then.

"Eh Mozart wasn't that good. if it wasn't him, someone else would have wrote all that stuff."

Or a famous scientist you guys all like: "Eh, Einstein deserves no praise. if he hadn't did the stuff he did, someone else would have."

See?

I said your wrong beliefs are wrong because there is demonstrable evidence to the contrary.  You believe things that were proven wrong centuries ago.  Your beliefs are nearly as outdated as believing in the four elements. 

I haven't heard of this. Proof of my beliefs being proven wrong "centuries ago"?



Maybe you could, you know, look it up?  Preferably from a source that has actual information and not AiG.

The most they have is speculation and imagining. Some of the stuff makes sense, but you can not assume a planet forming will act the SAME WAY for 5 million years just because you observed it for a hundred years. To me, that is pure silliness. I don't know how someone can believe it with a straight face.

With respect to this I would like to say the following. According to the bible/creationists/supporters/whatever you wish to call them, earth/the universe must be between 4000-6000 years old. Now, I already mentioned this in my previous post. You  mention speculation and imagining. We now have GPS to observe the earth, which leaves speculation out of the question. The GPS has indeed shown that earth plates move now with roughly 2 cm in 4 years. I already stated that the seperation of the continents alone would take >6000 years. Well, your argument so far is that we can't know what we can't observe. Let's look at the bible for now. Does the bible have a reference of the continents being 'one' once?

Genesis 1:9-10 states: “Then God said, ‘Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear;’ and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas.”

It could thus be argued that there is Biblical support for dry land being 'one place' once.

What biblical reference could there be for the division of the 'dry land'? Let's say you would argue that the rate at which we see continents drifting nowadays does not account for extreme geological catastrophic events on a huge scale. I will give you the benefit of the doubt then :). So suppose we assume that this could be the reason for the split up, is there any biblical reference for it? Of course the flood model and apologetics suggest that this also includes heavy volcanic erruption (which could have accelerated the rate at which continents spread) due to the following verse: “all the fountains of the great deep were broken up” (7:11). They suggest that the force and magnitude of the Global Flood, coupled with the ensuing volcanic and geologically cataclysmic activity, would certainly supply adequate causes for accelerated rates of continental drift. (Reference: http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=1729).

Now, here's my problem with this. I will not give you the argument, 'who says that what's in the bible is also true then', because I feel I will not be able to discuss with you at all, as I know that to you, the bible is true, and there stops any ground for discussion, because I do not hold it to be true. Therefore, I would like to point you to the following.

"Using the Bible, well-documented historical events, and some math, we find that the flood began approximately 4,359 years ago in the year 1656 AM or 2348 BC". (reference: https://answersingenesis.org/bible-timeline/timeline-for-the-flood/). Now, what are some of the claims of the flood?
1) Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made
2) The waters flooded the earth for a hundred and fifty days.

Let’s first start with Genesis 1:1, where it says that God created the heavens and the earth and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. I.e. the amount of water created or existing was mentioned right there and there is no biblical reference for assuming that the amount back then is different from the amount now. God has not mentioned anything with respect to the amount being more/less, apart from there being division with respect to water. Also, if it mentions rain as its tool for flooding, implicitly we can assume your god created the ‘atmosphere’ as well, otherwise rain could not fall.

So, how much water is there on earth? We can find that here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_distribution_on_Earth. Note that this is not speculation and imagining as the calculations are actually confirmed.[1]

It is obvious that most of Earth's water is in the oceans, so let's look at rain. Rain is atmospheric water condensing and falling. The atmosphere contains about 13,000 km3 of water. If all of this water were to rain out of the atmosphere at the same time, it amount to about 2.5 cm of rain planetwide, i.e. one inch. If we were to look at the rate at which the rain fell? We all know that rain comes from clouds. The distance from the clouds to the sky is around 8.8 km. Forty days times 24 hours per day is 960 hours. Divide 8,800 meters (8.86 km) by 960 and you find a rainfall rate of about 9 meters per hour. That's 28.8 feet per hour. Rain at that rate would sink any boat you could name. Looking at the measurements of Noah’s Ark, the Ark itself was 13.716 m high. The Ark would not stand a chance against rainfall of 9 meters per hour.

God talks about the face of the entire earth. Earth radius: 6378 km, this is generally accepted and measured. Earth surface area: 511,185,932 km2 (simple geometry).  Distance to the clouds is 8.86 km[2]., so the watervolume covering the earth’s surface would be 4,500,000,000 km3, which is 3 times the total amount of water in the earth’s oceans! This means the atmosphere around 1656 AM or 2348 BC would need to contain 346.154 times more water as it does today. Suppose it does, what happened to the rest of the water?

Even if this flood caused volcanoes and other geographical disasters, how is it possible that apologists say that the rate has increased over the entire earth, yet now suddenly it has decreased? If the earth is 6000 years old and around 1656 AM or 2348 BC the continents broke up, then by no means can de distance we observe nowadays by GPS be explained through the flood nor volcanic erruption. If this were true, given that the bible gives history of the earth, other floods would have to be occurred as well, as such an increase in rate would cause severe tsunami’s, even worse than the description of the flood, yet the bible mentions no other? By that time Noah was 600 years old, we find Genesis 9:29 it says "All the days of Noah were 950 years and he died.". He, others, and generations should not have survived if this increase of the plate movements was so sudden and so high, as to cause what we observe now today. Also, GPS recorded the continents 2cm in 4 years, roughly. What could account for a sudden decrease in this rate then, while apologist claim that there is an increase?

I have not used information you could accuse of being speculative or imagining. I have used simple arithmetic, geometry, and measured information to show you that, even as a believer, you should be more open to argumentation on other grounds. I could also argue differently with you, yet I am trying my best to stay within the context of the bible and using measurable and observable facts to demonstrate my point.
 
I would happily like to explain to you the claim with respect to planet formation. However, I am afraid my reply would not be of any value to you, since you do not support the scientific method behind it, given that it could not be observed nor measured for sure. If you are, however, open to the possibility, do let me know   :).




 1. There are satellites by NASA  (google: GRACE) which can penetrate through the deep surface of the earth on water monitoring, calculations using property of water and changes in mass account for such numbers.
 2.  (I use this as a boundary as in Genesis god separated the surface of the earth in this way, and any high mountain today, especially if argued that the earth is around 6000 years old would need to be around 8 km)
« Last Edit: July 09, 2014, 12:49:02 PM by wow »

Offline Ron Jeremy

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 525
  • Darwins +60/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #173 on: July 10, 2014, 12:47:28 AM »
So Skep, now we have proved that the bible and bishop Ussher are wrong with regards to Universe age, I'm looking forward to hearing your story about the Earth only being 24,000 years old. Where does this silly idea come from?!
Matthew 10:22 "and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - An example of a clearly demonstrably false biblical 'prophesy'.

The biblical myth of a 6000 year old Earth is proven false by the Gaia satellite directly measuring star age.