Author Topic: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...  (Read 8336 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2756
  • Darwins +222/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburger™
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #174 on: July 10, 2014, 05:35:44 AM »
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?

You do know about "the deep" don't you?  I think even the Russell Crowe movie has it. I'm not sure if I should debase myself by downloading it.
Humans, in general, don't waste any opportunity to be unfathomably stupid - Dr Cynical.

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1567
  • Darwins +105/-12
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #175 on: July 10, 2014, 06:24:09 AM »
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?

....but it was all done by magic....the water appeared by magic and disappeared by magic...

...ignore the concept of the universe as water too, the biblical writers didn't really mean it. They really knew the universe was like we know it to be today....

....ignore that Yahweh promised to Noah not to cause another flood.....then in Exodus Yahweh causes another flood - greater than any since the beginning of the foundation of the earth-....the bible doesn't really contain these contradictions....because it is magic....goddidit....
The Foxy Freedom antitheist website is http://the6antitheist6guide6.blogspot.co.uk

The 2nd edition of the free ebook Devil or Delusion ? The danger of Christianity to Democracy Freedom and Science.       http://t.co/2d1KcJ9V

Offline wow

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 72
  • Darwins +36/-0
  • Gender: Female
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #176 on: July 10, 2014, 07:24:30 AM »
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?

You do know about "the deep" don't you?  I think even the Russell Crowe movie has it. I'm not sure if I should debase myself by downloading it.

Thanks, that's a good point!  8)

I know about "the deep" but it is exactly that concept, which I have a problem with, if you read chapter 7 of Genesis carefully (in this post I use KJV). By the way, I took my reference for "the deep" in relation to this post and the apologetic understanding from: https://answersingenesis.org/home/area/tools/flood-waters.asp.

If you read carefully as to what god says he will do to wipe off every living creature: "For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth." I.e. God, himself, says he will cause every living substance to be destroyed from the face of the earth through rain for 40 days and 40 nights.

Now, "And Noah was six hundred years old when the flood of waters was upon the earth.". Here still no mention of "the deep", so this is in accordanc with god his own word, that he will flood the earth with water through the form of rain.

What's interesting is to see when and how "the deep" is mentioned: "In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights."

The windows of heaven opening and 'causing' rain for 40 days and 40 nights is in accordance with God's word. Yet, the 'flood' from "the deep"? No where in god's instruction to Noah did he say he would cause tsunami's/erruption or something.

Also, what some fail to see, is that if they accept this verse to point to another cause of the flood waters, this is in direct contradicton with god's instruction to Noah. No 'rain' can come upon  the earth if it comes from the earth itself. Also, this would not be called rain then, and the bible was very capable of differentiating between 'rain' from the sky and water pouring over land in another form. Here are some references of 'rain' in the bible and what it means in that context. The Hebrew word for it is 'geshem' and if we look closely it's context is always in relation to the 'sky'. Reference: http://biblehub.com/text/genesis/8-2.htm, http://biblehub.com/text/isaiah/55-10.htm, http://biblehub.com/text/ezekiel/1-28.htm, http://biblehub.com/text/ezekiel/34-26.htm, amongst others). Generally it is a form of 'geshem' which comes down.

Suppose we take the verse of "the deep" to be the meaning of what god actually meant to say. This would first of all be very unlikely because if god felt needed to give instructions to Noah and prepare him for what he was about to do. If he could give detailed instructions about how the Arc should be build, would he not be more precise to tell him what he actually meant with 'rain', and that it could also come from "the deep" bursting open, causing tsunami's/erruptions for example?

But suppose we do take that perhaps god was sleepy and forgot to mention that and the flood was not only due to rain but also due to "the fountains of the great deep broke open", and caused for extra flood water, which was not present at the atmosphere. For example some water reservoir beneath the earth mantle, which bursts open causing a huge flood. I quote from the apologetic website[1] (see reference above):

"So it is quite plausible that these fountains of the great deep involved a series of volcanic eruptions with prodigious amounts of water bursting up through the ground. It is interesting that up to 70 percent or more of what comes out of volcanoes today is water, often in the form of steam.

In their catastrophic plate tectonics model for the flood, Austin et al. have proposed that at the onset of the flood, the ocean floor rapidly lifted up to 6,500 feet (2,000 meters) due to an increase in temperature as horizontal movement of the tectonic plates accelerated.3 This would spill the seawater onto the land and cause massive flooding—perhaps what is aptly described as the breaking up of the “fountains of the great deep.”

During the Flood, the world was deluged in 40 days of rain. But this was not the major source of the Flood waters.
"

This is why I did not pay attention to the flood waters being prominently caused by "the great deep" because that is definately not how god instructed it, it is in fact quite in contradiction with god's own instruction, especially since the bible has a perfect narrowed down context and interpretation of rain.

I am very glad that you do mention it though because, even if this "deep" was the major cause of flood waters, where did that water go? Their answer: "The mountains rose, the valleys sank down to the place that you appointed for them (Psalm 104:8)."
Accordingly, they state: "The mountains rose up and the Flood waters went down where the ocean basins formed. Even evolutionists talk about the mountains being raised up like this, but they believe it happened over a long, long time. We believe that God did it very quickly at the end of the Flood. (By the way, that’s why we find so many sea fossils near the top of mountains. Makes sense, doesn’t it?) So, where is the water? I believe it is all still here." Reference: https://answersingenesis.org/kids/noahs-ark/where-did-all-the-water-go-after-the-flood/

If I give them the benefit of the doubt, I again return to my initial point. Even if most of the water is still here, and the main flood source was the water from the "great deep", then all the water in the "deep" fountains which broke upon is now on the face of the earth. If most of the water on the surface of the earth nowadays (roughly said), was once in the earth's mantle (note, I am not saying that this is impossible), and mountains started moving, you automatically end up in a model which needs plate tectonics to move. "The mountains rose up", this needs plate movement. God did not supernaturally do this, he just "appointed the place". Just like he did not supernaturally wanted to wipe off every living creature off the planet, but chose a 'natural' instrument to do this, i.e. he used rain. Or well, lol, that's what he thought he did. For those mountains to have moved up, land to have risen and ocean's to have deepened we need plate movements, and to see the distance of continents measured today to be compatible with this concept, the rate of plate movements must have been very high and there is a small chance generations would have survived, given the speed of movement apologists suggest.

Again, that was a good point, thanks for mentioning it! :)
 1. This is by the way the general shared view of many apologetic institutions, if you search different website, you see the same sort of argumentation based on this main central idea
« Last Edit: July 10, 2014, 07:40:20 AM by wow »

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12580
  • Darwins +703/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #177 on: July 10, 2014, 09:40:41 AM »
....but it was all done by magic....the water appeared by magic and disappeared by magic...

would that it were.  Here is the thing that absolutely kills me: I have never heard a creationist claim this.  I have only ever heard them try to explain the flood in strictly natural, scientific terms.  I have never seen a single one play their Get Out Of Jail Free card by appealing to miracles.  That would be the most sensible thing, to me. 

Instead, we get putrid rationalizations about water instantaneously carving the Grand Canyon, jets of water exploding upward from under the oceans, water retreating into subterranean caves and expanding the entire globe (thus explaining continental movement!), dinosaurs instantly fossilized in drowing positions and mammoths flash frozen in Siberia. 

So much stupid that could much more easily be replaced by the more concise and succinct stupid of "Miracle!"  I hypothesize it is their modern and post-Renaissance culture that demands they have good evidence and reason to believe things.  Yet they fail so hard...


Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

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

Offline wow

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 72
  • Darwins +36/-0
  • Gender: Female
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #178 on: July 10, 2014, 11:08:23 AM »
....but it was all done by magic....the water appeared by magic and disappeared by magic...

would that it were.  Here is the thing that absolutely kills me: I have never heard a creationist claim this.  I have only ever heard them try to explain the flood in strictly natural, scientific terms.  I have never seen a single one play their Get Out Of Jail Free card by appealing to miracles.  That would be the most sensible thing, to me. 

Instead, we get putrid rationalizations about water instantaneously carving the Grand Canyon, jets of water exploding upward from under the oceans, water retreating into subterranean caves and expanding the entire globe (thus explaining continental movement!), dinosaurs instantly fossilized in drowing positions and mammoths flash frozen in Siberia. 

So much stupid that could much more easily be replaced by the more concise and succinct stupid of "Miracle!"  I hypothesize it is their modern and post-Renaissance culture that demands they have good evidence and reason to believe things.  Yet they fail so hard...

Exactly! That's exactly my point and why I felt I had to write my previous 2 posts. If you argue with them outside the biblical context (i.e. you claim something, they refute it because the 'bible' says so and you ask for proof which does not come from the bible), then all you get is, "but the bible is in accordance with 'science'". As a matter of fact, the bible has foreknowledge. Yet, when now for example, you try to reason to them using science itself, they want to participate in the 'let's hop on the Christianity and Science go hand-in-hand bandwagon', yet only when science 'supports' their facts. Other science is easily dismissed. And on what grounds? Oh yeah, that bible again.


Offline skeptic54768

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2751
  • Darwins +53/-444
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #179 on: July 12, 2014, 09:32:48 PM »
....but it was all done by magic....the water appeared by magic and disappeared by magic...

would that it were.  Here is the thing that absolutely kills me: I have never heard a creationist claim this.  I have only ever heard them try to explain the flood in strictly natural, scientific terms.  I have never seen a single one play their Get Out Of Jail Free card by appealing to miracles.  That would be the most sensible thing, to me. 

Instead, we get putrid rationalizations about water instantaneously carving the Grand Canyon, jets of water exploding upward from under the oceans, water retreating into subterranean caves and expanding the entire globe (thus explaining continental movement!), dinosaurs instantly fossilized in drowing positions and mammoths flash frozen in Siberia. 

So much stupid that could much more easily be replaced by the more concise and succinct stupid of "Miracle!"  I hypothesize it is their modern and post-Renaissance culture that demands they have good evidence and reason to believe things.  Yet they fail so hard...

They found fossilized fish on top of Mt. Everest.
How did the fish get up there unless it was a global flood?

Unless you come up with something silly such as, "The mountains used to be underwater!"
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: 736
  • 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 #180 on: July 12, 2014, 09:42:24 PM »
Because plate techtonics.

You know how it works.  In the beginning, the mountain wasn't initially above water: a plate collided into another plate, causing a convergent boundry, and therefore,  making the massive mountain. The fossils formed on it while it was still under water, and when it converged with the asian plate, it basically took a ride to the top.
"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: 12466
  • Darwins +293/-32
  • Gender: Male
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #181 on: July 12, 2014, 09:46:38 PM »
They found fossilized fish on top of Mt. Everest.
How did the fish get up there unless it was a global flood?

If they got there via a global flood, then they would not have been fossilized.  And they would have long since been eroded and washed away, even by a young-Earth creationist timeframe.  Because they would have been on top of a mountain.  Tops of mountains aren't especially stable places for bones to lie.  They tend to get worn away.

The Himalayan mountain chain is up-thrust by the Indian sub-continent crashing into Asia.  This is something that can be observed year-by-year in real time, skep - it's an undeniably real event.  Prior to their collision, there would have been an expanse of oceanic plate between them, subducting under one or both continents, as is currently happening to the oceanic plate along the coast of (for example) western South America.

There are marine fossils on Mount Everest because the rocks have been up-thrust.  The deformation features of this up-thrusting is visible in the surface rocks of the mountain chain itself.

The Himalayas are actually the most dramatic and obvious example of continental collision visible in the present day.

Unless you come up with something silly such as, "The mountains used to be underwater!"

The rocks weren't part of mountains when they were underwater.  If you've chosen to deny the reality of crustal plate movement, then just say so.
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Offline Defiance

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 736
  • 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 #182 on: July 12, 2014, 09:50:09 PM »
Skep, PLEASE dont tell me you don't accept plate tectonics as facts.

"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: 2751
  • Darwins +53/-444
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #183 on: July 12, 2014, 10:13:44 PM »
Skep, PLEASE dont tell me you don't accept plate tectonics as facts.

I accept it. I'm just not sure if Pangaea was real. Dr. Kent Hovind had a lecture about that very subject.
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: 736
  • 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 #184 on: July 12, 2014, 10:28:51 PM »
Skep, PLEASE dont tell me you don't accept plate tectonics as facts.

I accept it. I'm just not sure if Pangaea was real. Dr. Kent Hovind had a lecture about that very subject.
Kent Hovind lectures about many things.

Pangaea happened, just as we all agree that the universe at one point converged into a single point, all the plates also converged at a single point (although a large landmass is hardly a little "point".)
"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 ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6631
  • Darwins +798/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • If you are religious, you are misconcepted
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #185 on: July 12, 2014, 10:52:05 PM »
....but it was all done by magic....the water appeared by magic and disappeared by magic...

would that it were.  Here is the thing that absolutely kills me: I have never heard a creationist claim this.  I have only ever heard them try to explain the flood in strictly natural, scientific terms.  I have never seen a single one play their Get Out Of Jail Free card by appealing to miracles.  That would be the most sensible thing, to me. 

Instead, we get putrid rationalizations about water instantaneously carving the Grand Canyon, jets of water exploding upward from under the oceans, water retreating into subterranean caves and expanding the entire globe (thus explaining continental movement!), dinosaurs instantly fossilized in drowing positions and mammoths flash frozen in Siberia. 

So much stupid that could much more easily be replaced by the more concise and succinct stupid of "Miracle!"  I hypothesize it is their modern and post-Renaissance culture that demands they have good evidence and reason to believe things.  Yet they fail so hard...

They found fossilized fish on top of Mt. Everest.
How did the fish get up there unless it was a global flood?

Unless you come up with something silly such as, "The mountains used to be underwater!"

Ah, the fish drowned too. Poor buggers.

I live in Montana. There are no fossilized fish anywhere around where I live. I live in a county twice the size of Rhode Island and as far as I know, there are no fossils anywhere around here. Which of course would include no fossilized fish.If there was a flood, we had fish too? And dinosaurs. What gives?

I sure hope it isn't because geology and paleontology are such complex subjects that you don't understand them. I'd hate to go without an oversimplified answer.
Jesus, the cracker flavored treat!

Online Ron Jeremy

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 560
  • Darwins +61/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #186 on: July 13, 2014, 03:40:04 AM »
Skep, why do you persist in the delusion of young Earth? Shall we take stock?

1. Gaia satellite with trigonometry proves the universe to be at least 24,000 years old
2. The only age the bible supports is creation in 4004BC. This has been dis-proven, only fools persist in this baseless myth now.
3. No biblical prophesy has ever unambiguously come true. But then you know that as you haven't been able to find one.

Your position is untenable. You are in the same boat as geo-centrics.
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 Emily

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5675
  • Darwins +50/-0
  • Gender: Female
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #187 on: July 13, 2014, 09:12:49 PM »
Skep, PLEASE dont tell me you don't accept plate tectonics as facts.

I accept it. I'm just not sure if Pangaea was real. Dr. Kent Hovind had a lecture about that very subject.

The thing about Kent Hovind is that 1) he's not a real doctor. he's as much of a Doctor as Dr. Dre is...  &) except Dr. Dre is much more entertaining. His "college" was about the size of a trailer park home. See, look. 2) He's not a geologist so he is very, very far from being an authority for talking about plate tectonics.
"Great moments are born from great opportunities." Herb Brooks

I edit a lot of my posts. The reason being it to add content or to correct grammar/wording. All edits to remove wording get a strike through through the wording.

Offline Boots

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1338
  • Darwins +100/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Living the Dream
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #188 on: July 14, 2014, 08:25:57 AM »
I live in Montana. There are no fossilized fish anywhere around where I live. I live in a county twice the size of Rhode Island and as far as I know, there are no fossils anywhere around here. Which of course would include no fossilized fish.If there was a flood, we had fish too? And dinosaurs. What gives?

I sure hope it isn't because geology and paleontology are such complex subjects that you don't understand them. I'd hate to go without an oversimplified answer.

But..bububut...absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence!!!!
It's one of the reasons I'm an atheist today.  I decided to take my religion seriously, and that's when it started to fall apart for me.
~jdawg70

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12580
  • Darwins +703/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #189 on: July 14, 2014, 09:13:37 AM »
They found fossilized fish on top of Mt. Everest.
How did the fish get up there unless it was a global flood?

Unless you come up with something silly such as, "The mountains used to be underwater!"

This completely proves my point.  You guys try to use terrible science to show your myths actually happened, rather than say "magic!" which would be so much easier for you.  That way you would not have to explain away all the contradictory evidence.

I accept it. I'm just not sure if Pangaea was real. Dr. Kent Hovind had a lecture about that very subject.

1. hovind isn't really a doctor,
2. his PhD is from a phoney baloney diploma mill in a strip mall,
3. his "phd" is not in geology, archaeology or anything that would grant him any kind of authority on plate techtonics.
4. I have a copy of his "dissertation" and I've read as much of it as I could stomach.  It would receive a failing grade as a high school research paper.

wise up, dude.  Your sources are unreliable (I'm being charitable).
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

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

Offline skeptic54768

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2751
  • Darwins +53/-444
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #190 on: July 14, 2014, 10:57:28 AM »
Yes, it does appear Dr. Hovind has been fudging things a bit. However, just because he is in jail for tax fraud doesn't automatically make his points invalid.

I see what you mean about his diploma being meaningless, but he has stated that it only takes "one proof" of a young Earth to discredit the "billions of years old" theory.

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 screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12580
  • Darwins +703/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #191 on: July 14, 2014, 11:08:15 AM »
However, just because he is in jail for tax fraud doesn't automatically make his points invalid.

While this is a hilariously true point, it was not one I raised as I did not want to open the door to accusations of ad hominem arguments.   All other points indicate that you should refrain from calling him "doctor".  In light of the fact you bring up, you might wish to call him "Inmate Hovind", or, as his roommate calls him, "Suzy".   Also, you should ignore everything he has to say about geology because he knows nothing about it. 

I see what you mean about his diploma being meaningless, but he has stated that it only takes "one proof" of a young Earth to discredit the "billions of years old" theory.

true, depending what is meant by "one proof".  So far, we've seen nothing from the YEC crowd that is credible.

Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

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

Offline skeptic54768

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2751
  • Darwins +53/-444
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #192 on: July 14, 2014, 11:12:06 AM »


true, depending what is meant by "one proof".  So far, we've seen nothing from the YEC crowd that is credible.

What about this?

http://www.trueorigin.org/helium02.asp
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 Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6778
  • Darwins +546/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #193 on: July 14, 2014, 12:03:15 PM »


true, depending what is meant by "one proof".  So far, we've seen nothing from the YEC crowd that is credible.

What about this?

http://www.trueorigin.org/helium02.asp
Skep, I don't for one moment suppose that you understand any of it. Basically they are saying that "God did magic. Sciencemen tell lie!"

You will see the date of the alleged "research" 2005/2006. I had an email correspondence with Dr Wile PhD who extracts money from "Answers in Genesis" and has publicly supported this stupid Zircon theory.

The guy has a genuine PhD in Nuclear Chemistry from a reputable US university but is otherwise quite deluded when it comes to applying his knowledge.

I read the paper mentioned in the link that showed that He4 traces from one specimen of Zircon indicated an age for the earth of 6,000 years.

I read it carefully and the background. It turns out that the original calculation was that the specimen was approx 1.5 billion years old, but then "an error was found" and this reduced it to 6,000 years.

The paper has two flaws:
1. it examines only one piece of zircon found (allegedly) at one site. An examination of all other zircon shows nothing like 6,000 years and shows "around 1.5 Billion years old".

2. For the decay of the He4 to indicate 6,000 years, the radio activity on earth would have been so huge that everything, yes, everything, would have been fried. (Including Noah - I did mention Noah, and he agreed.)

I put these points to Dr Wile PhD and he said:

1. He "preferred to believe" the single anomalous specimen than all the other 'normal' specimens.
2. He admitted that if the radiation decay were as shown, then radiation levels would have been fatal to all life (instantly) and "was working on this problem."
3. He tried to tell me that radio active decay is neither uniform nor linear. I pressed him on this and he admitted that although what he said was true, the variation over time is very, very slight: I pointed out that it appeared then, as if he had been trying to deceive me by suggesting a variation of about 200 billion times, when in fact it was nearer one millionth from normal.

Our email exchange ended at this point with his saying that he earned $200,000 for lecturing to fundamentalists on this matter (and in Kansas schools!) and also advising "Answers in Genesis."

You will not understand this skep, but in simple terms they are lying. They know they are wrong and they know why they are wrong, but the money means that they will not say that they are wrong.

Your Biblical Scientists are snake-oil salesmen, liars to a man and they are fooling people like you. They speak half-truths.

Shame on them, shame on you for not doing the work to see their deception.

(And they ask why real scientists will not take them seriously...)

Here's a link to Dr Jay Wile: http://www.drwile.com/jaycv.pdf

« Last Edit: July 14, 2014, 12:55:03 PM by Graybeard »
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12580
  • Darwins +703/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #194 on: July 14, 2014, 01:31:53 PM »
What about this?

http://www.trueorigin.org/helium02.asp

dunno.  When I click your link I get:
Quote
Network Error (tcp_error)

 
A communication error occurred: "" 
The Web Server may be down, too busy, or experiencing other problems preventing it from responding to requests. You may wish to try again at a later time. 

but, based on GB's post, the guy sounds like a con-man.  You do know that at least half the people involved in ID and YEC are grifters, charlatans and frauds, who are getting rich off of selling lies to honest (if misguided) rubes, right?   


Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

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

Offline SevenPatch

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 706
  • Darwins +108/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • A source will help me understand.
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #195 on: July 14, 2014, 04:14:53 PM »
What about this?

http://www.trueorigin.org/helium02.asp

dunno.  When I click your link I get:
Quote
Network Error (tcp_error)

 
A communication error occurred: "" 
The Web Server may be down, too busy, or experiencing other problems preventing it from responding to requests. You may wish to try again at a later time. 

but, based on GB's post, the guy sounds like a con-man.  You do know that at least half the people involved in ID and YEC are grifters, charlatans and frauds, who are getting rich off of selling lies to honest (if misguided) rubes, right?

The article from Henke is far more informative and interesting.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/helium/zircons.html

It seems that Humphreys has not addressed the issues raised regarding his research.
"Shut him up! We have a lot invested in this ride - SHUT HIM UP! Look at my furrows of worry! Look at my big bank account, and my family! This just HAS to be real!" - Bill Hicks

Online Ron Jeremy

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 560
  • Darwins +61/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #196 on: July 14, 2014, 04:19:50 PM »
Skep, the second part of my signature; what is it that you don't understand?
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 SevenPatch

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 706
  • Darwins +108/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • A source will help me understand.
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #197 on: July 14, 2014, 04:58:56 PM »
Skep, the second part of my signature; what is it that you don't understand?

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

I'm confused.  How exactly does star age prove that the Earth is more than 6000 years old?

Wouldn't star age only prove the age of the star and minimum age of the Universe which would not say any thing about the age of the Earth?

There seems to be a few Creationist camps. 

Old Earth Creationists are probably the most common who believe the Earth is as old as mainstream science has shown it to be, but obviously believe it was created.  This camp on occasion might say that the 6 days was some kind of allegory.  Obviously there are problems with the various claims made by this camp.

Young Earth Creationists are probably the easiest targets since their claims are easily debunked.  Interesting enough there seems to be different camps within this camp.

For instance Humphreys seems to think that the Universe is Old but the Earth is young.  Other YEC'ers fall under the young universe and young earth model.

Ice layering though easily debunks a young earth (less than 10,000 years old) as the oldest ice core taken dates back 700,000 years (or 160,000 years if you're extremely conservative in counting the layers). 

EDIT: Spelling.
« Last Edit: July 14, 2014, 05:36:14 PM by SevenPatch »
"Shut him up! We have a lot invested in this ride - SHUT HIM UP! Look at my furrows of worry! Look at my big bank account, and my family! This just HAS to be real!" - Bill Hicks

Online Ron Jeremy

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 560
  • Darwins +61/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #198 on: July 14, 2014, 05:52:30 PM »
My understanding of the creationist delusion is that they take a literal interpretation of Genesis;

Genesis 1

The Beginning
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.


The first line; the universe ('the heavens') were created at the same time as the Earth. Ergo, if the light from stars can be shown to be at least 24,000 years old; then so is the planet Earth.
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 wow

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 72
  • Darwins +36/-0
  • Gender: Female
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #199 on: July 14, 2014, 06:24:16 PM »
Yes, it does appear Dr. Hovind has been fudging things a bit. However, just because he is in jail for tax fraud doesn't automatically make his points invalid.

I see what you mean about his diploma being meaningless, but he has stated that it only takes "one proof" of a young Earth to discredit the "billions of years old" theory.

There is a huge difference between the mathematical proof of a statement vs. evidence for a theory. I suppose you are aiming at the last category?

I tried finding the paper in question, I would like to look into the details, model and data set up. I could not open the links posted so far, somehow my browser keeps yelling 'error' everytime I try. Could you perhaps provide me with a link to the paper? Thanks  :)

As for the rest, perhaps this could give you some food for thought? 

Do you accept that the speed of light in vacuum is 300,000 km/sec or thereabouts. If you don't, you should reconsider this because it has extremely strong evidence (in this case strong evidence for example obtained using lasers).

Do you agree that the earth's orbit is approximately 300,000,000 km in diameter. Again, if you don't, again perhaps you could reconsider that, here not only geometry can be used but also strong evidence is found for this (base of a triangle, and strong evidence using sattelites).

Do you accept that the space is Euclidean, i.e. that light travels in a more or less straight line (you can ignore the effects of general relativity/black holes). Again, if you don't, you could perhaps look up the strong evidence found for this as well relating it to simply for example the observation of shadows.

Now, using parallax and again some geometry (the diameter of the earth's orbit as a base), it can be shown that there are stars within our galaxy, which are more than 6,000 light years (this is a measure of distance) away from the earth. This does not show that the earth is more than 6000 years old, but it shows (because we see the light) that the star was there more than 6000 years ago (using our speed measure). And that shows that our galaxy is more than 6,000 years old.

The thing with strong evidence, is that it is exactly the kind of evidence you were hoping for the author of your quoted paper would provide you with, because that could actually support his claim. The downside of this for the author is that, strong evidence means that it has been observed repeatedly, and not by one scientist, but by many.

I see you refer to a lot of papers or websites from creationists/scientist. I used to be part of such a group as well. My reason for posting to you, is not necessarily to tell you not to read or quote them anymore, but to encourage you to put more thought into them. If religious people are using science as their defense/support/answer to questions they want to answer, then by using science, you should allow yourself to adapt to some aspects of a scientist's mindset; objective and critical. Otherwise it makes no sense to resort to science in the first place and read those websites and papers. It would be like quoting the bible to support a strong personal belief, while attaching no value to the book whatsoever (roughly said). If creationists and its audience value science enough to use it for their means/support of their views, then they should value science and its integrity as well, which inherently requires certain amount of critical thinking and minimization of bias.

Do your research and ask questions, even to those posting on those websites and to those writing those papers!

Good luck! :)

« Last Edit: July 14, 2014, 06:36:43 PM by wow »

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1567
  • Darwins +105/-12
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #200 on: July 14, 2014, 07:12:33 PM »
My understanding of the creationist delusion is that they take a literal interpretation of Genesis;

Genesis 1

The Beginning
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.


The first line; the universe ('the heavens') were created at the same time as the Earth. Ergo, if the light from stars can be shown to be at least 24,000 years old; then so is the planet Earth.

They begin by using a mistranslation and distort the primitive concept of nature in the narrative, to match their pseudo modern one. This is easier to do when the words are in English and look like modern concepts. The original text is incompatible with modern science. For example the first line actually says that everything was a chaos of water before Yahweh began the creation of heaven and earth. You read that correctly, Yahweh did not create the primal element of water according to the bible.
The Foxy Freedom antitheist website is http://the6antitheist6guide6.blogspot.co.uk

The 2nd edition of the free ebook Devil or Delusion ? The danger of Christianity to Democracy Freedom and Science.       http://t.co/2d1KcJ9V

Online Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12466
  • Darwins +293/-32
  • Gender: Male
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #201 on: July 14, 2014, 09:17:08 PM »
Yes, it does appear Dr. Hovind has been fudging things a bit.

Why might he be motivated to do this, eh?
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Offline skeptic54768

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2751
  • Darwins +53/-444
  • Gender: Male
  • Christianity is the most beautiful religion.
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Please cross The Pond, please cross The Pond...
« Reply #202 on: July 14, 2014, 11:32:23 PM »
Yes, it does appear Dr. Hovind has been fudging things a bit. However, just because he is in jail for tax fraud doesn't automatically make his points invalid.

I see what you mean about his diploma being meaningless, but he has stated that it only takes "one proof" of a young Earth to discredit the "billions of years old" theory.

There is a huge difference between the mathematical proof of a statement vs. evidence for a theory. I suppose you are aiming at the last category?

I tried finding the paper in question, I would like to look into the details, model and data set up. I could not open the links posted so far, somehow my browser keeps yelling 'error' everytime I try. Could you perhaps provide me with a link to the paper? Thanks  :)

As for the rest, perhaps this could give you some food for thought? 

Do you accept that the speed of light in vacuum is 300,000 km/sec or thereabouts. If you don't, you should reconsider this because it has extremely strong evidence (in this case strong evidence for example obtained using lasers).

Do you agree that the earth's orbit is approximately 300,000,000 km in diameter. Again, if you don't, again perhaps you could reconsider that, here not only geometry can be used but also strong evidence is found for this (base of a triangle, and strong evidence using sattelites).

Do you accept that the space is Euclidean, i.e. that light travels in a more or less straight line (you can ignore the effects of general relativity/black holes). Again, if you don't, you could perhaps look up the strong evidence found for this as well relating it to simply for example the observation of shadows.

Now, using parallax and again some geometry (the diameter of the earth's orbit as a base), it can be shown that there are stars within our galaxy, which are more than 6,000 light years (this is a measure of distance) away from the earth. This does not show that the earth is more than 6000 years old, but it shows (because we see the light) that the star was there more than 6000 years ago (using our speed measure). And that shows that our galaxy is more than 6,000 years old.

The thing with strong evidence, is that it is exactly the kind of evidence you were hoping for the author of your quoted paper would provide you with, because that could actually support his claim. The downside of this for the author is that, strong evidence means that it has been observed repeatedly, and not by one scientist, but by many.

I see you refer to a lot of papers or websites from creationists/scientist. I used to be part of such a group as well. My reason for posting to you, is not necessarily to tell you not to read or quote them anymore, but to encourage you to put more thought into them. If religious people are using science as their defense/support/answer to questions they want to answer, then by using science, you should allow yourself to adapt to some aspects of a scientist's mindset; objective and critical. Otherwise it makes no sense to resort to science in the first place and read those websites and papers. It would be like quoting the bible to support a strong personal belief, while attaching no value to the book whatsoever (roughly said). If creationists and its audience value science enough to use it for their means/support of their views, then they should value science and its integrity as well, which inherently requires certain amount of critical thinking and minimization of bias.

Do your research and ask questions, even to those posting on those websites and to those writing those papers!

Good luck! :)

I accept the speed of light. Although, I am not sure if it is truly constant over time. This is an assumption that has been made by scientists. Sure, it always goes the same speed when you measure it, but you can't just assume it always did that, especially in a world billions of years ago when no humans existed to measure the speed.

Remember that speed is a human concept relative to human perception.
Without human perception, it's impossible to describe what speed is. This is why we must keep an open mind.
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.)