Creationist Lies
- Started
- Last post
- 827 Responses
- discipler0
subflux, what about the alleged Piltdown man tooth that turned out to be a 30 year old pig's tooth? What is your take on the positions put forth here:
- bruised_blood0
lowimpakt:
I'm sure the briefing went something like this:
'WHAT? 7 days? Are they having a fucking laugh? On that budget? What the fuck? Well... If I bodge Africa a bit and only create TWO sexes then maybe I can squeeze it.'
- ********0
Have you studied Radiometric Dating? Are you familiar with the rampant conjecture and inconsistencies with it?
discipler
(Jun 14 05, 07:28)You're having a tough time with these fella's. This isn't getting through to them. I'm not going to sit and go through this again but here.
Here is a link to Radiometric Dating: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rad…
There are those individuals that believe there are inconsistencies with this practice. Think of it as reasonable doubt. Would you convict someone if you had reasonable doubt that they were innocent? Same concept.
One reason I believe the Earth might be a h*ll of a lot younger than what some scientists believe. However, it very well could be very much older than 6K as well. As previously stated, I think there is an inbetween zone in terms of its timeframe.
- ********0
bruised_blood - thank you. I was laughing my a** off...only two sexes...haha!!!
- lowimpakt0
existentially speaking. does it matter how old the world is?
- mrdobolina0
from that genesis site, wtf.
- mattyd0
link??
- ********0
existentially speaking. does it matter how old the world is?
lowimpakt
(Jun 14 05, 07:50)no philosophy. science!
tee hee
- discipler0
not at all, lowimpakt. It's not even the issue with me.
- Mimio0
Jazx, you were a geology student and you think there's a possiblilty that the Earth is 10k years old? You think plants just rapidly decayed into oil? Or organic matter just hyper-petrified itself?
Seriously man, wtf?
- kelpie0
no discipler I am not a christian, but more power to you for your faith, I've always admired it in a way.
Please though, would you stop trying to make me and others out as worshipping Darwin as some kind of Icon? Personaly my beliefs are open to change because they are not beliefs in the sense that yours are, and I am not worried about that. The evolutionary process (which we may never undertand fully) is undoubtedly different from Darwins early theories in key or subtle ways - that doesn't mean the whole principle is incorrect and even if this was the case that alone wouldn't prove your views. You are entitled to those views though, so fair play and that's my last post here.
bye again xx :)
- ********0
Thanks mrdobolinda, exactly. Bad science all over that page. Like this for example:
"As just one of hundreds of examples, consider the tides that the moon causes on earth. If the moon was closer to the earth, tides would be greatly increased. Ocean waves could sweep across the continents. The seas themselves might heat to the boiling point from the resulting friction. On the other hand, a more distant moon would reduce the tides. Marine life would be endangered by the resulting preponderance of stagnant water! Mankind would also b e in trouble because the oxygen in the air we breathe is replenished by marine plants. We can conclude that the moon is in the "correct" position for man's well-being. Even such details as the mass of protons and the strength of gravity have values that give stability to the universe and thus reinforce the Anthropic Principle."
The moon isn't in the "correct" position. It is in "a" position. Hate to tell you the moon WAS closer to the earth in the past, and every year is moving farther and farther away by what I think is a half or full inch.
Better enjoy those tides kiddies..
- discipler0
Mimio, a worldwide deluge could have caused rapid fossilization.
- ********0
And again, getting back to "searching the facts with an end in mind", from that very page on Disciplers favorite website:
"Whether describing tides, proton mass, or the earth's position in the solar system, is not a grand design present from the very beginning?"
If that's not beginning an investigation with an end in mind ('obviously the work of intelligent desgin') than I don't know what is. It'slike doing a murder investigaion saying "Well we know so-and-so did it...we just have to corroborate it..."
- discipler0
No, Tick, it's about observing the harmony of nature and it's complexity and concluding from THAT, that there must be a creator. Consider the tilt of the earth, the precise distance from the sun, etc... etc... and how, if these things were slightly off, the earth could not support life.
- subflux0
My reflex answer is that man is fallible :-)
I did read the Carbon dating article, well written, but wrong and very close to pseudoscience. It misrepresents that accuracy of decay measurement substancially. Most of the attacks on 14C dating are in two categories: we can't accurately measure decay or that decay is variable. With the latter, the fundamental structure of the universe would be flawed and the sun would burn incosistently, matter would change state anomolously, gravity would be in flux etc. The former is really just an attack on the methodology, which is sound. I'm a lot softer on evolution than I am on the fundamental quantum physics on which 14C dating is based.
Research is good, but you have to follow the logic as well. If C14 decay isn't constant we're all in trouble (unstable physics wise). I think you can argue what the dates mean, but it's hard to rationally argue the dates.
-------------------
Enter response:subflux, what about the alleged Piltdown man tooth that turned out to be a 30 year old pig's tooth? What is your take on the positions put forth here:www.answersingenesis.o...
discipler
(Jun 14 05, 07:41)
- ********0
You're funny discipler. You make me laugh.
- discipler0
I try.
- ********0
Jazx, you were a geology student and you think there's a possiblilty that the Earth is 10k years old? You think plants just rapidly decayed into oil? Or organic matter just hyper-petrified itself?
Seriously man, wtf?
Mimio
(Jun 14 05, 07:52)You're not reading into my posts or all of my posts, Mimio. Never did I say that. I said there is probably an in-between area. This place is so quick to jump down people's throats for having opposing viewpoints. I don't like it so let discipler have his say. It's his opinion whether I agree with it or not.
I wasn't specifically a Geology student either. Just took classes in that and Civil Engineering. Similar study in a lot of respects.
Are you referring to coal seams or anticlinal oil/natural gas deposits? Those are two different things. Hyper-petrified? You're confusing things a bit.
- ********0
You verily succeed.
The point is it's not even that we disagree on the facts that you present. I posit that your argument is flawed form the get go, and of course you heartily disagree.
It's not that I discount a role a creator might or might not have in the formation of the universe - that's an open ended question - I disagree that anything in the Bible represents a literal explanation for the formation of the observable universe.
Such belief is a matter of faith, period.
Since we disagree on such a fundamental point to this argument it's useless.
It's a misreading and misues of a text that has far better uses. But that's myopinion...
I finally retire form this argument because it's a pure waste of my time.
I actually find the narrative as suggested by science to be spiritually deeper and more instructive than the narrow one found in the Bible which is essentially the specific story of a specific group of people on the face of the earth. There are many more stories such as these by many other peoples.