Stellar formation is observed at various stages through observation. Their composition is verified through observation. Their age is modelled on basic physical forces. Their fusion processes are verified through the observation of fusion byproducts. The models are verified through further observations. That's not testing or experimenting to you?
Actually, the theory about stars "condensing" is far from perfect. link.
You just proved his point by citing that and you aren't even aware of it. Amazing.
Quote:
Actually, you have lots of problems if the sun is millions of years old, and especially if it's always been acting like it is now.
Quote:
Additionally, reference my statements about starlight and time.
So, do you just uncritically lap up any obviously wrong theory so long as it's promoted by a christian?
FUCK ME. THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION DOES NOT SAY THAT GOD DIDN'T DO IT.
Oh yeah "FIXEDYAPOST"
I think what you're missing here is that I WILL tell you that my position starts with faith and a materialist will [almost always] insist that his doesn't.
I WONT tell you that the 'problems' of starlight and KAr dating have been solved satisfactorily by Creationists for uniformatatians and materialists. At the same time I WONT sit there and try to build a absolute foundation on a swirling body of work that is constantly morphing its theories -- and nonsensically state that my faith isn't a blind leap on the currency of the human intellect alone.
I think what you're missing here is that I WILL tell you that my position starts with faith and a materialist will [almost always] insist that his doesn't.
I WONT tell you that the 'problems' of starlight and KAr dating have been solved satisfactorily by Creationists for uniformatatians and materialists. At the same time I WONT sit there and try to build a absolute foundation on a swirling body of work that is constantly morphing its theories -- and nonsensically state that my faith isn't a blind leap on the currency of the human intellect alone.
Except there is no problem of light from stars. There just isn't.
We can actually see stars being born, burning, and dying. We can accurately measure the speed of light. We can deduce how distant and old stars are and we can accurately measure the speed they're travelling through the cosmos. We have no reason at all to believe that our sun's a special case and that its history is somehow extraordinary and unique in the cosmos. Absolutely none at all.
And when you say that cosmology's 'constantly morphing its theories', this is actually one of the great strengths of the scientific method. We can change our suppositions and our solutions according to what we discover, and since we're discovering things all the time our solutions are constantly being refined.
I think what you're missing here is that I WILL tell you that my position starts with faith and a materialist will [almost always] insist that his doesn't.
I WONT tell you that the 'problems' of starlight and KAr dating have been solved satisfactorily by Creationists for uniformatatians and materialists. At the same time I WONT sit there and try to build a absolute foundation on a swirling body of work that is constantly morphing its theories -- and nonsensically state that my faith isn't a blind leap on the currency of the human intellect alone.
Good, perhaps we have a bit in common then, like when at the beginning of this thread, I said that "I can't promise that Evolution is exactly how we got here". That's Science, an observation of the natural world. It's never complete. However its a stretch and downright dishonest to say that is the reason it is wrong. It Doesn't specualate about God or spirituality. Just an explaination of the universe in repeatable naturalistic terms. If it provides facts that run in disagreement with your faith, then most likely, it is your interpretation of the faith that is wrong. Evolution doesn't say anything about God, but It does mean that your interpretation of a specific part is very very very unlikely.
You then have a choice, you can keep faith and disregard Science, or you can lose faith and try to find proof of the faith. Creationists have lost faith. An endless pursuit of trying to evident a non provable belief. It's impossible. If you need to find proof of faith, you lose. Truth and faith are not the same. Trying to find proof of faith is a guarantee that you never believed 100%..
I think Creationist spend far too long proving someones misconception of Science and what it is, wrong. All that time getting angry, frustrated, bothered, you've given yourself to Satan. This isn't the way of Christ. Look at all the lies Benzene has pushed (regardless of whether he is aware or not). Benzene lost faith and fell into Satan's trap. If God was willing, Benzene would have shut all of us up with 1 post, with nothing but undisputable truth. God doesn't think Creation theory needs to be proved, and that's why Benzene hasn't, and Satan has fooled him to thinking we are 'on the run'. Satan is making a fool of Benzene, and Benzene is making a fool of himself. The end result, more anger, frustration, more arrogance, pride, and eventually, he'll have to deny everything created by God, and deny God himself, to prove Creation was as per Genesis. Great, prove Creation, deny God, you lose. Satan wins.
Having faith would mean that you don't care if the facts contradict. Have faith, if your faith is true, you win. Come clean. Admit the theory is as correct as can be defined by Science, but that you have something more that can't be proven by science.
Science doesn't claim alot of things the average person thinks it does, but what it does claim, it claims for a reason, and that reason is because there is evidence of it.
You then have a choice, you can keep faith and disregard Science, or you can lose faith and try to find proof of the faith. Creationists have lost faith.
I'd like to add this, now that MarkUK's single-handedly done for Creationism.
It's a unique, defining human characteristic that we can ask ourselves who we are and how we got here. We've been doing it for 80,000 years at the very least and we've got very good at it indeed. Everywhere in the world we've stopped long enough to forget where our immediate ancestors physically came from we have another answer to fit the place we're in and the kind of people we've become.
I think that Creationism's, well, inhuman, frankly, because it seeks to put a stop to something we've been doing from the very moment we were capable, something that defines us as a species.
We keep on asking who we are and where we're from because that's what we do. The best explanation we have now is the one that gives us a better answer every time we ask it?and coincidentally that's the explanation that almost perfectly fits with the facts as we can actually see and measure them.
Creationism's an attack on the imagination, since the truth's so flabbergasting, and it's an attack on our humanity. I think I'd go as far as to say that, and I'm not picking a fight or using Internet Hyperbole. I've been wondering why it frustrates and sickens me so much, and I think that that's probably why.
Mark UK and Hassan i Sabbah, I understand your antipathy to binding God to a specific revelation -- thereby "shutting our eyes to science", and limiting man and his 'possibilities.'
But at the same time you say "we have no reason" to expect the conditions surrounding starlight to change. Are you vouching for the nature of the universe? Can you vouch for how it has been from the begining -- a beginning where the even the Big Bang theories tell us that the laws of physics HAD to break down?
I don't want to get into Benzene's critisisms, because I think if you try to prove Creation, you end up disproving Creation, just as when you try to prove the resurection, you end up disproving it as just another unrelated particular. Although I will say in the case of evolution, that I am dumfounded that those who rely so heavily on math and the facts it produces blithely shruging off the statistics when it comes to the possibilities that evolution could even occur -- there I see eyes wide shut.
In the end you either are sufficient to youself, or you're not. I haven't seen a post modern approach that I believe can account for the mind being able to recieve 'facts', so I don't see the point in pursuing a secular approach to reason -- and that is the true difference here. Neither of you can vouch for the nature of all things, simply because those issues are far from settled. You say that the fact that science is in flux (in a true pfflamesqe way) is it's strength -- and that the connected conciousness of man will 'save' you through allowing you to pursue 'reality' as you wish. I just don't see that you can account for the keys, lock, hinges and latches to open that reality -- if it exists at all. On the contrary, I see you enjoying a reality that only Christianity can account for, but trying to convince yourselves -- using tools you should not have -- that Christianity is the only possibility that can't be true.
This is the core of your error. You simply are not open to ANY other worldview other than one that by definition MUST excluded God -- and delcares revelation IMPOSSIBLE. Materialism is the only mechanism you will accept, even at the cost of insiting on uniformity over millions of years --even though you must speculate as to that possibility. You can even look at the structures and systems that surround you, but still insist that order is the child of chaos -- even though the world you see and test has none of those qualities.
This is your center -- ultimate contingency with the sufficiency of the human intellect.
Oh I'm open. As repeated once before it must be repeated again. Evidence. Evidence. Evidence. If you provide none, I have no reason to believe you.
If we've finally come to the point where belief in Creationism is all about faith. Then we can stop. But as far as science, its methods, and its theories, I can not abide by something that abandons its rules and reason. Creationism has no place in science classes. Creationists shouldn't be campaigning to teach creationism in science classes.
And you would know that these are all assuming the rates of movement of the stated plates have stayed the same. As for radiometric dating, same exact preconception. Even the calibration curves for radiometric dating fall back on a naturalisitic dating scheme. It's a nice little tautological package.
... Also, given the rates of mountain uplift, their suface formations would have eroded long ago. If you're trying to prove millions of years, you will construe the evidence to fit your model. An example of this would be varves, where it is assumed each change in striations corresponds to annual rings. This is erroneous, because research by Guy Berthault, and Pierre Julien at colorado state university has pointed out.
Btw, do you know about the fundamental problems about C14 dating past 50k years?
Why don't just you list every other Creationist talking point while you're at it. Can you present an even more stereotypical image of a Creationist.
Crustal movement is verified through various dating methods, radiometric dating methods among them. Dating methods using different isotopes are consistent. C-14 dating is only used to date objects less than 50k years. Mountains come and go due to Earth's dynamic geology, ie, plate tectonics and volcanism. Berthault has been repudiated by YECs let alone sedimentologists.
Quote:
Actually, the theory about stars "condensing" is far from perfect. link. Even so, there is nowhere in the bible that says this can't hapen. How exactly did you think that stars forming would support your position?
The link you give exactly supports my position. Evidence is gathered. Models are proposed. Further evidence is gathered.
Quote:
I'd start at the very beginning and explain the paradigms of both camps, and then present the interpretation of the evidence from both sides. Let the students decide.
So, you would have two interpretations for the evidence? That's really scientific. It's either A or not A, B or not B, ad infinitum. I'm still waiting on evidence for Creationism to even be presented. All Creationist talking points so far has been misrepresentations of science.
Quote:
Actually, as I pointed out, you can't do research on evolution. The best example any evolutionist has every presented is bacteria adapting to a new environement, and then they make the jump and say that proves that pond scum eventually would walk around on two legs.
Research on evolution is done every single day. Fossils are continually found. Animals are continually studied. Genetics are continually researched. Evolution is continually refined.
So the reason I didn't "win" in this supposed battle was because God didn't want me to.
Wow, that's...deep.
the reason you didn't 'win' if it was really a battle, is because you bought nothing new to the table that hasn't been heard a thousand times before, and proven wrong a million times.
I could argue Creationism more effectively than you, at least get a clue as to what creationists are saying this century.
And yes, If God wanted you to prove creation, you would have done it in your first post. Or do you now doubt Gods ability?
PS...and your definition of Information was a lame Cheap-shot. I expect you know that
It's not enough that the God of Israel's gone out of his way to conceal the evidence for His work as effectively as he possibly could have?if he can't make His supporters convincing with the power of His revelation up His sleeve I'm sticking to the evidence of my own eyes.
Actually, as I pointed out, you can't do research on evolution. The best example any evolutionist has every presented is bacteria adapting to a new environement, and then they make the jump and say that proves that pond scum eventually would walk around on two legs
Acctually, there are more examples now for observations of speciation. There is a documented case of some fish in a lake that got seperated - I forgot the details, but the point is that it's not just bacteria and virus evolution anymore.
Then again, I think it is wrong to disregard all the human selected "species" of animals and plants. These are all examples of selection resulting in a new group (species) that has changed genetically from its ancestors.
However, I guess all of the many examples i could give you wouldn't help with the "big" changes. I'm time constrained right now, but let me just say that statements like turning pond scum into bipeds work well to make it look like such complexity just can't be generated randomly. However, if you look at what has been learned about the many types of mechanism that exist at a genetic level to generate new proteins and, more strikingly, new morphologies, then the whole evolution thing becomes much more imaginable.
However, if you look at what has been learned about the many types of mechanism that exist at a genetic level to generate new proteins and, more strikingly, new morphologies, then the whole evolution thing becomes much more imaginable.
This is not true. You still are only seeing manipulation of existing DNA, lactose-tolerant bacteria substituting backup genes in 9 days, aside.
Doubtful. All you seem to be an expert on is that "sun god" nonsense you keep ranting about.
Have you convinced even one person on this board about it since you showed up here?
Thought so.
I don't know, I don't care, and I wasn't keeping count really, I wouldn't even consider myself an expert by any stretch of the imagination. But it would appear to be having an effect on you.
Comments
Originally posted by benzene
Quote:
Originally posted by THT
Stellar formation is observed at various stages through observation. Their composition is verified through observation. Their age is modelled on basic physical forces. Their fusion processes are verified through the observation of fusion byproducts. The models are verified through further observations. That's not testing or experimenting to you?
Actually, the theory about stars "condensing" is far from perfect. link.
You just proved his point by citing that and you aren't even aware of it. Amazing.
Actually, you have lots of problems if the sun is millions of years old, and especially if it's always been acting like it is now.
Additionally, reference my statements about starlight and time.
So, do you just uncritically lap up any obviously wrong theory so long as it's promoted by a christian?
Originally posted by MarcUK
FUCK ME. THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION DOES NOT SAY THAT GOD DIDN'T DO IT.
Oh yeah "FIXEDYAPOST"
I think what you're missing here is that I WILL tell you that my position starts with faith and a materialist will [almost always] insist that his doesn't.
I WONT tell you that the 'problems' of starlight and KAr dating have been solved satisfactorily by Creationists for uniformatatians and materialists. At the same time I WONT sit there and try to build a absolute foundation on a swirling body of work that is constantly morphing its theories -- and nonsensically state that my faith isn't a blind leap on the currency of the human intellect alone.
Originally posted by dmz
I think what you're missing here is that I WILL tell you that my position starts with faith and a materialist will [almost always] insist that his doesn't.
I WONT tell you that the 'problems' of starlight and KAr dating have been solved satisfactorily by Creationists for uniformatatians and materialists. At the same time I WONT sit there and try to build a absolute foundation on a swirling body of work that is constantly morphing its theories -- and nonsensically state that my faith isn't a blind leap on the currency of the human intellect alone.
Except there is no problem of light from stars. There just isn't.
We can actually see stars being born, burning, and dying. We can accurately measure the speed of light. We can deduce how distant and old stars are and we can accurately measure the speed they're travelling through the cosmos. We have no reason at all to believe that our sun's a special case and that its history is somehow extraordinary and unique in the cosmos. Absolutely none at all.
And when you say that cosmology's 'constantly morphing its theories', this is actually one of the great strengths of the scientific method. We can change our suppositions and our solutions according to what we discover, and since we're discovering things all the time our solutions are constantly being refined.
Originally posted by dmz
I think what you're missing here is that I WILL tell you that my position starts with faith and a materialist will [almost always] insist that his doesn't.
I WONT tell you that the 'problems' of starlight and KAr dating have been solved satisfactorily by Creationists for uniformatatians and materialists. At the same time I WONT sit there and try to build a absolute foundation on a swirling body of work that is constantly morphing its theories -- and nonsensically state that my faith isn't a blind leap on the currency of the human intellect alone.
Good, perhaps we have a bit in common then, like when at the beginning of this thread, I said that "I can't promise that Evolution is exactly how we got here". That's Science, an observation of the natural world. It's never complete. However its a stretch and downright dishonest to say that is the reason it is wrong. It Doesn't specualate about God or spirituality. Just an explaination of the universe in repeatable naturalistic terms. If it provides facts that run in disagreement with your faith, then most likely, it is your interpretation of the faith that is wrong. Evolution doesn't say anything about God, but It does mean that your interpretation of a specific part is very very very unlikely.
You then have a choice, you can keep faith and disregard Science, or you can lose faith and try to find proof of the faith. Creationists have lost faith. An endless pursuit of trying to evident a non provable belief. It's impossible. If you need to find proof of faith, you lose. Truth and faith are not the same. Trying to find proof of faith is a guarantee that you never believed 100%..
I think Creationist spend far too long proving someones misconception of Science and what it is, wrong. All that time getting angry, frustrated, bothered, you've given yourself to Satan. This isn't the way of Christ. Look at all the lies Benzene has pushed (regardless of whether he is aware or not). Benzene lost faith and fell into Satan's trap. If God was willing, Benzene would have shut all of us up with 1 post, with nothing but undisputable truth. God doesn't think Creation theory needs to be proved, and that's why Benzene hasn't, and Satan has fooled him to thinking we are 'on the run'. Satan is making a fool of Benzene, and Benzene is making a fool of himself. The end result, more anger, frustration, more arrogance, pride, and eventually, he'll have to deny everything created by God, and deny God himself, to prove Creation was as per Genesis. Great, prove Creation, deny God, you lose. Satan wins.
Having faith would mean that you don't care if the facts contradict. Have faith, if your faith is true, you win. Come clean. Admit the theory is as correct as can be defined by Science, but that you have something more that can't be proven by science.
Science doesn't claim alot of things the average person thinks it does, but what it does claim, it claims for a reason, and that reason is because there is evidence of it.
Originally posted by MarcUK
You then have a choice, you can keep faith and disregard Science, or you can lose faith and try to find proof of the faith. Creationists have lost faith.
Bam. End of thread.
It's a unique, defining human characteristic that we can ask ourselves who we are and how we got here. We've been doing it for 80,000 years at the very least and we've got very good at it indeed. Everywhere in the world we've stopped long enough to forget where our immediate ancestors physically came from we have another answer to fit the place we're in and the kind of people we've become.
I think that Creationism's, well, inhuman, frankly, because it seeks to put a stop to something we've been doing from the very moment we were capable, something that defines us as a species.
We keep on asking who we are and where we're from because that's what we do. The best explanation we have now is the one that gives us a better answer every time we ask it?and coincidentally that's the explanation that almost perfectly fits with the facts as we can actually see and measure them.
Creationism's an attack on the imagination, since the truth's so flabbergasting, and it's an attack on our humanity. I think I'd go as far as to say that, and I'm not picking a fight or using Internet Hyperbole. I've been wondering why it frustrates and sickens me so much, and I think that that's probably why.
But at the same time you say "we have no reason" to expect the conditions surrounding starlight to change. Are you vouching for the nature of the universe? Can you vouch for how it has been from the begining -- a beginning where the even the Big Bang theories tell us that the laws of physics HAD to break down?
I don't want to get into Benzene's critisisms, because I think if you try to prove Creation, you end up disproving Creation, just as when you try to prove the resurection, you end up disproving it as just another unrelated particular. Although I will say in the case of evolution, that I am dumfounded that those who rely so heavily on math and the facts it produces blithely shruging off the statistics when it comes to the possibilities that evolution could even occur -- there I see eyes wide shut.
In the end you either are sufficient to youself, or you're not. I haven't seen a post modern approach that I believe can account for the mind being able to recieve 'facts', so I don't see the point in pursuing a secular approach to reason -- and that is the true difference here. Neither of you can vouch for the nature of all things, simply because those issues are far from settled. You say that the fact that science is in flux (in a true pfflamesqe way) is it's strength -- and that the connected conciousness of man will 'save' you through allowing you to pursue 'reality' as you wish. I just don't see that you can account for the keys, lock, hinges and latches to open that reality -- if it exists at all. On the contrary, I see you enjoying a reality that only Christianity can account for, but trying to convince yourselves -- using tools you should not have -- that Christianity is the only possibility that can't be true.
I'll let you guys have it from here.
Found on iTunes
Originally posted by dmz
This is the core of your error. You simply are not open to ANY other worldview other than one that by definition MUST excluded God -- and delcares revelation IMPOSSIBLE. Materialism is the only mechanism you will accept, even at the cost of insiting on uniformity over millions of years --even though you must speculate as to that possibility. You can even look at the structures and systems that surround you, but still insist that order is the child of chaos -- even though the world you see and test has none of those qualities.
This is your center -- ultimate contingency with the sufficiency of the human intellect.
Oh I'm open. As repeated once before it must be repeated again. Evidence. Evidence. Evidence. If you provide none, I have no reason to believe you.
If we've finally come to the point where belief in Creationism is all about faith. Then we can stop. But as far as science, its methods, and its theories, I can not abide by something that abandons its rules and reason. Creationism has no place in science classes. Creationists shouldn't be campaigning to teach creationism in science classes.
Originally posted by benzene
And you would know that these are all assuming the rates of movement of the stated plates have stayed the same. As for radiometric dating, same exact preconception. Even the calibration curves for radiometric dating fall back on a naturalisitic dating scheme. It's a nice little tautological package.
... Also, given the rates of mountain uplift, their suface formations would have eroded long ago. If you're trying to prove millions of years, you will construe the evidence to fit your model. An example of this would be varves, where it is assumed each change in striations corresponds to annual rings. This is erroneous, because research by Guy Berthault, and Pierre Julien at colorado state university has pointed out.
Btw, do you know about the fundamental problems about C14 dating past 50k years?
link.
Why don't just you list every other Creationist talking point while you're at it. Can you present an even more stereotypical image of a Creationist.
Crustal movement is verified through various dating methods, radiometric dating methods among them. Dating methods using different isotopes are consistent. C-14 dating is only used to date objects less than 50k years. Mountains come and go due to Earth's dynamic geology, ie, plate tectonics and volcanism. Berthault has been repudiated by YECs let alone sedimentologists.
Actually, the theory about stars "condensing" is far from perfect. link. Even so, there is nowhere in the bible that says this can't hapen. How exactly did you think that stars forming would support your position?
The link you give exactly supports my position. Evidence is gathered. Models are proposed. Further evidence is gathered.
I'd start at the very beginning and explain the paradigms of both camps, and then present the interpretation of the evidence from both sides. Let the students decide.
So, you would have two interpretations for the evidence? That's really scientific. It's either A or not A, B or not B, ad infinitum. I'm still waiting on evidence for Creationism to even be presented. All Creationist talking points so far has been misrepresentations of science.
Actually, as I pointed out, you can't do research on evolution. The best example any evolutionist has every presented is bacteria adapting to a new environement, and then they make the jump and say that proves that pond scum eventually would walk around on two legs.
Research on evolution is done every single day. Fossils are continually found. Animals are continually studied. Genetics are continually researched. Evolution is continually refined.
Originally posted by MarcUK
If God was willing, Benzene would have shut all of us up with 1 post, with nothing but undisputable truth.
So the reason I didn't "win" in this supposed battle was because God didn't want me to.
Wow, that's...deep.
Originally posted by benzene
So the reason I didn't "win" in this supposed battle was because God didn't want me to.
Wow, that's...deep.
the reason you didn't 'win' if it was really a battle, is because you bought nothing new to the table that hasn't been heard a thousand times before, and proven wrong a million times.
I could argue Creationism more effectively than you, at least get a clue as to what creationists are saying this century.
And yes, If God wanted you to prove creation, you would have done it in your first post. Or do you now doubt Gods ability?
PS...and your definition of Information was a lame Cheap-shot. I expect you know that
It's not enough that the God of Israel's gone out of his way to conceal the evidence for His work as effectively as he possibly could have?if he can't make His supporters convincing with the power of His revelation up His sleeve I'm sticking to the evidence of my own eyes.
Originally posted by benzene
Actually, as I pointed out, you can't do research on evolution. The best example any evolutionist has every presented is bacteria adapting to a new environement, and then they make the jump and say that proves that pond scum eventually would walk around on two legs
Acctually, there are more examples now for observations of speciation. There is a documented case of some fish in a lake that got seperated - I forgot the details, but the point is that it's not just bacteria and virus evolution anymore.
Then again, I think it is wrong to disregard all the human selected "species" of animals and plants. These are all examples of selection resulting in a new group (species) that has changed genetically from its ancestors.
However, I guess all of the many examples i could give you wouldn't help with the "big" changes. I'm time constrained right now, but let me just say that statements like turning pond scum into bipeds work well to make it look like such complexity just can't be generated randomly. However, if you look at what has been learned about the many types of mechanism that exist at a genetic level to generate new proteins and, more strikingly, new morphologies, then the whole evolution thing becomes much more imaginable.
Originally posted by Carson O'Genic
However, if you look at what has been learned about the many types of mechanism that exist at a genetic level to generate new proteins and, more strikingly, new morphologies, then the whole evolution thing becomes much more imaginable.
This is not true. You still are only seeing manipulation of existing DNA, lactose-tolerant bacteria substituting backup genes in 9 days, aside.
Originally posted by dmz
This is not true. You still are only seeing manipulation of existing DNA, lactose-tolerant bacteria substituting backup genes in 9 days, aside.
Tell me, why that the manipulation of existing DNA is not a valid mechanism?
Originally posted by MarcUK
I could argue Creationism more effectively than you...
Doubtful. All you seem to be an expert on is that "sun god" nonsense you keep ranting about.
Have you convinced even one person on this board about it since you showed up here?
Thought so.
Originally posted by MarcUK
Tell me, why that the manipulation of existing DNA is not a valid mechanism?
I'm really busy, you wouldn't just take my word for it, would you?
Originally posted by Frank777
Doubtful. All you seem to be an expert on is that "sun god" nonsense you keep ranting about.
Have you convinced even one person on this board about it since you showed up here?
Thought so.
I don't know, I don't care, and I wasn't keeping count really, I wouldn't even consider myself an expert by any stretch of the imagination. But it would appear to be having an effect on you.