A slightly biased attempt to discredit evolutio...

Originally posted by KellyJay
Your point was what, because creationist don't agree with some of the
foundamental things you believe are true, they are against science?
I beg to differ, the only thing I'd say there were against is some of
you foundational views that get you to some of the conclusions you
have reached.
Kelly

You have missed my point, please allow me to explain it again.

Creationism is anti-science, that is a fact and is not "my oppinion", or "what I believe", I shall now set out why this is so.

I do NOT say creationism is anti-science because "it disagrees with what some scientists thinks", or because "it doesnt agree with some of the fundamental things I believe are true".

Creationism is anti-science because it does not use a scientific method to arrive at its conclusions. Creationism does not have physical data to back it up, it does not have repeatable observable measurements which can be used to gather evidence for it. It does quiet the opposite - ignoring evidence that does not support it and making illogical claims based on things that are not true or thing that we have no way of knowing.

Please pay attention to this next point, because it is something you seem to not understand. Science is NOT dependant on "what scientists believe". Science is determined by physical observations and logical reasoning, it is not just what people believe. In fact, if the correct scientific method is used then any conclusions made will be made by anyone preforming the experiment, no matter what they personally believe. If aliens on a different planet preformed the same experiment they would see the same thing.
This is not the case for religions (like creationism), where illogical ideas are "made up" out of thin air and depend entirely on what people believe. What makes your religion any more likely to be correct then a different religion?

Originally posted by KellyJay
All the evidence is there, how you look at it differs from one person
to the next. The fact you cannot, or even care to look at the whole
picture to see if the little part of the puzzle that you think you do
understands works, is amazing to me. You avoid the beginning of
the process and like looking at the end, and you belittle those that
do look to th ...[text shortened]... ust because you disprove one thing does not
automatically mean a rival theory is true.
Kelly

You clearly do not understand the Big Bang theory, which makes no reference to the very start of universe (Time = 0 so to speak). This is not your fault, as it is commonly misrepresented in the media.

The Big Bang theory refers to the rapid expansion of the universe from a small, very dense object. It makes no reference to the origin of the universe.

As for "people refusing to say what was going on before the big bang". The only possible answer to this is "we do not know, because we have no evidence as we cannot make observations of this". That is the only logical answer. Any other answer is ridicules because, as you correctly point out, there is simply no evidence at all. So to suggest a god did it is just silly.

"Avoiding God just because He fills in some blanks you have only means that is somthing that you dont want to see" - this is just plain silly! There is no evidence at all that God exists. It is not for people to prove God does not exist, it is for people who say that he does exist to prove that he does - this is the correct logical order of things. He is an assumption - you have previously refused to rely on assumptions, even when they have been tested, but you are happy to assume there is a God despite no evidence at all. I would say this is hypocritical.

Also, you never did answer my previous questions a while ago in a different thread. How can you believe in a god when you wont accept things for which we have observable proof? Do you hold your religious beliefs up to the same ridiculas levels of proof? You clearly do not, because you would not be religious if you did as there is much more evidence that radiological dating is reliable then there is for the existence of God. IF you had been born into a family with a religion different to the one you have now (Christian? ), would you still be a Christian or would you hold the religious views you were brought up with?

Originally posted by KellyJay
You do not know how old the light is that is getting here.
I also told you, that the reason I do not just buy into the radiological
dating is the when you start saying millions/billions of years you have
moved beyond the ability of man to confirm, there isn't a way to know
for sure it is true. That is true with all dating methods that push those
times.
Kelly

We do know how old the light is that is getting here! Why do you say that we dont know? What, specifically, is the reason you have to suggest we dont know?

I put it to you that you do not have the required knowledge to make the suggestion "we dont know how old the light is", because you have no idea at all how the calculate its age, or what they do with it to observe the physical constants of the past. IF you do know then please post it here and I will retract this statement, but until then I will maintain that you do not know what you are talking about as you do not have the required education.

You seem to have a problem with things that we cannot directly observe. You have mentioned several times that your problem with dating methods for very long timescales is that they stretch back before we can observe, so we dont know for sure that it wasnt different in the past. If you bothered to look up radioactive decay like I suggested you would find that this suggestion amounts to suggesting that the decay rate (or exponential time constant) change with time. It has been shown that that is not the case - but you dont understand what I am talking about because you are ignorant of how nuclear decay works and I would go so far to say that you could not even solve a simply exponential decay problem mathematically.

Here is a little question:

A radio active element decays according to the following expression:

N(t) = N(0)*exp(-a*t)

Where N(t) is the number of remaining ("un-decayed particles" ) at time t. N(0) is the initial number of particles at time = 0. and "a" is a constant.

Find an expression for "t", in terms of "a", when 65% of the particles have decayed

This is a VERY EASY problem, it simply amounts to rearranging the expression I have given you.

Then after you have solved this will you please give an expression for the half-life of the element. Again, after solving the first part of this question it is simply a matter of putting the correct numbers in. These questions are VERY EASY, a 15 year old in school could do them. Please demonstrate to this forum that you understand the basics of exponential decay.


EDIT: Again, I am sorry if this post sounds like it is attacking you. I honestly did not mean it to sound so harsh, but often cold, hard text sounds worse then intended. I am simply pointing out the fact that you do not understand this matter at all - I dont mean that in a nasty way, I am sure you could understand if you looked it up, but you clearly havent. If I am wrong, and you do understand, then please let me know. The purpose of the mathematical question was not to "make you jump through hoops", but was to give you an opportunity to show that you understand the basic maths involved. Nothing more, just trying to make it as easy as possible for you.

Originally posted by MattP
We do know how old the light is that is getting here! Why do you say that we dont know? What, specifically, is the reason you have to suggest we dont know?

I put it to you that you do not have the required knowledge to make the suggestion "we dont know how old the light is", because you have no idea at all how the calculate its age, or what they do with i ...[text shortened]... ic maths involved. Nothing more, just trying to make it as easy as possible for you.

You guys just don't get it. K is not going to diegn to try to solve equations no matter how simple. He will just keep with the same pattern he has exhibited all along, a new misdirection. He is arrogant and condensending and will never unambiguously answer a question like 'is the earth 6000 years old?' he will just issue another couple of paragraphs of gobbledeegook with the express motivation of seeing how long he can dangle you on a string.

Originally posted by sonhouse
You guys just don't get it. K is not going to diegn to try to solve equations no matter how simple. He will just keep with the same pattern he has exhibited all along, a new misdirection. He is arrogant and condensending and will never unambiguously answer a question like 'is the earth 6000 years old?' he will just issue another couple of paragraphs of gobbledeegook with the express motivation of seeing how long he can dangle you on a string.

I think you attribute far more malice than exists there. I don't think he does it intentionally to see how long he can do it.

I believe he honestly thinks that if there aren't eye witnesses to an event then you are taking all facts from that event on faith. I.e. no one was there to record man evolving so it's equally as likely that all of the animals were on the ark. Of course, we're both just interpreting what he's saying. Only he knows his intentions.

I do agree that this is getting more and more pointless. I don't think there's anything we could post that would convince him that evidence other than eye witness accounts can provide clear information as to what has happened.

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
I think you attribute far more malice than exists there. I don't think he does it intentionally to see how long he can do it.

I believe he honestly thinks that if there aren't eye witnesses to an event then you are taking all facts from that event on faith. I.e. no one was there to record man evolving so it's equally as likely that all of the animals ...[text shortened]... ce other than eye witness accounts can provide clear information as to what has happened.

Nah, not malice, just a game to him. Like being at a party and seeing how long you can bait a drunk.

Originally posted by MattP
You have missed my point, please allow me to explain it again.

Creationism is anti-science, that is a fact and is not "my oppinion", or "what I believe", I shall now set out why this is so.

I do NOT say creationism is anti-science because "it disagrees with what some scientists thinks", or because "it doesnt agree with some of the fundamental things I be e. What makes your religion any more likely to be correct then a different religion?

Creation is a matter of faith, it is not anti-science, it has nothing to do
with science, it is apples and oranges. The realm of science has more
to do with what we can test and observe, you cannot observe creation
it was a special event beyond the abilities of man. There are things
you may see after creation as in maybe life, and order and purpose in
the universe, I don't believe you can justify those things outside of
saying you believe in them either, any other way. Science has not
managed to produce something from nothing, so there isn't anything
to be against as far as creation and science are concern. Science
does not have a theory to give to put in creations place, at least so
I have been told here.

Creation does not go against the evidence of something from nothing
you have no evidence to produce to compare it to. If you are going
to speak just about processes as in evolution you have removed
yourself from beginning are speaking now about processes that could
be true if creation or some other event caused all things to appear
out of nothing. Creation does not mean evolution is wrong, and I'd
say evolution does not mean creation is wrong, proving one right does
not automatically mean the other is wrong. I do not see the issue you
do, I do see that you have an issue of how it all began, and dislike
that you have no answer for it, but there isn't any anti-science here,
that is just between your ears.

I also beg to differ on science not being what people believe, I dare
you to give me something science accepts that everyone disagrees
with! One thing, just tell me one place where all people and science are
at complete odds and science is thought to be right. You cannot tell
me that people do not play a part in this, you are brain dead if you
do.
Kelly

Originally posted by MattP
You clearly do not understand the Big Bang theory, which makes no reference to the very start of universe (Time = 0 so to speak). This is not your fault, as it is commonly misrepresented in the media.

The Big Bang theory refers to the rapid expansion of the universe from a small, very dense object. It makes no reference to the origin of the universe.

As d you still be a Christian or would you hold the religious views you were brought up with?

A small dense object is not nothing, it is a small dense object that
came from...where? Get my point; there is nothing that theory has
that touches creation; it avoids it like the plague. That theory is
so believed by many they just revolt at the thought of looking
at the time before the big bang because it automatically takes them
where they do not want to go, the metaphysical.
Kelly

Originally posted by MattP
We do know how old the light is that is getting here! Why do you say that we dont know? What, specifically, is the reason you have to suggest we dont know?

I put it to you that you do not have the required knowledge to make the suggestion "we dont know how old the light is", because you have no idea at all how the calculate its age, or what they do with i ic maths involved. Nothing more, just trying to make it as easy as possible for you.

Yes it does sound like an attack on me, I'm not going to jump through
a hoop of a math problem to prove squat to you. I don't give biblical
study questions to people who are attempting to discuss scripture and
if you want to carry on this conversation or not is completely up to you.
Kelly

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
I think you attribute far more malice than exists there. I don't think he does it intentionally to see how long he can do it.

I believe he honestly thinks that if there aren't eye witnesses to an event then you are taking all facts from that event on faith. I.e. no one was there to record man evolving so it's equally as likely that all of the animals ...[text shortened]... ce other than eye witness accounts can provide clear information as to what has happened.

It is simple, if I tell you this test proves X and we can show X in real
time to witness it, wow we are done once we test for X. If you tell me
that this test proves Y, but you can never really know for sure, you
have to acknowledge you can never really know for sure, to do other
wise is just faith.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
A small dense object is not nothing, it is a small dense object that
came from...where? Get my point; there is nothing that theory has
that touches creation; it avoids it like the plague. That theory is
so believed by many they just revolt at the thought of looking
at the time before the big bang because it automatically takes them
where they do not want to go, the metaphysical.
Kelly

… A small dense object is not nothing, it is a small dense object that
came from...where? Get my point; there is nothing that theory has
that touches creation; it avoids it like the plague. …

As MattP was at pains to extremely clearly and quite correctly point out in his last post:
“The Big Bang theory refers to the rapid expansion of the universe from a small, very dense object. It makes no reference to the origin of the universe.”

So what is your point?

The big bang theory makes no reference to where that small dense object came from because that issue is totally irrelevant to the theory because it isn’t even part of the theory. You say “it avoids it like the plague” -well, that is a silly thing to say because that is just like saying the theory that the Earth is round and not flat is an invalid theory because it “avoids the issue of where the Earth came from like the plague”. You could make this same kind of totally illogical criticism of any hypothesis not directly to do with creation thus rubbish any hypothesis no matter how much evidence there is to support it. What is relevant to the credibility of a theory is not the things that the theory is not about but rather what evidence exists to support the theory

…That theory is so believed by many they just revolt at the thought of looking
at the time before the big bang because it automatically takes them
where they do not way to go, the metaphysical. …

Those that believe that the big bang happened and have understood the theory are not “just revolt at the thought of looking at the time before the big bang because it automatically takes them where they do not way to go, the metaphysical” as you say because, if only you understood the big bang theory yourself, you should know that those that believe that the big bang happened and have understood the theory believe time began at the big bang and thus there is no “time before the big bang” as you said. -so how can they be trying to avoid the “metaphysical” of time before the big bang when they don’t believe such a time exists?

Originally posted by KellyJay
Creation is a matter of faith, it is not anti-science, it has nothing to do
with science, it is apples and oranges. The realm of science has more
to do with what we can test and observe, you cannot observe creation
it was a special event beyond the abilities of man. There are things
you may see after creation as in maybe life, and order and purpose in
...[text shortened]... annot tell
me that people do not play a part in this, you are brain dead if you
do.
Kelly

There is no evidence at all for what created the universe, so you are foolish if you believe in creationism - the only logical thing to believe is that we dont know at the moment.

As for your comments about "science being what people believe", you have once again shown your lack of understanding. The reason people "believe" science is because the conclusions obtained in science have been logically determined in a repeatable way from observations.

Pay attention to this, because it is where you are having trouble.
Most people believe science, but scientific knowledge has been obtained via experiment and reason, NOT because someone believed it - you have mixed up cause and effect. Science is independent of scientist's beliefs, the conclusions drawn from science are drawn from physical evidence, not from a preconceived idea of what will be seen. Creationism start with an idea which will never change no matter what evidence is found - science looks at evidence before forming ideas. So yes, scientists believe science, but science has been arrived at independently, NOT come out of blind belief.

If other cultures on different planets did the same experiments they would see the same things and come to the same logical conclusion, as science is NOT dependant on the beliefs of the scientists conducting the experiment.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Yes it does sound like an attack on me, I'm not going to jump through
a hoop of a math problem to prove squat to you. I don't give biblical
study questions to people who are attempting to discuss scripture and
if you want to carry on this conversation or not is completely up to you.
Kelly

I put it to you that you do not have the ability to answer the simple questions. Just incase you wondered, I posed the same questions to my brother, who is doing is A-levels (these are like the end of high-school in the US i think, but may be wrong) and it took him about 3mins to answer them!

It is very relevant to this thread that you attempt them, as at the moment it appears that you do not understand what you are talking about at all. I gave you the simplest possible example of an exponential decay question, with the problem already formulated into a mathematical expression and you still cant solve it! Clearly you do not have the required knowledge for this debate and people should be aware of this.

NOTE: I am not calling you stupid, or insulting your intelligence in anyway, I am merely pointing out that you do not have the required knowledge. I am sure you would understand if you had studied maths properly, but it is more then clear that you do not have even a basic understanding of algebra.

Originally posted by KellyJay
It is simple, if I tell you this test proves X and we can show X in real
time to witness it, wow we are done once we test for X. If you tell me
that this test proves Y, but you can never really know for sure, you
have to acknowledge you can never really know for sure, to do other
wise is just faith.
Kelly

Wrong! You can extend valid scientific/mathematical theories to beyond what is directly observed. Why would a method which has been proven to reliable suddenly not be reliable?

If I drop a tennis ball from my outstretched arm, I will observe it falling down to the ground - do you agree with this?

Now, I have never dropped a baseball (as we dont really have them over in the UK). So can I use Newton's law of gravitation to predict that if I drop a baseball it too will fall down to the ground? Or am I never certain of this 100% without actually observing it?

In this analogy the tennis ball falling is "X", and I have observed it in real time. The base ball falling is "Y", which I have not observed. So do I know for sure that the base ball will fall? Do you think there is a chance that it will fly up into the sky? Am I using "faith" when I say that the base ball will also fall, or am I using a reasoned logic based on my experience and on scientific theory?

Originally posted by sonhouse
Don't you see a pattern emerging here? K will NEVER just give you an unambiguous answer, that should be abundantly clear by now.

Yes, I agree. But we can always live in hope 🙂