03 Aug 08
Originally posted by KellyJayYou believe that the earth is 6000 years, right? I've asked you several times but not being answered, but I presume that you think the word of the bible is correct.
I'm not saying that the water has to reach
the highest mountains as they appear now, land masses can be
raised or lowered as well as water springing up from underground as
well as rain, we do not know how the earth was configured during the
flood.
During the last 6000 years there has not been any much changes in the heights of Himalayans. Well, we can go back several millions of years, during history of man, and the difference in height is not much. In fact, we have to go much deeper in geological times to find out when Ararat was the highest mountain in the world. If ever...
The water in the rain must come from somewhere. From the clouds. Clouds having water to flood the world in 40 days is simply not scientifically possible. Therefore I call creationists anti-science.
I call creationists anti-science, because they don't know anything about radiological methods. Nor geology. Nor meteorology. Nor anything about science that contradict the creationism. Sorry. If you call yourself a creationist, then you are anti-science.
I ask you again, how old do you think the Earth is?
04 Aug 08
Originally posted by FabianFnasAnd by implication I would assume the age of the earth = the age of the universe since 'god created the heavens and the earth' presumably in 6 days, and with the specific purpose to confound humans into believing there is evidence for a much older earth and universe just to screw around with our minds? Kelly, is that about it?
You believe that the earth is 6000 years, right? I've asked you several times but not being answered, but I presume that you think the word of the bible is correct.
During the last 6000 years there has not been any much changes in the heights of Himalayans. Well, we can go back several millions of years, during history of man, and the difference in hei ...[text shortened]... creationist, then you are anti-science.
I ask you again, how old do you think the Earth is?
04 Aug 08
1 edit
Originally posted by FabianFnas🙂 I guess you got me, what the geological time table says must be
You believe that the earth is 6000 years, right? I've asked you several times but not being answered, but I presume that you think the word of the bible is correct.
During the last 6000 years there has not been any much changes in the heights of Himalayans. Well, we can go back several millions of years, during history of man, and the difference in hei creationist, then you are anti-science.
I ask you again, how old do you think the Earth is?
true, we know that cannot be wrong there, because...
You should read about the flood than we will talk. Again, not
anti-science but I'm not going to waist my time defending that point,
believe what you. If you have a point to discuss feel free.
Kelly
04 Aug 08
2 edits
Originally posted by KellyJayI thought he was discussing a point, a point which you refused to even acknowledge much less answer.
🙂 I guess you got me, what the geological time table says must be
true, we know that cannot be wrong there, because...
You should read about the flood than we will talk. Again, not
anti-science but I'm not going to waist my time defending that point,
believe what you. If you have a point to discuss feel free.
Kelly
"I guess you got me', that is just plain arrogance and sarcasm.
04 Aug 08
Originally posted by KellyJay"I guess you got me, what the geological time table says must be
🙂 I guess you got me, what the geological time table says must be
true, we know that cannot be wrong there, because...
You should read about the flood than we will talk. Again, not
anti-science but I'm not going to waist my time defending that point,
believe what you. If you have a point to discuss feel free.
Kelly
true, we know that cannot be wrong there, because..."
You're right there. There is a lot of backing up by observations. Believe me, there was no World Wide Flood during the history of man.
The creationists, not interesting in these observations are anti-science, becoase they (you?) igonore these observations.
Why are there still kangaruus in Australia? They should be drowned if WWF was true.
How old do you think the Earth is? I've asked you before, you know.
04 Aug 08
3 edits
Originally posted by KellyJayKelly,
Radiologial measurements:
You know you are not wrong, it cannot be 5600 million years old?
There is nothing you don't fully understand that can make your
conclusions off by some factor?
World Wide Flood:
There are world wide flood stories all over the world, those suggest
a common event was witnessed at some point.
I suggest you submit your obser ...[text shortened]...
claim you have it before you suggest we have to accept it as proof
against the flood.
Kelly
You once again are talking about how you dont trust radiological dating.
Have you looked it up since we last discussed it? Do you now understand it properly? (These are genuine questions, I am not assuming that you havent, but am interested to know if you have).
Your distrust of radiological dating stems from an almost total lack of understanding. I dont say this to be rude, but you clearly do not have a proper understanding of it at all, just as I do not claim to have an 'understanding' of religious thinking.
I have explained to you in a previous thread that for radiological dating to give incorrect dates some constants of nature need to have changed with time. This is not a silly question to ask, but it has been researched and the strong nuclear force constant and fine structure constant have been found to not vary significantly at all over the time scales involved.
You do not have detailed knowledge of nuclear physics, you probably do not even know what the fine structure constant or strong nuclear force constants are. You do not know how nuclear decay happens and have no understanding of the processes involved or the maths behind calculating it but you are still arguing it is not accurate. Can you see now why your views on the subject are not informed?
This post seems very rude, and it seems like I am having a personal dig at you. BUT that is NOT THE CASE AT ALL. I am simply pointing out the facts of the matter. The fact is that you do not know very much about this subject, yet you still go on about it.
NOTE: In a previous post you say something along the lines of:
"It is unacceptable to say that evidence shows something is wrong without stating specifically what is wrong"
Yet now you are saying "radioactive dating is not accurate because there may be something we dont fully understand".
These two statements would seem to make you a hypocrite, but I know you hate hypocrisy so can you please clarify yourself.
EDIT: I have just read this post back to myself and it seems a little harsh. Please do not get offended, but simply look at the facts I have set out. It is a fact that you do not have understanding of this topic, so I am not insulting you, I am just pointing out a truth. If you do understand then please let me know :-)
04 Aug 08
3 edits
Originally posted by KellyJayWhat MattP, PsychoPawn and FabianFnas said to this post of yours is more than reasonable and they ask some reasonable questions but I have no doubt you would remain stubbornly unconvinced that you could be wrong about this.
Radiologial measurements:
You know you are not wrong, it cannot be 5600 million years old?
There is nothing you don't fully understand that can make your
conclusions off by some factor?
World Wide Flood:
There are world wide flood stories all over the world, those suggest
a common event was witnessed at some point.
I suggest you submit your obser ...[text shortened]...
claim you have it before you suggest we have to accept it as proof
against the flood.
Kelly
…There is nothing you don't fully understand that can make your
conclusions off by some factor? …
So what exactly is this something “we don't fully understand”?
-you would probably admit that you don’t know -right?
Can you give even a vague hint of what you think what kind of “something” that “something” “we don't fully understand” is?
What do you understand about the decay rate of radioactive elements or radiological dating which all the top physicists and the greatest scientific minds in the world that know a lot more than you do fail to understand?
-again, you would probably admit that you don’t know -right?
Those top physicists in the would have all sorts of very good reasons to believe what they do which is fully backed up by evidence and mathematics -reasons too complex for you or I too fully understand. I accept the fact there are people that know a lot more than I do -do you? They make predictions from their theories and these predictions have stood up to the test of time as well as experimentation -can you say the same for your theory that: “there is something “we don't fully understand” about radiological dating that makes it off by some factor“?
Do you understand what causes the decay rate of radioactive elements? Only if you can demonstrate to us that you do understand this can you, for example, rationally question the constancy of the decay rates, and, even then, only if you can give a reasonable explanation (backed up by evidence, reasoning or mathematics) of how and why the decay rate of a particular radioactive element could vary.
P.S. don’t confuse criticism for insults -I don’t.
05 Aug 08
Originally posted by FabianFnasIf the levels of the land above water today were to lower, the water
You believe that the earth is 6000 years, right? I've asked you several times but not being answered, but I presume that you think the word of the bible is correct.
During the last 6000 years there has not been any much changes in the heights of Himalayans. Well, we can go back several millions of years, during history of man, and the difference in hei ...[text shortened]... creationist, then you are anti-science.
I ask you again, how old do you think the Earth is?
under ground were to rise, the earth could be covered in water again.
There is enough water now today to do that, the issue with it now is the
formation of the land, in its current placement you'd need more water.
Kelly
05 Aug 08
Originally posted by FabianFnasYou call creationist anti-science, because they do not accept the same
You believe that the earth is 6000 years, right? I've asked you several times but not being answered, but I presume that you think the word of the bible is correct.
During the last 6000 years there has not been any much changes in the heights of Himalayans. Well, we can go back several millions of years, during history of man, and the difference in hei ...[text shortened]... creationist, then you are anti-science.
I ask you again, how old do you think the Earth is?
things you do, that does not make them anti-science just some of the
things some people in science believe.
Kelly
05 Aug 08
Originally posted by FabianFnasI'd say under 10K in years, is my 'belief' about the age, but I'm open
"I guess you got me, what the geological time table says must be
true, we know that cannot be wrong there, because..."
You're right there. There is a lot of backing up by observations. Believe me, there was no World Wide Flood during the history of man.
The creationists, not interesting in these observations are anti-science, becoase they (you?) ig ...[text shortened]... wned if WWF was true.
How old do you think the Earth is? I've asked you before, you know.
on that point. Right now I don't see the same need for the age of the
universe as you seem too to reach beyond that. Our starting points
differ slightly, the reasons why things are the way they are do not pass
the smell test for me when it comes to basic design when I look at
evolution. It is for me a matter of faith, I cannot make you believe it
only accept or reject it.
I have not seen anything that makes sense when it comes to how we
got here coming out of the beliefs that people have with the universe
being a few million/billion years old. Since before that time, there was
what, nothing, and with this nothing the there wasn't a reason, a plan,
yet bang everything came out of nothing happened, and time started!
I cannot accept that, either it is all eternal in which case billions of
years is wrong, or something or someone caused it, I lean towards
someone.
No one has ever observed a universe with all matter, energy, time and
so on get formed from nothing. All we have are guesses about it,
just guesses.
Kelly
05 Aug 08
Originally posted by KellyJayCreationism is anti-science because it does not use a logical scientific method.
You call creationist anti-science, because they do not accept the same
things you do, that does not make them anti-science just some of the
things some people in science believe.
Kelly
There is no scientific evidence at all to support creationist ideas.
Talk about "missing links", or about "things that are too complicated to have evolved without some kind of intelligent helper" are profoundly un-scientific. This is because they ignore any evidence which does not support them 100% and they bend other evidence so that it does support them. For example, one specific "missing link" in an animals evolutionary history is all it takes for creationist to shout "look, evolution didnt happen, we have evidence because this link is missing!" - this simply is not logical! Even if evolution was proven to be totally incorrect that would not offer any proof for creationism. Proving the established thinking wrong does not automatically prove an alternative theory.
Creationists are no better then flat-earthers.
In summary, it is not "because they do not accept the same things science does" that makes creationism anti-science. It is the ENTIRE of creationism methods and thinking that are profoundly irrational that makes it anti-science.
05 Aug 08
2 edits
Originally posted by MattPI don't completely trust what I cannot know for certain is true, there
Kelly,
You once again are talking about how you dont trust radiological dating.
Have you looked it up since we last discussed it? Do you now understand it properly? (These are genuine questions, I am not assuming that you havent, but am interested to know if you have).
Your distrust of radiological dating stems from an almost total lack of understandi ting you, I am just pointing out a truth. If you do understand then please let me know :-)
are always going to be a level of doubt. Even if I accepted the notion
that the radiological dates were true; the doubt would still be there,
because there isn't anyone who can confirm by observation it is true
when we are looking at dates that old. I submit you too should not
blindly accept it! Religion does not have anything to do with my
doubts on the subject, the people that first taught me about scripture
were gap theorists, meaning they believed there were millions/billions
of years between Gen 1:1 and 1:2.
The issue I have is that I'm told to believe because some things are
measured and we see the readings in the here, and in the here and now
can confirm them by observation, so that now I should accept all
things will behave the same way over time. I do not accept that is
necessarily true. That has nothing to do with my faith in God; it has
to do with being able to confirm our tests are true and know what I'm
being told is true or not, if I cannot confirm I have to take what I’m
being told on faith.
Kelly
05 Aug 08
Note also that creationists "refuse to accept" things which have been proved correct. Even when they have no evidence to back their blind belief up.
Anything which requires "blind belief" of "faith" is simply not scientific at all.
Science requires observable, repeatable observations and tests, creationism requires only "belief" and so is anti-science.
An example of this is the simply ridicules idea held by some (but not all) creationist that the Earth is only a few thousand years old (it varies, but I think they tend to say ~6000 years). There is a wealth of evidence that the Earth is much older then this, but they simply ignore it.
BUT, what is even worse is they do not provide any evidence to support their claims. They try to pick holes in the established thinking that the Earth is much older by picking individual aspects of the established theory and challenging them (such as your incorrect assertion that radiological dating can not be relied on). but they do not provide evidence IN SUPPORT of their claim, they think that disproving the current theory proves their counter-theory !
When asked for evidence that positively supports the young Earth idea, they spout illogical, non-scientific, rubbish such as "God made the Earth with the appearance that it was older then it is".
So now can you see why creationism is not scientific?
It is not "because they hold different views", it is because they arrive at their views by un-scientific means.
05 Aug 08
Originally posted by MattPHave you ever seem me tell you, creation is science?
Creationism is anti-science because it does not use a logical scientific method.
There is no scientific evidence at all to support creationist ideas.
Talk about "missing links", or about "things that are too complicated to have evolved without some kind of intelligent helper" are profoundly un-scientific. This is because they ignore any evidence which ...[text shortened]... ionism methods and thinking that are profoundly irrational that makes it anti-science.
I have not ever put that forward, if you want make that your point
I agree with you. Creation is a matter of faith you cannot test for it.
Kelly