Originally posted by DeepThoughtListen, if the earth really is young it will not be because God made a
R.J., you would need 5 orders of magnitude more diatoms to explain the depositions. There simply aren't the nutrients for them. The silicon cycle couldn't support that many of them. It just plain isn't explainable in your theory - unless you have God producing a young world made to look like an old world, which is in itself problematic for reasons I've discussed before.
young earth look old, it will be because you assumed you knew what
an old earth looked like and were wrong.
Originally posted by RJHindsThis is why creationists are never taken seriously. When facts about the real world doesn't match your preconceived notions of how it should be, you write them off as nonsense. It must be beautiful in lala-land, with no real world trivia tripping up your feel-good delusions. Tell us about it.
You are just talking nonsense.
No doubt mysteriously for you, nature doesn't seem to care if you believe the truth about it or not. It just keeps on being what it is; doing what it does: evolving.
Originally posted by RJHindsA few pages back you quoted her to support your position, and you called her a real scientist. Indeed she was a real scientist, one of the very best. Presumably, when you quoted her, because she said what you wanted to hear, you didn't think of her as a fool then, as you shouldn't. Fool.
This Lynn Margulis makes statements like a fool.
Originally posted by KellyJaySo because initially, when a theory is proposed, all the answers are not given, therefore it's invalid? Darwin himself admitted that his theory was not complete when he wrote origin of species. I for one am thankful he decided to write it anyway. As new evidence comes in scientists will look at them, ask if the theory in question matches or not, and if it doesn't, unlike creationists who close their eyes, cover their ears and goes: "LA LA LA", scientists will change the story. This is a good thing; the very reason science works at all.
Yes, that is the nature of theories, it is what they are! I'm quite sure we
have been spot on quite a bit of things with respect on how we view them.
Our trouble is that we have been spot on, on quite a bit on how we view
them so that we don't see the possibilities of grand errors as we should.
Darwin's theory explains a lot, we also had to change qui ...[text shortened]... e putting our trust in
that we cannot prove, so I don't see that as an issue, but many here do.
18 Oct 14
Originally posted by DeepThoughtYou, Sonhouse, wolfgang59 and C Hess have taken their arguments apart again and again, but they wont listen. And they wont learn. Fundamentalists are that way. They 'know' and the people living in the real world are fools. Evidence, empiri and arguments will never help.
I've had this argument with them in the past. When they start saying things like "You are guessing." then it means we have them on the ropes. It's a basic sign. Their arguments are taken apart and they are left with nothing but insults like the one you are replying to. The purpose of the argument is to demonstrate to people that they do not have a co ...[text shortened]... efully go an join sane congregations who think the universe was created by God using a Big Bang.
Originally posted by C HessNo, I'm saying you have faith a great deal of it to believe that life can
So because initially, when a theory is proposed, all the answers are not given, therefore it's invalid? Darwin himself admitted that his theory was not complete when he wrote origin of species. I for one am thankful he decided to write it anyway. As new evidence comes in scientists will look at them, ask if the theory in question matches or not, and if it doe ...[text shortened]... ", scientists will change the story. This is a good thing; the very reason science works at all.
come from non-life without any help. You have a great deal of faith to
think you have a clue how much life started from non-life when it did,
and then have it beat all odds against it going forward and evolving into
what we see today.
Everyone knows theories changes, they twist, they turn, they go away,
it is what we do when we get new information. As I said, it is like putting
a house on shifting sand, not a sure foundation.
I believe in God, I believe in His Son Jesus Christ who as far as I am
concern is a solid foundation who does not shift every time the wind
blows. I find Him true and trustworthy, it is a story that does not change
and it shouldn't if true if creation is how it happen.
I've never said close your eyes and ears or stop seeking the truth! As far
as I'm concern I can be wrong about the age of the earth, I do believe
I am wrong about God creating it.
Kelly
18 Oct 14
Originally posted by KellyJayNo faith is required. We just need to look at the evidence. The evidence is very clear on some aspects of when life started and how it changed over time.
No, I'm saying you have faith a great deal of it to believe that life can
come from non-life without any help. You have a great deal of faith to
think you have a clue how much life started from non-life when it did,
and then have it beat all odds against it going forward and evolving into
what we see today.
Everyone knows theories changes, they twist, they turn, they go away,
it is what we do when we get new information. As I said, it is like putting
a house on shifting sand, not a sure foundation.
What utter nonsense. Do you refuse to step out of your house because Newtons laws might turn out to be wrong? Theories get updated, but they do not twist and change like shifting sand. Not major theories anyway. You can still rely on Newtons laws for most purposes even though Einstein showed us a way to be even more accurate.
Originally posted by KellyJayWe are in similar fields. We have 2 Phd's doing research into a semiconductor based product and I am an expert on the machines doing the work, ion implanters, sputtering tools, etchers, PVDs, furnaces, microscopes and the like. We are just now preparing for the arrival of a new sputtering tool from Semicore. I just spent 2 years refurbishing 2 old MRC sputtering tools.
semiconductor r&d
18 Oct 14
Originally posted by KellyJayIf the visible universe were 6000 light years across then it would have a volume of 2.4 * 10^37 cubic metres. There are of the order of 100 billion stars in each galaxy and of the order of 100 billion galaxies. The volume occupied by the sun is 10^28 cubic metres. So the total volume of space occupied by stars is around 10^50 cubic metres. This would mean that the stars would overlap. In fact since there are at least 200 billion stars in the Milky Way you'd have a job fitting the material in one galaxy in that space.
Listen, if the earth really is young it will not be because God made a
young earth look old, it will be because you assumed you knew what
an old earth looked like and were wrong.
Either the universe is more than 6,000 years old or the universe was created to look older than it is.
18 Oct 14
Originally posted by DeepThoughtWill you go 7000? 8? Lets here 9, 9, going going, 8 and a half?
If the visible universe were 6000 light years across then it would have a volume of 2.4 * 10^37 cubic metres. There are of the order of 100 billion stars in each galaxy and of the order of 100 billion galaxies. The volume occupied by the sun is 10^28 cubic metres. So the total volume of space occupied by stars is around 10^50 cubic metres. This would ...[text shortened]... the universe is more than 6,000 years old or the universe was created to look older than it is.
Originally posted by KellyJayIt's faith in evidence, if anything. Science is funny that way. If your hypotheses or theory is not in line with current evidence, it's discarded as is. As far as I know abiogenesis still have a lot of problems to be worked out. That in no way means we can just sit back and believe in fairy tales. It's never worked in the past and I doubt it works now.
No, I'm saying you have faith a great deal of it to believe that life can
come from non-life without any help. You have a great deal of faith to
think you have a clue how much life started from non-life when it did,
and then have it beat all odds against it going forward and evolving into
what we see today.
Everyone knows theories changes, they twist ...[text shortened]... can be wrong about the age of the earth, I do believe
I am wrong about God creating it.
Kelly
And as far as science can tell, you are wrong about the age of the earth. The question is: will you reconcile your religion with reality, or not?