Print

[chuddy117]

QUOTE (falser @ Apr 27 2004, 04:40 PM)

Strange then that you fail to see the flawed logic in teaching Sunday school children about Genesis and Noah's Ark. By the way chuddy117, therebelious1 only touched the surface.  They can calculate the age of the Earth using a variety of ways - and you may not believe it - but there is a very odd coincidence about every way it can be done.  They all result in the Earth's age to be around 4 billion years.  That's not just one or 2 select experiments - but every single way you can calculate the age of the Earth accurately results in about 4 billion years.  You can read this article for information about it and explanations for experiments that don't result in proper age results.

Falser, I'm familiar with most of those "theories", and they all have one glaring assumption.  They are ASSUMING that the way things are is the way things have always been.  How do we know that rocks have been decaying at the SAME rate for the last billions of years?  Simple, we dont.  We can look at the rate they are decaying now, and calculate, but we dont know that it has been the same.  Plus, thats assuming radiometric dating even works.  Radiometric dating works by detecting the carbon inside an object.  After finding what the half life is on the object and how much carbon is left, you can then calculate how old the object is...SUPPOSEDLY.  Well, there are several flaws with that theory.  First of all, we dont know how much carbon it had to begin with.  Think of it this way.  Lets say you walk into a room to find a candle burning.  With that amount of evidence, I want you tell me 2 things.  First, tell me how tall the candle was to begin with.  Second, how fast has the candle been burned.    ....Your right, you can't.  You can measure the speed the candle is burning NOW, but that doesn't tell you that it has been burning at that same speed.  The candle might have been as thin as a pin at the top, causing it to burn much faster...you just dont know.  
The second problem with radiometric dating is that they have dated LIVE PENGUINS at 10,000 years old.  They have taken the body of a whooly mammoth, and dated part of it at 26,000 years old and another part 42,000 years old.  I think they just dont know.

[therebelious1]

QUOTE

Seems to me these are all similar because they have all been CREATED by the same guy.

that shit is GOLD man

from this i gather you are a creationist- tell me- do you actually believe the earth was made in a couple of days in the year 4004BC?  

QUOTE

I take you dont really understand the theory behind intelligent design

i wasnt aware there was a theory  oh yeah you go on to explain it:
1. plants have similar charachteristics
2. animals have similar bone structures

how could i have been so stupid- i mean its obviously intelligent design

QUOTE

Why doesn't it point to intelligent design?

theories arent made like this- actual way scientific theories are reached:
1. observations
2. conjecture
3. formulation of theory
4. repeated presentation of observations
5. modification or disposal of theory (then back to 4.)

what you "intelligent design"-ists do:
1. suggest alternatives to established theories
2. find observations which match your alternative
3. dismiss observations which clash with your alternative


edit: and you just proved what i said- what a joke

[falser]

QUOTE (chuddy117 @ Apr 27 2004, 04:49 PM)

Falser, I'm familiar with most of those "theories", and they all have one glaring assumption.  They are ASSUMING that the way things are is the way things have always been.  How do we know that rocks have been decaying at the SAME rate for the last billions of years?  Simple, we dont.  We can look at the rate they are decaying now, and calculate, but we dont know that it has been the same.  Plus, thats assuming radiometric dating even works.  Radiometric dating works by detecting the carbon inside an object.  After finding what the half life is on the object and how much carbon is left, you can then calculate how old the object is...SUPPOSEDLY.  Well, there are several flaws with that theory.  First of all, we dont know how much carbon it had to begin with.  Think of it this way.  Lets say you walk into a room to find a candle burning.  With that amount of evidence, I want you tell me 2 things.  First, tell me how tall the candle was to begin with.  Second, how fast has the candle been burned.    ....Your right, you can't.  You can measure the speed the candle is burning NOW, but that doesn't tell you that it has been burning at that same speed.  The candle might have been as thin as a pin at the top, causing it to burn much faster...you just dont know.  The second problem with radiometric dating is that they have dated LIVE PENGUINS at 10,000 years old.  They have taken the body of a whooly mammoth, and dated part of it at 26,000 years old and another part 42,000 years old.  I think they just dont know.

Uh, if you were familiar with the theories then why did you ask how they come up with "these billions of years"?  It's showing that they aren't just pulling numbers out of a hat, and they're not reading the number out of a story book.

Please explain ANY experiment that calculates the age of the earth to be anywhere near what the bible says.  By the way that article does explain why, in scientific reasons, if a small percentage of errors occur that you cannot throw out ALL the rest of the data (which is exactly what you have done by assuming it's all false).

Intelligent design is not scientific because they don't actually do any scientific work to come up with their theories.  Please search on the definition of "the scientific method".  There in fact is no theories involved in creationism - no experiments, no data, no falsifiable evidence, and most importantly no convincing them their theories are wrong.  This is fundamental to understanding why nobody takes any intelligent design ideas with any amount of weight or logic.  It's all "fantasy science" with an agenda.

[therebelious1]

QUOTE

Holt Modern Science, 1989: Shows a trilobite. It says, "Trilobite fossils make good index fossils. If a trilobite such as this one is found in a rock layer, the rock layer probably formed 500 million years ago." Well, now I have a question. How could trilobites be 500 million years old when they have found a Trilobite with a shoe print in it!?

if what you say is correct, and i havent got the slightest clue that it is, and if the proposed shoeprint is actually a shoe print and not just something somene interpreted to look vaguely like one, then i bet some creationist extremeist planted the evidence

QUOTE

Glenco Biology, 1994: On page 306, it states they "date the rock by the fossil." On the VERY NEXT PAGE, they say "date the fossil by the rock." Unfortunately, this is the stance many geologists take when asked about dating. When someone asks how old the fossil is, they tell them by the layer of rock the fossil is in. When asked how they know the age of the rock, they say by the fossil in the rock. This is obviously circular reasoning, but that doesn't stop them.

whats wrong with this? when dating fossils were talking about millions of years- if i died in an earthquake and was found millions of years later, if they tested the rock around me then its age would be comparable (within a few hundred or thousand years) to mine

yet again some creationist-scientist-wannabe dismissing evidence which proves he's wrong, while at the same time not presenting evidence to say there is a god, or the earth is 6000 years old, or everything was magically created by some omnipitant bearded dude

[falser]

QUOTE (chuddy117 @ Apr 27 2004, 05:15 PM)

1. observations - Well, I OBSERVE that plants have similar characteristics to each other and that animals have similar characteristics to each other. 2. conjecture - My EDUCATED GUESS is that since animals and plants have similar characteristics, there was an Intelligent Designer involved. 3. formulation of theory - My theory is that this Earth was made 6,000 years ago by a common designer.  The reason most animals and plants are similar is because they were all made by the same guy. 4. repeated presentation of observations - I can see over and over and over again the striking similarities between plants and animals.

Jesus H Christ.  That may well be the most well formed intelligent design theory I've ever read.

[falser]

QUOTE

The moon contains considerable quantities of U-236 and Th-230, both short-lived isotopes that would have been long gone if the moon were billions of years old.

As proof that you have been decieved by whatever sources you get your information from, here is the reason the moon contains Thorium-230:

QUOTE

"U-236 is rare but is produced by nuclear reactions in some uranium ores where sufficient slow neutrons are available." Thus, Th-230 and U-236 are currently being generated and their existence in nature proves nothing.

The other quotes you listed I won't bother with.  They are cookie cutter examples that have been proved wrong by real scientists.  And you are wrong - I have had experience in dealing with creationists.  Every one of them plops down quotes and asks people to prove them wrong - and when they do they just ignore it and plop down more quotes.  It's exhaustive argumentation - you're not really getting your point across, and you're not fooling anybody but yourself.

[therebelious1]

it really cracks me up when preachers preach science to scientists

[sk8ermike6789]

QUOTE

the idea that Prof Hawking thinks he's right because he's in a wheelchair is fucking stupid.

Prof. Hawking does not think hes right becuase hes in a wheelchair! Thats an absurd statement; Having read his biography, i have to disagree with that.

[Evolution_X_master]

Yeah...looks like we all paid a lot of attention in Science class.

But heres my theory:

There was 3 guys and 3 girls that came from the planet Blargon-7. One man was named Zar-2, he was the fifth overload of Blargon-7. One guy got together with one girl and had kids. The other two guys, losers i suppose, got together. The other two girls, also got together. Zar-2 was not amused by the two guys. So he killed them, but preserving their sperm cells in a test tube. However, he was ammused by the two girls, so he let them live. So he got together with them two, and had kids. He wanted all 63 of his kids to never know of the two guys, but one of the 3 chicks told them, and Zar-2 killed himself, and also preserved his sperm cells. After many, many years the earth now as we know of it, is formed. Where did Blargon-7 come from. Well there was a combustion of Hydroclerioctane and Methaneclorioxide. This combusting, formed Hydroclerioctanemethaneclorioxide. This mixing with water created a zygote. As time passed the zygote moved from blastula then blastula pore and then gastula, where the three layers where created: Ectoderm, Endoderm, and Mesoderm. That was how the first human was created. How did this human reproduce? He/She was a Hermaphaditeamite. Consealing a penis, testes and a vagina, ovaries. It had twins. Just like jellyfish, it created a "alternation of generations," a male and a female, but somehow they did not have compatable genes, so they could reproduce and not have offspring with three legs and eleven toes. More about this on request... As for the planet Blargon-7, it came from a reaction of Catonicpolypuracane and Cocainmilosen. Creating a multicelled dirtonicapokite. This is a self reproduceing cell that gets bigger and bigger by the day, if you look on Friday, April 30, 2004, at exactly 11:58 p.m. you will be able to see it, 12 degrees by 89 degrees, west, or right above the Big Dipper. Please wear sunglasses for the brightness of Blagon-7, from the reflection off of the star Kilatonano, which will make a beam that will light up the earth for exatly .3 seconds...Don't miss it.

This theory explains marriage, reproduction, hermaphadites, bisexualality, homosexuality, and planets.

If you would like to help me in my research of my theory, please let me know.

Zar-2 Bless...

[therebelious1]

[therebelious1]

[CHRONOSTORM]

 

wow reading this topic im totaly confused.

QUOTE

Niagara Falls’ erosion rate (four to five feet per year) indicates an age of less than 10,000 years. Don’t forget Noah’s Flood could have eroded half of the seven-mile-long Niagara River gorge in a few hours as the flood waters raced through the soft sediments.)

the ice age could that have anything todo with making that point irrelivant?
is there any proof that there was a noahs ark?

from reading up on the big bang am i to understand that matter and anti matter were created from nothing since there were supposed to cancel eachother out and matter won? creating something and since objects are not dispursed evenly the big bang was actually several "bangs" within the main object or the explosion was displaced off from the center to create those irregularities? (the fact that every planet isnt exactly the same distance or what ever.


just some questions.

[falser]

QUOTE (CHRONOSTORM @ Apr 28 2004, 04:50 PM)

the ice age could that have anything todo with making that point irrelivant?

Yep, don't be confused by creationist claims.  Here is what chuddy quoted:

QUOTE

Niagara Falls’ erosion rate (four to five feet per year) indicates an age of less than 10,000 years.

According to this website this website, the real information is:

QUOTE

About 12,000 years ago, Niagara Falls was 11 kilometres (7 miles) downstream from its present location. Until the early 1950s, the Falls eroded at the average rate of one metre (3 feet) per year. Since then, major water diversions have spread out the flow more evenly, slowing the rate of erosion at the Falls

So 12,000 years ago Niagara Falls didn't exist, back then it would have just been called the Niagara River.  That of course doesn't mean the Earth was created 12,000 years ago because there is no indication that the Earth and Niagara Falls were created at the same time - an important thing left out of chuddy's quote.  They always leave out important details like that in order to leave some amount of doubt in people's mind.

[bong888]

Here is what I think it all works

we live in a self contained universe of which I do not think we will ever escape in the material form.

We live in the material world while we are alive, which consists of matter.
There is also some thing called Anti-matter, which is the exact opposite to matter
Scientist have proved this exists.
Anti-matter exist just out-side a matter particle, (living matter)
I believe this is your soul.
Your body consisting of matter is just a vehicle or place for your soul, or the anti matter to cling on to.
When the living matter i.e. your body dies, the anti-matter is released and can enter an anti-material world.

[CHRONOSTORM]

im attempting to disproove noah's ark. where would i be wrong in this and are there any better points?

based on the location of that thing and the erosion around that mountain i would have to say that it was cold as balls and the caps froze on the mountains and ice melted and just whithered away something large that was already inside that mountain. it looks like mountain not ice that thing is sitting on. how would a mountain grow around it? unless it was just sitting on top of it.

if it rained for 40 days and 40 nights it would have to poor and cover the sun. plants would die w/o sun and then animals would die w/o food

the time needed to evaporate the water and the heat would have melted the ice caps would flood the world more

also unless noah could have controlled all the animals in the world and create another pangea land form that would have been impossible no?