NationStates Jolt Archive

...a Young Earth Creationist weeps.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/space/05/21/star.explosion.ap/index.html

The star died 100 million years ago. 99,994,000 years before God created the Universe and the Earth according to the Bible. Good thing it's a historically accurate, factually inerrant record of natural history or I might start to question anything else it says. :p

I thought it was supposed to be that every time a star explodes an angel gets its wings? :confused:

...a Young Earth Creationist weeps.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/space/05/21/star.explosion.ap/index.html

The star died 100 million years ago. 99,994,000 years before God created the Universe and the Earth according to the Bible. Good thing it's a historically accurate, factually inerrant record of natural history or I might start to question anything else it says. :p

Look, God just puts this 'evidence' there so it's more difficult to have faith, that way he can separate the true believers from the pretenders. You have to really, really have faith to get into heaven.

I don't know why this is so hard to understand, considering the punishment for not understanding it is eternity in hell, you'd think the incentive was obvious.

In before dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago, hello, the behemoth is mentioned in the Bible!

:rolleyes:

Look, God just puts this 'evidence' there so it's more difficult to have faith, that way he can separate the true believers from the pretenders. You have to really, really have faith to get into heaven.

I don't know why this is so hard to understand, considering the punishment for not understanding it is eternity in hell, you'd think the incentive was obvious.

In before dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago, hello, the behemoth is mentioned in the Bible!

:rolleyes:

The behemoth in the biblical constext referred to pregnant women and other cranky vicious monsters.

I'd like to really, really, really have Faith Hill.

Look, God just puts this 'evidence' there so it's more difficult to have faith, that way he can separate the true believers from the pretenders. You have to really, really have faith to get into heaven.

I don't know why this is so hard to understand, considering the punishment for not understanding it is eternity in hell, you'd think the incentive was obvious.

In before dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago, hello, the behemoth is mentioned in the Bible!

:rolleyes:

So God is deceptive. He lies to us. But the Bible... well, there's no lies in that, because it's the word of God and God doesn't li.... er... uh-oh.

That's a hell of a test he designed then. He made a system that works in perfect logical harmony with itself, where everything is scientifically in tune with everything else...

Only it's not because of what some entirely fallible HUMAN BEINGS wrote in a book so clearly magic must exist and science and physics must either be wrong or directly and pointlessly manipulated by God.

I don't get why Christians can't accept that maybe the Bible isn't 100% accurate - the people writing it were all fallible. It's not like it's the Koran, where it's supposed to be God speaking (in)directly to Muhammad.

wooo yeah! Let's start the 999999999th thread on this crap and then not post anything useful. [And possibly troll.]

FUCK YEA!

...a Young Earth Creationist weeps.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/space/05/21/star.explosion.ap/index.html

The star died 100 million years ago. 99,994,000 years before God created the Universe and the Earth according to the Bible. Good thing it's a historically accurate, factually inerrant record of natural history or I might start to question anything else it says. :p

Know ye not that Satan is the Lightbringer, the Morning Star, and that his brightness, that vain and proud light, is shed, piercing, into the depths of all night skies, and it is his rebellious twinkling that is birthed by these stars?

He gives this emanation, not for love, but to deceive, and make you doubt your Creator....and also because God was a little bit high when he created the Universe, causing a crinkling effect in the space time continuum.

....and also because God was a little bit high when he created the Universe, causing a crinkling effect in the space time continuum.

The Ruffle effect?

So God is deceptive. He lies to us. But the Bible... well, there's no lies in that, because it's the word of God and God doesn't li.... er... uh-oh.

God is not deceptive. His Truth is just so hyperfactual that if he were to reveal it, our brains would squirt out of our ears.

Stop trying to get us all to squirt, LG!

The Ruffle effect?
Only when it encounters the big dip.

wooo yeah! Let's start the 999999999th thread on this crap and then not post anything useful. [And possibly troll.]

FUCK YEA!

You want something useful?

Here's some music: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcTHBOjnUss

:)

The Ruffle effect?

I see you and I attended the same lecture over in the astrophysics hall. I'm glad they finally have their own department, frankly.

Wow, that's almost an on-topic post...

God is not deceptive. His Truth is just so hyperfactual that if he were to reveal it, our brains would squirt out of our ears.

Stop trying to get us all to squirt, LG!

I can't help it. It's the only thing I'm good at. :p

Only when it encounters the big dip.

You know, I wish I'd had nationstates when I lived in Tohoku...the use of language here would have been fine for all those 7C's...

So God is deceptive. He lies to us. But the Bible... well, there's no lies in that, because it's the word of God and God doesn't li.... er... uh-oh.

See, let me explain.

If I place a turd - God bless my soul for such words - in a paper bag, place that bag on in front of your door, set light on it and ring the doorbell, you might consider me deceptive when you stomp on it to put it out, you fall for my 'trick'.

Yet I put the truth there, it was a turd in a bag on fire. It's your perception that is wrong, you perceive it as something to stamp out.

That's what God does, the truth is like a turd in a lighted bag on your doorstep, and by stomping on it with your 'science', all you scientists do is get shit - God bless my soul for such words - on your foot.

You call it deception, I call it the truth misperceived.

...and you'll go to hell for it too.

I don't get why Christians can't accept that maybe the Bible isn't 100% accurate - the people writing it were all fallible. It's not like it's the Koran, where it's supposed to be God speaking (in)directly to Muhammad.
I don't get why some people on this board can't accept that not all Christians are fundamentalists (actually most Christians are not) and don't accept the idea that the Bible is literally true.

Thousands of years of belief and worship...could be a factor. Not something you drop over night.

Maybe God is actually a green midget behind a curtain controlling our minds...Let's get all exsistential now.

Green Little Person. He likes to be called Little Person.

You want something useful?

Here's some music: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcTHBOjnUss

:)

:upyours::upyours::upyours::upyours::upyours::mad::mad::mad:

See, let me explain.

If I place a turd - God bless my soul for such words - in a paper bag, place that bag on in front of your door, set light on it and ring the doorbell, you might consider me deceptive when you stomp on it to put it out, you fall for my 'trick'.

Yet I put the truth there, it was a turd in a bag on fire. It's your perception that is wrong, you perceive it as something to stamp out.

That's what God does, the truth is like a turd in a lighted bag on your doorstep, and by stomping on it with your 'science', all you scientists do is get shit - God bless my soul for such words - on your foot.

You call it deception, I call it the truth misperceived.

...and you'll go to hell for it too.


This is why Eastern spiritual views appeal to some...they introduce the simple yet powerful premise that you must BE the shit....or at least use your own shit, instead of the more pedestrian dogshit.

wooo yeah! Let's start the 999999999th thread on this crap and then not post anything useful. [And possibly troll.]

FUCK YEA!

http://img447.imageshack.us/img447/5900/owlparp3aw.jpg

See, let me explain.

If I place a turd - God bless my soul for such words - in a paper bag, place that bag on in front of your door, set light on it and ring the doorbell, you might consider me deceptive when you stomp on it to put it out, you fall for my 'trick'.

Yet I put the truth there, it was a turd in a bag on fire. It's your perception that is wrong, you perceive it as something to stamp out.

That's what God does, the truth is like a turd in a lighted bag on your doorstep, and by stomping on it with your 'science', all you scientists do is get shit - God bless my soul for such words - on your foot.

You call it deception, I call it the truth misperceived.

...and you'll go to hell for it too.

Crap! :eek:

I thought it was supposed to be that every time a star explodes an angel gets its wings deep fried?

Fixed.

...a Young Earth Creationist weeps.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/space/05/21/star.explosion.ap/index.html

The star died 100 million years ago. 99,994,000 years before God created the Universe and the Earth according to the Bible. Good thing it's a historically accurate, factually inerrant record of natural history or I might start to question anything else it says. :p

Alright! We managed to witness a supernova explosion! Score one for science!

You know, I wish I'd had nationstates when I lived in Tohoku...the use of language here would have been fine for all those 7C's...
'Tis the only place to fulfill my need for (semi) intelligent screaming matches, er, debates.

Trying to debate a Japanese person just doesn't work, they just keep politely agreeing with you!

You want something useful?

Here's some music: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcTHBOjnUss

:)

I find that this is more fitting.

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=eBGIQ7ZuuiU

I don't get why some people on this board can't accept that not all Christians are fundamentalists (actually most Christians are not) and don't accept the idea that the Bible is literally true.

I don't get why Kirk Cameron hasn't convinced everyone to become fundamentalist. He's a master of rhetoric.

Fixed.
Mmmm... deep fried angel wings... Oh yeah!

You want something useful?

Here's some music: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcTHBOjnUss

:)

Damn, I was afraid you'd Rickrolled him. Good choice of tunes.

:upyours::upyours::upyours::upyours::upyours::mad::mad::mad:

For a fellow espousing a utilitarian ideal, a kickline of the most adolescent smilies hardly seems to satisfy...

'Tis the only place to fulfill my need for (semi) intelligent screaming matches, er, debates.

Trying to debate a Japanese person just doesn't work, they just keep politely agreeing with you!

They must have some massive heart attacks and strokes when they die. I bet they just burst apart. :p

I don't get why Kirk Cameron hasn't convinced everyone to become fundamentalist. He's a master of rhetoric.
It's the name, every time I read it I get this weird image of Captain James T. Kirk trying to sail a catamaran around the Caribbean and then I spend all my time trying to figure that one out instead of listening to him.

'Tis the only place to fulfill my need for (semi) intelligent screaming matches, er, debates.

Trying to debate a Japanese person just doesn't work, they just keep politely agreeing with you!

Oh, man, I remember that time we were lost in Kokobuncho, trying to find a bar called Shaft for this dude's good bye party...even the criminals were polite, gave us directions, tried to find us an english speaking whore...

Damn, I was afraid you'd Rickrolled him. Good choice of tunes.

It seemed appropriate. :)

It's the name, every time I read it I get this weird image of Captain James T. Kirk trying to sail a catamaran around the Caribbean and then I spend all my time trying to figure that one out instead of listening to him.

You could try listening to Stephen Baldwin as an alternative...or you could just rabbit punch yourself in the crotch until you pass out and wake up tear-eyed and nauseated in a pool of your own acrid bile. Same thing.

They must have some massive heart attacks and strokes when they die. I bet they just burst apart. :p
There's an old (Very old) comic novel about two rather clownish travelers (You'd like them, LG) who witness a horrible fight in Kyoto; which consisted of two guys calmly trying to claim that the blame for accidentally bumping into each other lied with themselves while everyone else in Kyoto was stating about how they had never seen such a heated argument.

For a fellow espousing a utilitarian ideal, a kickline of the most adolescent smilies hardly seems to satisfy...

On the contrary, I know precisely what I'm dealing with now. Oh, I suspected and correctly before that, but the data has confirmed my hypothesis. :)

...a Young Earth Creationist weeps.


you can't prove that!

Could it be that we got the speed of light wrong and it's much faster than we think, I mean, I'm opening and closing my eyes right now and, when I open them everything I can see is just there, like instantaneously.

So, if it's faster than we think, it might reach us quicker so 100m years ago might actually just be 5, 500 years ago.

*submits theory as is to National Science Institute*

You could try listening to Stephen Baldwin as an alternative...or you could just rabbit punch yourself in the crotch until you pass out and wake up tear-eyed and nauseated in a pool of your own acrid bile. Same thing.

Not true. Only one of those three will entertain those around you.

Damn, I was afraid you'd Rickrolled him. Good choice of tunes.

It was in the last days of May, 2008...God sent his angel, aflame and mighty, its countenance so regal and radiant, no living thing could but bow to it, and recognize it as the herald of the One True God...

And it bore, in its hand, a scroll, sealed with the blood of all the martyrs, and it hovered, the earth itself too timid to touch the Messenger of its Creator...

And the leaders of all the earth, its churchs, its states, its tribes and guilds, heads bowed and bereft of all hubris, ready to hear the Word.

And the angel broke the seal, opened the scroll...cleared its throat...and sang.

"Never gonna give, never gonna give you uuuuup!"

It was in the last days of May, 2008...God sent his angel, aflame and mighty, its countenance so regal and radiant, no living thing could but bow to it, and recognize it as the herald of the One True God...

And it bore, in its hand, a scroll, sealed with the blood of all the martyrs, and it hovered, the earth itself too timid to touch the Messenger of its Creator...

And the leaders of all the earth, its churchs, its states, its tribes and guilds, heads bowed and bereft of all hubris, ready to hear the Word.

And the angel broke the seal, opened the scroll...cleared its throat...and sang.

"Never gonna give, never gonna give you uuuuup!"

That would be so amazingly awesome I don't even know what to think, I'm frozen in the face of it's awesomeness.

Oh, man, I remember that time we were lost in Kokobuncho, trying to find a bar called Shaft for this dude's good bye party...even the criminals were polite, gave us directions, tried to find us an english speaking whore...
Gotta love the polite Yakuza. I heard of one guy who ended up getting hired to be a private tutor for the son of a local boss and said boss tried to give him a nice hooker by way of saying thanks.

Could it be that we got the speed of light wrong and it's much faster than we think, I mean, I'm opening and closing my eyes right now and, when I open them everything I can see is just there, like instantaneously.

So, if it's faster than we think, it might reach us quicker so 100m years ago might actually just be 5, 500 years ago.

*submits theory as is to National Science Institute*

I think we should consider submitting a grant request. I figure we need 10 grand for some decent highspeed photogates to measure your blinking, another 10 grand for expenses, and another 10 grand for each of us, to record data, plus 10 grand to support us while we compose the grant request.

I think we should consider submitting a grant request. I figure we need 10 grand for some decent highspeed photogates to measure your blinking, another 10 grand for expenses, and another 10 grand for each of us, to record data, plus 10 grand to support us while we compose the grant request.

You get the grant, I'll book the hookers and tequila.

Gotta love the polite Yakuza. I heard of one guy who ended up getting hired to be a private tutor for the son of a local boss and said boss tried to give him a nice hooker by way of saying thanks.

Oh, man, I wish I'd met that Oyabun (sic?)....I might've actually worked harder at my job...

Could it be that we got the speed of light wrong and it's much faster than we think, I mean, I'm opening and closing my eyes right now and, when I open them everything I can see is just there, like instantaneously.

So, if it's faster than we think, it might reach us quicker so 100m years ago might actually just be 5, 500 years ago.

*submits theory as is to National Science Institute*

http://faultgame.com/images/very2.wav

You get the grant, I'll book the hookers and tequila.

I see you've filed for NSI grants before...

The star died 100 million years ago. 99,994,000 years before God created the Universe and the Earth according to the Bible.

Silly!
God sent all that light our way on the sixth day, right after faking the fossils.

I love exploding stars. I think the most awesome time in my life was when I actually realized that bits of my body were made up from stellar nuclear furnaces that had exploded billions of years ago.

I thought it was supposed to be that every time a star explodes an angel gets its wings? :confused:

Everytime a Death Star explodes you get an X-Wing.

Everytime a Death Star explodes you get an X-Wing.

ooh! Ancient video game reference. Nice. :)

I believe in creationism but I'm not weeping. Why should I? The Bible doesn't actually say how old Earth is. Heck, it isn't even the point of the Bible.

ooh! Ancient video game reference. Nice. :)

Ah, fondly I remember receiving my Correllian Star for services rendered to the rebel alliance - me mam was so proud.

*sniff, I loved that game*

I believe in creationism but I'm not weeping. Why should I? The Bible doesn't actually say how old Earth is. Heck, it isn't even the point of the Bible.

The Bible contains dates of historical events and genealogies that are used to calulate the age of the Earth: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_earth_creationism

Young Earth creationists believe that the Earth is "young", on the order of 6,000 to 10,000 years old,[27] rather than the age of 4.6 billion years calculated by modern geology using geochronological methods including radiometric dating. Young Earth creationists typically derive their range of figures using the ages given in the genealogies and other dates in the Bible, similar to the process used by James Ussher (1581–1656), Church of Ireland Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of All Ireland, when he dated creation at 4004 BC. Ussher's chronology, published in 1650, has been subsequently revised many times, most recently in 2003 by Larry and Marion Pierce.[28]

Young Earth creationists believe that life was created by God 'each after their kind' in the universe's first six normal-length (24-hour) days. Additionally, they believe that the biblical account of Noah's flood is historically true, maintaining that there was a worldwide flood (circa 2349 BC) that destroyed all terrestrial life except that which was saved on Noah's Ark. (Barry Setterfield proposed in 1999 that the flood occurred much earlier around 3536 BC.) They assert that this global flood caused a multitude of geological features that scientists regard as evidence of an old Earth.

I think that these Young Earth Creationists seem to fear that the Bible is an all or nothing deal. That if it all isn't true, that none of it is. Which is ridiculous. It's the only explanation for their astounding ability to refute even basic mathematics. :p

The Bible contains dates of historical events and genealogies that are used to calulate the age of the Earth: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_earth_creationism



I think that these Young Earth Creationists seem to fear that the Bible is an all or nothing deal. That if it all isn't true, that none of it is. Which is ridiculous. It's the only explanation for their astounding ability to refute even basic mathematics. :p

That is one interpretation of the Bible. The Bible doesn't explicitly specify nor does it matter at all.

On another note, if one wants to seek a natural scientific fact one goes out to experience and explore the world, not sitting at a desk with a calculator at a book not written for this purpose.

That is one interpretation of the Bible. The Bible doesn't explicitly specify nor does it matter at all.

On another note, if one wants to seek a natural scientific fact one goes out to experience and explore the world, not sitting at a desk with a calculator at a book not written for this purpose.

If one wants to seek a natural scientific fact, one isn't a Young Earth Creationist. :p

That is one interpretation of the Bible. The Bible doesn't explicitly specify nor does it matter at all.

OK.

If Creation occurred billions of years ago, doesn't that put humanity in a much more humble place in God's universe? Most of the history of Earth, since it cooled enough to support life of any sort, was devoid of humans (or mammals for that matter.)

Yet the Bible seems to place humanity in a very central position in "the world." It seems strange that God would make 'man' "in his own image" yet give him such a small place in time, and in physical space.

One would almost think the point was to make us feel insignificant. Before the Universe, and that humble before God.

Look, God just puts this 'evidence' there so it's more difficult to have faith, that way he can separate the true believers from the pretenders. You have to really, really have faith to get into heaven.

I don't know why this is so hard to understand, considering the punishment for not understanding it is eternity in hell, you'd think the incentive was obvious.

In before dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago, hello, the behemoth is mentioned in the Bible!

:rolleyes:


Yes of course, coz he's a crule and tricky God like that.

...a Young Earth Creationist weeps.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/space/05/21/star.explosion.ap/index.html

The star died 100 million years ago.
So a young earth creationist wept 100 million years ago?
One would almost think the point was to make us feel insignificant. Before the Universe, and that humble before God.
Yes, the actual age and size of the creation shows how great the creator is much better than something shoddily slapped together in 6 days 6000 years ago would.

Yet another thread about young Earth intelligent design creationism. I can't see a single poster in this thread who seems to seriously and sincerely believe in that stuff. Why are generalites who don't even believe in it so obsessed with these silly ideas of an ignorant minority?

So a young earth creationist wept 100 million years ago?

Yes, the actual age and size of the creation shows how great the creator is much better than something shoddily slapped together in 6 days 6000 years ago would.

Yet another thread about young Earth intelligent design creationism. I can't see a single poster in this thread who seems to seriously and sincerely believe in that stuff. Why are generalites who don't even believe in it so obsessed with these silly ideas of an ignorant minority?

Heh. Where I live, they aren't such a minority at all. I'd say half, if not more, of the Christians that I've met are Young Earth Creationists.

Young earth Theory =/= Creationism

Yes, the actual age and size of the creation shows how great the creator is much better than something shoddily slapped together in 6 days 6000 years ago would.

The Bible was written in terms which would boggle the mind back then. The modern mind has more practice at boggling. That old stuff comes across as rather petty, frankly.

Yet another thread about young Earth intelligent design creationism. I can't see a single poster in this thread who seems to seriously and sincerely believe in that stuff. Why are generalites who don't even believe in it so obsessed with these silly ideas of an ignorant minority?

Well excuse me. I thought I left plenty of scope for compromise with Dragon.

Sure, in the NSG context I might have appeared mocking. I didn't mean to be. I would allow for a Creator in place of what we call the Big Bang. What came "before" that is unknowable enough to allow any interpretation, and I'm genuinely curious about a Creation which doesn't just pander to human egos but is about something beyond our current understanding.

Aren't you?

OK.

If Creation occurred billions of years ago, doesn't that put humanity in a much more humble place in God's universe? Most of the history of Earth, since it cooled enough to support life of any sort, was devoid of humans (or mammals for that matter.)

Yet the Bible seems to place humanity in a very central position in "the world." It seems strange that God would make 'man' "in his own image" yet give him such a small place in time, and in physical space.

One would almost think the point was to make us feel insignificant. Before the Universe, and that humble before God.

A bit of a balance, I guess. I believe that God can "square a circle" sometimes by finding the perfect balance between seemingly contradictory terms.

If one wants to seek a natural scientific fact, one isn't a Young Earth Creationist. :p

Close to what I think, but not quite...

It's practically impossible to deny Science. As Descartes said, would a good God give us the power of reason, then deliberately mislead us?

Why would even an evil God do that? It would be more malicious to give us faulty reason, then laugh as we misinterpreted the truths put before us. The fault would be all ours (albiet a fault imposed on us.)

That Science might get infinitely harder, that the answers we seek be forever just beyond our grasp, could be the work of a good God. A good God would want us to grow, to keep seeking challenges ... to become more after It's own image.

And there'd be some other irons in the fire too. Or else the rest of the universe would be kind of wasteful.

Every time a star explodes, Jerry Falwell is passed on to another demon. *hides*

And, Barringtonia, keep in mind that light moves fast enough to circle the earth 7-8 times PER SECOND! Even reports of politicians who faceshot others or demonstrate an inability to eat pretzels don't move that fast!

Well excuse me. I thought I left plenty of scope for compromise with Dragon.

Sure, in the NSG context I might have appeared mocking. I didn't mean to be.
Sorry my bad. Besides being less accurate when expressing myself in English and in text I still haven't figured out how to indicate when I stop replying to a specific post and start talking about the general topic.The second paragraph after your quote was a reply to this thread in general.

The first paragraph was a reply to you. I agree but think the size and age of the universe is more about showing us the greatness of God than about showing us how puny we are.
I would allow for a Creator in place of what we call the Big Bang. What came "before" that is unknowable enough to allow any interpretation, and I'm genuinely curious about a Creation which doesn't just pander to human egos but is about something beyond our current understanding.

Aren't you?
Well, I believe God set off the big bang on purpose billions of years ago and designed the universe so well that it doesn't require manual divine maintenance. Almost everything in the physical universe and everything beyond it is beyond our current understanding.

I thought it was supposed to be that every time a star explodes an angel gets its wings? :confused:
No, it's "every time a child laughs an angel gets its wings, every time an angel cries a child bursts into flames."

And, Barringtonia, keep in mind that light moves fast enough to circle the earth 7-8 times PER SECOND! Even reports of politicians who faceshot others or demonstrate an inability to eat pretzels don't move that fast!

According to your 'science' perhaps but simple mathematics says it must go faster.

We determine the death of this star by the speed at which the light reaches us, yet given current calculations that makes it 100m years old.

Yet we know that CAN'T be true because we KNOW the universe is only 6, 000 years old.

So light must be much faster.

Sorry my bad. Besides being less accurate when expressing myself in English and in text I still haven't figured out how to indicate when I stop replying to a specific post and start talking about the general topic.The second paragraph after your quote was a reply to this thread in general.

Make a separate post (two posts in a row is no great failing) or do as I do, a row of ==='s.

The first paragraph was a reply to you. I agree but think the size and age of the universe is more about showing us the greatness of God than about showing us how puny we are.

It seems to me the same thing. Our human perceptions are finite, our understanding finite.

And why would God boast? Is that not a petty thing, which even humans can rise above?

Well, I believe God set off the big bang on purpose billions of years ago and designed the universe so well that it doesn't require manual divine maintenance. Almost everything in the physical universe and everything beyond it is beyond our current understanding.

So let me put this to you. Having created such a vast universe, does it make sense that we are the only "flower of creation"?

Our Sun is one star among trillions. If the theory of the formation of stars is correct (and observations of the last few years bear it out) there are other planets capable of developing life just as ours has. We have seen planets far far away, with visible light. They are the big planets, like our gas giants. If they are where we see them, they were created in the same process, whether we call it Big Bang or Creation.

There may be some special quality of our Sun, or of our Planet, which makes it the only haven of life, at least life advanced enough to recognize (or dream of) a God.

Do we, at some point, discover this unique quality? How long does it take us to find that quality? Do we colonize other planets of other stars, still perplexed as to what makes our Earth unique ... or do we hit some limit of observing the rest of the cosmos, a big sign saying "stop exploring here, it was all a hoax"?

I resort again to poor old Descartes: a good God would not deceive us.

Or do we find that we humans are just one of God's trillion trillion children? ...so to speak, of course it is fraught to consider ourselves "children" in the model of our own reproduction.

There is another way to put that: is not the human race a rather humble accomplishment of an omnipotent and good God ?

So light must be much faster.

To be fair, we have only measured the speed of light against otherwise measurable distances LOCALLY.

If light travels much faster until it gets near us, then the universe is much smaller than it appears.

This would explain the problem of dark matter, assuming gravity didn't pull the same stunt.

If that hasn't blown your mind, there exists a proof that we are actually living on the INSIDE of the planet earth, and all that stuff we're seeing up there exists in very limited space, with spacetime becoming more distorted towards the 'center' of same, becoming a singularity there, and therefore infinitely far away. The only certain disproof of this (apart from it being completely daft) is to dig a hole in the ground ... to infinity. LG may be able to provide you with a link.

This is something I dislike about Christians, non-christians, atheists, mormons, muslims, whatever you believe in, can't you just believe in it on your own without telling everyone else that their belief is crap?

Until you can without a doubt completely prove your side, there's really no sense in arguing.

I'm a Christian, but I'm a very unorthodox one. I don't believe it is my responsibility to save the unbelievers. If you feel like dying and going to hell for eternity, then that's your business. I'm not going to further alienate you by telling you that all you believe in is a lie and denouncing your intelligence. I shall simply present my side of things, what I believe in, the peace that I have found by believing in God, Jesus, etc etc. If you can accept the fact that I am happy and have peace with what I believe without dissecting every little thing I may not know, then I can accept the fact you don't know everything about science, either.


That's why people kill each other. There's no respect.

That's why people kill each other. There's no respect.

*kills Tox*

This is something I dislike about Christians, non-christians, atheists, mormons, muslims, whatever you believe in, can't you just believe in it on your own without telling everyone else that their belief is crap?
You do realize that mormons are christians, yes?

YEA I HATE GOD TOO

*fits in with so many anti-religious types we have here on NSG*

My personal belief is that God did in 7 days what science deems could only be done in so many billions of years. That's why we can't understand it.

I believe God put backwards revolving planets into the universe to fuck with scientist's heads.

Science dictates that we all essentially came from dust, or rocks. And idk if you've ever banged two rocks together, but when you do, you sure as hell don't get a horse.

But in the Bible it says God created everything from nothing. See, he had to make the dirt first. Thus, my theory that science is so close to what happened, they just can't see that God did it.

And that's just my belief. If you want to believe Greg the Blue Bunny created the world from his navel lint, then by all means.

*kills Tox*


You do realize that mormons are christians, yes?

I do not classify Mormons as Christians, as they fundamentally believe something totally different. Mormons are Mormons. Jesus is in the Koran, but you don't classify Muslims as being the same as Christians.

I do not classify Mormons as Christians, as they fundamentally believe something totally different. Mormons are Mormons. Jesus is in the Koran, but you don't classify Muslims as being the same as Christians.

Muslims are not christian because they do not recognize Jesus as the son of god/part of the holy trinity. Mormons are christians because they do.

This supernova confirms my beliefs - that when a big star dies, it blows up.

My faith in G-d and the Torah is not affected. I am, however, once again impressed by G-d's universe.

I hope that, in my lifetime, a supernova is bright enough that we can see it in daylight. That would be a sight to remember.

I don't get why some people on this board can't accept that not all Christians are fundamentalists (actually most Christians are not) and don't accept the idea that the Bible is literally true.

It all boils down to the definition of Christian. I myself for instance only consider someone a Christian if he (/she/it) derives their morals from the Bible.

That automatically implies that I do not consider the overwhelming majority of people that *call* themselves Christians Christians. After all, most of them just cherrypick parts of the Bible and think they can overrule other parts with statements like "but that is not relevant to modern society" - which is complete and utter hypocrisy if God himself did not declare that. For a Christian, only Gods opinion should matter. If your opinion is that certain things are repugnant, deplorable, outdated and so on but God disagrees, your own opinion is simply flawed. Once you decide you can place your own opinion above God, the whole justification of your moral system comes crashing down.

So, I consider most people that call themselves Christians to be silly hypocrites who might share quite a lot of morals with real Christians - but just aren't the real thing.

Others might, and now we arrive at your question, take this a step further and denounce everyone who does not accept the Bible as the prime literal authority on *everything* to be "fake" Christians. I do not agree with that myself, but can see their point.

Could it be that we got the speed of light wrong and it's much faster than we think, I mean, I'm opening and closing my eyes right now and, when I open them everything I can see is just there, like instantaneously.

So, if it's faster than we think, it might reach us quicker so 100m years ago might actually just be 5, 500 years ago.

*submits theory as is to National Science Institute*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light#Earth-bound_techniques

Foucault method.

Young earth Theory =/= Creationism

Young Earth Creationism is a subset of Creationism, much as Old Earth, Omphalos Creationism, and the like.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light#Earth-bound_techniques

Foucault method.

See, this is the thing, every time you need proof from science people go - 'it's science' - in the same way that when people ask for proof from the bible... 'it's in the bible'.

Same difference - you can point to your numbers and I can point to mine.

Numbers: Chapter 11: 1: And when the people complained, it displeased the LORD: and the LORD heard it; and his anger was kindled; and the fire of the LORD burnt among them, and consumed them that were in the uttermost parts of the camp.

So stop complaining about God, it's quite clear what will happen to you.

Could it be that we got the speed of light wrong and it's much faster than we think, I mean, I'm opening and closing my eyes right now and, when I open them everything I can see is just there, like instantaneously.

So, if it's faster than we think, it might reach us quicker so 100m years ago might actually just be 5, 500 years ago.

*submits theory as is to National Science Institute*

Theoretically possible, but the constant speed of light is a fundamental tenet of modern physics. If it was shown that the speed of light in a vacuum varied, then it would call a century of physics into question. It would be like discovering that DNA isn't actually a double helix.

Not that I'd be upset. I might benefit in the long run, as reconstructing physics as we know it in the light of this new discovery would require a lot of young physics students like myself.

So stop complaining about God, it's quite clear what will happen to you.

Yeah, you'll get annoyed to death by bible-thumping fundies.

Yeah, you'll get annoyed to death by bible-thumping fundies.

Yeah, people with health issues from poor lifestyles get annoyed when doctors tell them to stop being unhealthy - no one likes being told when they're wrong.

See, this is the thing, every time you need proof from science people go - 'it's science' - in the same way that when people ask for proof from the bible... 'it's in the bible'.

Same difference - you can point to your numbers and I can point to mine.

Numbers: Chapter 11: 1: And when the people complained, it displeased the LORD: and the LORD heard it; and his anger was kindled; and the fire of the LORD burnt among them, and consumed them that were in the uttermost parts of the camp.

So stop complaining about God, it's quite clear what will happen to you.

Is it a point against you that I can't take this seriously at all, or a point against me? :p

Yeah, people with health issues from poor lifestyles get annoyed when doctors tell them to stop being unhealthy - no one likes being told when they're wrong.

The difference is that in your example that I quoted there is proof that the person is wrong whereas there is no proof that christians are right, and in fact there is a good bit of evidence that fundies are in fact wrong.

It all boils down to the definition of Christian. I myself for instance only consider someone a Christian if he (/she/it) derives their morals from the Bible.

That automatically implies that I do not consider the overwhelming majority of people that *call* themselves Christians Christians. After all, most of them just cherrypick parts of the Bible and think they can overrule other parts with statements like "but that is not relevant to modern society" - which is complete and utter hypocrisy if God himself did not declare that. For a Christian, only Gods opinion should matter. If your opinion is that certain things are repugnant, deplorable, outdated and so on but God disagrees, your own opinion is simply flawed. Once you decide you can place your own opinion above God, the whole justification of your moral system comes crashing down.

So, I consider most people that call themselves Christians to be silly hypocrites who might share quite a lot of morals with real Christians - but just aren't the real thing.


Exactly my belief. The Bible isn't a buffet. You either accept it all, or don't. You can't pick and choose what you want out of it and call the rest crap.

Living life as a Christian requires exactly what the name says. You strive to be "Christ-like" just like the fad a few years back What Would Jesus Do.
Most people say they are Christian, just so people assume that they are good citizens. Then they still go down to the strip clubs, exploit women, get drunk all the time, and beat their wives and kids. Church becomes a popularity contest, just a place you go to show off your new Cadillac or Porsche or something. Truly being a Christian changes you as a person. And if a person says they are Christian, but you see in their lives they are doing evil or wrong, than you know the truth.

The Bible says we are not to judge others. But we can inspect fruit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light#Earth-bound_techniques

Foucault method.

So how can one truly measure the speed of anything? Are not units of measurements man made? What if it's not possible to comprehend the true speed of light because our human brains have not come to a point where we can understand it?

the speed of light is about 670,616,629.4 miles per hour.

Can you show me a device that can "clock" light? Can we even imagine what 670,616,629.4 mph is like? I think not.

Is it a point against you that I can't take this seriously at all, or a point against me? :p

It's actually a point for both you and me :)

The difference is that in your example that I quoted there is proof that the person is wrong whereas there is no proof that christians are right, and in fact there is a good bit of evidence that fundies are in fact wrong.

Proof?

You were at the beginning of the universe, took some pictures with your Insta-matic?

Are you so arrogant to say that science as we currently understand it cannot be disproved, that every theory is completely correct, that there's not even an infinitesimal chance that we've missed something fundamental about this universe, that scientists have been wrong before and can be wrong again.

You think we're at the apex of knowledge, that we'll not learn more in the next 500 years compared to the last 500 years, that the entire premise on which we view this universe might be mistaken according to current scientific understanding.

I'm sure the Victorians felt the same way, the Romans, the Ancient Greeks, the Egyptians, the Assyrians - but no, you think we've cracked it.

Proof? I laugh at your proof.

The difference is that in your example that I quoted there is proof that the person is wrong whereas there is no proof that christians are right, and in fact there is a good bit of evidence that fundies are in fact wrong.
Proof?

You were at the beginning of the universe, took some pictures with your Insta-matic?

Are you so arrogant to say that science as we currently understand it cannot be disproved, that every theory is completely correct, that there's not even an infinitesimal chance that we've missed something fundamental about this universe, that scientists have been wrong before and can be wrong again.

You think we're at the apex of knowledge, that we'll not learn more in the next 500 years compared to the last 500 years, that the entire premise on which we view this universe might be mistaken according to current scientific understanding.

I'm sure the Victorians felt the same way, the Romans, the Ancient Greeks, the Egyptians, the Assyrians - but no, you think we've cracked it.

Proof? I laugh at your proof.

Where in there did I say anything about science being infallible?

I said that in your example (the patient with health problems) there was proof that the patient was wrong and the doctor was right.

I said that there was no proof that chrisitianity is right.

I said that there is evidence showing that fundies (fundamentalists christians) are in fact wrong.

How you got from my 3 statements to the idea that I think that we are at the pinnacle scientific achievement I have no idea.

Now unless you can provide some proof that christianity has gotten it right, or show me how the scientific fallacies in the bible are in fact not fallacies, I'd advise you to chill out before you make yourself look like even more of an idiot than you already have.

Young earth Theory =/= Creationism

I'm taking great pains to specify Young Earth Creationism. *nod*

So how can one truly measure the speed of anything? Are not units of measurements man made? What if it's not possible to comprehend the true speed of light because our human brains have not come to a point where we can understand it?

the speed of light is about 670,616,629.4 miles per hour.

Can you show me a device that can "clock" light? Can we even imagine what 670,616,629.4 mph is like? I think not.

Foucault method.

See, this is the thing, every time you need proof from science people go - 'it's science' - in the same way that when people ask for proof from the bible... 'it's in the bible'.

Same difference - you can point to your numbers and I can point to mine.

Numbers: Chapter 11: 1: And when the people complained, it displeased the LORD: and the LORD heard it; and his anger was kindled; and the fire of the LORD burnt among them, and consumed them that were in the uttermost parts of the camp.

So stop complaining about God, it's quite clear what will happen to you.
God Deated them for complaining! :eek: He's a mod! :eek: :eek:

wooo yeah! Let's start the 999999999th thread on this crap and then not post anything useful. [And possibly troll.]

FUCK YEA!

Yay! What better than unprovoked Christian-bashing!

WHOOO! They have it coming for happening to believe something that our best scientific evidence refutes! A pox on them!

That or not being complete jerks is also a good idea, you know, whatever.

Yay! What better than unprovoked Christian-bashing!

WHOOO! They have it coming for happening to believe something that our best scientific evidence refutes! A pox on them!

That or not being complete jerks is also a good idea, you know, whatever.

No one's bashing Christians in general. We're bashing Young Earth Creationism, a subset of Christian theology, which is rather deserving of bashing routinely.

So how can one truly measure the speed of anything? Are not units of measurements man made? What if it's not possible to comprehend the true speed of light because our human brains have not come to a point where we can understand it?

the speed of light is about 670,616,629.4 miles per hour.

Can you show me a device that can "clock" light? Can we even imagine what 670,616,629.4 mph is like? I think not.

From:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light

Measurement of the speed of light

Early attempts
Isaac Beeckman proposed an experiment (1629) in which a person would observe the flash of a cannon reflecting off a mirror about one mile away. Galileo proposed an experiment (1638), with an apparent claim to having performed it some years earlier, to measure the speed of light by observing the delay between uncovering a lantern and its perception some distance away. This experiment was carried out by the Accademia del Cimento of Florence in 1667, with the lanterns separated by about one mile. No delay was observed. Robert Hooke explained the negative results as Galileo had by pointing out that such observations did not establish the infinite speed of light, but only that the speed must be very great.


Rømer's observations of the occultations of Io from Earth.
Astronomical techniques
The first quantitative estimate of the speed of light was made in 1676 by Ole Christensen Rømer, who was studying the motions of Jupiter's moon, Io, with a telescope. It is possible to time the orbital revolution of Io because it enters and exits Jupiter's shadow at regular intervals (at C or D). Rømer observed that Io revolved around Jupiter once every 42.5 hours when Earth was closest to Jupiter (at H). He also observed that, as Earth and Jupiter moved apart (as from L to K), Io's exit from the shadow would begin progressively later than predicted. It was clear that these exit "signals" took longer to reach Earth, as Earth and Jupiter moved further apart. This was as a result of the extra time it took for light to cross the extra distance between the planets, time which had accumulated in the interval between one signal and the next. The opposite is the case when they are approaching (as from F to G). On the basis of his observations, Rømer estimated that it would take light 22 minutes to cross the diameter of the orbit of the Earth (that is, twice the astronomical unit); the modern estimate is about 16 minutes and 40 seconds.

Around the same time, the astronomical unit was estimated to be about 140 million kilometres. The astronomical unit and Rømer's time estimate were combined by Christiaan Huygens, who estimated the speed of light to be 1,000 Earth diameters per minute. This is about 220,000 kilometres per second (136,000 miles per second), 26% lower than the currently accepted value, but still very much faster than any physical phenomenon then known.

Isaac Newton also accepted the finite speed. In his 1704 book Opticks he reports the value of 16.6 Earth diameters per second (210,000 kilometres per second, 30% less than the actual value), which it seems he inferred for himself (whether from Rømer's data, or otherwise, is not known). The same effect was subsequently observed by Rømer for a "spot" rotating with the surface of Jupiter. And later observations also showed the effect with the three other Galilean moons, where it was more difficult to observe, thus laying to rest some further objections that had been raised.

Even if, by these observations, the finite speed of light may not have been established to everyone's satisfaction (notably Jean-Dominique Cassini's), after the observations of James Bradley (1728), the hypothesis of infinite speed was considered discredited. Bradley deduced that starlight falling on the Earth should appear to come from a slight angle, which could be calculated by comparing the speed of the Earth in its orbit to the speed of light. This "aberration of light", as it is called, was observed to be about 1/200 of a degree. Bradley calculated the speed of light as about 298,000 kilometres per second (185,000 miles per second). This is only slightly less than the currently accepted value (less than one percent). The aberration effect has been studied extensively over the succeeding centuries, notably by Friedrich Georg Wilhelm Struve and de:Magnus Nyrén.


Diagram of the Fizeau-Foucault apparatus.
Earth-bound techniques
The first successful measurement of the speed of light using an earthbound apparatus was carried out by Hippolyte Fizeau in 1849. (This measures the speed of light in air, which is slower than the speed of light in vacuum by a factor of the refractive index of air, about 1.0003.) Fizeau's experiment was conceptually similar to those proposed by Beeckman and Galileo. A beam of light was directed at a mirror several thousand metres away. On the way from the source to the mirror, the beam passed through a rotating cog wheel. At a certain rate of rotation, the beam could pass through one gap on the way out and another on the way back. But at slightly higher or lower rates, the beam would strike a tooth and not pass through the wheel. Knowing the distance to the mirror, the number of teeth on the wheel, and the rate of rotation, the speed of light could be calculated. Fizeau reported the speed of light as 313,000 kilometres per second. Fizeau's method was later refined by Marie Alfred Cornu (1872) and Joseph Perrotin (1900).

Leon Foucault improved on Fizeau's method by replacing the cogwheel with a rotating mirror. Foucault's estimate, published in 1862, was 298,000 kilometres per second. Foucault's method was also used by Simon Newcomb and Albert A. Michelson. Michelson began his lengthy career by replicating and improving on Foucault's method.

In 1926, Michelson used a rotating prism to measure the time it took light to make a round trip from Mount Wilson to Mount San Antonio in California, a distance of about 22 miles (36 km). The precise measurements yielded a speed of 186,285 miles per second (299,796 kilometres per second).


Laboratory-based methods
During World War II, the development of the cavity resonance wavemeter for use in radar, together with precision timing methods, opened the way to laboratory-based measurements of the speed of light. In 1946, Louis Essen in collaboration with A.C. Gordon-Smith used a microwave cavity of precisely known dimensions to establish the frequency for a variety of normal modes of microwaves—which, in common with all electromagnetic radiation, travels at the speed of light in vacuum. As the wavelength of the modes was known from the geometry of the cavity and from electromagnetic theory, knowledge of the associated frequencies enabled a calculation of the speed of light. Their result, 299,792±3 km/s, was substantially greater than those found by optical techniques, and prompted much controversy. However, by 1950 repeated measurements by Essen established a result of 299,792.5±1 km/s; this became the value adopted by the 12th General Assembly of the Radio-Scientific Union in 1957. Most subsequent measurements have been consistent with this value.

With modern electronics (and most particularly the availability of oscilloscopes with time resolutions in the sub-nanosecond regime) the speed of light can now be directly measured by timing the delay of a light pulse from a laser or a LED in reflecting from a mirror, and this kind of experiment is now routine in undergraduate physics laboratories.[24][25][26]


Speed of light set by definition
In 1983, the 17th Conférence Générale des Poids et Mesures defined the metre in terms of the distance traveled by light in a given amount of time, which amounts to adopting a standard value for the speed of light in vacuum:[27]

The metre is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second.[3]

Here, the term vacuum is meant in the technical sense of free space. This definition of the metre relies on the definition of the second, which is:

The second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom.[28][29]

The consequence of this definition is that further refinements in the current experimental value of the speed of light would only adjust the length of a metre.[30] This point is made explicit by nondimensionalization in the article on Maxwell's equations. The value of c, or c0,[31] namely:


combined with the definition of magnetic constant μ0, also defines the electric constant ε0 in SI units. The magnetic constant μ0 is not dependent on c and as a result of the definition of the ampere, has a standard value in SI units of:[32]

.
The electric constant has then the exact value[33]


These constants appear in Maxwell's equations.

Share and enjoy. :)

No one's bashing Christians in general. We're bashing Young Earth Creationism, a subset of Christian theology, which is rather deserving of bashing routinely.

I AM a christian in general. :p

From:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light



Share and enjoy. :)

If he's incapable of following links and reading on his own, what makes you so certain this will have any real effect?

If he's incapable of following links and reading on his own, what makes you so certain this will have any real effect?

I give everyone the full benefit of the doubt before releasing the attack weasels.

Unless I'm bored. :)

I AM a christian in general. :p

That's what I mean. We're not bashing Christians, we're bashing a subset of Christians that hold to the YEC worldview.

From:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light



Share and enjoy. :)

Good. Finally someone with the sense enough to actually quote information in a scientific formula we can understand, instead of just spouting off that so and so is wrong.


Now. Can someone explain to me the growing necessity to prove that my God does not exist to me? Am I making to world sink lower into depravity and evil by believing what I believe? I would hope not.

So I believe God created the earth and all that is in it. And you believe . . . something else. Good for you :)

Now. Can someone explain to me the growing necessity to prove that my God does not exist to me? Am I making to world sink lower into depravity and evil by believing what I believe? I would hope not.

So I believe God created the earth and all that is in it. And you believe . . . something else. Good for you :)

Do you believe that the bible is the inerrant word of god?

Good. Finally someone with the sense enough to actually quote information in a scientific formula we can understand, instead of just spouting off that so and so is wrong.


Now. Can someone explain to me the growing necessity to prove that my God does not exist to me? Am I making to world sink lower into depravity and evil by believing what I believe? I would hope not.

So I believe God created the earth and all that is in it. And you believe . . . something else. Good for you :)

Science and scientists don't give a rats ass whether or not your God exists. They do get uppity, rightly so, when people start spouting off silly ideas about the world being 6000 years old, or humans being magically *poof*ed out of dirt, that have been discarded by successive observations of the world and universe around us.

Stop trying to get us all to squirt, LG!

That's just wrong on so many levels.

I always have a laugh when I read that atheists will go to hell for not believing in god. First of all, we don't believe in god and ,therefore, not in hell. So if we are correct and there is no god there is no hell to get punished in.

And the bible also says that god loves all humans, why would he send someone that he loves to eternal torture in hell? If he truly loves us he would let us all get to heaven, or at least get what we think we will get from death that would say permanent death of the soul and body. Which some religious groups believe will happen to non believers, for example the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

And last but not least, Jesus said that he die for all our sins so we can get forgiven for them. Wouldn't this include the sin on not believing in god? I know that you have to ask for forgiveness, but wouldn't it be possible to do so when you are "dead"?


Sorry for bad English, its not my primary language.

You know, I wish I'd had nationstates when I lived in Tohoku...the use of language here would have been fine for all those 7C's...

LOL A reference only another former bunny would understand. ;)

Oh, man, I remember that time we were lost in Kokobuncho, trying to find a bar called Shaft for this dude's good bye party...even the criminals were polite, gave us directions, tried to find us an english speaking whore...
Gotta love the polite Yakuza. I heard of one guy who ended up getting hired to be a private tutor for the son of a local boss and said boss tried to give him a nice hooker by way of saying thanks.

Indeed. The J Gangsters are indeed ... nice?

Every time a star explodes, Jerry Falwell is passed on to another demon. *hides*

:D :::starts trying toi figure out how to explode stars...:::

Good. Finally someone with the sense enough to actually quote information in a scientific formula we can understand, instead of just spouting off that so and so is wrong.


Now. Can someone explain to me the growing necessity to prove that my God does not exist to me? Am I making to world sink lower into depravity and evil by believing what I believe? I would hope not.

So I believe God created the earth and all that is in it. And you believe . . . something else. Good for you :)

I'm not trying to prove that God doesn't exist. I am illustrating the vast difference between science and faith.

I always have a laugh when I read that atheists will go to hell for not believing in god. First of all, we don't believe in god and, therefore, not in hell. So if we are correct and there is no god there is no hell to get punished in.

And the bible also says that god loves all humans, why would he send someone that he loves to eternal torture in hell? If he truly loves us he would let us all get to heaven, or at least get what we think we will get from death that would say permanent death of the soul and body. Which some religious groups believe will happen to non believers, for example the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

And last but not least, Jesus said that he die for all our sins so we can get forgiven for them. Wouldn't this include the sin on not believing in god? I know that you have to ask for forgiveness, but wouldn't it be possible to do so when you are "dead"?


Sorry for bad English, its not my primary language.

Corrected a slight problem at the beginning. Other than that, your English isn't bad.
May I ask what your native language is?

Corrected a slight problem at the beginning. Other than that, your English isn't bad.
May I ask what your native language is?

Aramaic! AIEEE!!! :eek:

Good. Finally someone with the sense enough to actually quote information in a scientific formula we can understand, instead of just spouting off that so and so is wrong.


Now. Can someone explain to me the growing necessity to prove that my God does not exist to me? Am I making to world sink lower into depravity and evil by believing what I believe? I would hope not.

So I believe God created the earth and all that is in it. And you believe . . . something else. Good for you :)

The problem isn't that you believe in God; the problem is that you believe God created the earth in 6 days 6,000 years ago. You're undermining science and knowledge. If we abandon science (and make no mistake, you must utterly abandon the scientific method and reject its ability to find information if you believe what you do, the evidence is so strong), then we lose all technology, all medicine, and generally make the world regress into a dark age. Sure, you alone believing what you do won't cause that. But what if your beliefs were that wide-spread?

Aramaic! AIEEE!!! :eek:

Bwahahahaha.

Now, back to reading up on Photometrics cameras.

Corrected a slight problem at the beginning. Other than that, your English isn't bad.
May I ask what your native language is?

My native language is Swedish.

My native language is Swedish.

Neat.

The problem isn't that you believe in God; the problem is that you believe God created the earth in 6 days 6,000 years ago. You're undermining science and knowledge. If we abandon science (and make no mistake, you must utterly abandon the scientific method and reject its ability to find information if you believe what you do, the evidence is so strong), then we lose all technology, all medicine, and generally make the world regress into a dark age. Sure, you alone believing what you do won't cause that. But what if your beliefs were that wide-spread?
1. How is his belief undermining science?
2. How do you have to abandon science by believing God created the Earth in 6 days?
3. Now you're just being a complete idiot, I'm sorry, but there's no other way to put it. Your beliefs in Evolution (Whic are obvious from your post) require just as much of a leap of faith as Young-earth Creationism Christianity.

Some believe in God. These people take a leap of faith. Some believe there is no God. This requires a leap of faith. Some people believe in Evolution, and no God. This requires a leap of faith under the pretense that it's "Science". Wimps. :D

My personal belief is that God did in 7 days what science deems could only be done in so many billions of years. That's why we can't understand it.

Wha?

I'll try to plumb those depths.

(a) Because God could do in 7 days what the science you don't accept says could be done in [no particular time, you don't accept it], therefore we can't understand it ... nah.
(b) Because Science can understand things on a scale of billions of years, yet not explain all of God's work, therefore "we" (science? or you, the science-sceptic?) are less than God ... nah.
(c) Science is not the work of man, nor of God. It is some other thing, which humans are objective enough to judge against the work of God. And because it's incomplete explanation takes billions of years, but God's even less complete explanation takes only seven day ... nah.
(d) You, Toxiana, don't understand either explanation, but prefer the one with the seven days to the one with the billions of years. Seven days is a week, and you can grasp that, so that explanation is better. Hmm, I think we've got it. Astounding, Holmes!

I believe God put backwards revolving planets into the universe to fuck with scientist's heads.

Kind of him and all. But like Mary said: "what a dud root. Pregnant and I didn't even notice."

Science dictates that we all essentially came from dust, or rocks. And idk if you've ever banged two rocks together, but when you do, you sure as hell don't get a horse.

lol. You have managed to simply the elements even beyond the dreams of alchemists. Dust, Rocks, and Horses.

But in the Bible it says God created everything from nothing. See, he had to make the dirt first. Thus, my theory that science is so close to what happened, they just can't see that God did it.

Nope. I'm a good reader, but all I can get from that is: there isn't any way to tell if it was something incompletely explained (science) or something incompletely explained (god.)

I think I'm reading too much into that, though.

And that's just my belief. If you want to believe Greg the Blue Bunny created the world from his navel lint, then by all means.

Excellent. One more nihilist towing Gregs bunny-sleigh. We'll put that lazy ol' Santa Claus out of business this year!

1. How is his belief undermining science?
2. How do you have to abandon science by believing God created the Earth in 6 days?
3. Now you're just being a complete idiot, I'm sorry, but there's no other way to put it. Your beliefs in Evolution (Whic are obvious from your post) require just as much of a leap of faith as Young-earth Creationism Christianity.

Some believe in God. These people take a leap of faith. Some believe there is no God. This requires a leap of faith. Some people believe in Evolution, and no God. This requires a leap of faith under the pretense that it's "Science". Wimps. :D

Examining evidence doesn't require faith, it just requires literacy.

The problem isn't that you believe in God; the problem is that you believe God created the earth in 6 days 6,000 years ago. You're undermining science and knowledge. If we abandon science (and make no mistake, you must utterly abandon the scientific method and reject its ability to find information if you believe what you do, the evidence is so strong), then we lose all technology, all medicine, and generally make the world regress into a dark age. Sure, you alone believing what you do won't cause that. But what if your beliefs were that wide-spread?

Contrary to what you think, my beliefs are widespread.

52 percent of the world is non-Christian.
4 percent of the United States is non-Christian.

And we have all the technology, all the medicine, and the world actually came out of the dark ages.

At one time, the "scientific community" believed the earth was flat. And Aristotle was thought to have been undermining science and knowledge.

When you know absolutely everything about everything without a doubt and can prove it to me, then you can flame me for being a "stupid believer."

Science and scientists don't give a rats ass whether or not your God exists. They do get uppity, rightly so, when people start spouting off silly ideas about the world being 6000 years old, or humans being magically *poof*ed out of dirt, that have been discarded by successive observations of the world and universe around us.

And in regards to "silly ideas" and being poofed out of dirt, you believe . . . what, exactly?

Do you believe that the dirt exploded and created life? That's one hell of a poof.

I don't even know why I'm bothering to state my ideas, I'm just going to get bashed for being an idiot anyway.

Contrary to what you think, my beliefs are widespread.

52 percent of the world is non-Christian.
4 percent of the United States is non-Christian.

And we have all the technology, all the medicine, and the world actually came out of the dark ages.

At one time, the "scientific community" believed the earth was flat. And Aristotle was thought to have been undermining science and knowledge.

When you know absolutely everything about everything without a doubt and can prove it to me, then you can flame me for being a "stupid believer."

Actually, according to a US census from 2001, only ~80% of the USA is Christian, with ~15% claiming no religious affiliation.
More importantly, while your beliefs are widespread, that does not make them true. Argumentum ad populum is an informal fallacy.

The interesting about science, is that it is both self-correcting and constantly refining its tools as new evidence is amassed. Whereas religion is stagnant, clinging desperately to outdated beliefs even as the evidence mounts against them.

And in regards to "silly ideas" and being poofed out of dirt, you believe . . . what, exactly?

Do you believe that the dirt exploded and created life? That's one hell of a poof.

I don't even know why I'm bothering to state my ideas, I'm just going to get bashed for being an idiot anyway.

Nah, you're not an idiot. You just hold to an outdated worldview that has been disproved by the test of time.

I recommend reading up on abiogenesis, the theory of evolution, and similar related topics. You'll find them quite informative on the subject.

1. How is his belief undermining science?
2. How do you have to abandon science by believing God created the Earth in 6 days?
3. Now you're just being a complete idiot, I'm sorry, but there's no other way to put it. Your beliefs in Evolution (Whic are obvious from your post) require just as much of a leap of faith as Young-earth Creationism Christianity.

Some believe in God. These people take a leap of faith. Some believe there is no God. This requires a leap of faith. Some people believe in Evolution, and no God. This requires a leap of faith under the pretense that it's "Science". Wimps. :D
I would reply, but I think this sums it up quite nicely:

Examining evidence doesn't require faith, it just requires literacy.
I will add, however that my comment about abandoning science does have a reason: if you deny Evolution, then you necessarily deny the scientific method because the only real possible way evolution could be wrong at this point is if the scientific method is wrong. The evidence collected by science is so overwhelming that to deny it is to deny the process by which it was obtained.

Well, I suppose you could deny evolution but accept the scientific method if your beliefs were self-contradictory...

Contrary to what you think, my beliefs are widespread.

Argumentum ad populum-- a belief being popular does not make it correct.


52 percent of the world is non-Christian.
4 percent of the United States is non-Christian.

And we have all the technology, all the medicine, and the world actually came out of the dark ages.

I wasn't referring to the so-called "Dark ages" of the medieval age; there is no such thing, actually. (Sorry, history major). I was referring what sort of age we'd enter into if we rejected the scientific community.


At one time, the "scientific community" believed the earth was flat.

False. The ancient greeks actually knew about how big a sphere the earth was. But I'm not making a dogmatic appeal to authority. I'm not saying "scientists believe it, so we should believe it;" I'm saying "evidence indicates that it is true, so we should believe it."


And Aristotle was thought to have been undermining science and knowledge.

The scientific method wasn't even fully developed at the time of Aristotle.


When you know absolutely everything about everything without a doubt and can prove it to me, then you can flame me for being a "stupid believer."

You cannot prove gravity without a doubt. Therefore, are you going to say that somebody who says that "gravity does not exist and we'll actually start flying up tomorrow" is just as credible as one who says gravity does exist?

Science doesn't prove things 100%, but it does find that certain things are overwhelmingly more probable than others.

will add, however that my comment about abandoning science does have a reason: if you deny Evolution, then you necessarily deny the scientific method because the only real possible way evolution could be wrong at this point is if the scientific method is wrong. The evidence collected by science is so overwhelming that to deny it is to deny the process by which it was obtained.

Well, I suppose you could deny evolution but accept the scientific method if your beliefs were self-contradictory...

...
This is the biggest load of bullcrap I've seen in a while. Evolution is an unproven theory, at least when most people think about it. Microevolution, has been proven and even accepted. However, people like to blow things out of proportion. Saying Macroevolution (I think that's what it's called) is proven is faulty at best. At worst, it is a downright lie. I'm not completly denying evolution, I see it as POSSIBLE, but I don't see any GOOD evidence for it.
The scientific method wasn't even fully developed at the time of Aristotle.


The scientific method can't prove everything. If you go through all the steps, you don't always end up proving anything, although I will say it is a very good tool. But it's not some all-powerful scientific power, as you seem to believe.
You cannot prove gravity without a doubt. Therefore, are you going to say that somebody who says that "gravity does not exist and we'll actually start flying up tomorrow" is just as credible as one who says gravity does exist?

Science doesn't prove things 100%, but it does find that certain things are overwhelmingly more probable than others.
No, but saying "Maybe gravity isn't why we're staying on the ground, it might be something else, another force/equation/whatever I'm-not-a-scientist" is just as likly. I agree with the second part though.

...
This is the biggest load of bullcrap I've seen in a while. Evolution is an unproven theory, at least when most people think about it. Microevolution, has been proven and even accepted. However, people like to blow things out of proportion. Saying Macroevolution (I think that's what it's called) is proven is faulty at best. At worst, it is a downright lie. I'm not completly denying evolution, I see it as POSSIBLE, but I don't see any GOOD evidence for it.

What scientific faults do you find with what you call "macroevolution?" Did you know that evolution into new species has been observed?


The scientific method can't prove everything. If you go through all the steps, you don't always end up proving anything, although I will say it is a very good tool. But it's not some all-powerful scientific power, as you seem to believe.

It's not perfect, but it's the best tool for gaining knowledge that exists.


No, but saying "Maybe gravity isn't why we're staying on the ground, it might be something else, another force/equation/whatever I'm-not-a-scientist" is just as likly. I agree with the second part though.

What would that other force be, exactly? How would it not be gravity? Gravity is just the "natural phenomenon by which all objects with mass attract each other" to quote Wikipedia. We actually don't know for sure what causes gravity. This person wouldn't be proposing a new solution for gravitation, he'd be denying its existence all together.

1st law of thermodynamics:

Matter cannot be created or destroyed. <---Science

If matter cannot be created or destroyed, how did the world get here?

There are one of two choices: It made itself, or someone made it.

Choice one: About 18 or 20 billion years ago, all the matter in the universe (universe from two latin words uni, meaning single, and verse, meaning spoken sentence) condensed into a form smaller than a period. <--- period

Scientists theorize that during the big bang matter and energy would disappear, and not only that, but space and time. This of course, leaves, nothing.

So. Here is the big bang theory. About 18 or 20 billion years ago, nothing exploded.

And you tell me I'm stupid and outdated for believing what I do.

Choice Two (what I believe): Someone (God) created everything. He said "Let there be." Hmm. Single spoken sentence. Uni-verse. Hmm.

No, but saying "Maybe gravity isn't why we're staying on the ground, it might be something else, another force/equation/whatever I'm-not-a-scientist" is just as likly.

The "is just as likely" is the problem. It isn't. Especially if you have no backing whatsoever for your alternative or even not a clue what the alternative could be.

Unfortunately we live in a society that seems to think it politically incorrect to say that some opinions are worth more than others.

1st law of thermodynamics:

Matter cannot be created or destroyed. <---Science

Wrong. Read up on your thermo.

Choice Two (what I believe): Someone (God) created everything. He said "Let there be." Hmm. Single spoken sentence. Uni-verse. Hmm.

Indeed. Something involving energy doing interesting things and the result slowly moving from simple to complex structures is obviously far less likely than a highly complex supreme being poofing into existence out of nowhere, and then for some reason covering up that He created everything by making it look like a big bang took place.

1st law of thermodynamics:

Matter cannot be created or destroyed. <---Science

If matter cannot be created or destroyed, how did the world get here?


"Formation of the universe from nothing need not violate conservation of energy. The gravitational potential energy of a gravitational field is a negative energy. When all the gravitational potential energy is added to all the other energy in the universe, it might sum to zero (Guth 1997, 9-12,271-276; Tryon 1973)."

(link)
(http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF101.html)

There are one of two choices: It made itself, or someone made it.

Two sources you can think of. That does not make it so. The current scientific theories and creation are not necessarily the only possibilities, and to say they are is a logical fallacy (false dichotomy.)


Choice one: About 18 or 20 billion years ago, all the matter in the universe (universe from two latin words uni, meaning single, and verse, meaning spoken sentence) condensed into a form smaller than a period. <--- period

Scientists theorize that during the big bang matter and energy would disappear, and not only that, but space and time. This of course, leaves, nothing.

So. Here is the big bang theory. About 18 or 20 billion years ago, nothing exploded.

And you tell me I'm stupid and outdated for believing what I do.

Over all, this seems to be an argument from incredulity, which is, of course, a logical fallacy. It also seems you don't quite understand the big bang-- the big bang did not make space and time disappear, it created them when they did not exist before, as far as I understand it.
Secondly, you use the word "theory." I do not think it means what you think it means.
A theory in science is not a guess. It's not conjecture. It's a falsifiable explanation for a natural phenomenon that has makes predictions that can be tested. For example, Evolution, when it was found that humans have one less chromosome pair than do other great apes, predicted that humans would have one "fused" chromosome (they can search for such a fused chromosome by searching for distinctive "end" sequences in the middle, and having two "middle" sequences-- one on each side of the double "end" sequence that would be in the middle.). They looked, and found this.


Choice Two (what I believe): Someone (God) created everything. He said "Let there be." Hmm. Single spoken sentence. Uni-verse. Hmm.

Do you have any empirical evidence in support of this hypothesis?

snip

Okay, prove to me that nothing exploded and created us all.

Prove to me that matter can be created and destroyed.

Prove to me that galaxies, which you propose (unless I am mistaken, and if I am you should let me know) were created by the big bang, that spin backwards have a scientific basis. When by the scientific method you can prove that any mass slung off another mass continues to rotate in the same direction, not counter rotation.
Prove to me that things left alone, do get better, evolve, rather than move towards entropy, which is the second law of thermodynamics. In isolated circumstances, which are able to be studied by science, when left alone, nature moves towards disorder rather than order.
So how did this ordered world and universe come about when science itself recognizes that when left alone the world falls apart!?!



The premise of Christianity is not that you must know the answer to everything. It's a religion based on faith.

What scientific faults do you find with what you call "macroevolution?" Did you know that evolution into new species has been observed?

I don't find any faults, just lack of merits. And I'd like to see the link for the OBSERVED evolution. Fossils don't count.
The "is just as likely" is the problem. It isn't. Especially if you have no backing whatsoever for your alternative or even not a clue what the alternative could be.

Unfortunately we live in a society that seems to think it politically incorrect to say that some opinions are worth more than others.
If you already know what you consider the alternative, and have about as much backing for it as gravity, then it is just as likely. However, I agree with you on the second part of your post.

Do you have any empirical evidence in support of this hypothesis?

Do you have any empirical evidence in support that God does not exist? Can you test and prove every time without fail that there is no God?

Do it.

If so, you need to get the hell off NSG because you can be a billionaire if you'd go share it with everyone else out there.

I don't find any faults, just lack of merits. And I'd like to see the link for the OBSERVED evolution. Fossils don't count.

If you already know what you consider the alternative, and have about as much backing for it as gravity, then it is just as likely. However, I agree with you on the second part of your post.

Except that you don't. You don't have a testable, verifiable alternative to evolution.

(universe from two latin words uni, meaning single, and verse, meaning spoken sentence)

Is that so? because dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=universe) says it's uni(from unus, meaning one) and versus(from vertere, meaning to turn).

Except that you don't. You don't have a testable, verifiable alternative to evolution.
MACROevolution is neither testable nor verifiable. Therefore, my belief in God and young-earth creationism is just as much of a leap of faith as your belief in Evolution and no God. And once again, I don't reject the POSSIBLITY of Macroevolution

MACROevolution is neither testable nor verifiable. Therefore, my belief in God and young-earth creationism is just as much of a leap of faith as your belief in Evolution and no God. And once again, I don't reject the POSSIBLITY of Macroevolution

Macroevolution is disctint from evolution how exactly?

Macroevolution is disctint from evolution how exactly?
According to the great wikipedia, for it is the source of all knowledge:
Microevolution is the occurrence of small-scale changes in allele frequencies in a population, over a few generations, also known as change at or below the species level
Whereas macroevolution is:
Some creationists have also adopted the term "macroevolution" to describe the form of evolution that they reject. They may accept that evolutionary change is possible within species ("microevolution"), but deny that one species can evolve into another ("macroevolution").[
I think that evolution is all to often used to describe both types, and I don't want to cause any misunderstandings.

According to the great wikipedia, for it is the source of all knowledge:

Whereas macroevolution is:

I think that evolution is all to often used to describe both types, and I don't want to cause any misunderstandings.

Yeah. Those are the exact same thing, merely on different timescales.

Now unless you can provide some proof that christianity has gotten it right, or show me how the scientific fallacies in the bible are in fact not fallacies, I'd advise you to chill out before you make yourself look like even more of an idiot than you already have.

:) ...except I'm a complete atheist, each of my posts have simply been me amusing myself by writing from the other side, sorry if you thought I was being serious.

:) ...except I'm a complete atheist, each of my posts have simply been me amusing myself by writing from the other side, sorry if you thought I was being serious.

See, that was the tricky thing when I approached your posts. I knew you didn't believe the drivel you were posting, but couldn't remember what your religious persuasion was. It made it slightly more difficult to respond.

See, that was the tricky thing when I approached your posts. I knew you didn't believe the drivel you were posting, but couldn't remember what your religious persuasion was. It made it slightly more difficult to respond.

It does speak to the fact that people do make these claims, do get angry when you reasonably question YEC 'theory' or address it with some facts.

There's Christians such as LG who love physics, stand in awe at the wonder of the universe, It's a shame people close their minds off from so much in defense of so little. As has been pointed out, nowhere in the Bible does it say 6, 000 years old, so why place it as a central plank in your beliefs?

Takes many sorts I suppose.

Yeah. Those are the exact same thing, merely on different timescales.
Unless you're like me and don't believe that changes from a species to another new one can happen.

It does speak to the fact that people do make these claims, do get angry when you reasonably question YEC 'theory' or address it with some facts.

There's Christians such as LG who love physics, stand in awe at the wonder of the universe, It's a shame people close their minds off from so much in defense of so little. As has been pointed out, nowhere in the Bible does it say 6, 000 years old, so why place it as a central plank in your beliefs?

Takes many sorts I suppose.

I've also noticed that the people prone to YEC worldviews are also generally the most likely to blunder through science discussions as if they somehow know what they're talking about, using pretty much exclusively the talking points suggested to them at the previous Sunday's sermons.

It's funny, because it either shows a complete failure to realize how little they know about the subject, or a lack of sound judgment in entering the discussion guns blazing (especially given that they're shooting blanks). Or both.

What was the whole point of this thread again?

Unless you're like me and don't believe that changes from a species to another new one can happen.

Your personal prejudices are irrelevant to a discussion on science.

What was the whole point of this thread again?

To juxtapose the awe in which we stand in front of an infinite universe with the infantile use of human humour.

To celebrate existence from the magnificent to the mundane.

Or not...does there need to be a point?

Look, God just puts this 'evidence' there so it's more difficult to have faith, that way he can separate the true believers from the pretenders. You have to really, really have faith to get into heaven.

I don't know why this is so hard to understand, considering the punishment for not understanding it is eternity in hell, you'd think the incentive was obvious.

In before dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago, hello, the behemoth is mentioned in the Bible!

:rolleyes:

Well gee wizz... I don't think I can really be blamed if I fell for a trick played on me the Almighty...

What was the whole point of this thread again?

"Supernovas are fucking awesome." With a slight jab at people who believe in talking snakes.

To juxtapose the awe in which we stand in front of an infinite universe with the infantile use of human humour.

To celebrate existence from the magnificent to the mundane.

Or not...does there need to be a point?

Bah, you force me to check the dictionary..

Unless you're like me and don't believe that changes from a species to another new one can happen.

Your beliefs don't really change things. Evolution can bring about new species. Scientists have done so with fruit flies. As I understand it, two groups of fruit flies were separated and given different food sources. Eventually they were no longer able to successfully mate. Ergo, they were no longer of the same species.

What is your basis for this belief, anyway?

Your beliefs don't really change things. Evolution can bring about new species. Scientists have done so with fruit flies. As I understand it, two groups of fruit flies were separated and given different food sources. Eventually they were no longer able to successfully mate. Ergo, they were no longer of the same species.

What is your basis for this belief, anyway?

I liked the one in this thread - if you bang two rocks together, you don't get a horse. Ergo, evolution is wrong.

Simple scientific experiments can show us so much :)

I liked the one in this thread - if you bang two rocks together, you don't get a horse. Ergo, evolution is wrong.

Simple scientific experiments can show us so much :)

Actually, if your bang together two rocks in a very precise manner, one of them may come to resemble a horse.

Well, if you sort of tilt your head and squint your eyes a bit.

@Conservative morality:
Funny, your quote says that especially the creationists have adopted that term, but what about the actual researches who work in this field? Besides, yes we DID see it. Yea, you got that right, speciation has been observed, 1 of the biggest examples are simply the dinosaurs: we've seen several dinosaur species getting more and more traits of birds, untill we don't classify them under dinosaurs anymore, but birds.
And there are also more recent and smaller examples, like a kind of mosquito species in London.
Also, what you say about it not being testable, is complete and utter rubbish, the most obvious test for example: the fossil record. If it's completly static, there goes your theory of evolution.
And even if evolution would all be rubbish, that's 0.00 evidence for YEC, nothing, nada. A theory stands on it's own 2 feet.

@Baringtonia:
Indeed, it says 6 days, pretty vague isn't it? 6 Mercurian days? 6 Marsian days? 6 Plutonian days? Even if they were Earthen days, 6 Earthen days from about 600 million years ago, or 6 Earthen days from present day?

Okay, prove to me that nothing exploded and created us all.

Science does not prove things. Proof is for mathematics and alcohol; science merely provides evidence.

Prove to me that matter can be created and destroyed.

See my previous post.

Prove to me that galaxies, which you propose (unless I am mistaken, and if I am you should let me know) were created by the big bang, that spin backwards have a scientific basis. When by the scientific method you can prove that any mass slung off another mass continues to rotate in the same direction, not counter rotation.

This (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE260.html)explanation is written for moons and planets, but the similar principles should, unless I am mistaken, apply to galaxies.


Prove to me that things left alone, do get better, evolve, rather than move towards entropy, which is the second law of thermodynamics. In isolated circumstances, which are able to be studied by science, when left alone, nature moves towards disorder rather than order.
So how did this ordered world and universe come about when science itself recognizes that when left alone the world falls apart!?!

Oh come on. Even Answers in Genesis admits that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a dumb argument.


The premise of Christianity is not that you must know the answer to everything. It's a religion based on faith.

But much of the evidence says that your beliefs (which are not necessary for Christianity) are wrong.
====

Anyway, pretend that evolution is some day disproven. Creationism does not win by default; it must establish its own evidence. If evolution were disproven, then the best we could say is "we do not know."


Unless you're like me and don't believe that changes from a species to another new one can happen.

Then you are objectively wrong, speciation has been observed.

Link with several examples (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html)

Further, "macroevolution" doesn't work the way that you think it does. It doesn't mean that, say, a frog evolves directly from a fish. It works by a gradual accumulation of different traits. Unless you can demonstrate a barrier that would prevent new traits from arising in a population once it is at the point that any change in the gene pool would make it genetically distinct from one of its ancestors, then the existence of "microevolution" necessitates the existence of "macroevolution."

Further, the division of species is arbitrary. A species is simply a label that we apply to a group of organisms that are created from a certain shared set of genetic traits.

(Any scientists feel free to correct me; I'm a history major with a great interest in science, so I may be incorrect on some of the specifics.)

Unless you're like me and don't believe that changes from a species to another new one can happen.

Well then how do you explain the existence of the dog (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog)?

@Baringtonia:
Indeed, it says 6 days, pretty vague isn't it? 6 Mercurian days? 6 Marsian days? 6 Plutonian days? Even if they were Earthen days, 6 Earthen days from about 600 million years ago, or 6 Earthen days from present day?

HEY!!! STOP CONFUSING ME!!!!:D

Well then how do you explain the existence of the dog (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog)?

Well see, a mommy dog and a daddy dog, who love each other very much...

Your beliefs don't really change things. Evolution can bring about new species. Scientists have done so with fruit flies. As I understand it, two groups of fruit flies were separated and given different food sources. Eventually they were no longer able to successfully mate. Ergo, they were no longer of the same species.

What is your basis for this belief, anyway?
Not really a belief, just a lack of belief. When I see enough evidence, I will support it. I request a source, time to think, and a juice box :). I might even still believe in Young-earth creationism, but I'll accept Evolution as a fact, when I see enough evidence. Yes, they are compatable in a yes-it-can-happen-but-it's-not-how-we-started way. Of course, I might abandon that completly, but first I need a juice box. And a source *Gets juice box. iz happy*
Funny, your quote says that especially the creationists have adopted that term, but what about the actual researches who work in this field? Besides, yes we DID see it. Yea, you got that right, speciation has been observed, 1 of the biggest examples are simply the dinosaurs: we've seen several dinosaur species getting more and more traits of birds, untill we don't classify them under dinosaurs anymore, but birds.
And there are also more recent and smaller examples, like a kind of mosquito species in London.
Also, what you say about it not being testable, is complete and utter rubbish, the most obvious test for example: the fossil record. If it's completly static, there goes your theory of evolution.
And even if evolution would all be rubbish, that's 0.00 evidence for YEC, nothing, nada. A theory stands on it's own 2 feet.

...
Source. And I didn't relieze we still had dinosours around, mind explaining THAT doozy? And just because scientists don't use that terminology does not make it automaticly incorrect. I don't agree with fossil records because carbon dating is a completly random equation that was (Essentially) a guess. For all we know, all of those records could be wrong, as we have no proof for or aganst Carbon dating. Therefore, fossils prove nothing. In my opion, there is 0.00 evidence for how the Earth started, who, or what, did it ,etc, etc. It's all a leap of faith.

Well then how do you explain the existence of the dog (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog)?

God was running short on ideas. "I need something to be loyal, to guard humans and to herd their livestock. Hmmmm.........






Oh fuck it, I'll just change a wolf a bit, it'll do."

Well then how do you explain the existence of the dog?
The dog (Canis lupus familiaris) is a domesticated subspecies of the wolf,
That's how I explain it.

carbon dating is a completly random equation that was (Essentially) a guess.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dating
Radiocarbon dating is a radiometric dating method that uses the naturally occurring radioisotope carbon-14 (14C) to determine the age of carbonaceous materials up to about 60,000 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaurs
Dinosaurs were the dominant vertebrate animals of terrestrial ecosystems for over 160 million years, from the late Triassic period (about 230 million years ago) to the end of the Cretaceous period (65 million years ago), when most of them became extinct in the Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event.

I trust you now see the flaw in your reasoning.

...
Source. And I didn't relieze we still had dinosours around, mind explaining THAT doozy? And just because scientists don't use that terminology does not make it automaticly incorrect. I don't agree with fossil records because carbon dating is a completly random equation that was (Essentially) a guess. For all we know, all of those records could be wrong, as we have no proof for or aganst Carbon dating. Therefore, fossils prove nothing. In my opion, there is 0.00 evidence for how the Earth started, who, or what, did it ,etc, etc. It's all a leap of faith.

Effectiveness of carbon dating:


1. Any tool will give bad results when misused. Radiocarbon dating has some known limitations. Any measurement that exceeds these limitations will probably be invalid. In particular, radiocarbon dating works to find ages as old as 50,000 years but not much older. Using it to date older items will give bad results. Samples can be contaminated with younger or older carbon, again invalidating the results. Because of excess 12C released into the atmosphere from the Industrial Revolution and excess 14C produced by atmospheric nuclear testing during the 1950s, materials less than 150 years old cannot be dated with radiocarbon (Faure 1998, 294).

In their claims of errors, creationists do not consider misuse of the technique. It is not uncommon for them to misuse radiocarbon dating by attempting to date samples that are millions of years old (for example, Triassic "wood") or that have been treated with organic substances. In such cases, the errors belong to the creationists, not the carbon-14 dating method.

2. Radiocarbon dating has been repeatedly tested, demonstrating its accuracy. It is calibrated by tree-ring data, which gives a nearly exact calendar for more than 11,000 years back. It has also been tested on items for which the age is known through historical records, such as parts of the Dead Sea scrolls and some wood from an Egyptian tomb (MNSU n.d.; Watson 2001). Multiple samples from a single object have been dated independently, yielding consistent results. Radiocarbon dating is also concordant with other dating techniques (e.g., Bard et al. 1990).
Source (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011.html)

Also, carbon dating is not used to date dinosaur fossils, unless I am very mistaken, since dinosaur fossils are much too old for that technique. However, carbon dating is not the only dating technique we have at our disposal.

Okay, prove to me that nothing exploded and created us all.

Prove to me that matter can be created and destroyed.

Prove to me that galaxies, which you propose (unless I am mistaken, and if I am you should let me know) were created by the big bang, that spin backwards have a scientific basis. When by the scientific method you can prove that any mass slung off another mass continues to rotate in the same direction, not counter rotation.
Prove to me that things left alone, do get better, evolve, rather than move towards entropy, which is the second law of thermodynamics. In isolated circumstances, which are able to be studied by science, when left alone, nature moves towards disorder rather than order.
So how did this ordered world and universe come about when science itself recognizes that when left alone the world falls apart!?!



The premise of Christianity is not that you must know the answer to everything. It's a religion based on faith.

Faith <--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->Science.

Each hyphen represents one metric world. As you can see, they are many worlds apart. Many many worlds apart.

Science can't prove the existence of God for the same reason why Algebra can't prove that Shakespeare was a literary genius. Or that Genghis Khan had three balls.

Science doesn't give a shit. Which is why nothing pisses off a scientist more than when some religious wacko tries to undermine his work with some batshit rant on the nature of God and the accuracy of the Bible. It's like someone saying that the sum of the square of the sides of a right triangle doesn't equal the square of the hypoteneuse because Genghis Khan had a third nut.

If you want the Old Testament's Creation Myth to be accepted as a viable scientific theory, then you will have to test for it using accepted scientific methiod just like any other, develop data and extrapolate evidence supporting the theory and explain the existence of any refuting data to the satisfaction of your scientific peers just like any other good scientist. Or... you can admit that:

Faith<-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->Science

and have a taco. *sets out a platter of delicious tacos*

...
Source. And I didn't relieze we still had dinosours around, mind explaining THAT doozy? And just because scientists don't use that terminology does not make it automaticly incorrect. I don't agree with fossil records because carbon dating is a completly random equation that was (Essentially) a guess. For all we know, all of those records could be wrong, as we have no proof for or aganst Carbon dating. Therefore, fossils prove nothing. In my opion, there is 0.00 evidence for how the Earth started, who, or what, did it ,etc, etc. It's all a leap of faith.
I'm beginning to think you're giggeling behind your pc thinking "Hahaha, another one fell for it!". Amirite?
If you're not, here's my response:
Sources? Easy: fossils! We've seen fossils with different degrees of dinosaur-bird features. A common example is the Archeoptryx, here you can see a little comperative image: http://www.geologyrocks.co.uk/system/files/u3/birdcompl.gif
Funny by the way, I wasn't even talking about the age of those fossils, heck even the picture above doesn't, just the body structure.
O and for the record, carbon dating isn't even úsed to date fossils like the one from Archeoptryx, since they're too damned old. They used other methodes for that.
Check your facts, and give sources yourselfs. On what did you base your opinions anyway? Did you actually ask the experts on these fields? I doubt that, concerning flaws like your carbon dating one.

PS: Dinosaurs are extinct, haven't you noticed?

Faith <--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->Science.

Each hyphen represents one metric world. As you can see, they are many worlds apart. Many many worlds apart.

Science can't prove the existence of God for the same reason why Algebra can't prove that Shakespeare was a literary genius. Or that Genghis Khan had three balls.

Science doesn't give a shit. Which is why nothing pisses off a scientist more than when some religious wacko tries to undermine his work with some batshit rant on the nature of God and the accuracy of the Bible. It's like someone saying that the sum of the square of the sides of a right triangle doesn't equal the square of the hypoteneuse because Genghis Khan had a third nut.

If you want the Old Testament's Creation Myth to be accepted as a viable scientific theory, then you will have to test for it using accepted scientific methiod just like any other, develop data and extrapolate evidence supporting the theory and explain the existence of any refuting data to the satisfaction of your scientific peers just like any other good scientist. Or... you can admit that:

Faith<-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->Science

and have a taco. *sets out a platter of delicious tacos*

*steals platter*

*runs*

Also, carbon dating is not used to date dinosaur fossils, unless I am very mistaken, since dinosaur fossils are much too old for that technique. However, carbon dating is not the only dating technique we have at our disposal.
Dating scrolls that they supposidly know what time it's from isn't enough evidence for me. I still regard Carbon dating as inefficiant, and inaccurate.
I trust you now see the flaw in your reasoning.
Thank you for clearing THAT up for me. HOWEVER, carbon dating is used for other things (I can consider it inaccurate still) and what proof do they have for the methods they do use to date the fossils?
Each hyphen represents one metric world. As you can see, they are many worlds apart. Many many worlds apart.

Science can't prove the existence of God for the same reason why Algebra can't prove that Shakespeare was a literary genius. Or that Genghis Khan had three balls.

Science doesn't give a shit. Which is why nothing pisses off a scientist more than when some religious wacko tries to undermine his work with some batshit rant on the nature of God and the accuracy of the Bible. It's like someone saying that the sum of the square of the sides of a right triangle doesn't equal the square of the third because Genghis Khan had a third nut.

If you want the Old Testament's Creation Myth to be accepted as a viable scientific theory, then you will have to test for it using accepted scientific methiod just like any other, develop data and extrapolate evidence supporting the theory and explain the existence of any refuting data to the satisfaction of your scientific peers just like any other good scientist. Or... you can admit that:
I agree. God cannot be tested on a scientific basis. It's all a leap of faith, no proof. I also don't like it when a Young-earth creationist (Like myself before I gained comemnt sense) tries to prove God's existence using science.

I'm still somewhat disturbed by the comment about Genghis Khan's third nut. O_o

Or that Genghis Khan had three balls.

Wait, what?

Dating scrolls that they supposidly know what time it's from isn't enough evidence for me. I still regard Carbon dating as inefficiant, and inaccurate.

Why isn't that enough for you? Are archaeologists in on this conspiracy to fool people about the age of things too?

Dating scrolls that they supposidly know what time it's from isn't enough evidence for me. I still regard Carbon dating as inefficiant, and inaccurate.
Based on whát? Where the hell is your support? Really, you even brought carbon dating up while discussing dinosaur fossils, why the héll should I even care that you think it's inaccurate? Apperantly, you don't know dick about this subject, or else you didn't make such a HUUUUUUUGE mistake. Where did you get your knowledge about dating techniques from anyway? Did you study them, or just read some random stuff about it on teh internetz?
Yes, indeed, I question your opinion, please give sources and background information or we might as well discuss with a brick wall.
It might not be enough evidence for you, but what the hell do you actually know?

Originally Posted by Lunatic Goofballs
Or that Genghis Khan had three balls.

Wait, what?

Hmm, that explains a lot.

I'm feeling lazy and can't be bothered to read this thread so far, but I can fairly confidently guess that it has involved the following points, which I'll quickly debunk so that hopefully the rest of the thread can be free of them:

1. Someone complaining that evolution is "just a theory."

This is a nonsense statement. Nothing in science ranks higher than a theory.

2. Someone complaining that evolution isn't "proven."

Nothing in science is proven. Ever. The scientific method works by disproving, not by proving. Nevertheless, evolution is as close to proven as anything can be, given that well over a century's worth of efforts to disprove it have utterly failed. Every shred of evidence we have points to evolution having occurred.

3. Someone complaining about the inaccuracy of carbon dating.

Carbon dating is not even what's used to date most fossils, but I'd still be willing to wager good money that someone has used this as an excuse for ignoring the fossil record. Someone always does in these threads.

4. Someone complaining about "missing links."

I loathe this phrase, because no one who uses it ever has the foggiest idea what it means. Every single organism that has ever lived is a "link" between one generation and the next, and therefore also between one species and the next. The only plausible justification for bitching about missing links is if one genuinely believes that, in order to say anything about the fossil record, we must first have some fossilized trace of every organism in the history of the Earth. This is demonstrably ludicrous.

5. Someone arguing that microevolution and macroevolution are totally different in some unspecified way.

They're not. They're just not. They're the same freaking process, and by any definition, we've seen both in the lab anyway. This argument is frankly directly comparable to insisting that, sure, it's totally plausible that 1+1=2, but it's not true that 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1=10. You cannot rationally accept the first and discount the second.

Those are most of the biggies that seem to come up in every creationism-related thread. Maybe now we can skip over them and discuss something different!

...eh, who am I kidding, someone will pop up in a page and a half to say, "Oh yeah, well, evolution is just an unproven theory!" At least I tried. :p

I'm beginning to think you're giggeling behind your pc thinking "Hahaha, another one fell for it!". Amirite?

No.
If you're not, here's my response:
Sources? Easy: fossils! We've seen fossils with different degrees of dinosaur-bird features. A common example is the Archeoptryx, here you can see a little comperative image:
Funny by the way, I wasn't even talking about the age of those fossils, heck even the picture above doesn't, just the body structure.
O and for the record, carbon dating isn't even úsed to date fossils like the one from Archeoptryx, since they're too damned old. They used other methodes for that.
Check your facts, and give sources yourselfs. On what did you base your opinions anyway? Did you actually ask the experts on these fields? I doubt that, concerning flaws like your carbon dating one.

PS: Dinosaurs are extinct, haven't you noticed?
Have you? I was asking you if you had observed it in modern times. I was talking about the age, becuase without the age of said fossils, there is no proof that they are not two seperate unrelated (Well, as unrelated as can be) species. Check your arguments, and since I haven't really argued anything (Other then personal opinon and faith) I can't really back it up, because it's OPINON AND FAITH! If you could back opinon and faith up, it would be fact instead. So tell me, how do you know those methods are accurate? Did YOU personally go and ask experts on these fields? Your arguments have much greater flaws then the misunderstandings (Misunderstanding meaning I don't understand crap :p) in mine.

Based on whát? Where the hell is your support? Really, you even brought carbon dating up while discussing dinosaur fossils, why the héll should I even care that you think it's inaccurate? Apperantly, you don't know dick about this subject, or else you didn't make such a HUUUUUUUGE mistake. Where did you get your knowledge about dating techniques from anyway? Did you study them, or just read some random stuff about it on teh internetz?
Yes, indeed, I question your opinion, please give sources and background information or we might as well discuss with a brick wall.
It might not be enough evidence for you, but what the hell do you actually know?
Whre is your support? You post a source first, as, like I said, IT'S OPINON!!!!!! Like I said before, I don't think that dating techniques are accurate. There isn't much of a way to prove that, only a way to disprove it. So, have you any way to disprove it? No? Yes? Maybe? Please post it. What do you actually know? All I've seen is unfounded opinon, much like my own. :)

*steals platter*

*runs*

*sets out another platter*

*chases*

Wait, what?

What? Surprised?

*sets out another platter*

*chases*

*doubles back, steals second platter and LG's car keys off of table*

*drives off in Clown Car*

No.
Bugger.

Have you? I was asking you if you had observed it in modern times. I was talking about the age, becuase without the age of said fossils, there is no proof that they are not two seperate unrelated (Well, as unrelated as can be) species. Check your arguments, and since I haven't really argued anything (Other then personal opinon and faith) I can't really back it up, because it's OPINON AND FAITH! If you could back opinon and faith up, it would be fact instead. So tell me, how do you know those methods are accurate? Did YOU personally go and ask experts on these fields? Your arguments have much greater flaws then the misunderstandings (Misunderstanding meaning I don't understand crap :p) in mine.
We've got a record of the change and we DID see it on a smaller scale in recorded history. This little fella for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Underground_mosquito. And really, you háve been arguing things:
Carbon dating is useless crap.
"Evolution" (not even taking the definition you use in account) cannot be tested.
And yes, yes indeed I have been asking experts those things, and you can do it yourself as well. Those experts have writtin articles, published scientific publications, journals, scientific magazines. I've got a big fat biology book right next to me written by those experts (on the left side to be precise, in a pile of even more books).
Kinda odd though, you're not answering questions, stop dodging them.

Those methodes have proven to be accurate, yes that's what counts: proof. So far, you've been making a ton of claims, but there isn't a single shred of proof has been shown by you. I don't give a f*ck about your opinion, I DO give a f*ck about your proof, that's also the only thing that matters in science: proof, facts, evidence.

Show us your knowledge about this subject (or rather the lack of it, so it seems).
Whre is your support? You post a source first, as, like I said, IT'S OPINON!!!!!! Like I said before, I don't think that dating techniques are accurate. There isn't much of a way to prove that, only a way to disprove it. So, have you any way to disprove it? No? Yes? Maybe? Please post it. What do you actually know? All I've seen is unfounded opinon, much like my own.
Here you go, your stuff about radiometric dating (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dating.html) I also use Biology International (7th) Edition as my source. You happy now?
Again, I don't give a f*ck about your opinion, we're talking about cold hard science here, where is your support?

*doubles back, steals second platter and LG's car keys off of table*

*drives off in Clown Car*

*Inside the car are 46 other clowns. They look hungry*

*Inside the car are 46 other clowns. They look hungry*

*learns their language*

*breeds with their women*

I'm feeling lazy and can't be bothered to read this thread so far, but I can fairly confidently guess that it has involved the following points, which I'll quickly debunk so that hopefully the rest of the thread can be free of them:

1. Someone complaining that evolution is "just a theory."

This is a nonsense statement. Nothing in science ranks higher than a theory.

2. Someone complaining that evolution isn't "proven."

Nothing in science is proven. Ever. The scientific method works by disproving, not by proving. Nevertheless, evolution is as close to proven as anything can be, given that well over a century's worth of efforts to disprove it have utterly failed. Every shred of evidence we have points to evolution having occurred.

3. Someone complaining about the inaccuracy of carbon dating.

Carbon dating is not even what's used to date most fossils, but I'd still be willing to wager good money that someone has used this as an excuse for ignoring the fossil record. Someone always does in these threads.

4. Someone complaining about "missing links."

I loathe this phrase, because no one who uses it ever has the foggiest idea what it means. Every single organism that has ever lived is a "link" between one generation and the next, and therefore also between one species and the next. The only plausible justification for bitching about missing links is if one genuinely believes that, in order to say anything about the fossil record, we must first have some fossilized trace of every organism in the history of the Earth. This is demonstrably ludicrous.

5. Someone arguing that microevolution and macroevolution are totally different in some unspecified way.

They're not. They're just not. They're the same freaking process, and by any definition, we've seen both in the lab anyway. This argument is frankly directly comparable to insisting that, sure, it's totally plausible that 1+1=2, but it's not true that 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1=10. You cannot rationally accept the first and discount the second.

Those are most of the biggies that seem to come up in every creationism-related thread. Maybe now we can skip over them and discuss something different!

...eh, who am I kidding, someone will pop up in a page and a half to say, "Oh yeah, well, evolution is just an unproven theory!" At least I tried. :p
You're right on 3, 5 and sort of right on 2. Good stuff.
Whre is your support? You post a source first, as, like I said, IT'S OPINON!!!!!! Like I said before, I don't think that dating techniques are accurate. There isn't much of a way to prove that, only a way to disprove it. So, have you any way to disprove it? No? Yes? Maybe? Please post it. What do you actually know? All I've seen is unfounded opinon, much like my own. :)

So you just pulled it out of your ass. Woke up one morning and thought "Hey, I know shit all about carbon dating, it must not work". And it has been explained to you in this thread that, yes, it actually is accurate. Why else would so many well educated people continue to use it? But you've just chosen to disregard that evidence, because...........well I don't know, you haven't told us. Why are you disregarding it?

I'm feeling lazy and can't be bothered to read this thread so far, but I can fairly confidently guess that it has involved the following points, which I'll quickly debunk so that hopefully the rest of the thread can be free of them:

1. Someone complaining that evolution is "just a theory."

This is a nonsense statement. Nothing in science ranks higher than a theory.

2. Someone complaining that evolution isn't "proven."

Nothing in science is proven. Ever. The scientific method works by disproving, not by proving. Nevertheless, evolution is as close to proven as anything can be, given that well over a century's worth of efforts to disprove it have utterly failed. Every shred of evidence we have points to evolution having occurred.

3. Someone complaining about the inaccuracy of carbon dating.

Carbon dating is not even what's used to date most fossils, but I'd still be willing to wager good money that someone has used this as an excuse for ignoring the fossil record. Someone always does in these threads.

4. Someone complaining about "missing links."

I loathe this phrase, because no one who uses it ever has the foggiest idea what it means. Every single organism that has ever lived is a "link" between one generation and the next, and therefore also between one species and the next. The only plausible justification for bitching about missing links is if one genuinely believes that, in order to say anything about the fossil record, we must first have some fossilized trace of every organism in the history of the Earth. This is demonstrably ludicrous.

5. Someone arguing that microevolution and macroevolution are totally different in some unspecified way.

They're not. They're just not. They're the same freaking process, and by any definition, we've seen both in the lab anyway. This argument is frankly directly comparable to insisting that, sure, it's totally plausible that 1+1=2, but it's not true that 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1=10. You cannot rationally accept the first and discount the second.

Those are most of the biggies that seem to come up in every creationism-related thread. Maybe now we can skip over them and discuss something different!

...eh, who am I kidding, someone will pop up in a page and a half to say, "Oh yeah, well, evolution is just an unproven theory!" At least I tried. :p

All of those have been put forward except for 4.

No.

Have you? I was asking you if you had observed it in modern times. I was talking about the age, becuase without the age of said fossils, there is no proof that they are not two seperate unrelated (Well, as unrelated as can be) species. Check your arguments, and since I haven't really argued anything (Other then personal opinon and faith) I can't really back it up, because it's OPINON AND FAITH! If you could back opinon and faith up, it would be fact instead. So tell me, how do you know those methods are accurate? Did YOU personally go and ask experts on these fields? Your arguments have much greater flaws then the misunderstandings (Misunderstanding meaning I don't understand crap :p) in mine.

You know, I quoted a source on the effectiveness on Carbon dating. You, as I recall, quoted that very post, but only addressed the bit about dinosaurs being too old for carbon dating. Why did you ignore my source?

Whre is your support? You post a source first, as, like I said, IT'S OPINON!!!!!! Like I said before, I don't think that dating techniques are accurate. There isn't much of a way to prove that, only a way to disprove it. So, have you any way to disprove it? No? Yes? Maybe? Please post it. What do you actually know? All I've seen is unfounded opinon, much like my own. :)
Emphasis added.

"Opinion" isn't a free escape from evidence. If it's my opinion that the moon is made of green cheese, is that equal to your opinion that it's made of rock?

*sighs* Why can't I ever get the good evolutionists to debate with?
We've got a record of the change and we DID see it on a smaller scale in recorded history. This little fella for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_...round_mosquito.
It is thought to have evolved from the overground species Culex pipiens in the last few decades.

Needs proof, not just "Well we THINK it evolved, but we're not sure."
And really, you háve been arguing things:
Carbon dating is useless crap.

Yes. Yes it is. It's my opinon, and currently has no hard evidence either way.
And yes, yes indeed I have been asking experts those things, and you can do it yourself as well. Those experts have writtin articles, published scientific publications, journals, scientific magazines. I've got a big fat biology book right next to me written by those experts (on the left side to be precise, in a pile of even more books).


Just becasue a lot of educated people believe it dosen't make it right. So far, it's still has 0 proof unless you can give me a few good links to prove me otherwise.
Kinda odd though, you're not answering questions, stop dodging them.

I'm answering your questions. I really don't know where that came from.
Those methodes have proven to be accurate, yes that's what counts: proof. So far, you've been making a ton of claims, but there isn't a single shred of proof has been shown by you. I don't give a f*ck about your opinion, I DO give a f*ck about your proof, that's also the only thing that matters in science: proof, facts, evidence.

*sighs* This is your opinon. That Macroevolution is real. Yet YOU have yet to show me any hard evidence for it. I'm starting to think that you're getting desperate as you've resorted to swear at me for having an opinon.
Show us your knowledge about this subject (or rather the lack of it, so it seems).
I asked first. :D

*learns their language*

*breeds with their women*

Assimilation is complete. :)

You're right on 3, 5 and sort of right on 2. Good stuff.


1 happened too. Whatsisname made sure to stress that scientists theorize about big bang, implying that it's "just a theory."

Assimilation is complete. :)

Well, I am a physics major. One could say I'm already walking the path to the Dark Side.

What? Surprised?
Yes, but the more I think about it, the more it makes sense. No wonder so many people are directly descended from him.
*sighs* Why can't I ever get the good evolutionists to debate with?Yes. Yes it is. It's my opinon, and currently has no hard evidence either way
It's right in this thread, you're just ignoring it.

*sighs* This is your opinon. That Macroevolution is real. Yet YOU have yet to show me any hard evidence for it.

It too is right in this thread, you're just ignoring it.

Well, I am a physics major. One could say I'm already walking the path to the Dark Side.

Indeed. :)

1 happened too. Whatsisname made sure to stress that scientists theorize about big bang, implying that it's "just a theory."

Ooops, missed that one.

*sighs* Why can't I ever get the good evolutionists to debate with?
Because they care about evidence, and they're getting pissed off by random people who think they know better based on nothing more then there "opinion".
*sighs* This is your opinon. That Macroevolution is real. Yet YOU have yet to show me any hard evidence for it. I'm starting to think that you're getting desperate as you've resorted to swear at me for having an opinon.
We DID!!! It's so easy! You know why? The fossil record is NOT, I repeat, NOT static. Now what does that show, one might say, easy: shit changed over time. That's all.
So far, it's still has 0 proof unless you can give me a few good links to prove me otherwise.
Have fun. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating)
I asked first. :D
I did, check my previous reaction on you. Now it's your turn, you've got anything to overthrow those sources? Hmm?

So you just pulled it out of your ass. Woke up one morning and thought "Hey, I know shit all about carbon dating, it must not work". And it has been explained to you in this thread that, yes, it actually is accurate. Why else would so many well educated people continue to use it? But you've just chosen to disregard that evidence, because...........well I don't know, you haven't told us. Why are you disregarding it?
Actually, I think Deus Malum summed it up best:
*snipe* beliefs are widespread, that does not make them true. Argumentum ad populum is an informal fallacy.
*Snip*

Just becasue they're educated does not make them right. All I've seen is "It's accurate! It really is! The smart people say so!" With one article that explained absolutly nada. As to your "You ignored my source" I didn't ignore it. iIread it. It still isn't hard evidence.
"Opinion" isn't a free escape from evidence. If it's my opinion that the moon is made of green cheese, is that equal to your opinion that it's made of rock?
No. The green cheese one trumps the rock one for sheer awesomeness :). But with all seriousness, we have hard evidence for the moon being made of rock. We got nothing but theory on evolution, with some POSSIBLE evidnce.

Just becasue they're educated does not make them right. All I've seen is "It's accurate! It really is! The smart people say so!" With one article that explained absolutly nada. As to your "You ignored my source" I didn't ignore it. iIread it. It still isn't hard evidence.

Actually that would an argument from authority. Thanks for quoting me, and then fucking it up. :rolleyes:

Because they care about evidence, and they're getting pissed off by random people who think they know better based on nothing more then there "opinion".

So they don't care about us?
We DID!!! It's so easy! You know why? The fossil record is NOT, I repeat, NOT static. Now what does that show, one might say, easy: shit changed over time. That's all.

Bolding everything dosen't win an argument. I still haven't seen a thing.
Have fun.
*reads, ponders.*
How do they know it's the same ship? Perhaps Carbon dating dosen't work on anything past say, 10,000 years? Maybe it's all wrong?
It's right in this thread, you're just ignoring it.


I've looked for it. I still can't find it. All I've found is a bunch of maybe's.
It too is right in this thread, you're just ignoring it.
*searchs for hard evidence. Fails to find it.* Have you questioned your seemingly unwavering faith in Macroevolution and carbon dating? I can't seem to find any hard evidence in this thread.

Actually that would an argument from authority. Thanks for quoting me, and then fucking it up.
How did I F*** it up? You made a good point, I saw the logic in it, and used it. Aganst the very thing your supporting, but you can't copyright arguments. Circular reasoning can be used in both creationism and evolution arguments, so why can't other arguments? Oh, because I quoted you to prove something wrong, and you don't like it when an evolutionist makes a logical error and a YEC corrects it.

Actually, I think Deus Malum summed it up best:

Just becasue they're educated does not make them right. All I've seen is "It's accurate! It really is! The smart people say so!" With one article that explained absolutly nada.
The fact that carbon dating is widely accepted does not prove that it works. It suggests, rather strongly, that it does. What reason do you have to believe that, against all odds, every single physicist on earth has failed to notice the flaws in carbon dating in the 50 or so years it has been in use?
As to your "You ignored my source" I didn't ignore it. iIread it. It still isn't hard evidence.
So what, we have to actually perform the experiments in front of you? And it wasn't my source, it was Pirated Corsairs.

No. The green cheese one trumps the rock one for sheer awesomeness :). But with all seriousness, we have hard evidence for the moon being made of rock. We got nothing but theory on evolution, with some POSSIBLE evidnce.

You really shouldn't use theory in they common sense in a discussion about science. And there is lots of evidence for evolution. From the fossil records(I know you're going to ignore them) to the genetic similarities between different species to the fact that we've seen speciation.

How did I F*** it up? You made a good point, I saw the logic in it, and used it. Aganst the very thing your supporting, but you can't copyright arguments. Circular reasoning can be used in both creationism and evolution arguments, so why can't other arguments? Oh, because I quoted you to prove something wrong, and you don't like it when an evolutionist makes a logical error and a YEC corrects it.

The post was in regard to an argumentum ad populum in which the poster posited that because there was a large number of people that agreed with him, he had to be right.

The poster you were responding to was arguing that because the scientists in question were experts in their field, their assertions carry more weight.

Both are logical fallacies, but you fucked up the application of the post to the particular fallacy. You're essentially using a criticism against apples to support a criticism against oranges.

The post was in regard to an argumentum ad populum in which the poster posited that because there was a large number of people that agreed with him, he had to be right.

The poster you were responding to was arguing that because the scientists in question were experts in their field, their assertions carry more weight.

Both are logical fallacies, but you fucked up the application of the post to the particular fallacy. You're essentially using a criticism against apples to support a criticism against oranges.

>.>
<.<
*tries to slink away from logical fallacy*

>.>
<.<
*tries to slink away from logical fallacy*

The fact that one is an expert in a field should never be used as support for assertions made about a topic in that field. The evidence should stand, or fall, on its own.

The post was in regard to an argumentum ad populum in which the poster posited that because there was a large number of people that agreed with him, he had to be right.

The poster you were responding to was arguing that because the scientists in question were experts in their field, their assertions carry more weight.

Both are logical fallacies, but you fucked up the application of the post to the particular fallacy. You're essentially using a criticism against apples to support a criticism against oranges.

Well, quoting experts is not a logical fallacy if it's work they've done in their area of specialty, so long as you do not dogmatically appeal to them-- that is, refute actual evidence with "expert such-and-such says otherwise."

But let's not confuse him, eh? :p

Well, quoting experts is not a logical fallacy if it's work they've done in their area of specialty, so long as you do not dogmatically appeal to them-- that is, refute actual evidence with "expert such-and-such says otherwise."

But let's not confuse him, eh? :p

Well, no. Quoting an expert on its own isn't a logical fallacy, as it doesn't assert that he is right simply because he is an expert.

The fact that carbon dating is widely accepted does not prove that it works. It suggests, rather strongly, that it does. What reason do you have to believe that, against all odds, every single physicist on earth has failed to notice the flaws in carbon dating in the 50 or so years it has been in use?

Every single physicist? I find that hard to believe.
The post was in regard to an argumentum ad populum in which the poster posited that because there was a large number of people that agreed with him, he had to be right.

The poster you were responding to was arguing that because the scientists in question were experts in their field, their assertions carry more weight.

Both are logical fallacies, but you fucked up the application of the post to the particular fallacy. You're essentially using a criticism against apples to support a criticism against oranges.
My mistake. I thought he was saying since there were a large amount of experts who agreed, it was automaticly correct.
So what, we have to actually perform the experiments in front of you? And it wasn't my source, it was Pirated Corsairs.


No. You have to give me something more then
1. Biased articles (None of which you've given me)
or 2. "Well it COULD be" observations, rather then definite answers. (which you have given me.)
You really shouldn't use theory in they common sense in a discussion about science. And there is lots of evidence for evolution. From the fossil records(I know you're going to ignore them) to the genetic similarities between different species to the fact that we've seen speciation.
Genetic similarities prove nothing. And thank you, I will ignore the fossil records for the "We have no proof that they're this old/this similar other then an unprovable formula" reason.
Well, quoting experts is not a logical fallacy if it's work they've done in their area of specialty, so long as you do not dogmatically appeal to them-- that is, refute actual evidence with "expert such-and-such says otherwise."

But let's not confuse him, eh?
:rolleyes:

Every single physicist? I find that hard to believe.

My mistake. I thought he was saying since there were a large amount of experts who agreed, it was automaticly correct.

No. You have to give me something more then
1. Biased articles (None of which you've given me)
or 2. "Well it COULD be" observations, rather then definite answers. (which you have given me.)

Genetic similarities prove nothing. And thank you, I will ignore the fossil records for the "We have no proof that they're this old/this similar other then an unprovable formula" reason.

:rolleyes:

Well, then why not try some journal articles.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v391/n6663/abs/391147a0.html
http://www.ivpp.ac.cn/pdf/magazine204.pdf
http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/~jacks/Hu05.pdf

I'd recommend subscribing to Nature. You might learn a thing or two about the world around you.

...a Young Earth Creationist weeps.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/space/05/21/star.explosion.ap/index.html

The star died 100 million years ago. 99,994,000 years before God created the Universe and the Earth according to the Bible. Good thing it's a historically accurate, factually inerrant record of natural history or I might start to question anything else it says. :p

*Sigh*
You just don't understand chronological inerrancy Loony. 6,000 years ago God created a 99,994,000 year-old exploded star, and a 3,999,994,000 year-old universe to put it in.

*sighs* This is your opinon. That Macroevolution is real. Yet YOU have yet to show me any hard evidence for it. I'm starting to think that you're getting desperate as you've resorted to swear at me for having an opinon.

I asked first. :D

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species

Here you have macro-evolution as the compounded effects of micro-evolution. Take out the specimens in the middle and you've got two distinct species with no living connection.

Now instead of looking at this speciation along a geographic line, look at it on a chronological one.

Genetic similarities prove nothing.
Proof is for maths and alcohol. And how do you explain the genetic similarities between different species?
And thank you, I will ignore the fossil records for the "We have no proof that they're this old/this similar other then an unprovable formula" reason.
Unprovable formula? Could you tell us more about this unprovable formula?

Faith <--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->Science.

Each hyphen represents one metric world. As you can see, they are many worlds apart. Many many worlds apart.

Science can't prove the existence of God for the same reason why Algebra can't prove that Shakespeare was a literary genius. Or that Genghis Khan had three balls.

Science doesn't give a shit. Which is why nothing pisses off a scientist more than when some religious wacko tries to undermine his work with some batshit rant on the nature of God and the accuracy of the Bible. It's like someone saying that the sum of the square of the sides of a right triangle doesn't equal the square of the hypoteneuse because Genghis Khan had a third nut.

If you want the Old Testament's Creation Myth to be accepted as a viable scientific theory, then you will have to test for it using accepted scientific methiod just like any other, develop data and extrapolate evidence supporting the theory and explain the existence of any refuting data to the satisfaction of your scientific peers just like any other good scientist. Or... you can admit that:

Faith<-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->Science

and have a taco. *sets out a platter of delicious tacos*
Quoted for truth!

I always find it handy to remember that faith is about whys and science about hows. Science can't answer why questions, but it is the best we have with how questions. Faith screws up the hows, but provides acceptable whys.

The problem comes when people from BOTH sides of the debate confuse their whys with hows or somehow start thinking that invalidating one invalidates the other and so on.

I want to know why everyone assumes that in order to be Christian you have to reject everything that science teaches.

To me, science is like rat poison.

For those of you who don't know what rat poison is, and since wiki seems to be acceptable to all :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rat_poison

Science contains 99% truth, sometimes smaller increases of that number even.
Rat Poison contains 99.99% good food.

But it's that one percent, and sometimes less, that isn't good food. That isn't truth, but it's speculation. That's where science fucks up.

And I have no bloody clue where I'm going with this one, so I'll stop before I start talking about something weird and waaaaay off topic, like the practical application of jumping into cement to meet and impress women.

I want to know why everyone assumes that in order to be Christian you have to reject everything that science teaches.

Nobody suggests that. I did, however, suggest that to be a Young Earth Creationist, you have to reject the scientific method's validity for finding out things.


To me, science is like rat poison.

For those of you who don't know what rat poison is, and since wiki seems to be acceptable to all :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rat_poison

Science contains 99% truth, sometimes smaller increases of that number even.
Rat Poison contains 99.99% good food.

But it's that one percent, and sometimes less, that isn't good food. That isn't truth, but it's speculation. That's where science fucks up.

And I have no bloody clue where I'm going with this one, so I'll stop before I start talking about something weird and waaaaay off topic, like the practical application of jumping into cement to meet and impress women.

Pure speculation is not science.

Could it be that we got the speed of light wrong and it's much faster than we think, I mean, I'm opening and closing my eyes right now and, when I open them everything I can see is just there, like instantaneously.

So, if it's faster than we think, it might reach us quicker so 100m years ago might actually just be 5, 500 years ago.

*submits theory as is to National Science Institute*

No. We know exactly how fast light is. 38 miles per hour. (http://www.cnn.com/TECH/ptech/9902/19/slow.light.01/)

No. We know exactly how fast light is. 38 miles per hour. (http://www.cnn.com/TECH/ptech/9902/19/slow.light.01/)

Hau later used a Bose-Einstein condensate to bring it to a dead halt, and published a paper about it. This one's somewhat dated, but still cool.

No. We know exactly how fast light is. 38 miles per hour. (http://www.cnn.com/TECH/ptech/9902/19/slow.light.01/)

Ooooh, speed of light through...eh...something really cold.

*clicks*

Woot! I rememberd it from QI, sort of. Remember kids, c is a constant, but the speed of light isn't always c
Hau later used a Bose-Einstein condensate to bring it to a dead halt, and published a paper about it. This one's somewhat dated, but still cool.
She stopped light? Oh that is awesome.

No. We know exactly how fast light is. 38 miles per hour. (http://www.cnn.com/TECH/ptech/9902/19/slow.light.01/)

That is absolutely fascinating.

Ooooh, speed of light through...eh...something really cold.

*clicks*

Woot! I rememberd it from QI, sort of. Remember kids, c is a constant, but the speed of light isn't always c

Well, one has to remember that c is the speed of light in a vaccuum, and is constant. However, when light passes through any material, it slows down proportional to the refractive index of the material. That's actually what causes light to bend at any interface between two materials. The change in refractive index.

He stopped light? Oh that is awesome.

She, but yes. Pretty awesome.

Pure speculation is not science.

Bahaha. I disagree. Science starts with pure speculation.

Bahaha. I disagree. Science starts with pure speculation.

That you believe it to be true, does not make it so.

Well, one has to remember that c is the speed of light in a vaccuum, and is constant. However, when light passes through any material, it slows down proportional to the refractive index of the material. That's actually what causes light to bend at any interface between two materials. The change in refractive index.
I like my one. It requires me to think less. ;)



She, but yes. Pretty awesome.
Yeah, noticed that on a second look at the article. The internet has taught me to assume everyone is male.
Bahaha. I disagree. Science starts with pure speculation.

How so?

How so?

Scientific Method - from wiki ! the glorious source of all knowledge. However correct it may be, is up for anyones guess.

1. Use your experience: Consider the problem and try to make sense of it. Look for previous explanations. If this is a new problem to you, then move to step 2.
2. Form a conjecture: When nothing else is yet known, try to state an explanation, to someone else, or to your notebook.
3. Deduce a prediction from that explanation: If you assume 2 is true, what consequences follow?
4. Test : Look for the opposite of each consequence in order to disprove 2. It is a logical error to seek 3 directly as proof of 2. This error is called affirming the consequent.

Bam.
I have to pack for a trip to New York tomorrow morning, and I still believe in God, and I still believe he created the universe and everything in it, and I believe the Bible to be what it says it is.

Play on, kiddies.

I like my one. It requires me to think less. ;)[/b]

Bah. That's first semester 2nd year physics. Piece of cake. Every material has a refractive index. The vacuum has a refractive index n = 1. Air has a refractive index ~1.0003, etc. If you know the angle at which light is striking the interface between two materials, say air and water, with a refractive index of (if memory serves) n = 1.333, you can calculate the angle of the refracted and reflected light from the surface of the water.


Yeah, noticed that on a second look at the article. The internet has taught me to assume everyone is male.

It happens.

I want to know why everyone assumes that in order to be Christian you have to reject everything that science teaches.

To me, science is like rat poison.

For those of you who don't know what rat poison is, and since wiki seems to be acceptable to all :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rat_poison

Science contains 99% truth, sometimes smaller increases of that number even.
Rat Poison contains 99.99% good food.

But it's that one percent, and sometimes less, that isn't good food. That isn't truth, but it's speculation. That's where science fucks up.

And I have no bloody clue where I'm going with this one, so I'll stop before I start talking about something weird and waaaaay off topic, like the practical application of jumping into cement to meet and impress women.

Or something completely off the grid like comparing science to rat poison.

...oh. Oops.

Scientific Method - from wiki ! the glorious source of all knowledge. However correct it may be, is up for anyones guess.

1. Use your experience: Consider the problem and try to make sense of it. Look for previous explanations. If this is a new problem to you, then move to step 2.
2. Form a conjecture: When nothing else is yet known, try to state an explanation, to someone else, or to your notebook.
3. Deduce a prediction from that explanation: If you assume 2 is true, what consequences follow?
4. Test : Look for the opposite of each consequence in order to disprove 2. It is a logical error to seek 3 directly as proof of 2. This error is called affirming the consequent.

That's not pure speculation. That's informed induction. You fail.

Bam.
I have to pack for a trip to New York tomorrow morning, and I still believe in God, and I still believe he created the universe and everything in it, and I believe the Bible to be what it says it is.

Play on, kiddies.

And you're still wrong.

Scientific Method - from wiki ! the glorious source of all knowledge. However correct it may be, is up for anyones guess.

1. Use your experience: Consider the problem and try to make sense of it. Look for previous explanations. If this is a new problem to you, then move to step 2.
2. Form a conjecture: When nothing else is yet known, try to state an explanation, to someone else, or to your notebook.
3. Deduce a prediction from that explanation: If you assume 2 is true, what consequences follow?
4. Test : Look for the opposite of each consequence in order to disprove 2. It is a logical error to seek 3 directly as proof of 2. This error is called affirming the consequent.

Bam.
I have to pack for a trip to New York tomorrow morning, and I still believe in God, and I still believe he created the universe and everything in it, and I believe the Bible to be what it says it is.

Play on, kiddies.

...
Are you fucking kidding me? You think that because forming a hypothesis is a step in the scientific method, you can just guess something, not move on from there, and have it be a scientific explanation?

Or something completely off the grid like comparing science to rat poison.

...oh. Oops.

Methinks he's been hitting the bottle. *nod*

...
Are you fucking kidding me? You think that because forming a hypothesis is a step in the scientific method, you can just guess something, not move on from there, and have it be a scientific explanation?

See post above.

Scientific Method - from wiki ! the glorious source of all knowledge. However correct it may be, is up for anyones guess.

1. Use your experience: Consider the problem and try to make sense of it. Look for previous explanations. If this is a new problem to you, then move to step 2.
2. Form a conjecture: When nothing else is yet known, try to state an explanation, to someone else, or to your notebook.
3. Deduce a prediction from that explanation: If you assume 2 is true, what consequences follow?
4. Test : Look for the opposite of each consequence in order to disprove 2. It is a logical error to seek 3 directly as proof of 2. This error is called affirming the consequent.

Bam.
You know what, you're right. A handy trip to the dictionary has shown that speculation is a synonym for hypothesis. Of course, forming a hypothesis isn't pure speculation in the sense of just guessing blindly, or making things up.
I have to pack for a trip to New York tomorrow morning, and I still believe in God, and I still believe he created the universe and everything in it, and I believe the Bible to be what it says it is.
A list of biblical contradictions, by book (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_book.html)
Bah. That's first semester 2nd year physics.

1st year computer scientist. All the physics I need is 'modern computers require electricity to function'

*Sigh*
You just don't understand chronological inerrancy Loony. 6,000 years ago God created a 99,994,000 year-old exploded star, and a 3,999,994,000 year-old universe to put it in.

Notice how people ignore the difficult points, sailing on with their fancy discussions of physics but unable to deal with solid points.

Good post, it's shattered my belief in science :)

*sweeps up broken shards*

Bam.
I have to pack for a trip to New York tomorrow morning, and I still believe in God, and I still believe he created the universe and everything in it, and I believe the Bible to be what it says it is.

Play on, kiddies.

I'll arrange for Genghis Khan's well preserved third nut to be sitting on the pillow of the bed in your room when you arrive. :)

I'll arrange for Genghis Khan's well preserved third nut to be sitting on the pillow of the bed in your room when you arrive. :)

Don't tell him! Now he won't mistake it for a welcoming candy.

Methinks he's been hitting the bottle. *nod*

Against his forehead?

I'll arrange for Genghis Khan's well preserved third nut to be sitting on the pillow of the bed in your room when you arrive. :)

LOL! I just got the image of him seeing the chocolate snack left on his pillow when he walks into his hotel room... :D

oh and thanks for specifying 'Young Earth Creationists' in your OP. ;)

Okay. One last one.

I do not drink. I do not smoke. I do not use drugs. I have been hitting no "bottle." I am simply odd.


Next.

I am a Christian, which is a minority "in these parts." I do not expect to sway you to my way of thinking, nor do I even care to. You will not have me renounce my beliefs, nor has my faith been reduced in any way. I can agree that we have different viewpoints, that given the right stimulus, we can both agree that the other's viewpoint is a load of hock and should be laughed at and ridiculed.

Thank you for the intelligent conversation, and trying to present your side of things in the most interesting and intelligent manner you could muster. I have done the same. We cannot possibly reach a conclusion until all of us agree to subscribe to the same ideals held above all others. Had we come to a conclusion all of us would be hailed as pioneers of our time, and we'd be a lot richer having proved some point and gotten paid for it.

But the fact of the matter is that we have not reached a conclusion. We shall never reach a conclusion, because this discussion has been going on for a long time, and shall continue for again, a long time to come.

Thank you again for your time and effort put forth, and enjoy the tacos.

*sets out another round of tacos for everyone*

Okay. One last one.

I do not drink. I do not smoke. I do not use drugs. I have been hitting no "bottle." I am simply odd.


Next.

I am a Christian, which is a minority "in these parts." I do not expect to sway you to my way of thinking, nor do I even care to. You will not have me renounce my beliefs, nor has my faith been reduced in any way. I can agree that we have different viewpoints, that given the right stimulus, we can both agree that the other's viewpoint is a load of hock and should be laughed at and ridiculed.

Thank you for the intelligent conversation, and trying to present your side of things in the most interesting and intelligent manner you could muster. I have done the same. We cannot possibly reach a conclusion until all of us agree to subscribe to the same ideals held above all others. Had we come to a conclusion all of us would be hailed as pioneers of our time, and we'd be a lot richer having proved some point and gotten paid for it.

But the fact of the matter is that we have not reached a conclusion. We shall never reach a conclusion, because this discussion has been going on for a long time, and shall continue for again, a long time to come.

Thank you again for your time and effort put forth, and enjoy the tacos.

*sets out another round of tacos for everyone*

Woah woah woah, just a second. People are getting paid for posting on NSG? Why was I not informed of this?!

LOL! I just got the image of him seeing the chocolate snack left on his pillow when he walks into his hotel room... :D

oh and thanks for specifying 'Young Earth Creationists' in your OP. ;)

Well, I'm certainly not prepared to argue whether an intelligent being began the event leading to the foundation of our Universe or whether there is an underlying pattern to the beginnings of life that made the eventual evolution of sentient beings capable of pondering their own origins within the basic four atoms at the heart of all organic chemistry an eventual certainty or whether we are the children of the ultimate expression of chaos theory in action. I keep a decent firewall between my science and my faith. *nod*

Okay. One last one.

I do not drink. I do not smoke. I do not use drugs. I have been hitting no "bottle." I am simply odd.


Next.

I am a Christian, which is a minority "in these parts." I do not expect to sway you to my way of thinking, nor do I even care to. You will not have me renounce my beliefs, nor has my faith been reduced in any way. I can agree that we have different viewpoints, that given the right stimulus, we can both agree that the other's viewpoint is a load of hock and should be laughed at and ridiculed.

Thank you for the intelligent conversation, and trying to present your side of things in the most interesting and intelligent manner you could muster. I have done the same. We cannot possibly reach a conclusion until all of us agree to subscribe to the same ideals held above all others. Had we come to a conclusion all of us would be hailed as pioneers of our time, and we'd be a lot richer having proved some point and gotten paid for it.

But the fact of the matter is that we have not reached a conclusion. We shall never reach a conclusion, because this discussion has been going on for a long time, and shall continue for again, a long time to come.

Thank you again for your time and effort put forth, and enjoy the tacos.

*sets out another round of tacos for everyone*

*Accepts offering of tacos*

I'd offer you a beer, but, well, you know.

Well, I'm certainly not prepared to argue whether an intelligent being began the event leading to the foundation of our Universe or whether there is an underlying pattern to the beginnings of life that made the eventual evolution of sentient beings capable of pondering their own origins within the basic four atoms at the heart of all organic chemistry an eventual certainty or whether we are the children of the ultimate expression of chaos theory in action. I keep a decent firewall between my science and my faith. *nod*

*sets about hacking your firewall*

Bahaha. I disagree. Science starts with pure speculation.

I'd accept that, if you change the wording a tiny bit:

Science started with pure speculation.

Long, long ago, Ug looked at the moon and thought to herself "that looks like a piece of fruit with the sun shining on one side. But it looks flat? Never mind ..."

Well, I'm certainly not prepared to argue whether an intelligent being began the event leading to the foundation of our Universe or whether there is an underlying pattern to the beginnings of life that made the eventual evolution of sentient beings capable of pondering their own origins within the basic four atoms at the heart of all organic chemistry an eventual certainty or whether we are the children of the ultimate expression of chaos theory in action. I keep a decent firewall between my science and my faith. *nod*

yep. wish more people took that attitude... on both sides of the issue.

anyway... about your preserved nut comment...

I'll never be able to look at a truffle (http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1205/877074834_3aef6db0d9.jpg?v=0) again... :(

yep. wish more people took that attitude... on both sides of the issue.

anyway... about your preserved nut comment...

I'll never be able to look at a truffle (http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1205/877074834_3aef6db0d9.jpg?v=0) again... :(

You will think of me. And every time someone mentions Genghis Khan or you see the candy on your pillow, you will laugh and people will look at you like you've gone mad. I am in your head and I am rearranging the furniture. :)

*sets about hacking your firewall*

Actually, it's a genuine wall of fire.

You will think of me. And every time someone mentions Genghis Khan or you see the candy on your pillow, you will laugh and people will look at you like you've gone mad. I am in your head and I am rearranging the furniture. :)
Ha! my head has no furnit... where'd that dining set come from? :eek:

Ha! my head has no furnit... where'd that dining set come from? :eek:

Ikea. :)

Ikea. :)

Everything comes from freaking IKEA these days, I'd be surprised if the universe wasn't bought from IKEA and the platypus is just God screwing up the instructions.

*insert bill A into mammal C*

Which one is mammal C? These instructions are crazy!

Actually, it's a genuine wall of fire.

And I'm hacking at it with an axe made out of ice.

And I'm hacking at it with an axe made out of ice.

Cool. :)

Everything comes from freaking IKEA these days, I'd be surprised if the universe wasn't bought from IKEA and the platypus is just God screwing up the instructions.

*insert bill A into mammal C*

Which one is mammal C? These instructions are crazy!

Intelligent design once again limited by poor assembly diagrams. :)

...a Young Earth Creationist weeps.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/space/05/21/star.explosion.ap/index.html

The star died 100 million years ago. 99,994,000 years before God created the Universe and the Earth according to the Bible. Good thing it's a historically accurate, factually inerrant record of natural history or I might start to question anything else it says. :p

Yet another "lets say how shit literal Christians are" thread.

Sorry LG the seven days belief only refers to the Earth and not to the universe, so I doubt that they would be crying over a star.

Yet another "lets say how shit literal Christians are" thread.

Sorry LG the seven days belief only refers to the Earth and not to the universe, so I doubt that they would be crying over a star.

On the Contrary, according to the Bible, God Created Earth on the third day and the stars on the fourth day. So clearly stars are younger than Earth(By the way, that includes the sun).

Yet another "lets say how shit literal Christians are" thread.

Sorry LG the seven days belief only refers to the Earth and not to the universe, so I doubt that they would be crying over a star.

except the fourth day was...
And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

On the Contrary, according to the Bible, God Created Earth on the third day and the stars on the fourth day. So clearly stars are younger than Earth(By the way, that includes the sun).

Good point, but the universe was created before the Earth as we know it (remember it was formless and desolate), and no time frame between the two creations.

Yet another "lets say how shit literal Christians are" thread.

Sorry LG the seven days belief only refers to the Earth and not to the universe, so I doubt that they would be crying over a star.

Yet another Christian with a persecution complex.

I find it funny you think this is a "let's bash Christians" thread when the OP is himself a Christian.

Good point, but the universe was created before the Earth as we know it (remember it was a rock devoid of life), and no time frame between the two creations.

Not according to the Bible.

Not according to the Bible.

1 1 In the beginning God created the universe, 2 the earth was formless and desolate. The raging earth was engulfed in total darkness and the Spirit of God moved over the water.

So depending on how you translate this verse you could say that God began forming the Earth as we know it straight away or that he first created the universe (minus the stars) and then began to create the Earth