This is the last thing I'm responding to, because you're a joke and a waste of time.
You didn't give me links to the articles, you just linked to the magazine pages. I asked for articles, you sent me some bull**** hyperlinks to some journals. That's not what I asked for, you know it, and you use it to pretend like you satisfied the request. It's pathetic. You googled the name of the article, or more likely, just the APA citation, and it directed you to one of the journals that published it. But you didn't know you have to subscribe to those journals, so it's still impossible that you read it. Unless you, an admitted Creationist and anti-intellectual, has a preexisting subscription to scientific magazines and journals. Good luck convincing anyone of that.
The last thing I'm going to say to you is that I know for a fact you didn't graduate from college. And you sure as hell didn't take any physics classes. Saying this as a professor, your story doesn't even make sense. No professor would ever go into a colleague's classroom, disrupt their class and ask them to "write on the chalkboard more quietly", and then disrespect the professor and entire class by saying it isn't real science. No one does. Period. That professor would have been fired before the end of the day. That's the second lie you've told in your conversation with me.
You're a liar, period. Everything you've said has lost credibility. I'm done talking to you. I'll spend my time talking with people who have honor and integrity, not some fake who makes no sense and has to lie to keep his facade going...
As for the physics story. You guys give him more credit than I do. I don't believe he's ever stood on a college campus, the story sounds like a something that was made up by someone who knows nothing about college.
I agree with you completely about his story. We professors may jab at each other around campus, or on our own time, but never ever in front of students. Hell, psychology and sociology have the biggest rivalry no ones ever heard of, and we poke fun at each other, friendly and unfriendly, all the time. But that happens out of the classroom, and away from students. No one is saying that kind of thing doesn't happen, but to claim an entire lecture was disrupted the way he described is a surefire way to get fired. Even the longest tenured professor on campus would get put on some sort of probationary plan. Of course, if he ever went to college, he'd know that...
Hell the new mars probe went to a crater so it could look at different layers of mars history by climbing the crater rim so it is not like it's an unscientific method. In any case, please provide some evidence as requested above.
Are you asking me to refute God? It can't be done. It's impossible to disprove God for the very same reason it's impossible to prove God.Originally Posted by Statler
Your syllogism isn't valid because the existence of a God isn't verifiable. Syllogisms need verifiable premises in order to be valid. Nor is your connection between knowledge being possible and the existence of God. You claim God to be necessary for knowledge to exist but you have no proof of that assertion. We know that knowledge exists, we don't know that a God exists. There is no way to prove that God is necessary for knowledge to exist, it is an un-testable, un-demonstrable, assertion. It is YOUR opinion.Originally Posted by Statler
Just because God can't be refuted doesn't make it true. You can't refute the existence of Aliens, doesn't make them real. This is why you've been mislabeling me by calling me an atheist. I'm not saying there isn't a God, I'm saying he can't be proven. If you must label me, you can call me an Agnostic.
Oh man, I don't even know where to start with this one. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the bible say that the creation of the Earth/Universe is concurrent with the Creation of Adam?Originally Posted by Statler
You yourself claim the creation of Adam as "fact" at 6,000 to 6,400 years ago. That means the Earth/Universe couldn't be any older than Adam, making the Earth about 6,000 years old as you claim. Then, when backed into a corner about Dinosaurs you say they lived 15,000 years ago? So which is it? 6,000 or 15,000? You're contradicting yourself, & you're contradicting your scripture. What a joke.
Furthermore, I'm glad you brought up Adam & Eve. How did they populate the Earth? Incest?
Was Adam banging the daughers? Eve banging the sons? The daughters and sons banging each other? A little of all the above?
Were Adam & Eve white? Where did all the black people come from? Asians? Indians? Did Eve magically spit out multi-cultural babies? You also want to try and rationalize Adam living for 930 years? (Or 1/6th the Earths age according to you, or 1/15th the Earth's age, I can't be sure, you keep changing your mind).
One more thing, so everything the Bible says is fact now? Is this fact?
Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.”
Will I really be happy if I dasheth my children against the stones?
I hope you were trying to be cute here. Hinduism states that the separation between all things is illusory. The reason they make this claim is because they contest that Brahma the Creator IS everything in the universe. Every rock, every animal, plant, and human being, experiencing their joys and sorrows all at once, completely plunging himself into the adventure of forgetting who he is. All things, all other Hindu Gods, are merely expressions of the one, Brahma.Originally Posted by Statler
So by Hindu assertion, everyone and everything is God. Nothing is not God. & Doesn't that make sense? If there was a God would it really be an omnipotent God if he wasn't everything? Let me ask you this; are you God, Statler? If not, how can your God truly be omnipotent if he can't be you?
So now I’ll play your crazy game.
P1 Knowledge is possible
P2 For knowledge to be possible, Brahma must exist
C1 Brahma exists
Not my fault you don't understand how half-life's work. Here is a Christian's (with some sense) perspective on Radiometric dating.Originally Posted by Statler
Dr. Wiens has a PhD in Physics, with a minor in Geology. His PhD thesis was on isotope ratios in meteorites, including surface exposure dating. He was employed at Caltech's Division of Geological & Planetary Sciences at the time of writing the first edition. He is presently employed in the Space & Atmospheric Sciences Group at the Los Alamos National Laboratory.First edition 1994; revised version 2002.
Radiometric dating--the process of determining the age of rocks from the decay of their radioactive elements--has been in widespread use for over half a century. There are over forty such techniques, each using a different radioactive element or a different way of measuring them. It has become increasingly clear that these radiometric dating techniques agree with each other and as a whole, present a coherent picture in which the Earth was created a very long time ago. Further evidence comes from the complete agreement between radiometric dates and other dating methods such as counting tree rings or glacier ice core layers. Many Christians have been led to distrust radiometric dating and are completely unaware of the great number of laboratory measurements that have shown these methods to be consistent. Many are also unaware that Bible-believing Christians are among those actively involved in radiometric dating.
This paper describes in relatively simple terms how a number of the dating techniques work, how accurately the half-lives of the radioactive elements and the rock dates themselves are known, and how dates are checked with one another. In the process the paper refutes a number of misconceptions prevalent among Christians today. This paper is available on the web via the American Scientific Affiliation and related sites to promote greater understanding and wisdom on this issue, particularly within the Christian community.
Actually click and read the link before you mouth off on this, it goes into much further detail. Your argument is laughable, but here’s my homework for you. If you want to believe the Earth is 6,000 years old, or 15,000 (whichever one you decide to roll with that day), then fine, that’s your perogative, but I want you to tell everyone you know that you think that, see how that works out for you.
Christians themselves aren't the problem. As long as you're harmless and don’t have a superiority complex about your particular religion, I don’t have a problem with religious folk. People with nutjob ideas and beliefs are the problem.Originally Posted by Statler
Only further speaks to your delsion. Look around, it’s probably clear to everyone but yourself that this thread has turned into 10 rational people trying to reason with someone who is incapable of reason.Insinuating that someone who has utterly destroyed you in debates over the last few weeks is “delusional” certainly doesn’t make you look very good :-P
So you say this with the intent to try and hurt Locke’s feelings? You also derive pleasure from a professor and a class full of students having their feelings hurt? Not very Christian of you.Originally Posted by Statler
Does being a Christian merely mean believing in Christ, or actually trying to be Christ-like? If it’s the latter, you’re no more a Christian than any of the rest of us.
"I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." - Gandhi
One last thing, I believe your beliefs not only give Christians a bad name, I think your beliefs give religious folk in general a bad name. Your beliefs are precisely the type of thing most Christians are trying to not have associated with their religion. Your beliefs are some of the most insane, delusional, demented, & lunatical assertions I’ve ever had the displeasure of reading. It truly does concern/sadden me that there are people on Earth who believe some of the things you do.