Welcome to FinHeaven Fans Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.



VIP Members don't see these ads. Join VIP Now
Page 15 of 22 FirstFirst ... 1011121314151617181920 ... LastLast
Results 141 to 150 of 214

Thread: Bill Nye: Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children

  1. -141
    tylerdolphin's Avatar
    More Smug than Birthday Dog

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Sep 2005
    Posts:
    12,520
    vCash:
    4651
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Cam Wake 91
    So your God accounts for all the preconditions on intelligibility that YOU subscribe to. Its called your opinion. Your syllogism is nuts man. Why do you think you cat even get a Christian in here to defend it?




    Quote Quote  

  2. -142
    rob19's Avatar
    Soul Rebel

    Status:
    Online
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Mar 2006
    Posts:
    7,493
    vCash:
    9329
    Loc:
    Georgia
    Thanks / No Thanks
    1972 Dolphins Logo
    Newsflash: The only precondition of intelligibility is a brain capable of intelligence.

    Quote Originally Posted by Statler
    I am a bit shocked you would use Allan Watts as a source on the history of scripture considering he was a philosopher not a historian, not only this but a philosopher who died nearly 40 years ago and who specialized in the philosophy of Eastern religion and not the Abrahamic religions. I guess all standards are out the window as long as the guy agrees with you eh?
    Jesus died 2,000 years ago, what's your point? Now with your wikipedia searches out of the way, I noticed you didn't actually refute anything he said, & that's because it's accurate.

    A group of PEOPLE wrote the bible, you can claim they were divinely inspired, but you take it on faith that these people aren't full of ****.

    Quote Originally Posted by Statler
    Simple, if scripture was not the revealed word of a real God who possessed all the characteristics He says He possesses then we could not know, prove, or learn anything at all. So you questioning whether He exists and revealed Himself to us through scripture actually is proof that He in fact did because it proves we can in fact possess knowledge and use proof.
    Quote Originally Posted by Statler
    I provided a completely valid and so far un-refuted syllogism accompanied by actual demonstration that proves God must exist in order for knowledge to be possible. Since knowledge is possible then the God of scripture must exist and therefore scripture must also be His revealed word- that is proof. Valid and sound syllogisms are not opinions, they are truth.


    So circular.

    "God is necessary for knowledge to exist (because I said so). So now that I've established in my own mind with absolutely no proof to back-up this claim that God is necessary for knowledge, even questioning God proves he exists"

    It's nuts. It's warped. Kant is rolling in his grave right now at the mockery you've made of his work.

    I feel like a broken record repeating this over and over to you, but premises have to be verifiable for this to work.

    Major premise: All humans are mortal.
    Minor premise: All Greeks are humans.
    Conclusion: All Greeks are mortal.

    No reptiles have fur
    All snakes are reptiles.
    No snakes have fur.

    All rabbits have fur.
    Some pets are rabbits.
    Some pets have fur.

    See how these all make sense? That's because they have verifiable premises.

    It is your opinion that god is necessary for knowledge to be possible. There is absolutely no way you can demonstrate that claim to be true. I already know your rebuttal, so I'll save you some time.

    "God is necessary for knowledge to exist (because I said so). So now that I've established in my own mind with absolutely no proof to back-up this claim that God is necessary for knowledge, even questioning God proves he exists"
    Quote Quote  

  3. -143
    rob19's Avatar
    Soul Rebel

    Status:
    Online
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Mar 2006
    Posts:
    7,493
    vCash:
    9329
    Loc:
    Georgia
    Thanks / No Thanks
    1972 Dolphins Logo
    Quote Originally Posted by Statler
    So we have peer-reviewed studies conducted by numerous Hebrew scholars and experts establishing that the biblical account is written as historical narrative and the best you can do is try to refute it with a drug-using comedian on youtube? You’re so small time.
    Did you just use one of those ad-hominems you've been crying about all thread?

    They can confirm that someone wrote in a historical narrative, but that doesn't make it historic. I can write a tale in historic narrative about Leprechauns who find a pot of gold on the dark side of the moon; but that doesn't make it true.

    Noah's Ark is a silly story with more holes in it that than Sponge-Bob.

    Quote Originally Posted by Statler
    “‘No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. I am the Lord.” – Leviticus 18:6
    & Yet the Earth was supposedly populated TWICE through incest. First through Adam & Eve, & then Noah's family. Funny how that works out.

    Quote Originally Posted by Statler
    All dating methods are in agreement?
    Yup

    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.
    http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html
    Last edited by rob19; 09-20-2012 at 08:39 AM.
    Quote Quote  

  4. -144
    Statler Waldorf's Avatar
    Bench Warmer

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Jun 2005
    Posts:
    1,262
    vCash:
    1284
    Loc:
    Oregon
    Thanks / No Thanks
    So your God accounts for all the preconditions on intelligibility that YOU subscribe to.


    What are you even talking about? My God accounts for all of the preconditions of intelligibility, period. It’s not about whether you subscribe to the preconditions or not, they are what they are. There’s about a half dozen of them, the ones I am referring to are the same ones that Kant and Hume debated back and forth trying to account for hundreds of years ago. Take any one of them away and knowledge is impossible, and yet your worldview can’t make sense of why any of them would even be true to begin with- that’s the whole point here.

    Its called your opinion.


    No, it’s called proof.

    Your syllogism is nuts man.


    Why? Simply because you don’t like the conclusion? That’s irrelevant.

    Why do you think you cat even get a Christian in here to defend it?


    What makes you think I have even tried? I didn’t make the syllogism up; it’s been around for years and has been well defended for years. No atheist has ever found a way to refute it, and it hasn’t been for lack of trying. It’s just completely valid and sound, and there’s just no way to refute a valid and sound syllogism. God exists.

    Jesus died 2,000 years ago, what's your point?


    My point is that there have been several textual discoveries in the last 40 years that completely refute everything he claimed. Even more importantly, there were several discoveries decades before he even gave that lecture that directly contradict what he was claiming. His lecture reeks of the 19th Century German scholarship that believed the Gospel of John was written well after the other gospels until manuscripts from the Gospel of John were discovered that dated back to the first century. We now have copies of manuscripts from every single book in the New Testament that predate the Catholic Church, so his assertion that the Church had any hand in writing the gospels is so absurd it’s appalling. Such errors just reinforce my position that the guy is not qualified to be used as an authority on Biblical textual history. Not only this, but it is clear by early Christian writings that over 97% of the current New Testament was viewed as inspired scriptures over 100 years prior to canonization by the Catholic Church at the end of the 4th century. I know he’s something like a hero to you, but the guy seems to know very little about the early history of Christianity and should stick to Eastern religions.

    Now with your wikipedia searches out of the way, I noticed you didn't actually refute anything he said, & that's because it's accurate.


    No it’s because I didn’t have to, your appeal to authority was completely fallacious because your so-called “authority” wasn’t qualified in the topic, you might as well cite yourself or the local Wal-Mart greeter as an authority if you’re going to cite Watts.

    A group of PEOPLE wrote the bible, you can claim they were divinely inspired, but you take it on faith that these people aren't full of ****.


    No, you take it on faith that they were, I have logical proof that they were not, I’ll take that any day.

    So circular.


    Nope, a circular argument is where your conclusion is a restatement of your premise(s), “God exists” is not a re-statement of “If knowledge is possible, God must exist” nor is it a restatement of “knowledge is possible.” So your cries of circularity are completely unfounded. Reasoning itself has a circular nature to it (rather than linear), but that is not the same thing as a circular argument which is invalid.

    [QUOTE"God is necessary for knowledge to exist (because I said so). So now that I've established in my own mind with absolutely no proof to back-up this claim that God is necessary for knowledge, even questioning God proves he exists" [/QUOTE]

    Did you miss the countless times I demonstrated how God can account for each of the preconditions of knowledge and how you cannot thus proving God is a necessary precondition to the preconditions or are you just ignoring it because it proves my point? If you do not believe God is necessary for knowledge then use your naturalism to make sense of each of the preconditions! Until you do that, your objections are completely meaningless because they are simply arguments from silence.

    It's nuts. It's warped. Kant is rolling in his grave right now at the mockery you've made of his work.


    I think he’d actually be embarrassed at your apparent inability to account for the preconditions in a manner that was consistent with your worldview, if there was one thing that drove Kant nuts, it was inconsistencies within a person’s view of reality, and you have loads of them.

    I feel like a broken record repeating this over and over to you, but premises have to be verifiable for this to work.


    …and I feel like a broken record having to say this to you again, I already demonstrated both of my premises. God can account for knowledge, your naturalism cannot, end of debate, you’ve lost right there.

    Major premise: All humans are mortal.


    You can’t even live up to your own standards which of course makes you guilty of special pleading. Where is your demonstration that ALL humans are mortal?

    Minor premise: All Greeks are humans.


    Where is your demonstration that ALL Greeks are humans? Special pleading yet again.
    Conclusion: All Greeks are mortal.


    This is a garbage conclusion because you said you have to verify your premises first and you didn’t do that.

    [QUOTE} No reptiles have fur [/QUOTE]

    Where is your demonstration that no reptile has ever had fur? Again, special pleading because you’re not following the rules you stated I had to follow.
    All snakes are reptiles.


    Where is your demonstration that ALL snakes are reptiles?

    No snakes have fur.


    Garbage conclusion, Kant would be very disappointed in you.

    All rabbits have fur.

    Where is your demonstration that ALL rabbits have fur?
    Some pets are rabbits.


    Where did you verify this?

    Some pets have fur.


    Opinion, not a valid conclusion because of lack of verification provided, tsk tsk.

    See how these all make sense? That's because they have verifiable premises.


    What? Where? You really think you verified these premises?

    It is your opinion that god is necessary for knowledge to be possible. There is absolutely no way you can demonstrate that claim to be true. I already know your rebuttal, so I'll save you some time.


    Are you really this obtuse? It has to be an act. You can certainly verify that premise, by explaining how God can account for the preconditions that must be present before we can learn anything. I already did this, so I verified the premise. You have to either demonstrate that God cannot in fact account for such preconditions, or propose an alternative explanation to compete with mine. So far you have done neither so my syllogism is both valid and un-refuted which really puts the pressure on you because you currently have no rational reason for not accepting the conclusion. So as of right now, your agnosticism is a completely irrational position to hold.

    They can confirm that someone wrote in a historical narrative, but that doesn't make it historic.


    Where did I say I did? You took my words completely out of context, the discussion I was having when I said Genesis was written in historic narrative was whether it could be figurative or not. It cannot be figurative because it was written in the style of Hebrew that was always used for historical accounts. I know it’s true because it’s the infallible word of God, not simply because it was written in that style. By the way though, the author of Genesis also believed it was all true because “historical fiction” was not a genre of writing until thousands of years later. So back then when people wrote down historical accounts it’s because they believed they were true and not because they thought it was an interesting fictional story.

    Noah's Ark is a silly story with more holes in it that than Sponge-Bob.


    Yes, that’s the same sort of assertion your stoned comedian made, only problem is that it doesn’t prove anything. Give me a supposed “hole” and I will tell you why you’re wrong.

    & Yet the Earth was supposedly populated TWICE through incest. First through Adam & Eve, & then Noah's family. Funny how that works out.


    Uh, both of those accounts predate the forbidding of incest in Leviticus so what’s your point? As a Darwinist you believe humans are also the result of incest (or bestiality, those are your only two options), so I am not sure what you’re trying to even get at.

    Yup


    Oh no! You tripped yourself up! Now what will you do?

    “The Winding-Up Dilemma” dictates that our very own Milky Way Galaxy cannot be older than a few hundred million years. So you have radiometric dating telling us that Earth is 4.3 BILLION years old while the galaxy it is in winds up too quickly to be any older than a few hundred MILLION years. So you were wrong about all dating methods agreeing?

    Sedimentary accumulates at a net rate of 24 billion tons a year. We would reach the current amount of sediment we have today in the Oceans after merely 12 MILLION years, and yet your view of the Earth’s history tries to tell us the Oceans are over 3 BILLION years old. So you were wrong again about all dating methods agreeing weren’t you?

    Annually, an average of 450 million tons of sodium is deposited in the Oceans, 77 percent of this sodium accumulates in the Ocean. Given our current levels of sodium the Oceans can’t be older than 42 MILLION years old, and you believe they are 3 BILLION years old. So you were wrong yet again about all dating methods agreeing weren’t you?

    Given the current decay rate of the Earth’s magnetic field, the field could not be any older than 10,000 years. Yet, you claim that life has lived on Earth for 3.5 BILLION years, something that would be impossible without the magnetic field. So you were wrong about all dating methods agreeing weren’t you?

    Polonium-210 radiohalos in Jurassic, Triassic, and Eocene layers of strata indicate that these layers were in fact deposited within a few months of one another (by a giant flood perhaps?), yet you claim these different layers of rock were separated by millions of years. So you were wrong again about all dating methods agreeing weren’t you?

    The amount of Helium found in the Earth’s atmosphere today is .05 percent of what it should be if radioactive elements really have been decaying for billions of years (this takes into account the calculated amount of Helium that is lost into space each year). So either the earth’s atmosphere is not billions of years old or the radioactive elements have not been decaying for 4.5 Billion years. Either way it proves that you are wrong about all dating methods agreeing.

    According to your own timeline, 4 billion prehistoric humans should have lived and died during the “stone age”, it is well known these early humans buried their dead with artifacts based on what we find today, yet we have only found a few thousand of these remains, where did the other 3,999,996,000 bodies go? This one really paints you into a corner because you have already stated that you believe soft tissue can last for 65 million years so saying “well they just were not preserved” is no longer a valid explanation since 100,000 years is many times more recent than 65 million years. Not only this, but this wouldn’t explain why we do not still find their artifacts. So you were wrong again.

    Radiometric dating has dated several moon rocks to be over 4 Billion years old. Yet the moon is receding away from the Earth at 4 cm a year (a rate that is slowing down rather than speeding up), this would put the Moon in contact with the Earth just within 1.4 Billion years ago. So one dating methods claims the moon is 4 Billion years old, while the other claims it has to be less than 1.4 Billion years old, but I thought you said all dating methods agreed with one another?

    The carbon to radiocarbon ratio should have reached equilibrium after the Earth’s atmosphere was 30,000 years old, yet the atmosphere is still not in equilibrium today. In fact, given the current ratio it appears the atmosphere has only been in existence for less than 10,000 years. You claim that humans have been living on Earth for over 100,000 years, did these humans have space suits or did they just not have to have an atmosphere in order to survive? :-P More disagreement amongst dating methods I see.

    Measured levels of Helium retention within deep heated rock layers indicate that these rocks cannot be older than six thousand years, and yet you claim they are 4.5 BILLION years old. More disagreement I see.

    As the Sun ages it increases in brightness and thus puts out more heat. Given its current temperature and rate of increase the average earthly temperature would have been -3 C (its 15 C right now) at the time life was supposed to be forming on Earth (3.8 Billion years ago). Since all abiogenesis theories require liquid water this obviously creates a bit of a problem for the life coming from non-life theories.

    Radiometric dating of rocks near the top of the Grand Canyon date to be older than the rocks that form the base of the canyon, of course this is logically impossible given how we know canyons form.
    The Hualalai lava flow in Hawaii, which is historically documented to have formed in 1800 AD was radiometrically dated to be 1.6 MILLION years old (plus or minus 160,000 years), that’s only 800,000% error! If you can’t date rocks of known age with your method, why should I believe you can date rocks of unknown age?

    The Mt. Etna lava flow in Sicily which was historically documented to have been formed in 122 BC was radiometrically dated to be 250,000 years old! That’s only 11,900% error! Again, if you can’t date rocks of known age then why on earth do you think you can date rocks of unknown age?

    The Mt. Lassen lava flow in California which was directly observed to have formed in 1915 was radiometrically dated to actually be 110,000 years old! That’s only 137,500% error! This is becoming rather humorous to think you swore these methods worked.

    The Sunset Crater in Arizona which is known to have formed during the years 1064 and 1065 AD was radiometrically dated to be 250,000 years old in one sample and then 270,000 years old in the other sample. So not only does your method not date known rocks formations accurately but it can’t even get the same date from two different samples from the same rock flow!

    A piece of fossilized wood was radiocarbon dated to be 33,000 years old, the only problem is that it was found within a mid-Triassic formation of sandstone that geologists claim is over 230 MILLION years old. I thought all of these dating methods were supposed to agree?

    All measurable levels of carbon should be gone after a maximum of 200,000 years, and yet carbon has been found in both coal, which is supposedly MILLIONS of years old, and diamonds which are supposedly BILLIONS of years old. I thought you said all of these methods were in complete harmony?

    The Department of Earth Sciences at Brock University used their radiocarbon dating laboratory to date a sample of wood collected from Oak Island, Canada. There was only one problem, the sample of wood dated numerous times to have died 3,000 years IN THE FUTURE! Now that’s some pretty accurate dating right there.

    You see Locke, that’s actually how you roast somebody :-P
    Total Depravity
    Unconditional Election
    Limited Atonement
    Irresistible Grace
    Perseverance of the Saints
    Quote Quote  

  5. -145
    tylerdolphin's Avatar
    More Smug than Birthday Dog

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Sep 2005
    Posts:
    12,520
    vCash:
    4651
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Cam Wake 91
    Youre ascribing preconditions to intelligibility that you havent and cannot prove to actually be necessary.
    Quote Quote  

  6. -146
    irish fin fan's Avatar
    Pro Bowler

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Mar 2010
    Posts:
    1,160
    vCash:
    1233
    Thanks / No Thanks

    Bill Nye: Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children

    Quote Originally Posted by Statler Waldorf View Post

    What are you even talking about? My God accounts for all of the preconditions of intelligibility, period. Itís not about whether you subscribe to the preconditions or not, they are what they are. Thereís about a half dozen of them, the ones I am referring to are the same ones that Kant and Hume debated back and forth trying to account for hundreds of years ago. Take any one of them away and knowledge is impossible, and yet your worldview canít make sense of why any of them would even be true to begin with- thatís the whole point here.



    No, itís called proof.



    Why? Simply because you donít like the conclusion? Thatís irrelevant.



    What makes you think I have even tried? I didnít make the syllogism up; itís been around for years and has been well defended for years. No atheist has ever found a way to refute it, and it hasnít been for lack of trying. Itís just completely valid and sound, and thereís just no way to refute a valid and sound syllogism. God exists.



    My point is that there have been several textual discoveries in the last 40 years that completely refute everything he claimed. Even more importantly, there were several discoveries decades before he even gave that lecture that directly contradict what he was claiming. His lecture reeks of the 19th Century German scholarship that believed the Gospel of John was written well after the other gospels until manuscripts from the Gospel of John were discovered that dated back to the first century. We now have copies of manuscripts from every single book in the New Testament that predate the Catholic Church, so his assertion that the Church had any hand in writing the gospels is so absurd itís appalling. Such errors just reinforce my position that the guy is not qualified to be used as an authority on Biblical textual history. Not only this, but it is clear by early Christian writings that over 97% of the current New Testament was viewed as inspired scriptures over 100 years prior to canonization by the Catholic Church at the end of the 4th century. I know heís something like a hero to you, but the guy seems to know very little about the early history of Christianity and should stick to Eastern religions.



    No itís because I didnít have to, your appeal to authority was completely fallacious because your so-called ďauthorityĒ wasnít qualified in the topic, you might as well cite yourself or the local Wal-Mart greeter as an authority if youíre going to cite Watts.



    No, you take it on faith that they were, I have logical proof that they were not, Iíll take that any day.



    Nope, a circular argument is where your conclusion is a restatement of your premise(s), ďGod existsĒ is not a re-statement of ďIf knowledge is possible, God must existĒ nor is it a restatement of ďknowledge is possible.Ē So your cries of circularity are completely unfounded. Reasoning itself has a circular nature to it (rather than linear), but that is not the same thing as a circular argument which is invalid.

    [QUOTE"God is necessary for knowledge to exist (because I said so). So now that I've established in my own mind with absolutely no proof to back-up this claim that God is necessary for knowledge, even questioning God proves he exists"


    Did you miss the countless times I demonstrated how God can account for each of the preconditions of knowledge and how you cannot thus proving God is a necessary precondition to the preconditions or are you just ignoring it because it proves my point? If you do not believe God is necessary for knowledge then use your naturalism to make sense of each of the preconditions! Until you do that, your objections are completely meaningless because they are simply arguments from silence.



    I think heíd actually be embarrassed at your apparent inability to account for the preconditions in a manner that was consistent with your worldview, if there was one thing that drove Kant nuts, it was inconsistencies within a personís view of reality, and you have loads of them.



    Öand I feel like a broken record having to say this to you again, I already demonstrated both of my premises. God can account for knowledge, your naturalism cannot, end of debate, youíve lost right there.



    You canít even live up to your own standards which of course makes you guilty of special pleading. Where is your demonstration that ALL humans are mortal?



    Where is your demonstration that ALL Greeks are humans? Special pleading yet again.


    This is a garbage conclusion because you said you have to verify your premises first and you didnít do that.

    [QUOTE} No reptiles have fur [/QUOTE]

    Where is your demonstration that no reptile has ever had fur? Again, special pleading because youíre not following the rules you stated I had to follow.


    Where is your demonstration that ALL snakes are reptiles?



    Garbage conclusion, Kant would be very disappointed in you.


    Where is your demonstration that ALL rabbits have fur?


    Where did you verify this?



    Opinion, not a valid conclusion because of lack of verification provided, tsk tsk.



    What? Where? You really think you verified these premises?



    Are you really this obtuse? It has to be an act. You can certainly verify that premise, by explaining how God can account for the preconditions that must be present before we can learn anything. I already did this, so I verified the premise. You have to either demonstrate that God cannot in fact account for such preconditions, or propose an alternative explanation to compete with mine. So far you have done neither so my syllogism is both valid and un-refuted which really puts the pressure on you because you currently have no rational reason for not accepting the conclusion. So as of right now, your agnosticism is a completely irrational position to hold.



    Where did I say I did? You took my words completely out of context, the discussion I was having when I said Genesis was written in historic narrative was whether it could be figurative or not. It cannot be figurative because it was written in the style of Hebrew that was always used for historical accounts. I know itís true because itís the infallible word of God, not simply because it was written in that style. By the way though, the author of Genesis also believed it was all true because ďhistorical fictionĒ was not a genre of writing until thousands of years later. So back then when people wrote down historical accounts itís because they believed they were true and not because they thought it was an interesting fictional story.



    Yes, thatís the same sort of assertion your stoned comedian made, only problem is that it doesnít prove anything. Give me a supposed ďholeĒ and I will tell you why youíre wrong.



    Uh, both of those accounts predate the forbidding of incest in Leviticus so whatís your point? As a Darwinist you believe humans are also the result of incest (or bestiality, those are your only two options), so I am not sure what youíre trying to even get at.



    Oh no! You tripped yourself up! Now what will you do?

    ďThe Winding-Up DilemmaĒ dictates that our very own Milky Way Galaxy cannot be older than a few hundred million years. So you have radiometric dating telling us that Earth is 4.3 BILLION years old while the galaxy it is in winds up too quickly to be any older than a few hundred MILLION years. So you were wrong about all dating methods agreeing?

    Sedimentary accumulates at a net rate of 24 billion tons a year. We would reach the current amount of sediment we have today in the Oceans after merely 12 MILLION years, and yet your view of the Earthís history tries to tell us the Oceans are over 3 BILLION years old. So you were wrong again about all dating methods agreeing werenít you?

    Annually, an average of 450 million tons of sodium is deposited in the Oceans, 77 percent of this sodium accumulates in the Ocean. Given our current levels of sodium the Oceans canít be older than 42 MILLION years old, and you believe they are 3 BILLION years old. So you were wrong yet again about all dating methods agreeing werenít you?

    Given the current decay rate of the Earthís magnetic field, the field could not be any older than 10,000 years. Yet, you claim that life has lived on Earth for 3.5 BILLION years, something that would be impossible without the magnetic field. So you were wrong about all dating methods agreeing werenít you?

    Polonium-210 radiohalos in Jurassic, Triassic, and Eocene layers of strata indicate that these layers were in fact deposited within a few months of one another (by a giant flood perhaps?), yet you claim these different layers of rock were separated by millions of years. So you were wrong again about all dating methods agreeing werenít you?

    The amount of Helium found in the Earthís atmosphere today is .05 percent of what it should be if radioactive elements really have been decaying for billions of years (this takes into account the calculated amount of Helium that is lost into space each year). So either the earthís atmosphere is not billions of years old or the radioactive elements have not been decaying for 4.5 Billion years. Either way it proves that you are wrong about all dating methods agreeing.

    According to your own timeline, 4 billion prehistoric humans should have lived and died during the ďstone ageĒ, it is well known these early humans buried their dead with artifacts based on what we find today, yet we have only found a few thousand of these remains, where did the other 3,999,996,000 bodies go? This one really paints you into a corner because you have already stated that you believe soft tissue can last for 65 million years so saying ďwell they just were not preservedĒ is no longer a valid explanation since 100,000 years is many times more recent than 65 million years. Not only this, but this wouldnít explain why we do not still find their artifacts. So you were wrong again.

    Radiometric dating has dated several moon rocks to be over 4 Billion years old. Yet the moon is receding away from the Earth at 4 cm a year (a rate that is slowing down rather than speeding up), this would put the Moon in contact with the Earth just within 1.4 Billion years ago. So one dating methods claims the moon is 4 Billion years old, while the other claims it has to be less than 1.4 Billion years old, but I thought you said all dating methods agreed with one another?

    The carbon to radiocarbon ratio should have reached equilibrium after the Earthís atmosphere was 30,000 years old, yet the atmosphere is still not in equilibrium today. In fact, given the current ratio it appears the atmosphere has only been in existence for less than 10,000 years. You claim that humans have been living on Earth for over 100,000 years, did these humans have space suits or did they just not have to have an atmosphere in order to survive? :-P More disagreement amongst dating methods I see.

    Measured levels of Helium retention within deep heated rock layers indicate that these rocks cannot be older than six thousand years, and yet you claim they are 4.5 BILLION years old. More disagreement I see.

    As the Sun ages it increases in brightness and thus puts out more heat. Given its current temperature and rate of increase the average earthly temperature would have been -3 C (its 15 C right now) at the time life was supposed to be forming on Earth (3.8 Billion years ago). Since all abiogenesis theories require liquid water this obviously creates a bit of a problem for the life coming from non-life theories.

    Radiometric dating of rocks near the top of the Grand Canyon date to be older than the rocks that form the base of the canyon, of course this is logically impossible given how we know canyons form.
    The Hualalai lava flow in Hawaii, which is historically documented to have formed in 1800 AD was radiometrically dated to be 1.6 MILLION years old (plus or minus 160,000 years), thatís only 800,000% error! If you canít date rocks of known age with your method, why should I believe you can date rocks of unknown age?

    The Mt. Etna lava flow in Sicily which was historically documented to have been formed in 122 BC was radiometrically dated to be 250,000 years old! Thatís only 11,900% error! Again, if you canít date rocks of known age then why on earth do you think you can date rocks of unknown age?

    The Mt. Lassen lava flow in California which was directly observed to have formed in 1915 was radiometrically dated to actually be 110,000 years old! Thatís only 137,500% error! This is becoming rather humorous to think you swore these methods worked.

    The Sunset Crater in Arizona which is known to have formed during the years 1064 and 1065 AD was radiometrically dated to be 250,000 years old in one sample and then 270,000 years old in the other sample. So not only does your method not date known rocks formations accurately but it canít even get the same date from two different samples from the same rock flow!

    A piece of fossilized wood was radiocarbon dated to be 33,000 years old, the only problem is that it was found within a mid-Triassic formation of sandstone that geologists claim is over 230 MILLION years old. I thought all of these dating methods were supposed to agree?

    All measurable levels of carbon should be gone after a maximum of 200,000 years, and yet carbon has been found in both coal, which is supposedly MILLIONS of years old, and diamonds which are supposedly BILLIONS of years old. I thought you said all of these methods were in complete harmony?

    The Department of Earth Sciences at Brock University used their radiocarbon dating laboratory to date a sample of wood collected from Oak Island, Canada. There was only one problem, the sample of wood dated numerous times to have died 3,000 years IN THE FUTURE! Now thatís some pretty accurate dating right there.

    You see Locke, thatís actually how you roast somebody :-P[/QUOTE]

    Ok Statlar, enough is enough. Look, I know this will come as a shock but I am, in fact, GOD. I was reading your posts in the thread and while they started out funny enough I began to realize you were serious about this little blue ball called earth been around for only 8 thousand years.

    Normally, I wouldn't interrupt a thread like this but you know the last few years haven't been going well for me. All those child abuse scandals, subsequent law suites etc have really reduced my following. I can't afford you posting such ludicrous posts and having atheists point at this thread and use your posts for comments and say "see, their all stark raving mad".

    In a why I blame myself. I was a little bit hung over while I was putting the final touches on creating you all those years ago. I tipped over a bottle of acid and some of it got into the logical thought part of your brain and it seems like it caused substantial damage in that area. Same thing happened when I put together a guy called Hitler. Actually, now that I think about it your names sound familiar. Anyway, that's getting off topic. In any case, sorry for the extremely heavy damage that I caused. My bad. Ah screw it I don't really give a damn, see Old Testament.

    Now I know you will not question me about claiming that I'm GOD. As you see, I have written it down on paper (well electronic, got to appeal to the younger democratic you know) so you will have no problem believing it. So to wrap up, please let the atheists win the battle. I will take care of them later when they come knocking on my gates.
    Quote Quote  

  7. -147
    rob19's Avatar
    Soul Rebel

    Status:
    Online
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Mar 2006
    Posts:
    7,493
    vCash:
    9329
    Loc:
    Georgia
    Thanks / No Thanks
    1972 Dolphins Logo
    Quote Originally Posted by Statler
    1. Laws of Logic
    2. The uniformity of nature, namely that future trials or experiences will have identical results as past trials under identical conditions.
    3. The reliability of one’s own senses
    4. The reliability of one’s own memory
    5. Laws of behavior or morality
    6. The concepts of “types” and “classes” of events and objects
    These are arbitrary distinctions.

    There are no laws of logic because what you deem logical, and what everyone else deems logical, are two very different things. You can contest that we’re being illogical, and the rest of us can contest that you are being illogical. It’ll get us nowhere.

    My senses are reliable because it’s an evolutionary advantage that my senses be reliable. “Survival of the fittest”; a creature with senses that weren’t reliable wouldn’t be able to procreate and survive.

    My memory is reliable for the same reason my senses are. It is an evolutionary advantage to be able to reccolect things.

    There are no laws of morality. Morality is subjective. Some cultures deem polygamy morally acceptable, some cultures deem the eating of meat to be immoral. Some of the Mayans considered sacrificing human-life to the Gods was morally acceptable. Christianity deems raping little boys immoral, but that didn’t stop countless priests from doing it. God himself apparently even changes his mind about morality, because incest was well and dandy while Adam & Noah populated the Earth via incest, but then all of the sudden he changes his mind when Leviticus was wrote. If there truly we’re concrete “laws of morality”, then surely the law-maker himself wouldn’t just change his mind about them right? If he deems incest to be immoral, then wouldn’t incest be immoral from the beginning?

    Concept of types and classes of events and objects? You mean labeling things with language? That seems pretty easy for any culture to do.

    Quote Originally Posted by Statler
    All of those must be true in order for knowledge to be possible, and yet in a purely natural universe it makes no sense to assume any of them are indeed true.
    Why wouldn’t it make sense? Why does a god have to account for those things? Because that’s the only answer your limited-in-capacity human brain can deem possible? Let me let you in on a secret; humans don’t have everything figured out yet. The universe is (for the most part) stable because it is (for the most part) stable. You don’t have any proof that a God has to make it so.

    Quote Originally Posted by Statler
    What are you even talking about? My God accounts for all of the preconditions of intelligibility, period. It’s not about whether you subscribe to the preconditions or not, they are what they are. There’s about a half dozen of them, the ones I am referring to are the same ones that Kant and Hume debated back and forth trying to account for hundreds of years ago. Take any one of them away and knowledge is impossible, and yet your worldview can’t make sense of why any of them would even be true to begin with- that’s the whole point here.
    Even if your God accounts for your ficiticious preconditions, it only does so because the Bible says it does; that isn’t enough proof. You are assuming that a God of some sort has to account for your preconditions. The universe could just be the way it is because that’s the way it is; it might not need a creator.

    You asked earlier if the laws of physics break down uniformily, and the answer to that is we don’t know. It has been theorized that on the other side of each and every black-hole is an entirely different universe with different laws of physics, & that the possibilities for variation could be infinite.

    Quote Originally Posted by Statler
    You can’t even live up to your own standards which of course makes you guilty of special pleading. Where is your demonstration that ALL humans are mortal?
    Every human that has lived, has died.

    Quote Originally Posted by Statler
    Where is your demonstration that ALL Greeks are humans? Special pleading yet again.
    Are you serious with this one? Are we going to start including cattle & donkeys as citizens of the republic?

    Quote Originally Posted by Statler
    Where is your demonstration that no reptile has ever had fur? Again, special pleading because you’re not following the rules you stated I had to follow.
    By definition of classification reptiles don’t have fur.

    Quote Originally Posted by Statler
    Where is your demonstration that ALL snakes are reptiles?
    All snakes are catagorized to the Squamata order, & the Reptilia class. I.e, all snakes are reptiles.

    Quote Originally Posted by Statler
    Yes, that’s the same sort of assertion your stoned comedian made, only problem is that it doesn’t prove anything. Give me a supposed “hole” and I will tell you why you’re wrong.
    Have at it.


    Quote Originally Posted by Statler
    Uh, both of those accounts predate the forbidding of incest in Leviticus so what’s your point? As a Darwinist you believe humans are also the result of incest (or bestiality, those are your only two options), so I am not sure what you’re trying to even get at.
    I’m not sure how you think evolution works. There wasn’t a tribe of monkeys and one day one of them birthed what we know as a modern human, & then that human raped some monkeys. There was an entire species of monkey that over the course of hundreds of thousands of years collectively evovled towards becoming human. This is why there were two species of human that likely slowly evovled from different species of monkey, the Cro-Magnuns (our ancestors) & the Neanderthals. It was a gradual process that eventually gave way to what we know today as anatomically correct humans. & Some would suggest we aren’t done here; that humans continue to collectively evovle ever so slowly as a speicies.




    Quote Originally Posted by Statler
    “The Winding-Up Dilemma” dictates that our very own Milky Way Galaxy cannot be older than a few hundred million years. So you have radiometric dating telling us that Earth is 4.3 BILLION years old while the galaxy it is in winds up too quickly to be any older than a few hundred MILLION years. So you were wrong about all dating methods agreeing?
    Debunked
    1. Galaxies wind themselves up too fast

    The stars of our own galaxy, the Milky Way, rotate about the galactic center with different speeds, the inner ones rotating faster than the outer ones. The observed rotation speeds are so fast that if our galaxy were more than a few hundred million years old, it would be a featureless disc of stars instead of its present spiral shape.1

    Yet our galaxy is supposed to be at least 10 billion years old. Evolutionists call this ‘the winding-up dilemma’, which they have known about for fifty years. They have devised many theories to try to explain it, each one failing after a brief period of popularity. The same ‘winding-up’ dilemma also applies to other galaxies.
    {emphasis added by me to denote the specific points I wish to address}

    Perhaps this misconception was held to be true in 1987 (the date of the publication from which this information was obtained), but it is no longer accurate. The stars near the centers of galaxies do not rotate appreciably faster than the outer ones and in fact rotate more slowly very near the center. Here is the rotation curve for the galaxy NGC3198:
    http://astron.berkeley.edu/~mwhite/d...r/rotation.gif

    This was taken from http://astron.berkeley.edu/~mwhite/d.../rotcurve.html and is one reason why astrophysicists no longer scoff at the notion of dark matter (under Newtonian physics (and GR), the only way such motion is justified is if galaxies contain a uniform mass distribution). This figure is from 1989, so I'm not sure why Humphreys doesn't seem to know about it the apparent uniformity of galactic rotation speeds.

    For our own Milky Way galaxy, the rotation curve looks as follows:
    http://instruct1.cit.cornell.edu/cou...s/lec32_08.gif
    This figure is from "The Cosmic Perspective" by Bennett et al. and was taken from the page http://instruct1.cit.cornell.edu/cou...o101/lec27.htm (about half-way down--you can contrast this figure with other rotational velocity curves). It seems like Humphries is assuming a classical rotation curve like the one governing the bodies in our solar system:
    http://instruct1.cit.cornell.edu/cou...s/lec32_07.gif

    even though this is clearly not accurate.

    I've honestly never even heard of the "winding-up dilemma," but obviously it is based on a faulty view of our galaxy. I tried googling "winding-up dilemma," but all I found were 39 hits referencing YEC pages that quote Humphreys.
    http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/ar...hp/t-6500.html
    Quote Quote  

  8. -148
    tylerdolphin's Avatar
    More Smug than Birthday Dog

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Sep 2005
    Posts:
    12,520
    vCash:
    4651
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Cam Wake 91
    Statler is arguing that is not provable that everyone is mortal and all greeks are human lol.

    Those arent valid claims, but God is required for knowledge is irrefutable. Cant even make this **** up. I literally loled
    Quote Quote  

  9. -149
    Adam Strange's Avatar
    Rookie

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Apr 2008
    Posts:
    696
    vCash:
    1703
    Loc:
    Melrose, MA
    Thanks / No Thanks
    What's most amazing is that Statler seems to possess all of these radical ideas about cosmology and physics (and paleontology, I guess) which seem to run entirely counter to the established knowledge in those fields, yet he doesn't deign to share and discuss that knowledge with astrophysicists and mathematicians and other scientists in the academic community who have made these issues their life's work. Instead he seems content to blather endlessly on a sports message board. Way to spread the message there, pal. If you could actually prove that any of your ideas have merit, you'd win a Nobel Prize easily. But, of course, you'd have to do more than just argue by assertion which is your strong suit.
    Quote Quote  

  10. -150
    Statler Waldorf's Avatar
    Bench Warmer

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Jun 2005
    Posts:
    1,262
    vCash:
    1284
    Loc:
    Oregon
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Ok Statlar, enough is enough. Look, I know this will come as a shock but I am, in fact, GOD. I was reading your posts in the thread and while they started out funny enough I began to realize you were serious about this little blue ball called earth been around for only 8 thousand years.


    God is infallible, you just made a mistake my asserting I claimed the Earth was only 8,000 years when I have clearly stated that I thought it was 6,000-6,500 years old, you’re not God. That was easy enough. So the only reason you think the Earth is old is because you think the Earth is old? Is that really what it comes down to?

    I can't afford you posting such ludicrous posts and having atheists point at this thread and use your posts for comments and say "see, their all stark raving mad".


    Wow, if you really were God would you really have such bad grammar? “Their” or “They’re”? If atheists want to resort to irrational personal attacks and appeals to ridicule then that actually helps the Christian position, so I am doing Christians a service by forcing atheists to back up their atheism with irrationality.

    So you really can’t refute any of my points that demonstrate the Earth cannot be as old as you claim it is? You have to resort to silly arguments such as this and compare me to Hitler in order to feel better about yourself and your position? You’ve been destroyed so badly in this debate it has become downright sad. You’ve been outstepped logically and evidentially and you have no leg left to stand on, if this were a scored debate the score would be so lop-sided in my favor the audience would feel bad for you, unfortunately for you, there are no sympathy points in a formal debate.

    Now I know you will not question me about claiming that I'm GOD. As you see, I have written it down on paper (well electronic, got to appeal to the younger democratic you know) so you will have no problem believing it. So to wrap up, please let the atheists win the battle. I will take care of them later when they come knocking on my gates.


    You contradict yourself, God cannot contradict Himself. I am sorry, as much as you want me to lie down and “let” you win the debate because you seem completely incapable of doing so on your own merits I just cannot. I value rationality, intellectual honesty, and logic too much to allow someone to win a debate they have otherwise been utterly destroyed in. I wish I could, but I just cannot, you have my apologies.

    These are arbitrary distinctions.


    No, they are all completely necessary in order to know or prove anything at all.

    There are no laws of logic because what you deem logical, and what everyone else deems logical, are two very different things. You can contest that we’re being illogical, and the rest of us can contest that you are being illogical. It’ll get us nowhere.


    This is so far from the truth it’s astonishing really. The laws of logic are not conventional at all; you don’t even believe this sort of thing. If you actually believed the laws of logic you would not even be having this discussion with me because I could just adopt my own laws of logic that proved God exists and you would be in no position to argue that God didn’t exist or that we cannot know God exists. If someone tells me that he is a married bachelor I know that he is lying because that’s a logically contradictory statement, I don’t have to stop and think, “well maybe he’s adopted an alternative law of logic to the law of contradiction that allows him to be both unmarried and married at the same time and in the same relationship.” The laws of logic are immaterial, immutable, and universal, which is something you cannot make sense of as a naturalist. As a Christian they make perfect sense because they are a reflection of how God thinks and therefore creates.

    My senses are reliable because it’s an evolutionary advantage that my senses be reliable. “Survival of the fittest”; a creature with senses that weren’t reliable wouldn’t be able to procreate and survive.


    This fails for two reasons, first of all how do you know anything about evolution? Did you read about this in a book or did you hear about this on television? So you are using something you learned merely through your senses to justify the reliability of your senses? Circularity!

    Secondly, survivability is not necessarily tied to the reliability of one’s own senses. A person’s senses could perceive dangerous creatures as being far bigger or closer than they actually are in reality and use this information to run away far earlier and thus enhance their chances of survival. In fact, many animals senses perceive reality far differently than ours do and they seem to survive just fine. So your answer is a total non-answer. Now if I am the creation of a rational and morally good God who desires that I learn about Him and His creation I can therefore have confidence that I was designed with senses that were reliable enough for me to do the things He desires me to do.

    My memory is reliable for the same reason my senses are. It is an evolutionary advantage to be able to reccolect things.


    Again, this fails for the exact same two reasons, how do you know anything about evolutionary theory? Do you remember reading this in a book somewhere? Circularity again.

    Again, memory reliability is not necessarily tied to survivability at all; if I had false memories in my head about eating a particular plant and therefore chose not to eat that plant and it happened to be poisonous I just improved my chances of survivability with a memory that was not reliable at all. Additionally, many animals have very short memories and they seem to survive just fine with them.

    There are no laws of morality. Morality is subjective. Some cultures deem polygamy morally acceptable, some cultures deem the eating of meat to be immoral. Some of the Mayans considered sacrificing human-life to the Gods was morally acceptable.


    All of this just proves people find ways to justify their immoral behavior; it does nothing to prove that morality is subjective.

    Christianity deems raping little boys immoral, but that didn’t stop countless priests from doing it.


    So is it wrong for those priests to do that or did they get to subjectively choose their own morality?

    God himself apparently even changes his mind about morality, because incest was well and dandy while Adam & Noah populated the Earth via incest, but then all of the sudden he changes his mind when Leviticus was wrote.


    Was wrote or was written?

    So? That doesn’t make morality subjective simply because God adds new rules of behavior, it’s still objective from the perspective of His creation. You’re trying to suggest it is subjectively determined by those it applies to and that is not a defensible position at all.



    If there truly we’re concrete “laws of morality”, then surely the law-maker himself wouldn’t just change his mind about them right? If he deems incest to be immoral, then wouldn’t incest be immoral from the beginning?


    Not at all, God views harming children as immoral, when the human genome was still young and void of nearly all errors people could have children with relatives and not pass on any birth defects to their children. Once the genome had progressed along for enough generations that you could no longer do this safely God then forbid the act because of what it does to children. So the God isn’t really changing what is morally wrong or right, harming children is always morally wrong for us, He just forbid an activity that would start to harm children.

    So are you trying to suggest that scientists and researchers do not necessarily have a moral or ethical obligation to record data or results honestly and accurately?

    Concept of types and classes of events and objects? You mean labeling things with language? That seems pretty easy for any culture to do.


    The point is not whether it is easy or difficult to do, the point is that you have no justification for doing it if we truly live in a purely natural universe. There is no reason to think that events or objects have any immaterial properties in a natural world, and yet when we use types and classes to categorize, describe, and learn about our world that is exactly what we are assuming really does exist. It’s just another example of where your behavior doesn’t match up with your espoused beliefs about reality.

    Why wouldn’t it make sense? Why does a god have to account for those things? Because that’s the only answer your limited-in-capacity human brain can deem possible?
    It doesn’t make sense because you have no reason to assume any of those things are true in a purely natural and material world, and yet you assume they are all true, why? According to the principle of sufficient reason you have to have a reason for everything you believe is true and yet you have no reason for any of these assumptions, I on the other hand do.

    Claiming that someone who has utterly destroyed you in debate the last month has a limited mental capacity certainly doesn’t put you in a good light. If I were you I’d be talking your opponent’s abilities up after they beat you, at least that makes you look a bit more competent in the end.

    Let me let you in on a secret; humans don’t have everything figured out yet.


    Well it’s obvious that some of us have things figured out a bit more than others do :-P

    The universe is (for the most part) stable because it is (for the most part) stable.


    This is just a tautological statement that proves nothing.


    You don’t have any proof that a God has to make it so.


    Yes I do, a completely valid and un-refuted syllogism is the very definition of proof, why is that so hard to understand?

    Even if your God accounts for your ficiticious preconditions, it only does so because the Bible says it does; that isn’t enough proof.


    According to whom? You? You are not the ultimate arbiter of what is and is not “enough” proof.

    You are assuming that a God of some sort has to account for your preconditions. The universe could just be the way it is because that’s the way it is; it might not need a creator.


    First off, you’d have to provide some sort of syllogism that proves that the universe is in fact “just that way” which you have not done. Secondly, even if you could prove that were the case (which you cannot because it’s just a fallacious appeal to ignorance) then you have no reason to assume any of those things are true and you have no way to prove any of those things to be true and therefore you have no way to know or prove anything at all is true and all knowledge is impossible; which just backs up the first premise of my premise. Contrast that with the Christian worldview which has God’s existence as a necessary component and you have a reason to assume each one of those is true and thus laying the foundation for science and empirical learning.

    You asked earlier if the laws of physics break down uniformily, and the answer to that is we don’t know. It has been theorized that on the other side of each and every black-hole is an entirely different universe with different laws of physics, & that the possibilities for variation could be infinite.
    Wait, you tried to argue against there being uniformity in nature with a point that you in fact “don’t know about”? Are you trying to espouse multi-verses exist here?

    Every human that has lived, has died.


    That’s an assertion, where is your demonstration that proves this? Have you directly observed the death of EVERY human who ever lived? Christians, Muslims, and Jews will argue that Elijah didn’t’ ever die. So billions of people don’t even agree with your demonstration, so I will ask again, how can you verify that premise?

    Are you serious with this one? Are we going to start including cattle & donkeys as citizens of the republic?
    Uh oh!! Somebody doesn’t like it when their own ridiculous standards are thrown right back in their face do they? You claimed my syllogism was invalid because I didn’t demonstrate my premises to be true and yet you provide syllogisms that you believe are valid even though you didn’t demonstrate their premises are true; this is special pleading at its finest. You need to demonstrate that ALL Greeks are humans, that was your premise now demonstrate it is true.

    By definition of classification reptiles don’t have fur.


    So if we found a snake with fur it wouldn’t be a reptile? What would it be then? So if we can just get someone at Webster’s to change the definition so that God must exist in order for knowledge to be possible then my syllogism becomes sound and proves God exists simply because that person changed the definition? I am starting to think you can’t demonstrate any of these premises are indeed true.

    All snakes are catagorized to the Squamata order, & the Reptilia class. I.e, all snakes are reptiles.


    What about before the classification system was developed by humans? Were snakes not reptiles then?

    The same stoned comedian video


    What supposed “hole” are you referring to? Please be specific.

    I’m not sure how you think evolution works.


    It doesn’t work, that’s the problem with it.

    There wasn’t a tribe of monkeys and one day one of them birthed what we know as a modern human, & then that human raped some monkeys. There was an entire species of monkey that over the course of hundreds of thousands of years collectively evovled towards becoming human.


    So what gave birth to the first human? What did the first human mate with? To think you call the accounts in the Bible silly, this sort of stuff is downright absurd.

    It was a gradual process that eventually gave way to what we know today as anatomically correct humans. & Some would suggest we aren’t done here; that humans continue to collectively evovle ever so slowly as a speicies.


    So you are saying that modern humans evolved in order to perform calculus and have the mental capacity to travel to the moon and so forth as the need for it arose?

    Debunked


    What!? You try to “debunk” that point by linking to a message board? I am sorry; some message board member’s post does nothing to refute a point that was based on peer-reviewed research. The guy merely invokes “dark matter” (which is an appeal to ignorance) to explain how the galaxy can be that old even though the actual observable evidence proves it is in fact much younger. It’s downright disappointing how yoru standards for proof and evidence completely fly out the window as long as the source agrees with you, a message board? Really?

    I notice you also conveniently failed to even address my points that prove that not only can radiometric dating not date accurately rocks of unknown age but it can’t even date lava flows of KNOWN age. Couple this with the fact that there are dozens of dating methods that date the Earth as much younger than 4.5 billion years and you’re really in a bind now aren’t you?


    Statler is arguing that is not provable that everyone is mortal and all greeks are human lol.


    Stop pretending to be dumb, you know that my point was that he didn’t demonstrate his premises to be true after claiming that was what was wrong with my syllogism. I know you know this, this sort of stuff is quite frankly beneath you Tyler.

    Those arent valid claims, but God is required for knowledge is irrefutable. Cant even make this **** up. I literally loled


    Following feinted stupidity with fallacious appeals to ridicule? Grow up.

    What's most amazing is that Statler seems to possess all of these radical ideas about cosmology and physics (and paleontology, I guess) which seem to run entirely counter to the established knowledge in those fields,


    That’s because Statler knows enough to know that scientific fact isn’t based on mainstream opinion or majority and it never will be. Ii’s based on the evidence and the evidence is obviously on my side, which is probably why you didn’t bother trying to refute any of my points- you can’t.


    yet he doesn't deign to share and discuss that knowledge with astrophysicists and mathematicians and other scientists in the academic community who have made these issues their life's work.


    Actually I do, I work with them every day. We have these sorts of conversations quite often while driving out to the field or during lunch breaks, it’s funny how they don’t find my positions nearly as “radical” as you claim they are, that’s how most scientists are when they are in private, they know the issues are not nearly as cut and dry as people make them out to be.


    Instead he seems content to blather endlessly on a sports message board. Way to spread the message there, pal.



    A person defending their position with both logic and evidence comes across as merely “blathering” to you? That’s scary. What makes you think for a second this is the only environment I ever discuss this sort of thing in? Sometimes I just like to pick at the low hanging fruit for a change and a break, doesn’t everyone? Isn’t that why Dawkins would rather debate Jewish spiritual leaders about the age of the earth rather than the actual big dogs that have their doctorates and have been studying the issue for decades?


    If you could actually prove that any of your ideas have merit, you'd win a Nobel Prize easily.


    The fact you hold to the obvious misconception that scientists don’t have their own preconceived biases is downright ridiculous. There was a famous dialogue between a creationists and a Darwinist about the age of the Earth, and the Darwinist challenged the creationist to provide evidence that humans and dinosaurs coexisted. The creationist pointed to the discovery of some human tracks that had been discovered alongside dinosaur tracks in Texas (they turned out to not be human tracks but at the time everyone believed they were, goes to show creationists will discard arguments that no longer appear to be valid), when faced with the evidence at the time the Darwinist famously said, “That’s not evidence for a young Earth! That’s evidence for time travel!” Hahahaha, just goes to show that people will always invoke a rescue mechanism (time travel) rather than admit that they are wrong. A great example is in here, this whole time people have been saying that they know the Earth is old because ALL of the dating methods were in complete agreement, I made sure that this was asserted to be the case several times so it was on the record and then I provided over a dozen examples of how the dating methods in fact do not agree one bit, and has anyone admitted that they were completely wrong? Of course not.

    But, of course, you'd have to do more than just argue by assertion which is your strong suit.


    Argue by association? What are you trying to mean by that?
    Quote Quote  

Similar Threads

  1. Bill to allow women use of deadly force to save unborn children
    By PhinPhan1227 in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 04-04-2009, 11:54 PM
  2. Calif Bill Would Ban Spanking Young Children
    By Celtkin in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 01-21-2007, 04:15 AM
  3. Creationism (sorry)
    By ABrownLamp in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 185
    Last Post: 05-11-2006, 05:03 PM
  4. creationism in our schools
    By Alien in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 50
    Last Post: 12-22-2005, 07:27 PM
  5. Victory for Creationism
    By Wildbill3 in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 228
    Last Post: 11-12-2004, 06:13 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •