(February 2, 2011 at 5:15 pm)Watson Wrote: You guys could take all the posts in this forum or, hell, just this topic alone and make a book out of them. The title would be "Creationism vs. Evolution: How the Internet killed reasonable debate."

Fair suck of the sauce bottle mate,theists have been doing that for centuries. Their preferred method was to kill everyone who disagreed with their specific set of superstitions. Many still would they could.


These days, the more ignorant and fearful theists ( as well as politicians ) get their panties in a bunch because they can't control the net,censor its contents or set the conditions for debate.

(February 2, 2011 at 5:15 pm)Watson Wrote: You guys could take all the posts in this forum or, hell, just this topic alone and make a book out of them. The title would be "Creationism vs. Evolution: How RELIGION killed reasonable debate."

There, fixed it for you mate

Well it’s all based on averages and estimates. On average our galaxy encounters a supernova every 25 years. These supernova remnants could last for about a million years, reaching stage 3 after about 10,000 years. If the universe were 6,000 years old we’d expect to see about 125-150 stage 2 supernova remnants and zero stage 3 remnants because the galaxy has not been around long enough to produce any. We actually see about 200 stage 2 remnants and zero stage 3 remnants. This would put the estimated age of the Milky Way galaxy at around 7,000 years, which is pretty consistent with the Biblical age of 6000-7000 years. Of course this means the galaxy should not be any older than 10,000 years because we cannot see the stage 3 remnants. So there you go.



Proof? Sounds like personal opinion to me.



First of all, the fact that you had never heard of ASC is irrelevant. Secondly, you obviously have not read Einstein’s work on the subject because he does give it consideration and says he chose what is now called ESC not because ASC was wrong, but because he preferred a velocity-dependant convention rather than a position dependent one. That’s why we call these conventions, the math works with all of them, they just are preferences.



Yes I am sure two galaxies colliding is a pretty amazing event to witness. You have done nothing to demonstrate that they do not serve a purpose just like air molecules colliding do.



Actually if the person being stoned deserved a far worse death (as everyone does) it would make you gracious. Pretty simple. Grace is giving someone better than they deserve. Upon what standard can you say this is not just? Your own arbitrary one?



Well that’s what God says, I’ll take his word over yours.



Well relativity tells us that light does move in a way that makes it seem aware of a person’s velocity, two people at the same point in space but moving at different velocities would witness an event to take place at two different times. ASC uses a similar line of thought, only that light moves as if it is aware of a person’s position, not velocity. They both work with the calculations, so to say one is better than the other violates even what Einstein said, that there is no “true” measurement of time. Hence why these are conventions.

As to the person holding the mirror, they would see the light hit the mirror as soon as it was turned on. As to “when” this happened, this would be impossible to measure because in a relativistic universe it is impossible to synchronize the two clocks used in the experiment (one at observer A, one at observer B). I think you are thinking more in Newtonian or classic terms than relativistic terms.



Basic reading comprehension. You’ll notice I said that Luke says people saw Jesus. Many historians who never saw Nero still claim he existed and I will take their word for it. It is you who changes the height of the bar depending upon which historical figure we are talking about.
Not to mention your amazing inconsistency. Here you don’t believe in what Creationists claim apparently because they a in the minority and the great majority of scientists don’t believe in creation. However, then you turn around and give credence to an argument (Jesus was a myth) that the overwhelming majority of historians disagree with. After all, the idea was started by a man who was not a historian but was a professor of German (Wells). So you need to at least start being consistent. Even DickDawk, who would like nothing more than for Jesus to be a myth, admits in his book the God Delusion that Jesus “probably existed.” If you applied your same silly standards to other ancient historical figures you would have to say that none of them existed either.



What? No names are ever given? The apostles all witnessed miracles and their names are given (James being mentioned by the historian Josephus). Lazarus was raised from the dead and his name is given. Funny how some people who claim to read the bible obviously don’t.



I disagree, if the person truly knows the belief is a forgery (as the disciples would have if it were one) they are almost never willing to die for it.



Actually the mentions of Jesus by Josephus are accepted as valid by the vast majority of historians such as Dr. James Hannam who is a professor of history at Cambridge University. It’s just the cranks in the very small Jesus Myth crowd that do not accept these accounts. Josephus was very much alive during the time that James, brother of Jesus, would have been starting portions of the early church. Your argument is pretty silly, by your same logic you’d have to say that no historian today could say that Henry VIII was ever real because that historian was born after Henry VIII was born.





Well as I pointed out, that manuscript is a copy of the original, so it is safe to say the original could have very well been written within the same decade as Jesus’ death. It’s the “even centuries” part that people love to throw out there even though they are well aware or should at least be well aware that this was disproven a long time ago.



Well just like today, it is very easy actually to tell if something is a copy or the original because the copier indicates this on the manuscript. As for any changes, they would have been easy to spot once this manuscript was cross checked with other manuscripts found in other regions. It’s a good thing scripture was copied and spread around so quickly, so altering of it would have been impossible.



No sources huh? Oh well these historians of the day, were they Roman? If they were then I am sorry, you cannot use those because I cannot use the letters from the apostles since these could be biased sources. As for the artwork, how do you know they were depicting a real person with this artwork and not a legendary hero? I am sorry, you are going to have to do better.



My history professor would have failed you for belonging to the “Jesus Myth” crank club.



Look up the word “Suppress”, and maybe it will clear this up for you a bit.



Where did he say you can own slaves? Using your atheistic worldview, why would slavery in Bible times be morally wrong since you seem to assume this point?



What makes you think a fallen Angel and the Son of God would need one?



What are you talking about? It’s obviously a supernatural event because you can’t see all the kingdoms of the world from a single mountain top. It never says that when Jesus healed the blind that it was a supernatural event, but I know it was because you can’t naturally rub mud on someone’s eyes and have them be healed. Good grief. Let’s look at Jesus’ first miracle (supernatural event), does it say anywhere in the passage that it was supernatural? Nope! Yet we all know it had to be because water does not just turn into wine.

“Jesus said to the servants, “Fill the jars with water”; so they filled them to the brim.
8 Then he told them, “Now draw some out and take it to the master of the banquet.”
They did so, 9 and the master of the banquet tasted the water that had been turned into wine.” - John 2





Oh no, I just thought that was a bit of a dead horse. The Little Grand Canyon did not actually cut through ash, but rather sediment that had been laid down a few days earlier (600 feet worth). This is exactly what we believed happened at the Grand Canyon, the receding waters cut through thousands of feet of sediment laid down by the flood. To form a canyon you need either a lot of water in a very short period of time or a little water in a long period of time. Unfortunately for your side of the aisle we have never scientifically observed the latter to take place, though we have observed the former.



Oh no! I have one atheist trying to tell me that Jesus was never real, and now I have another one trying to tell me that he was, but he died and is not coming back. I just wish they’d be a little bit consistent.



Whew! Well it’s a good thing the USNAS is not the final authority on what is and is not science considering that Old Earth Darwinism would fall short of their definition too considering nobody can empirically test (observe) the descent of all life on earth from a common ancestor, or the earth being billions of years old, or the big bang for that matter. Hence, this is why this definition applies to operational sciences, not origins sciences. I assure you, there are plenty of creationists out there doing very good operational sciences.



Oh more Wikipedia I see. Yes creationists have pre-suppositions, just like every other scientist does (secular scientists pre-suppose the Bible is false), so to say this somehow disqualifies them from being Scientific is logically ridiculous. I guess Wiki must therefore think that Kepler, von Braun, and Newton were not scientists, which is a shame because I think they were some of the greatest ever, but it is Wikipedia after all.



Back-peddling I see. I don’t blame you. Well if we are going to play this game “Well prove every single claim you make with sources”, then I guess I can do it with you too. Fair is fair. It’s quite obvious that my claims are completely legitimate since I have been able to prove every single one with sources when we play this game.



I still have no idea why you make this argument. It’s obvious that believing in an old earth and evolution were also irrelevant since these men did not hold to them and still made contributions to science. Maybe believing in Darwinism and an old earth are not scientific because we don’t have to believe in them to do good science! Uh oh!



Of course Bailey supports the Oort Cloud Hypothesis! He is an old earth guy lol. Doesn’t change the fact that there is not observable evidence supporting its existence, but by all means keep believing it with blind faith.



Well I guess believing in an Old Earth and Darwinism are just religious faith positions because Newton did not hold to either and yet was still able to find his way into the history books for his work.



Wrong, the Oort cloud is in the textbooks because it saves the old universe paradigm from the observable evidence that “leads” away from it.



This is getting rather boring. Newton was fueled by pre-suppositions that must be held by someone before they can do any science. These pre-suppositions only have a rational basis in a biblical worldview. Secular scientists today hold these same pre-suppositions despite the fact that they have no rational basis to hold to them, other than they work for science. So Newton was making discoveries because of his worldview, secular scientists only make discoveries in spite of their worldview.

As to your “modern science” did not come from religion canard (which flies in the face of Whitehead’s work on the subject)…

“The philosophy of experimental science … began its discoveries and made use of its methods in the faith, not the knowledge, that it was dealing with a rational universe controlled by a creator who did not act upon whim nor interfere with the forces He had set in operation… It is surely one of the curious paradoxes of history that science, which professionally has little to do with faith, owes its origins to an act of faith that the universe can be rationally interpreted, and that science today is sustained by that assumption.’2 ”

- Loren Eiseley, Evolutionary Anthropologist

“Science was not the work of western secularists or even deists; it was entirely the work of devout believers in an active, conscious, creator God.”3

- Rodney Stark, Sociologist

“ Furthermore and contrary to popular belief, the Church never supported the idea that the earth was flat, never banned human dissection, never banned zero and certainly never burnt anyone at the stake for scientific ideas.”
- James Hannam, Scientific Historian, Cambridge University.
-
““Strange as it may seem, the Bible played a positive role in the development of science. …
Had it not been for the rise of the literal interpretation of the Bible and the subsequent appropriation of biblical narratives by early modern scientists, modern science may not have arisen at all. In sum, the Bible and its literal interpretation have played a vital role in the development of Western science.”8
- Dr. Peter Harrison, Professor of History and Philosophy, Bond University

““Here is a final paradox. Recent work on early modern science has demonstrated a direct (and positive) relationship between the resurgence of the Hebraic, literal exegesis of the Bible in the Protestant Reformation, and the rise of the empirical method in modern science. I’m not referring to wooden literalism, but the sophisticated literal-historical hermeneutics that Martin Luther and others (including Newton) championed.”9
- Dr. Stephen Snobelen, Professor of History of Science and Technology, University of King’s College

““It was, in part, when this method was transferred to science, when students of nature moved on from studying nature as symbols, allegories and metaphors to observing nature directly in an inductive and empirical way, that modern science was born. In this, Newton also played a pivotal role. As strange as it may sound, science will forever be in the debt of millenarians and biblical literalists.”9

- Dr. Stephen Snobelen

Now I am sure you will conveniently say, “Well I already knew that modern science came out of religion, I was just making you cite your sources Statler.” Lol.





There would be signs that your senses were not reliable? How would you know about these signs without using your senses?

We have machines that can test our senses? How did we build these machines without using our senses in the first place? How do we read the outputs of these machines without using our senses? How do you know you went to the doctor and took a color blindness test? Because you saw the eye doctor? Again, just using your senses to test your senses. How do you know the two people’s senses are just not unreliable in the same fashion? After all, a board will look to bend as it enters water to everyone, even though we do not consider this a reliable observation.



Documents and videos huh? Without using your memory, how could you possibly know these are reliable? It’s a presupposition we all make.



What? I don’t really have to presuppose the future will resemble the past because I have a biblical reason for believing this. However, you have no rational basis to believe the future will resemble the past.



Not a straw man at all. You said naturalism is supported by the evidence, but only naturalistic explanations are allowed in operational sciences, so to say this would be circular.



Again, what are you talking about? You’ll notice I never said the laws of logic came from Christianity, I said they came from creation; the laws of logic are reflections of how God thinks. So the fact they pre-date Christianity is irrelevant.

So you don’t have to presuppose their existence and usage huh? Please tell me why a person should be logical, and why in your worldview there should never be contradictions. But be careful; do not use the laws of logic to tell me these things because that would of course be begging the question!



Yes and one of those objections to creationism is that it is apparently not falsifiable, and yet you said above that you have refuted its claims. So how did you do this if the theory is not falsifiable? Can’t have it both ways.



It’s obvious Newton also did not have to believe in an old earth or evolution to do his science since he didn’t. So I guess believing in an old earth and evolution is not scientific by your odd definition at least.



Oh brother, moving the goal posts again. So von Braun believed God created man, but he also could have believed in abiogensis and evolution? Give me a break. He clearly believed that God created man, not that God created the first life which later turned into man millions of years later. He is always thrown in with the YEC greats, so unless you can provide me with some evidence that he believed in an old earth, I will assume he believed in a young one.

So now he has to make contributions to the Creation community to be a creation scientist? What kind of game are we playing here? Well that’s easy, there are dozens of scientists who have made contributions to both the operational sciences AND the creation community. So I guess your initial claim has been refuted.



Yes they did, and of course Math and Science are only possible if the Biblical worldview is correct.



Nope, the one way speed of light cannot be directly measured because you cannot synchronize the two clocks needed due to relativity. It is calculated by round trip measurements.



This is still done with a round trip, because to do a one way trip would require the clock on voyager to be synchronized with the clock on earth, which cannot be done due to special relativity (motion affects the passage of tme). I am a bit surprised you would even attempt to ‘disprove’ ASC with this method, since clock synchronizations in these experiments are done using the ESC, so of course they show that the speed of light moves the same in all directions. However, if we synchronized the same clocks using ASC, they would show us that light does not move the same in all directions. This was all covered in Lisle’s paper, a paper you claimed to have read, so why you would make this error is beyond me.



I should have phrased my statement better, time is affected by velocity, since velocity has a time component two observers at the same point moving at different speeds would indeed witness an event to take place at different times under ESC, but not ASC.



You are absolutely right, according to clocks that have been synchronized using ESC, light moves the same in all directions, as to why you would use this to argue against another synchrony convention is still beyond me. It’s getting rather boring actually.



Yeah, I figured you wouldn’t care what Einstein though, he chose ESC because he preferred it, not because it was more valid.



As to why you would put “Dr” in quotes is also beyond me, maybe Doctorates in Astrophysics from Universtiy of Colorado are not real doctorates in your warped world, but for the rest of us they are.

Ok, now I know you didn’t read the paper. If you did, you would know that the paper was published in a scientific peer review journal, and nobody has posted any peer reviewed work refuting it.



The Data are all in the paper you claimed to but obviously didn’t read.



Most people realize that once you choose a frame of reference you don’t then move that frame of reference like you have done. If the earth is my frame of reference I have chosen then it does not move. If you start describing your frame of reference’s motion then you must choose a different frame of reference to relate it to. The verse has no issues.


Maybe I am just missing the point, but please show me in any of the articles you posted where it says we can determine how long my grandfather’s telomeres were 160 generations ago. I think you will have some trouble doing that considering the word telomere doesn’t even appear in those articles. Rather, some new research has been done looking at the reduction in human life-spans in scripture and the reduction follows a nice sigmoid curve which is very common in nature. So looks like mans shortening life-spans could have been a very natural occurrence and increases in the last few hundred years are just due to better medicine and nutrition. Either way, many scientists do not see any problem with the long life-spans mentioned in scripture. I would think that if scripture was a fraud the people making it up would not have put in something apparently so incredible in it.



The genome doesn’t tend towards entropy? LOL, somehow it magically violates thermodynamics! Nice! You should read Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Human Genome By J.C. Sanford. Of course he is probably one of those geneticists that you claim do not exist.

Well it’s a good thing scripture doesn’t assume evolution happened then huh? As to why you would use data gathered using evolutionary assumptions to argue against scripture, I have no idea.
Just more fluff. So if I provide you with medical doctors and geneticists who believe in a young earth and the long life-spans in the Bible will this effectively refute your point? Somehow I think it won’t, you’ll just move the goal-posts again.



I figured you couldn’t demonstrate the Bible teaches man has a free will when it comes to salvation.

My analogy stands because Adam chose to sin, and he was mankind’s representative. So we all deserve death and punishment due to original sin. God does grant common grace to all and saving grace to some, since we all deserve way worse than we get. That all seems pretty loving to me.

According to whom is it not just and just plain evil? You? Lol.



Well how about you answer my question first. When parents violate rules that they have designed for their children does this make them hypocrites?

Actually Christ’s death and suffering was in order to preserve God’s justice, if God had granted man grace and those crimes had gone without punishment then this would be injustice. This is contrary to God’s very nature, and so Christ had to atone for the sins of God’s chosen people (Israel and now the new Israel, the Church). This is why Christ had to be blameless and sinless, which he was. So Christ’s death actually was a loving and beautiful act by both God and Christ himself. I would encourage you to read “The Death of Death” by John Owen. It’s a tough read but well worth it. Since you also seem to have issues with the whole free will thing, you should also read “The Freedom of the Will” by Jonathan Edwards (The Puritan Theologian not the silly psychic lol). However, I think someone should make a theology thread (maybe one already exists?) since this doesn’t really pertain to YEC.



I actually think it is you who is being a bit dishonest here. Yes Dahmer did blame a lot of his atrocities on the devil, but I believe this was part of his attempt at being declared insane. Either way, when you say that Dahmer only blamed atheism once he was a Christian, I feel this is completely dishonest on your part. If you watch the video it is pretty clear that these were Dahmer’s words while he was still unremorseful and was talking to his father. I find it funny that you would say Dahmer was not an atheist despite the fact that the video says he lost his religion during the killings and he himself said his beliefs were atheistic. Sounds like you are just trying to twist the facts here.

Could you please tell me how Dahmer was acting inconsistently with his atheistic worldview? I can surely tell you how he was acting inconsistent with a Christian worldview.



It’s easy! Dawkins has said time and time again that he believes we act according to the natural processes in our brains so that criminals should not be punished for their crimes but rather rehabilitated. He makes the point that you wouldn’t punish a car for breaking down, you’d get it fixed. He calls men committing sex acts on little boys an “embarrassing but otherwise harmless” experience for the boys in The God Delusion. Then he turns around and calls for the arrest and punishment of the Pope for covering up sex crimes. Inconsistency at its finest!

He also makes claims in his books that morals are relative to one’s society, but then turns around and says that what the people did in the old testament was morally wrong. Of course if morals were relative to a society, if the the Israelites were doing was morally acceptable to their society then he has no basis to call it wrong. Inconsistency again!

Now let’s look at Hitchens. He says in his book, “God is not Great” that his biggest objection to the God of the Bible is that he is a “Nanny God.” He is always watching over his children and getting in their business and does not let them do what they want to do. Then Hitchens turns around and advocates larger governments such as the US to invade other countries and remove dictators because of crimes committed in these countries. If Hitchens was consistent he’d hate “Nanny Countries” just as much as he hates the “Nanny God”, yet he advocates them.

Let’s look at you! You say that you choose to give human life value, but then you turn around and condemn those who don’t make this choice which applies this is not really something a person determines for themselves. Inconsistency again!

I am not saying that atheists cannot act morally; given common grace they can do it just like anyone else. They just have no logical or rational basis to be moral. Could you please tell me how Stalin was acting in a manner that was inconsistent with his atheistic worldview? I can show you how he was inconsistent with a Christian worldview.



Well there are most likely fewer atheists in prison because many of them are atheists while committing their crimes and then convert once they reach prison (such as Dahmer). Show me a study that atheists actually commit less crimes and maybe we can address the issue more.

As to whether the leader of the Klan is a creationist or not (can you prove he is a young earth creationist since I always have to do that) seems a bit irrelevant considering that Stalin and Hitler both believed in Evolution and an old earth and they murdered millions. I don’t believe this man has murdered anyone. Anyways, why would white supremacy being “wrong” in your worldview? I don’t see any non-biblical basis for saying it is wrong.

However, I can provide a biblical basis for it. We are told that “all descendants of Adam” are God’s creation and made in his own image. The Bible also makes it clear that man is saved regardless of his skin color (the Ethiopian is saved).



You are committing the “Is/Ought Fallacy” here; just because many humans naturally want to help other humans (which is debatable considering many humans apparently choose not to help one another) does not mean this is the way things ought to be. This would be like saying a lion that does not eat meat is acting in a way that is morally wrong because it is in lions’ nature to eat meat. Makes no sense.



Ahh, so which definition if murder is correct? Or is it completely arbitrary? If I create a country and we define murder as “the killing of an innocent straight white male”, could you say this was morally wrong? If so, how?



Probably due to the fact that it is so internally inconsistent that you have difficulty articulating it to others. Mine is easy to explain to others because it is very internally consistent.



Oh you can’t provide me with an example where radiometric dating has accurately dated a rock of observed known age? I didn’t think so. I have no reason to believe the method works on rocks of unknown ages then. That would be like believing a man when he says, “I can turn invisible, but only when nobody is watching.”



I find it equally amusing reading your posts. I mean the overall ignorance towards common literary uses of metaphoric and symbolic language is laughable. Your inability to address issues face on is also quite hysterical. Like posting articles about dinosaurs and bird genetics (which of course giving chicken teeth in no way logically proves chickens are related to dinosaurs) when we are actually talking about human telomere lengths? Classic. Or to not understand the clock synchronization is done with synchrony conventions? Or to just cry “straw-man” whenever a point is brought up that you don’t know how to respond to. To also show a great and astounding ignorance for basic theological issues like soteriology and the bondage of the human will. Although I guess I would expect this since you have no formal education in theology. I am beginning to suspect you don’t even have a formal scientific education past high school huh? Backhanded insults are fun aren’t they?

Now that I got that out of the way, I will say this. I do have more respect for you than most posters on here because you do actually do research and will attempt to back your beliefs up. I do not agree with you on much, but I do respect your efforts.




I am sorry, I just find it funny that you would call other people ignorant when your post reeks of impropper grammar and several spelling errors. Just made me smile.

---

Well I am off to Vegas for some down time, but I figured I'd post this video since I thought it was hilarious and I'd figure you guys would too. Maybe some common ground



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9SS95q2kpg

Waldorf Wrote:I am sorry, I just find it funny that you would call other people ignorant when your post reeks of impropper grammar and several spelling errors. Just made me smile.

You just made my day mate
cheers

[quote='Statler Waldorf' pid='116336' dateline='1296865858']

[quote]
Well it’s all based on averages and estimates. On average our galaxy encounters a supernova every 25 years. These supernova remnants could last for about a million years, reaching stage 3 after about 10,000 years. If the universe were 6,000 years old we’d expect to see about 125-150 stage 2 supernova remnants and zero stage 3 remnants because the galaxy has not been around long enough to produce any. We actually see about 200 stage 2 remnants and zero stage 3 remnants. This would put the estimated age of the Milky Way galaxy at around 7,000 years, which is pretty consistent with the Biblical age of 6000-7000 years. Of course this means the galaxy should not be any older than 10,000 years because we cannot see the stage 3 remnants. So there you go.[/quote]
Non answer.
Yes, a supernova occurs every 25 years on average, but you have failed to address the fact that it takes a star millions of years to arrive at the supernova stage.
Fail.


[quote]
Proof? Sounds like personal opinion to me. [/quote]
In the absence of a viable mechanism for how ASC works it is more than personal opinion.


[quote]
First of all, the fact that you had never heard of ASC is irrelevant. Secondly, you obviously have not read Einstein’s work on the subject because he does give it consideration and says he chose what is now called ESC not because ASC was wrong, but because he preferred a velocity-dependant convention rather than a position dependent one. That’s why we call these conventions, the math works with all of them, they just are preferences. [/quote]

Citations please or I'm calling bullshit on this one.


[quote]
Yes I am sure two galaxies colliding is a pretty amazing event to witness. You have done nothing to demonstrate that they do not serve a purpose just like air molecules colliding do. [/quote]

Since you have yet to prove that god even exists, saying that colliding galaxies are evidence of his glory can only be idle speculation on your part. All the available evidence actually indicates a random, uncaring universe so I have no requirement to demonstrate that they don't serve a purpose.
[quote]
I am sorry, I just find it funny that you would call other people ignorant when your post reeks of impropper grammar and several spelling errors. Just made me smile. [/quote]
Just made me LOL.

As to the observer holding the mirror, according to ASC the beam of light departs the emitter at half c, strikes the mirror and returns at infinite velocity. Yet, also according to ASC the observer should see that light beam coming towards them at infinite velocity then departing at half c , so the light beam is simultaneously travelling at two different velocities. And that is without considering the fact that it violates the law regarding conservation of energy and most known physics.

So even if Einstein did initially consider ASC, it is very easy to see why he would have rejected it

i hat fukkers hoo cant evin spel.

Yea, theys dum!

(February 2, 2011 at 5:15 pm)Watson Wrote: You guys could take all the posts in this forum or, hell, just this topic alone and make a book out of them. The title would be "Creationism vs. Evolution: How the Internet killed reasonable debate."

Reasonable debate involves two reasonable sides. Creationism does not constitute one such side.

It seems that in the devonian epoch the earth had days of between 396 and 402 days. The earths rotation has slowed since because of the gravitational drag of the moon.

Evidence for this is in coral ring growth from the time.

http://palaeontology.palass-pubs.org/pdf...52-558.pdf

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/questio...number=700

But see here how the creationists get their sums wrong by not taking into account the difference in the effect of the moon due to the changes in the oceans and continents, they fail to see the big picture and concentrate on little tiny bits.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OriginsTalk/message/745

Well, I have to say that your latest post has been the most amusing post yet.
There are so many baseless assumptions that you use to 'prove' your point of view that this entire discussion is quickly becoming pointless since it is absolutely clear that you either don't know what you're talking about (such as in the case of genetics or the evidence behind big bang/oort cloud/abiogenesis/evolution) or you include what appear to be outright fabrication.

Of course you view these things are wrong - they violate your literalist view of your fictional account of history. This is why most people soundly reject literalist creationism - even if they don't buy evolution these days.

But whatever... let's get this fail train started with so I can finally wrap this arguement up now that all your glaring inconsistancies and all of your 'I believe my opinions about things over facts' is plain for all to see.

(February 4, 2011 at 8:30 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Whew! Well it’s a good thing the USNAS is not the final authority on what is and is not science considering that Old Earth Darwinism would fall short of their definition too considering nobody can empirically test (observe) the descent of all life on earth from a common ancestor, or the earth being billions of years old, or the big bang for that matter. Hence, this is why this definition applies to operational sciences, not origins sciences. I assure you, there are plenty of creationists out there doing very good operational sciences.

A few points:
First of all, every scientific organization in the world disagrees with you. Since the USNAS is a collective of those organizations and I've provided linked articles, books, and papers saying the exact opposite of what you said above, I'll take their clearly and thoroughly resesarched word over your 'armchair' "it disagrees with my worldview therefore it doesn't exist" "science" since that's clearly the only thing you have provided me with concerning the topics of evolution, big bang, oort cloud, and so forth.
Second of all, the National Academy of Sciences, being among the litany of links above more than once, is a government body that does everything from conduct research among its constituant member organizations to provide information for key US policy decisions concerning science, education, and technology. They, like so many other scientific bodies internationally and in the united states, ascribe to evolution, big bang, oort cloud, abiogenesis, and others precisely for the precise reasons I highlighted in the previous post. Until you can not only provide evidence that these things are wrong but can also provide me with a reason why creatist scientists are scientists other than your 'assurance', then your word means nothing. The USNAS isn't the final authority on what science is nor have they pretended to be but their representation of what science is and is not is not refuted by any scientific body anywhere. Further, you've wasted my time with this response by making a baseless assumption (evolution is unsupported by their own definition) without providing evidence of any kind that this is true other than your assumption, which doesn't support anything other than your own opinion, which is irrelevant to the discussion.
Third of all, I'm sure there are plenty of scientists who ascribe to your form of creationism or another, but they are deeply in the minority. Moreso than atheists among the general population, as scientists roundly reject creationism, as highlighted in a few of the links above and right here. Given that I have already provided evidence that creation scientists aren't scientists numourous times over this and other posts with little response from you other than "nope", then the only reasonable conclusion I can reach is that you're wrong. Utterly and definatively.
Forth, in addition to not providing evidence against creationism not being science and therefore creation scientists not being scientists (despite scientists roundly rejection creationism and the "scientists" that preach it), evolution and big bang having plenty of evidence for it and those being actual sciences according to virtually every governmental, organizational, and distinguished place of research I could find with plenty to spare. Not one of them is promoting creatoinism as a legitimate form of science or anything like science. It's pseudoscience. Pure and simple. You are, as always, invited to prove otherwise but if your last post is any indication, I'd only be setting myself up for disappointment.

(February 4, 2011 at 8:30 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Yes creationists have pre-suppositions, just like every other scientist does (secular scientists pre-suppose the Bible is false), so to say this somehow disqualifies them from being Scientific is logically ridiculous. I guess Wiki must therefore think that Kepler, von Braun, and Newton were not scientists, which is a shame because I think they were some of the greatest ever, but it is Wikipedia after all.

Yes, creationists have a fundemental presupposition about reality that prevents them from conducting anything like science as the very definition of what 'creation scientists' are defies how science is conducted. As such the very term 'creation scientist' is an oxymoron.

(February 4, 2011 at 8:30 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Back-peddling I see. I don’t blame you. Well if we are going to play this game “Well prove every single claim you make with sources”, then I guess I can do it with you too. Fair is fair. It’s quite obvious that my claims are completely legitimate since I have been able to prove every single one with sources when we play this game.

Back peddling from what? I guess if you have such a desire to see me wrong on something that you want to see me wrong on a claim I never made, sure, whatever, I don't care that I was wrong on a claim that I never made.
The reason I've made a game of having you prove certain things is for the very reason that I know you can - immediatley and definatively. The reason I find this interesting and ultimately the reason I had you bother at all is because given the fact that I know you can prove your point in some manner or another, it speaks volumes when all you can give me in regards to proving evolution isn't science is your statement that it isn't. Or when you do respond, it's given weak excuses - also with no evidence.
For example, your excuses as to why all of my flat-earth quotes wasn't evidence that the bible's interpretation fo the earth was the biblical flat earth model I linked at a later time and indicated in my posts. You've given me plenty of reasons and good reasons why those are metaphor, which interests me greatly considering that not only did my provided dictionary definitions and examples of metaphor disagree with you but the fact that you roundly rejected my literalist interpretation of those passages in the bible as someone who interprets the bible literally.

So what did all flat-earth and 'getting you to prove things' that prove to me?
1) You can't prove jack. You've not given me any solid reason to reject the 'flat earth' quotes of the bible that I don't already use to reject every other passage in the bible. I already view the entire collected work as fictional but the point is that you do not. I would have been surprised if you had given me some solid bible-based evidence to the contrary, but all i got instead was a rather flimsy excuse, which only tells me that your reasons for believing in the six-day creation and noah's flood is also based on flimsy reasons that you solidly believe in and you've shrouded your delusions in piles and piles of flimsy pieces of what I loosely call 'evidence,' based entirely around baseless rejections of modern scientific discovery that, whether you choose to admit it or not, is based off of the same scientific processes as what you call 'observational science.'
Further evidence of that is your flimsy refutation of the Oort Cloud as being not based on observation. The truth is (that I've already evidenced from the links in my previous post that you've failed to address with anything other than your word that they're wrong) that they inferred its existance based entirely on observational evidence - because its existances is a postulation based on the observed behavior of comets.
2) Your proof of Bacon being a creationist lacked any evidenced that he interpreted the bible literally as you do. Even christians that believe in evolution and don't take the bible literally word-for-word would say the same thing - that god created humans, the universe, and the earth, but that he created it in a way that complies with modern scientific understanding of our natural world.
As such, you have proven him to be a christian, but not necessarily a creationist, but that point is secondary. You've been making the claim over and over again about how Bacon, Von Braun, and others are christian scientists, which implies to me that these people worked their science based on their understanding of the bible. This is a connection you seem to have implied just about every time the subject is brought up, but it's a rather direct connection you have yet to make. I don't need the bible to prove Newton's laws of gravitation, kepler's laws of planetary motion, Von Braun's rocketry, and so on.
Despite your stated importance of christianity to modern science, you have yet to make a direct connection between christianity and any modern science. At best, you've proven that many of the greatest contributors to modern science were themselves christian and I do not deny that at all. What I am telling you about their contributions is that their religion is entirely irrelevant to those contributions. These people could have just as easily arrived to their conclusions as atheists, muslims, or any other faith given the opportunity. As such, you don't really have the reason or the evidence to support any claim that science owes its existance to the christian faith.
3) I'm entertained that you think you've evidenced every arguement you've made, but a casual stroll though your posts prove otherwise. Either that or you're confusing your responses as the same thing as providing evidence.

(February 4, 2011 at 8:30 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: I still have no idea why you make this argument. It’s obvious that believing in an old earth and evolution were also irrelevant since these men did not hold to them and still made contributions to science. Maybe believing in Darwinism and an old earth are not scientific because we don’t have to believe in them to do good science! Uh oh!

I thought I've been clear about my reasoning here, but let's get something out of the way.
The difference between creationism and evolution/old earth is that the latter two are neccessary for certain fields of scientific research. A geologist would have to know and understand the practices and concepts that lead to old earth because they are scientific concepts that are necessary in the field of geology - same for evolution and biology. Creationism isn't necessary for any scientific field and is entirely incompatible with several scientific concepts required for those scientific fields - like astronomy, biology, and geology.

(February 4, 2011 at 8:30 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Of course Bailey supports the Oort Cloud Hypothesis! He is an old earth guy lol. Doesn’t change the fact that there is not observable evidence supporting its existence, but by all means keep believing it with blind faith.

That's not why he supports the Oort Cloud hypothosis but your constant misinterpretation of what science is and how it works is endlessly amusing, as is the fact that he listed the observed evidence in his paper and I even linked more sources that say the same thing. As such, it isn't 'blind faith' just because there's an evidenced and scientificially nuanced claim that disagrees with your erroneous worldview.

(February 4, 2011 at 8:30 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Well I guess believing in an Old Earth and Darwinism are just religious faith positions because Newton did not hold to either and yet was still able to find his way into the history books for his work.

They certainly did find their way into the history books, but as I showed, they didn't find their way there because of any religious connotation.

(February 4, 2011 at 8:30 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Wrong, the Oort cloud is in the textbooks because it saves the old universe paradigm from the observable evidence that “leads” away from it.

Bullshit. You have no evidence of either of those things.

(February 4, 2011 at 8:30 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: This is getting rather boring. Newton was fueled by pre-suppositions that must be held by someone before they can do any science. These pre-suppositions only have a rational basis in a biblical worldview. Secular scientists today hold these same pre-suppositions despite the fact that they have no rational basis to hold to them, other than they work for science. So Newton was making discoveries because of his worldview, secular scientists only make discoveries in spite of their worldview.

In my last post and at other times, I have asserted with due evidence from biography, research conducted pricipally on the role of religion in Newton's life, and his work: The Mathmatical Principles of Natural Philosophy (AKA Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica). I'm just sorry I didn't find the english-translation sooner as I had only found one at my library to reference but could only find the latin versions online. This last link corrects that.
In any case, you have once again assaulted me with baseless assertions - this time not only about Newton, but science in general.

On your points in regard to everything else, bullshit. Not only did Newton not arrive to any of his conclusions due to his or any religion at all, based on his works, life, and religious views, but your assertions regarding the 'presuppositions' of scientists is outright wrong and based on nothing you've provided. Scientists, by definition, must arrive to their conclusions objectively and their discoveries must be falsifiable, as I have shown in my previous post. As such, this 'statement' is entirely, utterly, and completely wrong.

(February 4, 2011 at 8:30 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: As to your “modern science” did not come from religion canard (which flies in the face of Whitehead’s work on the subject)…

Oh statler, that won't be necessary. These people's opinions are irrelevant.
I've already linked in my previous post and this one a great deal about the history of science from a litany of sources about this sort of thing, which has proven that christianity (the religion) was not a contributing factor in general to science.
My sources and evidence trump your quote-mining of people's opinions on the matter from biased websites, as I managed to trace those quotes to strictly creationist websites. I couldn't find anythign anywhere else that agreed with those statements.

(February 4, 2011 at 8:30 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: There would be signs that your senses were not reliable? How would you know about these signs without using your senses?

We have machines that can test our senses? How did we build these machines without using our senses in the first place? How do we read the outputs of these machines without using our senses? How do you know you went to the doctor and took a color blindness test? Because you saw the eye doctor? Again, just using your senses to test your senses. How do you know the two people’s senses are just not unreliable in the same fashion? After all, a board will look to bend as it enters water to everyone, even though we do not consider this a reliable observation.

Why do you assume that the only way to test the reliability of my senses would absolutely require that I use something other than my senses? I can prove that a flashlight is unreliable by using it because it'll either produce a cone of light or it will not. I can prove my vision is unreliable by trying to discern whether or not I can see accurately see or not - my vision either works, it doesn't, or it produces a false result. I can prove whether or not my hearing is reliable by hearing or not hearing stimuli or hearing false stimuli. I can prove my ability to touch by feeling the temperature and/or texture of an object to see if I recieve a response. I can test my ability to smell and taste through similar tests.
Doing these things requires that my senses work, not work, or function improperly but all of the aspects of sensory input are either there or not. If one of them functions improperly but not the others, then there are signs (perhaps my vision is fading). If several function improperly, then there are signs (perhaps I am becoming hypothermic and I am becoming numb while loosing my vision and other senses to varying extents). If none of my senses are reliable, then I cannot function as a person.
Or I'm a solipsist.
In any case, senses can be tested for reliability by the best way in which science is done:

... by producing positive results.

Which is something that unreliable senses cannot do, whether we honestly realize it or not.
This neither requires assumption nor presupposition.

(February 4, 2011 at 8:30 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Documents and videos huh? Without using your memory, how could you possibly know these are reliable? It’s a presupposition we all make.

Without my memory, I wouldn't be a person. I would be a useless hump of flesh that couldn't possibly understand or comprehend anything.
Just as with senses, my memory proves its reliability by working reliably.
Constantly producing false memories is something that unreliable memories do. There are actual diseases and things that can happen to a person to give them false memories, which can be exposed as such through evidence, depending on a number of factors.
Either way, whatever unreliable memory in between non-functioning and fully functioning you're driving me toward is invalid, would still not produce reliable results.
That is to say that if I'm constantly remembering things that happened or remembering things that didn't happen, then I can prove those things as such.
Given the above, then it becomes obvious that memory can be tested and proven as reliable and therefore not a presupposition, just like your senses and for the same reason.

(February 4, 2011 at 8:30 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: What? I don’t really have to presuppose the future will resemble the past because I have a biblical reason for believing this. However, you have no rational basis to believe the future will resemble the past.

And I just gave you - the very quote that your response immediately above is a response to - is exactly the reason why anyone and everyone knows and understands why the future will necessarily resemble the past. Your fictional novel is utterly irrelevant in this equation.

(February 4, 2011 at 8:30 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Not a straw man at all. You said naturalism is supported by the evidence, but only naturalistic explanations are allowed in operational sciences, so to say this would be circular.

That is so strawman, that you even fit it into a single sentence above!
I said that naturalism is supported by evidence and that supernaturalism isn't and I even showed you how this was and why.
Here. I just bolded the offending portion which I never said that makes the strawman.

(February 4, 2011 at 8:30 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Again, what are you talking about? You’ll notice I never said the laws of logic came from Christianity, I said they came from creation; the laws of logic are reflections of how God thinks. So the fact they pre-date Christianity is irrelevant.

So you don’t have to presuppose their existence and usage huh? Please tell me why a person should be logical, and why in your worldview there should never be contradictions. But be careful; do not use the laws of logic to tell me these things because that would of course be begging the question!

Fair enough. I was wrong about stating that you believed that your faith was the origin of logic, so I should have said that your faith was the 'basis' for logic and not its 'origin.' Still, like many of your baseless assertions before it, it doesn't really change my response, as your worldview is largely irrelevant to the cause, origin, basis, or use of logic.

I'm sure you think that god did it - no surprise there. I'm telling you that logic is a reflection of the way people think, which is to say that logic is a product of the human mind. Your attribution of logic as solely the property of your deity is needlessly extranious.

As to your odd request... do you even understand what you're saying anymore? Seriously - what the hell does your request have to do with anything?

(February 4, 2011 at 8:30 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Yes and one of those objections to creationism is that it is apparently not falsifiable, and yet you said above that you have refuted its claims. So how did you do this if the theory is not falsifiable? Can’t have it both ways.

My objection to creationism is that there is no evidence for it, not that it isn't falsifiable. The fact that creationism hasn't produced any falsifiable evidence is the reason why creationism isn't science. So... definately not having this thing both ways.

(February 4, 2011 at 8:30 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: It’s obvious Newton also did not have to believe in an old earth or evolution to do his science since he didn’t. So I guess believing in an old earth and evolution is not scientific by your odd definition at least.

I didn't say that either 'old earth' or 'evolution' was necessary for his science either - just that his religion was irrelevant.
It's also obvious that the theories, relevant data, and evidence as to those facts wasn't around at the time so bringing up the point is irrelevant. I never attempted to prove that Newton was irreligious - it's blatantly obvious that he was and i don't deny that.
However, your attempts to prove that he was only able to do his science because of his faith (which is to say that he couldn't have invented the theory of gravitation without his faith in christianity) was wrong and obviously so.

(February 4, 2011 at 8:30 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Oh brother, moving the goal posts again. So von Braun believed God created man, but he also could have believed in abiogensis and evolution? Give me a break. He clearly believed that God created man, not that God created the first life which later turned into man millions of years later. He is always thrown in with the YEC greats, so unless you can provide me with some evidence that he believed in an old earth, I will assume he believed in a young one.

So now he has to make contributions to the Creation community to be a creation scientist? What kind of game are we playing here? Well that’s easy, there are dozens of scientists who have made contributions to both the operational sciences AND the creation community. So I guess your initial claim has been refuted.

That's not what I asked for at all. What I'm asking from you is the same before as it is now.
You claimed that Von Braun was a christian/creationist scientist and you gave me nothing toward this end, as none of Braun's work, NASA, and the Apollo program itself, and everything in between was not christian. I wanted you to connect christianity to the science that Von Braun did - to affirm your positive claim that Christianity was an inevitable part of the science behind his work, which would be the reason he was the head of the Apollo program to confer with your overall points about christianity behind the basis of (among other things apparently) science.

What you have given me is a scientist who is incidently a creationist, which means nothing. It doesn't prove anything you've asserted about Von Braun (except that he was a creationist), Christianity, Science, creationism, or the Apollo Program or how anything other than Von Braun's faith. You've failed to make any of those connections beyond the obvious one (the one that says that Braun was a creationist).
So, that's a whole slew of assumptions about christianity and the apollo program and their connections with one another that one guy was faithful to that faith.

(February 4, 2011 at 8:30 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Nope, the one way speed of light cannot be directly measured because you cannot synchronize the two clocks needed due to relativity. It is calculated by round trip measurements.

So let me get this straight - you think that the reason behind the delay of voyager's transmissions to earth is due to voyager's clock being out of sychronization with earth's, which is due to relativity? You honestly don't think that the scientists at NASA are capable of synchronizing voyager's clock properly so that the instsantaneous travel of radio waves is noticable?
For the whole reason of "Nope, cannot be done"?

Bullshit. NASA has been sending out probes and people into space for years and they've had to deal with the issues of the speed of light and relativity for years and they outright refute this incipid claim of yours right in the quites I've given you. If your assinine ASC theory were in any way, shape, or form correct, it would take twice as long for signals to reach anything in space and it would return instantaneously. Instead, transmissions - from robots deep in the solar system or on another planet or from humans sent to the moon, the time taken for light to reach transmission to reciever has always been the same, running at exactly 299,792,458 meters per second. Miss-synchronization of the clocks doesn't account for the fact that it takes time for signals to reach earth or that transmissions have proven to reach the probes in half the time that ASC states, as the probes can respond and make adjustements to new inputs and is returned at the speed of light at 299,792,458 meters per second.
If the speed of light changed depending on the position of its human observers, then NASA would have never been successful in anything it has ever done, given the necessary things they need to do in order to launch a probe to visit all of the gas giants of the solar system.

If this weren't the case, communication between astronaughts on the moon during apollo's earliest days would have seen twice the delay to the moon and no delay in return. Same for all the robotic probes since the last moon landing and the same would be true for every light-based experiment ever conducted in a laboratory. The speed of light should also vary depending on the direction light beams in laboratory-based experiements in which the speed of light is measured within the confines of the laboratory.

There are also many, many other ways to test for the speed of light even without going into space.

Furthermore, the speed of light has and can be measured accurately and precisely the same regardless of the speed of the observer and so forth. If ASC were a thing, then then the speed of light's speed would change depending on the direction of the light be respective to the observer and few tests if any would produce exactly the same result for this reason. Instead, we get exactly as Einstein predicted - the speed of light is the same in all directions irrespective of the position or speed of the observer.

(February 4, 2011 at 8:30 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: This is still done with a round trip, because to do a one way trip would require the clock on voyager to be synchronized with the clock on earth, which cannot be done due to special relativity (motion affects the passage of tme). I am a bit surprised you would even attempt to ‘disprove’ ASC with this method, since clock synchronizations in these experiments are done using the ESC, so of course they show that the speed of light moves the same in all directions. However, if we synchronized the same clocks using ASC, they would show us that light does not move the same in all directions. This was all covered in Lisle’s paper, a paper you claimed to have read, so why you would make this error is beyond me.

Not true. Commands would be sent to probes and astronaughts at half speed while they'd be returned isntantaneously - neither of which happen, given the evidence I've presented.

(February 4, 2011 at 8:30 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: I should have phrased my statement better, time is affected by velocity, since velocity has a time component two observers at the same point moving at different speeds would indeed witness an event to take place at different times under ESC, but not ASC.

the perception of time changes when an observer approaches the speed of light. If observers are not travelling at relativistic speeds, then the entire point is moot.
Two observers at the same point (say two labs in the same city) who perform the refraction test to observe the speed of light will measure the speed of light at the same speed, regardless of their position in respect to one another, light, or any of their tools. There is zero evidence that the speed of light changes

(February 4, 2011 at 8:30 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: You are absolutely right, according to clocks that have been synchronized using ESC, light moves the same in all directions, as to why you would use this to argue against another synchrony convention is still beyond me. It’s getting rather boring actually.

Indeed, because light moves the same in all directions is why Einstein is famous - because light bent as it passed around the sun to the earth during a solar eclipse - something that would be impossible if light travelled instantaneously toward the earth for the same reason that things need to travel at a certain speed to escape the earth's gravity and how light isn't escaping the gravity well of a black hole despite having infinate speed.
This being because light has a finite speed that can be precisely measured - the same in all directions to any observer.

(February 4, 2011 at 8:30 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Yeah, I figured you wouldn’t care what Einstein though, he chose ESC because he preferred it, not because it was more valid.

Another baseless assumption. No surprise there.

(February 4, 2011 at 8:30 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: As to why you would put “Dr” in quotes is also beyond me, maybe Doctorates in Astrophysics from Universtiy of Colorado are not real doctorates in your warped world, but for the rest of us they are.

Ok, now I know you didn’t read the paper. If you did, you would know that the paper was published in a scientific peer review journal, and nobody has posted any peer reviewed work refuting it.

I'm sure AIG said that, but they aren't scientific in any sense of the term, as I proved in my last post.

(February 4, 2011 at 8:30 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: The Data are all in the paper you claimed to but obviously didn’t read.

Really? He's performed experiments with testable results? That thing he explicitly stated couldn't be done? (which isn't surprising given that the entire paper is bullshit.)

(February 4, 2011 at 8:30 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Most people realize that once you choose a frame of reference you don’t then move that frame of reference like you have done. If the earth is my frame of reference I have chosen then it does not move. If you start describing your frame of reference’s motion then you must choose a different frame of reference to relate it to. The verse has no issues.

No - what you have done is that you've chosen a frame of reference of one specific thing to one specific person and stated that the earth doesn't move in relation to that person.
What I have told you is that the earth is moving. Period. People on the earth move with the earth regardless of your frame of reference and that bible passage flatly stated that the earth was stationary with no such qualifiers that you have to add to the bible passage in order to make your statement true..

(February 4, 2011 at 8:30 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Maybe I am just missing the point, but please show me in any of the articles you posted where it says we can determine how long my grandfather’s telomeres were 160 generations ago. I think you will have some trouble doing that considering the word telomere doesn’t even appear in those articles. Rather, some new research has been done looking at the reduction in human life-spans in scripture and the reduction follows a nice sigmoid curve which is very common in nature. So looks like mans shortening life-spans could have been a very natural occurrence and increases in the last few hundred years are just due to better medicine and nutrition. Either way, many scientists do not see any problem with the long life-spans mentioned in scripture. I would think that if scripture was a fraud the people making it up would not have put in something apparently so incredible in it.

Arguement from Incredulity.
Don't worry, you are and it was blatantly obvious several posts ago - the reason being for all the reasons I've stated because you've decided to listen to people who think the bible contains facts about humanity, life, the universe, and the earth. - Evolutionary geneticists can and have in those links determined the average age of people from the past using genetics, among other fun examples.
Also the fact that telomeres aren't as indicitive of long life as you think they are, but that's okay, it just tells me that you glossed over them and quickly posted this without really reading, which also doesn't surprise me given your responses thus far.

(February 4, 2011 at 8:30 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: The genome doesn’t tend towards entropy? LOL, somehow it magically violates thermodynamics! Nice! You should read Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Human Genome By J.C. Sanford. Of course he is probably one of those geneticists that you claim do not exist.

Well it’s a good thing scripture doesn’t assume evolution happened then huh? As to why you would use data gathered using evolutionary assumptions to argue against scripture, I have no idea.
Just more fluff. So if I provide you with medical doctors and geneticists who believe in a young earth and the long life-spans in the Bible will this effectively refute your point? Somehow I think it won’t, you’ll just move the goal-posts again.

The genome, like all life on this planet, exists because the earth isn't in a closed environment. Perhaps you've heard of the sun and everything else in the solar system, which keeps supplying the planet with all the things to sustain life - including a constant infusion of massve amounts of energy. Don't worry though - most creationists seem to forget the first law of thermodynamics.
And yes, I would not call J.C. Sanford a scientist for all the reasons why I've stated that creationism isn't science, which also applies to intelligent design.

(February 4, 2011 at 8:30 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: I figured you couldn’t demonstrate the Bible teaches man has a free will when it comes to salvation.

My analogy stands because Adam chose to sin, and he was mankind’s representative. So we all deserve death and punishment due to original sin. God does grant common grace to all and saving grace to some, since we all deserve way worse than we get. That all seems pretty loving to me.

According to whom is it not just and just plain evil? You? Lol.

Like I said, I never tried to. I don't really care about the subject in the least enough to put in the effort.
You're the one that states that all people everywhere deserve death for a crime that god knowingly inflicted upon man and calling him right to do so but refraining from murdering us all as 'loving.'
I've heard better excuses from victims of domestsic abuse.

(February 4, 2011 at 8:30 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Well how about you answer my question first. When parents violate rules that they have designed for their children does this make them hypocrites?

Actually Christ’s death and suffering was in order to preserve God’s justice, if God had granted man grace and those crimes had gone without punishment then this would be injustice. This is contrary to God’s very nature, and so Christ had to atone for the sins of God’s chosen people (Israel and now the new Israel, the Church). This is why Christ had to be blameless and sinless, which he was. So Christ’s death actually was a loving and beautiful act by both God and Christ himself. I would encourage you to read “The Death of Death” by John Owen. It’s a tough read but well worth it. Since you also seem to have issues with the whole free will thing, you should also read “The Freedom of the Will” by Jonathan Edwards (The Puritan Theologian not the silly psychic lol). However, I think someone should make a theology thread (maybe one already exists?) since this doesn’t really pertain to YEC.

Depends on the rule and why it's in place. Bed times are one thing, but telling your children that murder is a sin despite them watching you murder one of their siblings because he ate a fruit out of the fridge you put there knowing full well one of them would eat it is an entirely different matter.
Further, parents don't typically murder their children as punishment and children don't say that their parents are just for doing so. Murder of a parent to a child is usually followed by the children running the hell away from the offending parent.
As to christ's death, doesn't negate the fact that he was still being punished for something that no one had control over and god, being omnicient, knew full well would happen even before genesis 1:1. Yes, I've heard those excuses before, but they's all they are.

(February 4, 2011 at 8:30 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: I actually think it is you who is being a bit dishonest here. Yes Dahmer did blame a lot of his atrocities on the devil, but I believe this was part of his attempt at being declared insane. Either way, when you say that Dahmer only blamed atheism once he was a Christian, I feel this is completely dishonest on your part. If you watch the video it is pretty clear that these were Dahmer’s words while he was still unremorseful and was talking to his father. I find it funny that you would say Dahmer was not an atheist despite the fact that the video says he lost his religion during the killings and he himself said his beliefs were atheistic. Sounds like you are just trying to twist the facts here.

Could you please tell me how Dahmer was acting inconsistently with his atheistic worldview? I can surely tell you how he was acting inconsistent with a Christian worldview.

I'm sure you do. I don't care if you ithink I'm being dishonest. I watched the video and I found your assessment to be incorrect given what the video states about Dahmer. He was declared sane in his trial, which is why he went to the slammer in the end and not a federal mental hospital. I don't care about what you believe happened - I care about what actually happened.
I didn't state that he blamed atheism only after he became a christian, I said he had always been a believer. He attended church even before his murders and blamed his murders on religious figures both before and after he mentioned atheism and evolution and it was the only mention during the entire movie.
There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that he was actually an atheist. Secondly, even if he was an atheist, similarly to my arguements regarding Von Braun's accomplishments or the KKK's atrocities against the minorities of this country, their faith or lack thereof is entirely irrelevant to their 'accomplishments.'

Finally, you haven't even evidenced that Dahmer was an atheist, let alone that he was acting within an atheist worldview, which I've also stated is a construction of your view of atheism and not one of any atheist, including myself.

(February 4, 2011 at 8:30 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: It’s easy! Dawkins has said time and time again that he believes we act according to the natural processes in our brains so that criminals should not be punished for their crimes but rather rehabilitated. He makes the point that you wouldn’t punish a car for breaking down, you’d get it fixed. He calls men committing sex acts on little boys an “embarrassing but otherwise harmless” experience for the boys in The God Delusion. Then he turns around and calls for the arrest and punishment of the Pope for covering up sex crimes. Inconsistency at its finest!

He also makes claims in his books that morals are relative to one’s society, but then turns around and says that what the people did in the old testament was morally wrong. Of course if morals were relative to a society, if the the Israelites were doing was morally acceptable to their society then he has no basis to call it wrong. Inconsistency again!

Now let’s look at Hitchens. He says in his book, “God is not Great” that his biggest objection to the God of the Bible is that he is a “Nanny God.” He is always watching over his children and getting in their business and does not let them do what they want to do. Then Hitchens turns around and advocates larger governments such as the US to invade other countries and remove dictators because of crimes committed in these countries. If Hitchens was consistent he’d hate “Nanny Countries” just as much as he hates the “Nanny God”, yet he advocates them.

Let’s look at you! You say that you choose to give human life value, but then you turn around and condemn those who don’t make this choice which applies this is not really something a person determines for themselves. Inconsistency again!

I am not saying that atheists cannot act morally; given common grace they can do it just like anyone else. They just have no logical or rational basis to be moral. Could you please tell me how Stalin was acting in a manner that was inconsistent with his atheistic worldview? I can show you how he was inconsistent with a Christian worldview.

Great. So where is your proof that anything you said above is anything other than your own bullshit?
I don't see any links. I don't see any bibliographies. I don't see you even bothering to point to quotes this time around. I don't see times, places, or occurances of when any of these things happened. I don't see online or whatever statements by myself, hitchens, or dawkins contradicting themselves in any manner befitting your statements. I don't see any morally-relevant statements by any of these people, including myself, to the point you have clearly attempted to make.

Let's take me for example - I say I value human life. I said that and I certainly mean that. How is condemning people for being the idiots they are inconsistent with my view that human life is generally valuable? Does viewing life and generally valuable mean that I can't or shouldn't condemn others for being idiots? I value human life, but that doesn't even mean that I don't, for example, believe in the death penalty. The only thing you've evidenced here is your own warped view of the collective morality of myself, Hitchens, and Dawkins and not the ones we actually possess.

In regard to stalin, in order for me to prove that he was or was not acting within an atheistic worldview, atheism would have to be a worldview. Since it isn't, he cannot act within it or against it.

(February 4, 2011 at 8:30 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Well there are most likely fewer atheists in prison because many of them are atheists while committing their crimes and then convert once they reach prison (such as Dahmer). Show me a study that atheists actually commit less crimes and maybe we can address the issue more.

As to whether the leader of the Klan is a creationist or not (can you prove he is a young earth creationist since I always have to do that) seems a bit irrelevant considering that Stalin and Hitler both believed in Evolution and an old earth and they murdered millions. I don’t believe this man has murdered anyone. Anyways, why would white supremacy being “wrong” in your worldview? I don’t see any non-biblical basis for saying it is wrong.

However, I can provide a biblical basis for it. We are told that “all descendants of Adam” are God’s creation and made in his own image. The Bible also makes it clear that man is saved regardless of his skin color (the Ethiopian is saved).

...or there are simply fewer atheists committing crimes.
I said the Klan was Christian. The distinction between a creationist and a christian is your problem. I wouldn't at all be surprised if you 'no true scotsman' him to make a point, but he's one example among others I could bring up both historically and recently.
As to Hitler, he's a Catholic or some other kind of Christian.

Adolf Hitler, Reichstag, 1936 Wrote:"I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lord's work."

Nothing says 'atheism' like "I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the almighty creator."
As to him and Stalin believing an evolution, you haven't even provided a basis for evolution being a set of moral guidelines, let alone to it being the moral guideline that resulted in several genocides and massacres.

(February 4, 2011 at 8:30 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: You are committing the “Is/Ought Fallacy” here; just because many humans naturally want to help other humans (which is debatable considering many humans apparently choose not to help one another) does not mean this is the way things ought to be. This would be like saying a lion that does not eat meat is acting in a way that is morally wrong because it is in lions’ nature to eat meat. Makes no sense.

And you're committing strawman. I never argued about what people aught to do or not aught to do. I argued about what people do. Perhaps it would make more sense if you had responded to the arguement I actually made and not the one you made for me.

(February 4, 2011 at 8:30 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Ahh, so which definition if murder is correct? Or is it completely arbitrary? If I create a country and we define murder as “the killing of an innocent straight white male”, could you say this was morally wrong? If so, how?

As fun as it is watching you constantly change the subject to topics more tenable to your position (which appears to require frequent strawman arguements), given that you're apparently either forgotten or run out of arguements against God being a murder under US and common law and according to the dictionary definition of the term, I suppose we can move this discussion toward my opinions of morality.
To answer your questions - irrelevant, arbitrary, yes, and because it provides an environment that would allow people to indiscriminantly murder the enormous number of people unprotected by the law. (Just to point out, I've used the term here according to the dictionary definition of the term, which allows the more generalized definition. But if for some reason you're opposed to that, I can just use the term 'kill' or some other synonym.)

(February 4, 2011 at 8:30 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Probably due to the fact that it is so internally inconsistent that you have difficulty articulating it to others. Mine is easy to explain to others because it is very internally consistent.

Not surprising, given that you've taken to telling me what my morality is.

(February 4, 2011 at 8:30 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Oh you can’t provide me with an example where radiometric dating has accurately dated a rock of observed known age? I didn’t think so. I have no reason to believe the method works on rocks of unknown ages then. That would be like believing a man when he says, “I can turn invisible, but only when nobody is watching.”

What a wonderfully inept, inaccurate, and incorrect portrayal of all the evidence I provided for you. It's certainly yet another act of willing ignorance on your part, but I see neither evidence nor reason why what I've provided is either inaccurate in terms of proving that radiometric dating is inaccurate. Once again, all you've proven is that you don't know science.

(February 4, 2011 at 8:30 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: I find it equally amusing reading your posts. I mean the overall ignorance towards common literary uses of metaphoric and symbolic language is laughable. Your inability to address issues face on is also quite hysterical. Like posting articles about dinosaurs and bird genetics (which of course giving chicken teeth in no way logically proves chickens are related to dinosaurs) when we are actually talking about human telomere lengths? Classic. Or to not understand the clock synchronization is done with synchrony conventions? Or to just cry “straw-man” whenever a point is brought up that you don’t know how to respond to. To also show a great and astounding ignorance for basic theological issues like soteriology and the bondage of the human will. Although I guess I would expect this since you have no formal education in theology. I am beginning to suspect you don’t even have a formal scientific education past high school huh? Backhanded insults are fun aren’t they?

Now that I got that out of the way, I will say this. I do have more respect for you than most posters on here because you do actually do research and will attempt to back your beliefs up. I do not agree with you on much, but I do respect your efforts.

I'm sure you do.
I'm certainly amused about being told by someone who believes in a literal bible interpretation of the origin of the earth, humanity, and life in general tells me that my literal biblical interpretion of the earth is inaccurate because those parts are metaphor, despite the obvious fact that they aren't, given the literal definition and use of metaphor.
Or someone with zero knowledge of genetics other than what he's read at answers in genesis or some other creationist newsletter telling me about how they're correct because htey have a "geneticist" on staff but all those genetics resesarch institutes, colleges, and so forth are all wrong because I didn't link to you the exact links using the exact terms of [goalposts moving] reasons that refute your clearly biased and unscientific papers that I had to track down because you couldn't be bothered to link your 'evidence' here.
Or your inability to understand basic physics through the excuse that people working at NASA, the ESA, and every phycisist who measured the speed of light through all the ways it can be measured must all be duped into believing that their telecommunications with their own robotics probes and astronaughts must all be wrong because they can't tell that their transmissions to their probes take half the time to get to their destination away from earth and instantaneously return or their measurements are all wrong.
heh. "Education" in theology. It's like spending years of your life memorizing the star trek the generation technical manual.
Completely pointless.

Thank you, but I cannot return the favor. Your arguements are weak, your evidence nonexistant, your entire arguement based on a clearly and overtly biased source when you do bother to provide sources, you ignore evidence, and you frequently misrepresent my arguements as being other that precisely what I've presented them as being in order to have any arguement whatsoever.
Aside from the diminishing entertainment I've seen from watching you word your arguements to twist and stretch to provide any answers whatsoever that even vaguely affirms your position through your opinion or own reasoning, every topic you have brought up has been a farce. The ones who've been telling me that I shouldn't bother wasting my time here aren't wrong, but I've learned more about the topics I've researched against you than I would have on my own and that has its own value to me as well.
I have no respect for people who so willingly and completely delude themselves as you have. This isn't a riff against those of the religious persuasion in general because having faith to me isn't an inherantly negative quality in an of itself. No. My distaste is of those who wield their faith like knowledge, their ignorance like fact, and profess faith in ideas and novelty over the very evidence of reality itself. You don't merely have a different outlook on reality, but actually a view counter to what reality has proven itself to be to everyone but those, like you, who have chosen to pretend reality is a particular way that conforms to your opinions and interpretations of your novel over those discoveries hard fought and won, often despite those with similar outlook to yourself.
There is no honor in that and no respect to be found there.