I guess I would be confident too if I thought I had some massive superbeing on my side. Sadly, it's most likely an illusion if you ask me.

(June 14, 2012 at 10:30 am)hoppimike Wrote: I guess I would be confident too if I thought I had some massive superbeing on my side. Sadly, it's most likely an illusion if you ask me.

If I had a big bad massive superbeing, I would show it off to everyone. Especially all those pesky atheists who think I don't have one. Then they'd eat crow....

So, Ron Jeremy IS god?

(June 14, 2012 at 9:37 am)Godschild Wrote: I've taught my dogs German, English and hand language, I know it's not that your dogs dumb, it must be your lack of ability to teach.

No, what you have done is teach your dogs some German and some English words.

Unless you actually believe that you have successfully taught your dogs both the English and German languages to such an extent that they can understand everything you say in either, which to be honest, wouldn't really surprise me.

(June 14, 2012 at 10:34 am)Epimethean Wrote: So, Ron Jeremy IS god?

Ick -- that would be a nightmare ....

(June 14, 2012 at 9:47 am)FallentoReason Wrote: To me, it sounds like you think scientists have some sort of agenda. Well, they're dealing with science and science doesn't have an agenda of any sort. Science isn't a movement against deities. It's simply a variety of methods with which we can learn about nature.

I agree that scientists for the most part do not have an agenda. They simply look for naturalistic solutions. That's all good until we run into a solution that may not be natural. Scientists force the natural anyway, because that is their duty. In the process, they run over their own laws, like action->reaction (Big Bang), no energy created or destroyed, and life from non-life. These are all as proven as any theory, yet scientists hold out in the hope that there exists contradictions to these laws somewhere--because science currently contradicts. Science should not stop what it's doing. The public should understand science's limits and continue their studies in philosophy. Science is not grounds for rejecting religion-- that's the error here. Many 'intellectual' atheists use science as a basis for their disbelief in God. As long as those people exist, some scientists will have agendas. Some scientific writers will exploit that audience and manipulate evidence. The scientific method is objective and unbiased... within nature. If the solution is not natural, it is not in science's realm and the method is useless. Add to that the evolutionists who speculate about the past and fail to use the scientific method and you have a lot of unconfirmed information out there. Science pushes the domain of God not because it has convincing evidence, but because it has to have a God-less answer to everything. These answers rely on the assumption there is no God, which may be a faulty premise. I might add that all Evolutionary evidence is circumstantial. Some organisms seem similar, like they might be related. But not one instance of macroevolution had ever been observed. The door is still open for Evolution but, using a different set of assumptions, the door is just as open for Creationism. As long as Science is a closed circuit of information it cannot be sure where Science (itself) came from.

Big bang cosmology, conservation of energy, and abiogenesis have precisely what implosive effect on evolution? Would you care to point out the place that evolution implodes so that someone here might be able to help you out with whatever you don't understand about evolution (or, conversely, so that you might be that much closer to collecting your nobel prize)? Science, or more accurately the conclusions reached by the scientific method are grounds for rejecting any material claim made in demonstrable error, doesn't matter who makes it, or why they've made it, how ardently they believe it, or how much they wish for it to be true. So long as whatever religion you wish to defend avoids making ignorant material claims, you have no problem. The religion you've put forward cannot help itself, it is entirely built around making ignorant claims. There is no such thing as an "evolutionist" and evolutionary biologists (or anyone else who is active in this field) most certainly aren't just speculating, you've missed the majority of what they do, and I'm guessing that this omission is intentional, and habitual on your part. There is no branch of science which begins with the assumption "there is no god" that's idiotic, who told you that? The door is now, and has been for some time closed on creationism. Creationism (and especially the particular brand you espouse) is irreconcilable with reality.

(I'm still waiting on that pre-cambrian platypus, but I'm not holding my breath, because I've realized that you probably just use the word cambrian because it "sounds sciencey")

(June 14, 2012 at 9:16 am)Rhythm Wrote: Those gaps could just as easily disabuse us of some particular notion as they could reinforce them, which is why, for example, I asked for a pre-cambrian platypus.

You're asking for a date that doesn't exist. According to creationism, the earth is no more than 6,000 years old. If you carbon-dated the oldest fossils, that's how old they would come out to be (Google carbon-dated dinosaurs. Not only do their fossils contain carbon which should all have decayed long ago, but the dates correspond uncannily to the Christian Bible). All cambrian dates are done with K-Ar or similar methods done on the rocks around the fossil. The methods require an assumption that the earth is old. If the earth is young, K-Ar is not accurate. We see this in the rocks of recent volcanic eruptions. We know the rocks are young, but they date to millions or billions of years (it's all over the place). They are simply too contaminated with the daughter isotope.

I didn't ask you about dates "according to creationism", and if such a time doesn't exist, then why did you feel the need to include the term in the first place (rhetorical, "sounds sciencey")? As far as the dates of dinosaurs fossils, no, they don't. If the dates "correspond uncannily" to your fairy tale then one would be at a loss to explain why they went extinct 65 million years ago (that's just the last straggling bits of them, plenty seem to have disappeared long before this time, what with their run on this rock being over 100 million years). I was not aware that there was an interpretation of the number 65,000,000 that also allowed it to "correspond uncannily" to the number 6,000.

Wait...wait..wait, are you arguing against science here or for science? You seem to be slipping back and forth as it suits your idiotic beliefs. The limitations of any given dating method are well known, that's why we use a number of them. Thats why there are always allowances for range in the dates given. The earth being old isn't an assumption, and I don't know why you seem to believe that it is, care to explain? We did once assume that the earth was much younger, the evidence available disabused (some of us) of that notion.

(June 14, 2012 at 2:57 pm)Undeceived Wrote:

(June 14, 2012 at 9:16 am)Rhythm Wrote: Those gaps could just as easily disabuse us of some particular notion as they could reinforce them, which is why, for example, I asked for a pre-cambrian platypus.

You're asking for a date that doesn't exist. According to creationism, the earth is no more than 6,000 years old. If you carbon-dated the oldest fossils, that's how old they would come out to be (google carbon-dated dinosaurs; not only do they contain carbon they should no longer have, but the dates correspond exactly to the Christian Bible). All cambrian dates are done with K-Ar or similar methods done on the rocks around the fossil. The methods require an assumption that the earth is old. If the earth is young, K-Ar is not accurate. We see this in the rocks of recent volcanic eruptions. We know the rocks are young, but they date to millions or billions of years (it's all over the place). They are simply too contaminated with the daughter isotope.

Your whole argument rests on one big "if", which isn't particularly plausible. You will need more support than christian dogma.

As to what you said about K-Ar; The rocks may not have been on the surface for very long, but have been in the earth for as long as the K-Ar dating says they have.