How do you know God isn't dead?

[little_monkey]

Exactly my thought when I see this thread.

"How do you know he is alive?"

How do we know it was ever alive?

If he were alived at one moment in time, then one can conceive the following progression: The wind spirit defeated by Zeus, who was defeated by Yahweh, who was defeated by Nietzsche.

[Statler Waldorf]

These replies are getting too big again... time for a TLDR, no?

I’ll try to respond to the highlights of your post, I only have about an hour, here we go!

And you miss the option where this bending was done over a long time and that is why it's not broken.

Well that’d be plausible if the top layers were not also bent, but they are, so that indicates the bending happened after all of the layers were deposited, even the top ones. I would have to look it up but I believe they also find crystalized structures in a lot of this sedimentary rock that are only formed by intense heat and pressure, which would not form under very gradual bending.

You usually have volcanic rock and sedimentary rock mingled in those bands... You don't think they were all molten or soft at the same time, do you?

Well they are sedimentary rock now, so I am not sure what you mean.

Well, I claim all I ever wrote on this forum to be infallible... except where I forgot some details (That wasn't me posting.. it was my alter-ego).
There.

Cute.

Water contaminates radioisotopes causing them to show a more advanced decay than they should?

Water can violate the assumption of a closed system, yes.

There you go with that moon thing again.

It’s a good argument to stick with because it doesn’t make any sense given the accepted timelines.

Oh, notice the conservation of angular momentum of the Earth-moon system... as the moon comes closer, the Earth rotates faster, as well as the moon, thus "decelerating" the moon as it comes closer to the Earth (with time moving backwards).

No, that’s backwards, the moon’s recession would have been faster in the past due to the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum because the energy that is lost on Earth through tidal friction must be gained by the moon.

With each reply, a new "creationist scientific fact" appears...
When I google "helium retention rates", all I get are creationist websites... And the first one shows exactly how unbiased this study was

Well the measurements were done by secular labs, that’s more unbiased than any study you can point me to, your side never has creationists do their measurements for them in order to remain unbiased now do they?

Somehow, these people managed to publish on a real geology journal: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003AGUFM.V32C1047H

Yup, imagine that.

And then there is one worthy exception in the google list of results: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showth...-quot-list

That’s a message board sir; I’ll stick to the findings of the actual peer-reviewed study.

Oh, but I don't even need to find the rebuttal in non-creationist sites... http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/helium/original.html

I’ll stick to the actual peer-reviewed study; most of those objections have been addressed by Humphrey’s and are easily accessible.

Science keeps evolving... if one method is found to have some downsides, then its scope becomes reduced.

Wasn’t one of your justifications for the method the fact that all of the different radiometric methods allegedly agree with one another? Well do they or don’t they?

As you may have noticed in that Helium retention fiasco, each rock can be dated by more than one radioisotope... if one fails, then scientists try to find out why. They discover that, under some conditions the K-Ar method is not reliable... and promptly came up with another more reliable method.

If you do not already know the age of the rocks beforehand then how do you know which method is failing and which one is yielding accurate results?

No.... they don't expect soft tissue because the fossilization mechanism has been well described... and nothing soft is expected to remain... however, it's clear that models can be thwarted by nature and it's quirks and details that elude the model.

No that’s not accurate, we’ve been finding partially petrified wood for over a century now, so there was no reason to believe the fossilization process removed all soft-tissue, the reason they were surprised to find it (and did the test 17 times before they’d accept it) was because they know such tissue cannot last that long. There are paleontologists who still do not accept the fact it’s really DNA because they know the implications of it.

Perhaps there are some special conditions in which those strands of DNA can last that long

What, like a time machine?

Science is not based of unsubstantiated claims.

Yup, but good science makes successful predictions, and this was a big one for the Creation model.

I missed the part where it's a problem...

Sub-freezing global temperatures = no abiogenesis.

Errr.... you are aware of thermal gradients... At the vent it may be too hot... but a bit further out.... just enough to keep the water from freezing... let's say, above zero degrees Centigrade.

Now you’ve got no catalyst for the reaction. You’d be better served not trying to defend abiogenesis, it’s a fool’s errand my friend.

If the sun is 5 billion years old, then the Earth and all planets in the solar system must be less than that. And what do you know?... they are!

Yes, 6,000 is less than 5.0 * !0^9

TLDR: creationist "science" keeps failing to sustain itself, while real science acknowledges its limitations and advances...

Real science? Where’s the distinction?

No, Statler, they would not have to do any such thing, and yet again I have to remind you that what you call impossible happens with regularity. We've already been over this, why should I repeat myself? You mean a 4th...don't you? Since we already have mutation, non-random selection, and random selection. Is there any room for a 4th (what might we point to that doesn't fall under any of these headers?)?

No it must happen that way, you just do not seem to get it. If all Humans possess a certain cognitive capacity, there must be a reason for that. Either it became fixed through Natural Selection or it became fixed through drift and Neutral Mutation. The latter has never been observed to create new genetic information and to suggest it can is mathematically absurd. So it must have had to be through Natural Selection, so what were the selective pressures that fixed it? (Random and non-random selection are merely subtypes of selection, so you still only have two mechanisms)

LOL, no, you're arguing from a point of ignorance. If we're talking about selection, be it neutral, deleterious or beneficial - and genetic drift...we are -not- talking about the origin of these things -at all-. You would know this, if you understood the theory. It's right in the damned name of the theory -Synthesis.

Wrong again, if you’re going to postulate that all life on earth arose from a common ancestor then you need a mechanism that gives rise to new genes and genetic information, you have none. So talk about the frequencies of genetic information in populations all you want but until you can originate the novel genetic information in the first place it’s all a waste.

I explained to you what natural selection could not do pages ago. It clearly went right over your head - because here we are. It isn't as though I haven't reminded you -in every post- that you've been arguing with yourself. I don't see why you're bitching -to me- about your time being wasted?

Because you were wasting my time with a multitude of red herring arguments; so what were the selective pressures that gave rise to the new mental capacities found only in Humans? Do not toss out some red herring about neutral mutations because you’ve finally admitted that it cannot give rise to new genetic information.

Let me help you steer clear of wasted time in the future. Learn.....the.....theory - and then- come back and argue against it. Is that too much to ask? Why should I have to correct you at every turn - why am I required to notify you when you're arguing against yourself in the first place man?

I’ve already learned the theory. The biggest problem is you do not understand your own theory. When you get pinned in a corner you toss out some jargon you’ve no doubt read on some website, and then when I point out that does not solve the problem you reverse your position and claim you knew it didn’t all along. Well then why toss it out? You do not have the proper grasp of the theory in order to play this game; it takes more than simple jargon and verbiage.

All that is required of a mutation for it to be passed on or become fixed in a population is that it be non-deleterious. Can you move forward from here, or is your contention DOA from this point onward?

Sure, but how does the mutation become fixed and how does it give rise to new genes? One mutation on one base pair is not going to get you anything. You’re arguing an irrelevant point.

[Ryantology]

No, the whole comment is rather fallacious for one reason or another, but I know you were not actually trying to prove a point.

Which means that you can surely demonstrate their fallacious nature by providing us with indisputable physical proof that the god you specifically believe in is certainly responsible for creation precisely as it is described in scripture. I'll wait.

Only the Christian God has the necessary attributes for the job.

So do a million other fictional characters. Until you prove that God is nonfictional, whatever attributes he has mean nothing.

[The Grand Nudger]

No it must happen that way, you just do not seem to get it.

No, statler, it "must not", and lets be clear - you're reasserting a point here that you will concede later in your own post. Or were you unaware of this? Gee, wonder how that could have happened.

If all Humans possess a certain cognitive capacity, there must be a reason for that. Either it became fixed through Natural Selection or it became fixed through drift and Neutral Mutation.

And? Either are capable of handling the job. That they're always working together in that capacity makes the load even lighter on either.

The latter has never been observed to create new genetic information and to suggest it can is mathematically absurd.

Mutation has never been observed to create "new genetic information"? News to me.

So it must have had to be through Natural Selection, so what were the selective pressures that fixed it? (Random and non-random selection are merely subtypes of selection, so you still only have two mechanisms)

Natural selection does not create the things that it operates upon (try not to waffle back and forth from one sentence to the next). -That- is what has never been observed - because it lacks this ability as a mechanism. Here again I have to correct you. Drift is not selection. Drift is the effect of chance. Could be either drift or selection - you'd have to be specific about what you were asking me.

Wrong again, if you’re going to postulate that all life on earth arose from a common ancestor then you need a mechanism that gives rise to new genes and genetic information, you have none.

As has been explained to you, mutation. We'll get to new genes in just a moment.

So talk about the frequencies of genetic information in populations all you want but until you can originate the novel genetic information in the first place it’s all a waste.

So I guess I won't have to listen to any more of this nonsense, right?

Because you were wasting my time with a multitude of red herring arguments; so what were the selective pressures that gave rise to the new mental capacities found only in Humans? Do not toss out some red herring about neutral mutations because you’ve finally admitted that it cannot give rise to new genetic information.

I'm correcting your numerous mistakes and misunderstandings. You're the one "creating new information" -in this thread. Which mental capacities are found only in humans? We'd need to isolate that first, wouldn't we? In general "mental capacities carry with them a massive set of advantages - one could almost take their pick from any advantage one managed to dream up (with their mental capacities...no less). Mutations don't give rise to "new information"? That's the second time in this thread that you've made that claim......and nowhere have I conceded any such thing. It would be ignorant to do so.

I’ve already learned the theory. The biggest problem is you do not understand your own theory. When you get pinned in a corner you toss out some jargon you’ve no doubt read on some website, and then when I point out that does not solve the problem you reverse your position and claim you knew it didn’t all along. Well then why toss it out? You do not have the proper grasp of the theory in order to play this game; it takes more than simple jargon and verbiage.

Seeing as I haven't found myself in any corner yet - the rest of your fantasies about what happens when that moment comes...will have to wait for that moment.

Sure, but how does the mutation become fixed and how does it give rise to new genes?

Thank you for finally conceding the point you've spent pages avoiding by arguing against a whole host of shit you decided to offer up. The answer is the same now as it was then. Selection, and drift. As far as new genes, the most common mechanism appears to be duplication.

One mutation on one base pair is not going to get you anything.

Good thing we aren't talking about a single mutation then, eh?

You’re arguing an irrelevant point.

Arguing this subject with you is -always- irrelevant. It doesn't matter what point is being made. lol. I've got a fun little idea for how to attenuate these posts going forward, gonna try it out on your next one.

[pocaracas]

Sometimes, I feel like only replying in broad strokes... then I see all the wrong in your replies.... and I have to go at it one by one...

---

And you miss the option where this bending was done over a long time and that is why it's not broken.

Well that’d be plausible if the top layers were not also bent, but they are, so that indicates the bending happened after all of the layers were deposited, even the top ones. I would have to look it up but I believe they also find crystalized structures in a lot of this sedimentary rock that are only formed by intense heat and pressure, which would not form under very gradual bending.

LOL, you could if the bending came after the crystallization process.

Water contaminates radioisotopes causing them to show a more advanced decay than they should?

Water can violate the assumption of a closed system, yes.

Are you implying that the flood water carried isotopes from older rock into younger rock, thus making it look older?... and managed to implant them in the material in such a way that is equivalent to our particle accelerators? Water can accelerate ions and implant them in the material?
Water... bah... dude.... no way that is credible.

Oh, notice the conservation of angular momentum of the Earth-moon system... as the moon comes closer, the Earth rotates faster, as well as the moon, thus "decelerating" the moon as it comes closer to the Earth (with time moving backwards).

No, that’s backwards, the moon’s recession would have been faster in the past due to the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum because the energy that is lost on Earth through tidal friction must be gained by the moon.

Remember the 70% sun output, which leaves water on Earth in the frozen solid state?... tidal friction has no effect... moon stays put in standard orbit.

With each reply, a new "creationist scientific fact" appears...
When I google "helium retention rates", all I get are creationist websites... And the first one shows exactly how unbiased this study was

Well the measurements were done by secular labs, that’s more unbiased than any study you can point me to, your side never has creationists do their measurements for them in order to remain unbiased now do they?

The measurements yes, the interpretation of those measurements... no.

Oh, but I don't even need to find the rebuttal in non-creationist sites... http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/helium/original.html

I’ll stick to the actual peer-reviewed study; most of those objections have been addressed by Humphrey’s and are easily accessible.

Yes, indeed.... and the address has, in turn, been objected to again.

Samples collected by a team devoted to proving a point.... and then they do prove that point...
Smells fishy.
And, since the first results were from 2005, I'd expect them to have found other zircons where the helium retention was also supporting the 6000 year old model... Sadly, I see no such thing, Only references to that original research site.... mighty fishy.

Even Archeopteryx has been discovered in several sites!

Science keeps evolving... if one method is found to have some downsides, then its scope becomes reduced.

Wasn’t one of your justifications for the method the fact that all of the different radiometric methods allegedly agree with one another? Well do they or don’t they?

They all tend to agree, but, clearly, not always.... we try to understand why is that and then catalog the boundaries of each method.

You don't use a mercury thermometer to measure oven temperature, do you?

As you may have noticed in that Helium retention fiasco, each rock can be dated by more than one radioisotope... if one fails, then scientists try to find out why. They discover that, under some conditions the K-Ar method is not reliable... and promptly came up with another more reliable method.

If you do not already know the age of the rocks beforehand then how do you know which method is failing and which one is yielding accurate results?

There are more than 2 isotopes which get measured... if all agree, except one, then something is awry with that one in particular... like the case with the helium in zircons...

Perhaps there are some special conditions in which those strands of DNA can last that long

What, like a time machine?

Like... I don't know. I don't study the thing...
And apparently, not even those who do study the thing know... let them study before jumping to conclusions.

Science is not based of unsubstantiated claims.

Yup, but good science makes successful predictions, and this was a big one for the Creation model.

Predictions based on wishful thinking that come true are very frowned upon... And require lots and lots of checking until they're accepted.

I missed the part where it's a problem...

Sub-freezing global temperatures = no abiogenesis.

And no tidal moon drift too!

Errr.... you are aware of thermal gradients... At the vent it may be too hot... but a bit further out.... just enough to keep the water from freezing... let's say, above zero degrees Centigrade.

Now you’ve got no catalyst for the reaction. You’d be better served not trying to defend abiogenesis, it’s a fool’s errand my friend.

Oh I don't?
Which catalyst would that be? Do you know how to make life from lifelessness?

If the sun is 5 billion years old, then the Earth and all planets in the solar system must be less than that. And what do you know?... they are!

Yes, 6,000 is less than 5.0 * !0^9

AHAHAH... can't say I wasn't expecting that...

4.5*10^9 is also less than 5*10^9.
Any number below 5*10^9 is less than 5*10^9.

Wait... do you mean that the Sun may be 5 billion years old, but not the Earth?... was the sun not part of your creation myth?

---

TLDR... or not.
Well, Stat, I have to thank you. Thanks for making me research on about these things and learning the state of the art in the scientific knowledge of these fields... even so, what I've learned is very lacking, compared to all that's been done by scientists... but I have a rough idea of how the solar system came into being, then the Earth-moon system... and a good deal more solid notion on radiometric dating mechanisms.

As it stands.... circa 5 *10^9 years ago, our sun ignited. Materials from the nebula where it ignited orbited around it and gathered in to clumps, then into proto-planets. At some point, more than 4.5*10^9 years ago, the 3rd and 4th proto-planets collided and resulted in a larger proto-planet, the Earth, and a smaller one orbiting it, the moon. At this moment, the rotation speed of the whole system was fast, each day taking about 2 hours. Then both proto-planets cooled off from their magma state and this is when the radioisotopes froze into place. The moon cooled quicker so it has no discernible magma, at the moment. The Earth is still cooling, but clearly the surface has cooled enough.
In the beginning, the water at the surface of the earth froze, because the internal heat from the planet wasn't reaching the surface and the heat from the sun was about 70% of what it is now, not letting the planet's surface reach a temperature high enough for water to be in liquid state.
However, there were a few conduits from the core to the surface, which, in contact with this ice, melted it and produced the required soup, as well as temperature to form proteins, later amino-acids, and later yet, life.

[Walking Void]

^ Whoa whoa, do not overwhelm the poor man. We should start off simple.

So, sitting underneath an apple tree, an apple falls on Stat's head. Ow! What? An apple fell from the tree? It bounced off my head and continued to fall to the ground to where it is now?

[Statler Waldorf]

Hey Fellas,

In the interest of Christian charity (and our sanity) I am willing to allow you to have the last word on our discussion (if you really need something addressed feel free to PM me). I had a good time, thanks for the thought provoking responses and for taking the time to respond to me.

Until next time,

-SW

[pocaracas]

Lol. Cheers

[sarcasticgeographer]

I am not sure if this thread is done. But one last thought on my part. It is funny to me that christians will always question the methodologies and applications of the scientific method, yet they NEVER seem to question the absolute "truth" contained within their bible.

Just because Genesis 5:4 says that Adam lived to be 930 years old, does not mean it is true. Yet, I have to find one christian to question the application and methodology used to derive at proving that Adam lived that long.

[Sal]

Adam only lived to be 930 months old.