Well at least someone on here gets my sense of humor :-P
I thought it was quite obvious that not all the stars were created at the same level of maturity (can’t think of a reason as to why they would be actually). Guess that’s what I get for assuming huh? You still can’t explain why there are zero observable state three remnants, fail.
Well the math works completely fine with ASC and isotropic propagation of light is by no means a necessity of nature, so I guess it really was just your opinion.
Relativity: The special and general Theory By Albert Einstein
Since God’s existence was what we were talking about this of course is a circular argument, I suggest you either rephrase it or don’t use it.
A: God does not exist because colliding galaxies serve no purpose so why would he create them?
Question: How do you know they serve no purpose?
B: Well since God does not exist, they are obviously just random events.
I figured someone would get a kick out of that. My humor is not completely wasted on here.
Again you are thinking too much in classic Newtonian physics and not in relativistic physics. Since it is impossible to synchronize the two clocks at observer A and B, according to observer B’s clock the light will arrive instantaneously at observer B and moves away from observer A at 0.5C according to observer A’s clock. The math works perfectly actually, and this is why Einstein was originally going to use an ASC.
Then you hate a lot of posters on here.
Ill-informed personal opinion.
Only problem is, according to current lunar recession rates, the moon could not have even been around during the supposed Devonian era without violating the Roche limit.
Wait, are we talking about my posts or your posts here? I am confused :-P
It’s a good thing truth is not based on consensus opinion huh? You should know this, but I am not surprised you don’t.
This is hilarious, if the National Academy of Science is a collection of “world” scientific groups then why is it called the National Academy of Science rather than the International Academy of Sciences? Your childish view of the infallibility of science is downright sad actually. The USNAS could come out with a statement saying blacks scientifically are not humans, and I am sorry but I would continue believing they were humans because the USNAS does not determine definitions for me despite what you may believe.
So first you say creationists are not scientists, but then you say there are plenty of scientists who believe in creationism? Contradictions abound. I have done plenty to prove to you otherwise actually. I have listed dozens of great scientists who were creationists, I have demonstrated that the actual definition of science does include creationism and all you have done is say, “well my beloved National Academy of Science says they are not scientists so meh!” Rather disappointing actually.
So let’s look at the dictionary definition of science one last time…
Science: systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
Let’s see, do creationists study the physical and natural world? Yes! Do they gain knowledge about it and its origins? Yes! How do they gain this knowledge? Through observation and experimentation! Are creationists then by definition scientists? Yes!
That was too easy.
As to the USNAS’s own definition of science not applying to the Big Bang, Abiogenesis, and Evolution…
It said science must be directly observable and repeatable; you let me know the next time we directly observe and can repeat the big bang, abiogenesis, and common descent. Until then, I guess these thing are unscientific according to your beloved USNAS that is of course.
Fact is not based on majority opinion, you should know this but I am not surprised you don’t. The majority of the government agencies in Nazi Germany believed Jews were an inferior race, somehow I think you’d be right in line with them considering how much clout you put into government agencies.
You keep thinking that, I’ll keep thinking Isaac Newton and von Braun were both real scientists.
I never said evolutionists were not scientists, I just said they were not according to the USNAS’s silly definition for reasons I have already addressed above.
As to the literal interpretation, I already pointed out that you did not understand what biblical literalism is. I have no idea why you have continued to ignore that point.
Well I guess I could just pull a page from your playbook here. Nearly all biblical scholars and major biblical organizations and universities disagree with you on this point. Now I know why you always take this approach! It is easy to do and requires very little effort.
As I have already pointed out, your same logical reasoning when applied to other pieces of writing is not consistent, so therefore it is in error. We could go back and play that game again if you’d like?
Oh so they have not actually observed the Oort cloud? I didn’t think so. Can you prove to me that it is really an Oort cloud out there and not the Flying Spaghetti Monster or a Giant Teapot causing those comets to behave like that? I love it when atheists use the very same reasoning they bash on theists for using.
Ahh, so you believe Bacon ascribed to a form of hermeneutics that post-dates him by about 200 years? Yeah good luck with that. Liberal Hermeneutics in the protestant church did not arise until the 19th century. Reformed Christians such as Bacon and Newton in the 17th and 18th centuries were biblical literalists.
You are right, but you do need a biblical world. Its existence is irrelevant to your acceptance or denial of its truth. It is obvious that Newton, von Braun and Kepler also did not need to believe the earth was billions of years old or that the universe arose by the big bang because they did not believe these things and still conducted their science fine. So your point is rather silly.
I did quote several of the numerous historians who do believe that modern science owes everything to the Christian reformation. If you want to deny this historical fact, be my guest. I have also demonstrated that science is only possible in a biblical world, you can deny this, but it does not change the truth of the statement.
I do find it interesting that you lump atheism in with the “other faiths”, I hope nobody else saw you do that on here or we may have an atheistic brawl on our hands.
Wrong. Creationism is necessary for the field of creation science just like evolution is necessary for the field of evolutionary biology. As for your claim that geology and astronomy require an old universe and earth… there are young earth creationists who are geologists and astronomers so I guess it really is not a necessity. After all Kepler and Galileo both believed in a young universe and they are two of the greatest astronomers in history.
His worldview drove his science.
Forgive me for demanding more from my operational sciences than you do. No comet has ever been observed to be capable of lasting over 10,000 years. We see comets today. This leads away from an old universe model, so invoke the ad hoc and viola we have an Oort cloud. Many astronomers are actually moving away from the Oort cloud hypothesis today, I assure you they will come up with some other ad hoc though; I just hope it is the FSM!
This is actually the fallacy of pretended neutrality. There is no neutral ground in the creationism vs. non-creation debate so nobody is objective.
I love it! “Statler, your historians from such prestigious universities as Cambridge don’t matter to me, but my sources such as Wikipedia are infallible.” Well I will stick to the historians you can stick to wiki.
You cannot know the result is false without testing it some way, this test of course requires the use of your senses. I can’t believe even this simple point goes over your head.
How do you know that all of your senses are not unreliable for your entire life? You better not say, “Because I am functioning as a person” because that would be circular.
How do you know unreliable senses can’t produce positive results? Sounds like a presupposition to me.
Source? Personhood is not defined by functionality.
Circular argument. How do you know it has worked reliably in the past? Oh yeah, you remember it doing so huh? Lol.
How would you know they were false?
No you couldn’t, not without presuppositions.
No I am sorry, I will not allow you to be so intellectually lazy. How do you know that the bed you fall asleep on tonight will still be a bed tomorrow?
So you actually believe that the only things that are real are those made up of energy and matter like naturalists do? I would advise you to be cautious in how you answer this.
What a disappointment. The laws of logic are not the way people think, but rather the way people ought to think. If they are just the way people thought then there would be no such thing as logical fallacies because many (I’d even argue a majority of) people think in a manner that is logically fallacious. So I am sorry, it is quite obvious that the laws of logic are not determined by the way people think, but rather they are an outside standard that people ought to adhere to which is more accurate with the biblical view on the matter.
As to your failure to deliver my request, disappointing but not surprising. I knew you could not do it.
Well you should be aware that creationists say that DNA is strong evidence for a creator. Since you said that creationists don’t produce any falsifiable evidence then I’d advise you not to try and falsify this claim so you don’t look ridiculous by contradicting yourself. The only problem is, if you don’t try and refute this claim, the claim stands un-refuted, so I guess you have really put yourself in an awkward lose-lose situation.
Not what I said, I said he could only do his science if the biblical world was accurate. A person who does not believe air exists needs air in order to live and make an argument against the existence of air, just as someone who does not believe in the biblical world needs a biblical world in order to conduct science and argue against the biblical world.
Why would you want evidence that his historical science views somehow drove his operational science views? The two are apples and oranges. You really do baffle me sometimes.
Well I guess this refutes your claim that creationists can’t be scientists.
Huh? Again, you obviously do not know what a synchrony convention is. It is a way of synchronizing clocks! So they can do it, but they have to use the ESC which assumes that light travels at the same speed in all directions. They could just as easily synchronize the two clocks using the ASC, which would then have light moving in different directions at different speeds relative to the observer. So we are just talking past each other.
If they had used the ASC to synchronize the clocks it certainly would have. They did not use it though; they used the ESC, so who knows what you are trying to prove here.
Indeed it does, using clocks that have been synchronized using ESC. If you synchronize them using ASC, light moves instantaneously towards the observer and 0.5C away. I guess all this proves is one of two things…
A) You never actually read Dr. Lisle’s paper; you just read aricles written by people who did not understand it.
B) You yourself read the article but did not understand it.
I actually emailed the article to one of my physics professors I had in college who worked for NASA at one point and asked him if he saw any problems with the paper. Of course he said that there are no problems with it because synchrony conventions are exactly that, they are conventions. So if scripture is using an ASC, it would be inappropriate to suggest it is wrong by using an ESC.
Using clocks that had been synchronized using ASC this would have absolutely happened. I am getting so bored with this topic because it’s clear by now it is well over your head.
When we are talking about relativity, we are almost always talking about velocities close to C since that is when it becomes relevant. I thought this would be clear.
Actually according to the dictionary they are. It holds more weight than your personal opinion on the matter.
Well it can be done using a synchonry convention which of course is what the whole paper you never read is about.
Where in the verse does it say that the earth does not move in relation to the sun? I believe it just says the earth does not move in relation to itself, which it does not of course. No issues with the verse.
Lol, look this up, because it doesn’t mean what you obviously think it means. Just because I used the word incredible does not mean I committed this fallacy.
Yeah I was just really hoping that when we were talking about telomeres that you would provide articles about telomeres and not chicken with teeth. Given your posts to date and tendency towards drifting way off topic though I guess I could not be very surprised.
The fact of the matter is that the biblical chronologies follows a very nice sigmoid curve, which I guess those pesky Jews when they wrote the scriptures, could have known this is very common in nature and done this on purpose. They could have, but then we are getting to explanations that seem far more implausible than just believing the Bible is the inspired word of God.
It is actually you who is arguing from incredibility, saying that the bible patriarchs living to be 900 is just too incredible to be true. There is actual growing research suggesting that humans do not have an upper age limit, and given the right conditions could live to be 1,000 (some believe people alive today will live to 1,000). So I don’t believe the stories in the bible are that incredible at all, after all, most cultures has stories of people living far greater life spans in the past including the Romans, Chinese, and Greeks.
Oh so you claim to know a thing or two about thermodynamics huh? Well then you should also know that even an open system tends towards entropy. Not only this but without mechanisms already in place to guide the energy, unharnessed raw energy only increases entropy.
Well he is a scientist according to the dictionary, forgive me for putting more stalk in the dictionary than your personal opinion.
“There are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems. There is somehow associated with the field of far-from-equilibrium thermodynamics the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself.”
-John Ross, Harvard University
It’s too bad that you are one of those people “perpetuating this error” lol.
Nah, I just realize that scripture is on completely solid logical ground here. Given your illogical viewpoint, it would be unjust to bomb a country that attacked you and declared war on you because not everyone in the country signed the decree of war (only their representatives did). That’s just absurd. I am just glad that God is not only a just God but a gracious one.
Not if you explicitly state that murder is only a sin when the children commit it, as God has done in scripture. As I have already pointed out, humans deserve death, so God killing is justice not murder since murder is by definition the unjust killing of an innocent.
Huh? Giving up one’s life for someone who did not deserve it is the greatest act of love and mercy I can think of. Read “The Death of Death” and maybe this will clear up for you, but probably not.
So attending church and believing in Satan makes you a believing Christian? Wow, I think there are a lot of Christians on here professing to be atheists since I have seen many members on here talk of how they went to church as children. Given this same logic, many Satanists today would be Christians since they worship the devil and I am sure many of them went to church as children. I am sure they would disagree with your crazy assertion here.
Despite Dahmer’s own profession that he was one while he was killing? If you want to ignore this evidence be my guest, but don’t go and say there is no evidence.
I can’t think of any better evidence than the person’s own profession of atheism which I have given you. Maybe you are not really an atheist yourself since all you have done is professed to be one. I figured you could not tell me how Dahmer was acting inconsistent with an atheistic worldview because he was not. He was actually a very good little atheist.
Oh I am sorry, I just assumed you had read the God Delusion since that is wehre Dawkins calls molestation an “embarrassing but otherwise harmless action”.
In chapter 9, on page 316 of "The God Delusion" Dawkins writes,
“Nevertheless, it is clearly unjust to visit upon all pedophiles a vengeance appropriate to the tiny minority who are also murderers. All three of the boarding schools I attended employed teachers whose affection for small boys overstepped the bounds of propriety. That was indeed reprehensible. Nevertheless if, fifty years on, they had been hounded by vigilantes or lawyers as no better than child murderers, I should have felt obliged to come to their defense, even as the victim of one of them (an embarrassing but otherwise harmless experience).
This is all fine and dandy if Dawkins wants to look at molestation in this sick fashion, but then to turn around and say the Pope should be arrested on “crimes against humanity” for allegedly covering up what he earlier stated to be an “embarrassing but otherwise harmless experience” is downright absurd. Absurdness is what I have learned to expect from DickDawk though.
[url] http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment...094310.ece[/url]
I don’t think you are following what I am saying. It’s the fact that you say you “chose” to value human life which applies it is an arbitrary choice that someone can either choose or not and there is not an absolute right choice. So if this is indeed the case then you cannot consistently criticize someone else (like a murder) for making a different choice than you. Does that make any more sense? I commend you for valuing human life though.
That’s the study you were talking about this whole time!? Oh man, I thought it was going to be something where they actually looked at rates within prisons, but it is not even that strong. They just look at rates between countries, so it commits the old “correlation equals causation” fallacy. When ice cream sales go up, so do murder rates, this guy would believe that ice cream causes murders haha.
The truth of the matter is, that if everyone on earth lived a consistently Christian lifestyle (i.e. slept with one person in their life, loved their enemies, and treated others as they would want to be treated) there would be zero STDs, and zero murder. So the whole study is just absurd, and just demonstrates humans’ need for that sort of lifestyle.
I figured you could not prove the leader of the Klan was a YEC, so I guess your whole point was rather silly.
Never said he was an atheist, just said he was not a consistent Christian if he even is one, which that still point still stands.
Of course evolution has moral implications! If humans are really just distant cousins with pond scum then there is no real intrinsic value to human life. Organisms’ only purpose is to survive in an evolutionary world, so Stalin was almost a super organism while he murdered millions of his own people to ensure his survival and king-like lifestyle. The evolutionist has no basis to say that what Stalin did was in any way “wrong”.
You never answered my question, in an atheistic world, why is white supremacy morally wrong?
That’s what morality is! The way humans ought to live. When you tell someone that it was morally wrong for them to kill someone else you are telling them that they ought to have not done it. So I am sorry, you are going to have to start over. I guess.
Well I thought I had already proven you wrong, since I had found definitions for murder say it had to be the killing of another human. I can do it again though.
Let’s look at the definition of Homicide, which is even broader than murder.
Homicide: The killing of one human being by another human being. (The Legal Dictionary)
Since God is not a human being, and since Homicide is a broader definition that encompasses murder, we can logically say that God does not murder.
But if my country says it’s ok to kill anyone who is not a white straight male, then why would it be morally wrong? I thought there was no such thing as absolute morality.
What are you talking about? None of the sources you cited gave any examples of where radiometric dating has successfully dated a rock of known age. So you have no control. The onus is on you to demonstrate that the method works. If you can’t prove it works by dating a rock of observed known age; then I am sorry, I have no scientific basis to believe the method works.
Wait, are we talking about me or you here? By the way, I said I appreciate the discussion, not that you are in any way an accomplished debater.
I am sorry, all that came to mind when I read this silly paragraph was this…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Sd-j0rKeKw
That’s irrelevant. This is history we are talking about here, not a court case. When a historian records the existence of a historical figure it is generally accept whether or not that historian physically saw the person or not, especially in those days. Most people believed Caesar existed despite they themselves never seeing him.
Actually the gospel of Luke is believed to have been written shortly after Christ’s death. So I guess you were just wrong on this one.
Name me three Ph.D. historians who believe that Jesus of Nazareth never existed. I bet you can’t even name one because it’s a crackpot position to hold.
We are not talking about a court of law, we are talking about history dingle-berry.
Well to someone like you no; to the experts on the subject it means a lot.
Yup, Lazarus’ family and Jesus’ disciples were all there.
How could they genuinely believe it if they made it up? The Muslims on 9/11 did not make up Islam, they just fell for it. The disciples would have to actually be the ones who created the forgery, so of course they would not genuinely believe it.
Oh yeah, so James was starting a church that followed the teachings of his imaginary brother Jesus, riiiiiigggghhht.
Yup, Mark, Matthew, and John.
Because hundreds of copies separated by hundreds of years and thousands of miles all agree on what the original said Scooter.
Well you asked how we know it is a copy, so I told you scooter, try and keep up.
Nah, because we have found other manuscripts that date to the same time as this copy, that are hundreds of miles away, they could not have been made from this copy. Sorry.
Yet they all affirm the essentials truths of the Christian faith, funny how that works.
Did you not read the passage? It says that Creation professes His existence.
I do read my Bible, just wanted you to do some work for once. Well you should be well aware that the slaves in ancient Israel were not equivalent to the slaves taken by the Europeans out of Africa. The slaves in bible days were more like servants and were often a means of getting out of poverty and having a safe place to live and food to eat. History matters, but you don’t even believe Jesus was a real person, so I am not surprised you were ignorant to this historical fact.
You didn’t really answer the question, why would causing harm to others be wrong?
Actually taking the Lord’s name in vein does not have anything to do with “Godd***it”, but you would not know that because you don’t’ even think Jesus existed.
I forgot who I was dealing with here, yes you are right it might not be obvious to someone like you, but to most people it is.
Where in the passage does it say he had to go up there? It just says he went up there. When I go in the other room to answer the phone it does not mean I had to go in the other room to do this, just means I did it.
Wrong again, sedimentary soil, not ash.
Actually numerous lines of evidence such as the Kaibab upheaval suggest the Grand Canyon was carved before it solidified to rock.
By all means, keep believing in unobserved events by blind faith. God’s word says it is my eyes which have been opened; it is you who are steal suppressing the truth in your heart. I’ll take his word over yours.
I’ll leave you with some quotes from actual historians on Jesus and just how silly the Jesus Myth crowd is.
