Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(November 4, 2010 at 1:34 pm)theophilus Wrote: If it is this difficult then do you think the editors would even bother to consider articles which disagree with their opinions? If someone presented evidence against evolution they would be more likely to reject it without even checking its validity.
Disagreement is not automatic grounds for a science conspiracy to lazily suppress knowledge from the public.
ID'ers love to shout that they are summarily dismissed just because scientists disagree with them and won't give them the time of day, yet they never manage to produce the articles that were 'rejected.'
We learn new shit every day and some scientist or other is bound to disagree with it. If things weren't validated despite personal opinions we wouldn't have any advancement. Scientists are also human, but I'd be willing to wager the ridiculously small amount of money I have in my bank account that not all of them have the middle school self-esteem or mindset that would cause them to reject a piece of information just because they disliked it. People do occasionally mature and work for the betterment of humanity and knowledge.
(November 4, 2010 at 1:34 pm)theophilus Wrote: [quote='Thor' pid='103461' dateline='1288878592']If there was a global flood of the magnitude you believe within the last 10,000 years, there would be archaeological and geological evidence. There is none.
Quote:John 12:28,29 says, [quote]Then a voice came from heaven: "I have glorified it, and I will glorify it again." The crowd that stood there and heard it said that it had thundered. Others said, "An angel has spoken to him."
And unsubstantiated bullshit written in an ancient book of unknown authorship is "evidence"..... how?
Quote:When God spoke with an audible voice not everyone understood it but interpreted it according to their beliefs.
Not letting you get away with this crap. What evidence backs up your assertion that "God spoke"?
Quote:Some thought that it was just thunder, a natural phenomenon, and not supernatural at all.
So "God's" voice can be confused with thunder? This makes no sense at all.
Quote:God has revealed himself through his creation but those who don't believe in him interpret the evidence to fit their preconceived ideas.
Oh, come on! It is YOU who has the preconceived idea! It is YOU who must "interpret evidence" to fit your ludicrous preconceived notion that the Noah's Ark kiddie fable is really true! And as proof I can just point to your next sentence...
Quote:The fossils are evidence of a global flood
What bullshit! How are fossils somehow "evidence" of a global flood? Please provide ONE reputable scientific source that posits this as a possibility.
Quote:but those who refuse to believe in the flood interpret them as evidence of evolution.
If there was evidence of a worldwide flood taking place in the past 10,000 years, scientists would say so! Unlike believers who are desperate for "proof" of their Biblical fairy tales, scientists have no such agenda.
Science flies us to the moon and stars. Religion flies us into buildings.
God allowed 200,000 people to die in an earthquake. So what makes you think he cares about YOUR problems?
November 4, 2010 at 11:48 pm (This post was last modified: November 5, 2010 at 12:02 am by orogenicman.)
(November 4, 2010 at 1:14 pm)Sam Wrote: [quote='Loki_999' pid='103447' dateline='1288867674']
Slightly on-topic, just read something interesting in an article (not published yet) where some Russian scientists have linked (they say proved... we will have to wait and see on that) the mass extinction events with the periodic magnetic polar inversions.
If right, it will give a partial reason... but why would this happen i have no idea, unless the reversal of the poles sends creatures mad. Still, we don't need to worry, the next one is not scheduled for something like another 80-100 million years...
Unless you are a god-botherer in which case you probably believe that the earth will not be around for that long because Gawd will end the world long before then.... for some evil reason that his worshippers think will be their reward. Go figure.
I've seen quite a few references to the coincidence of magnetic field inversions and Mass Extinction Events in the literature. I'm not sure in this case but many studies tend to link these reversals with periods of increased volcanic activty (related to the controversial issue of mantle plumes), or more specifically the occurence of Large Igneous Provinces such as the Siberian & Deccan Traps.
Very interesting area of the geosciences right now.
Sam
[/quote]
There have been published reports linking volcanic trends with magnetic reversals. As far as I know, none are unambiguously linked. As for when the next reversal will occur, they usually occur every several hundred thouand years or so. My understanding is that we may be overdue for the next one.
(November 4, 2010 at 1:34 pm)theophilus Wrote: [quote='orogenicman' pid='103400' dateline='1288833629']I might add that if you knew anything about publishing in such journals, then you would know how difficult it is to acheive publication regardless of your background. Even the most respected paleontologists have to wade through the backlog, and convince the peer reviewers of the validity of their arguments.
Quote:If it is this difficult then do you think the editors would even bother to consider articles which disagree with their opinions? If someone presented evidence against evolution they would be more likely to reject it without even checking its validity.
Personal opinion is not what drive the peer process. My first paper took 7 years to get published for several reasons:
1) We were describing 8 new fossil species and redescribing 4 previously discovered ones for which more information was available. It takes time to reach the amount of certainty required to ensure that they are, indeed, new species, and can then be published as such.
2) Once that review was completed, we had to go through the normal review process involving such mundane things as wording, spell checks, etc.
3) Once that was done, then we were put on a list of reports awaiting final publication. That list is usually rather long.
Quote:Secondly, your argument that the biblical "kinds" of animals included on Noah's ark refer to the Linean "family" classification is simply ludicrous since it assumes that tribal peoples of the Middle East some 4,000 years ago had any concept of such a classification,
God guided the choice of animals and he certainly knew how to classify them because he was the one who created them in the first place.
This is a convenient (and rather lazy) explanation, and doesn't explain the fact that there is no geologic evidence that such a global flood ever occurred.
'The difference between a Miracle and a Fact is exactly the difference between a mermaid and seal. It could not be expressed better.'
-- Samuel "Mark Twain" Clemens
"I think that in the discussion of natural problems we ought to begin not with the scriptures, but with experiments, demonstrations, and observations".
- Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
"In short, Meyer has shown that his first disastrous book was not a fluke: he is capable of going into any field in which he has no training or research experience and botching it just as badly as he did molecular biology. As I've written before, if you are a complete amateur and don't understand a subject, don't demonstrate the Dunning-Kruger effect by writing a book about it and proving your ignorance to everyone else! "
November 5, 2010 at 12:20 am (This post was last modified: November 5, 2010 at 12:33 am by Anomalocaris.)
Megnetic reversal normally happens once every few hundred thousand years without correlation to extinction i know of. But Looking at a time-polarity plot of the earth's magnetic field, there seems to be anomalous periods where the polarity magnetic fields remain unchanging for tens of millions of years. One seem to last 40 million years in upper Cretaceous starting roughly with the emplacements of Ontong Java Igneous province, another seems to last 50 million years right through the emplacements of Emaishan trap, but ending roughly when Siberian traps were emplaced. However there seems to be no such period clearly associated with emplacements of Deccan trap or Columbia River trap. So on first glance I might say the coincidence between emplacements of LIP and long periods of anomalous polar stability is accidental. Orogenicman?
November 5, 2010 at 8:16 am (This post was last modified: November 5, 2010 at 8:35 am by orogenicman.)
(November 5, 2010 at 12:20 am)Chuck Wrote: Megnetic reversal normally happens once every few hundred thousand years without correlation to extinction i know of. But Looking at a time-polarity plot of the earth's magnetic field, there seems to be anomalous periods where the polarity magnetic fields remain unchanging for tens of millions of years. One seem to last 40 million years in upper Cretaceous starting roughly with the emplacements of Ontong Java Igneous province, another seems to last 50 million years right through the emplacements of Emaishan trap, but ending roughly when Siberian traps were emplaced. However there seems to be no such period clearly associated with emplacements of Deccan trap or Columbia River trap. So on first glance I might say the coincidence between emplacements of LIP and long periods of anomalous polar stability is accidental. Orogenicman?
Here is a link to the geologic timescale that includes magnetic reversals that the GSA has produced:
'The difference between a Miracle and a Fact is exactly the difference between a mermaid and seal. It could not be expressed better.'
-- Samuel "Mark Twain" Clemens
"I think that in the discussion of natural problems we ought to begin not with the scriptures, but with experiments, demonstrations, and observations".
- Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
"In short, Meyer has shown that his first disastrous book was not a fluke: he is capable of going into any field in which he has no training or research experience and botching it just as badly as he did molecular biology. As I've written before, if you are a complete amateur and don't understand a subject, don't demonstrate the Dunning-Kruger effect by writing a book about it and proving your ignorance to everyone else! "
Quote:Certainly being published in the mostly widely respected journal on invertebrate paleontolotgy lends more weight to my arguments (and is far more impressive) than does the fact that you obviously have little, if any science training whatsoever. I might add that if you knew anything about publishing in such journals, then you would know how difficult it is to acheive publication regardless of your background. Even the most respected paleontologists have to wade through the backlog, and convince the peer reviewers of the validity of their arguments. Secondly, your argument that the biblical "kinds" of animals included on Noah's ark refer to the Linean "family" classification is simply ludicrous since it assumes that tribal peoples of the Middle East some 4,000 years ago had any concept of such a classification, when the fact of the matter is that there is simply no evidence whatsoever to support such an assumption. Third, you originally said there were only 50 kinds of dinosaurs, and now you are saying that there are 59. The problem, sir, is that it is arrogant of you to propose an ad hoc nomenclature scheme that no one in the scientific community accepts as valid, particularly since it is by and large meaningless for the purposes of biological classification. And finally, your argument is nothing but a diversion from the fact that there is simply no scientific evidence whatsoever that a global flood ever occurred, not in Noah's time or any other.
Your posts are hilarious. Most widely respected journal by whom? Other Old-Earthers? You also use the word "whatsoever" a lot.
If you read what I actually said (something I don’t think you do much) you will notice two things. I said that the Biblical kind does not directly match up with any one level of classification. It depends on the animal, but it USUALLY matches up with the Family. You will also notice that I said ABOUT 50 kinds of dinosaurs, so the fact that the number is really 59 does not mean much. 59 is a lot closer to 50 than it is to your original assertion of 9000 haha.
So getting published in a journal adds more credence to your argument? Awesome, I have already pointed out that Creation guys have been published in numerous journals on both sides of the aisle. So I totally agree with you. You keep asserting that I have no evidence, despite the fact that I have mountains (literally) of evidence. So nice try.
Quote: That is not what I said. If you are having a problem reading the English language may I suggest the Harbrace Handbook?
Actually I was poking fun at your bad use of the English language. We were talking about dinosaurs and then you started talking about animal classifications but you failed to specify that the subject of your sentence had changed so it looked like you were still talking about dinosaurs.
Quote: Yes, I'm certain that it is quite easy for the rather simple minds in your camp to answer such a question when all you have to do is to pull one out of your ass. Unfortunately for you simpletons, science requires considerably more evidence than the circular argument that "god did
I noticed you didn't try to explain what happened to the Dinosaurs, maybe you are wising up. All the evidence points to exactly what I said happened. You just have to resort to straw man arguments about things I never said. Did I ever say "God did it" in my explanation?
Quote: As a matter of fact, all microcomputers do have a common ancestry in that they are all descended from the IBM x86 format. That you haven't a clue in this regard comes as no surprise whatsoever. Do you deny that all life on Earth is DNA-based?
Haha, seriously? So the computer I am typing this on evolved through natural means from the original IBM? I would not be surprised if you actually believed that. Here I will let you in on a little secret....they were all created. You know how I know that? They all contain information, and no un-intelligent natural process has ever been observed to increase information. By all means though, keep believing that computers evolved, it's just as silly as believing life on Earth has.
Quote: First of all, I didn't originate the theory of evolution. Sorry to disappoint you. Secondly, DNA is the very pinnacle of evolutionary theory. If you don't believe that DNA affects morphology, I suggest you pick up a book on genetics and read it, because, damn, that is just about the dumbest statement I've ever heard a creationist make. And that's saying a lot. Faith is a belief in something for which there is no proof. Religion is faith-based. Science is not, unless you are truly stupid enough to suggest that it takes an act of faith to understand the laws of physics. And finally, if you are so anti-science, why are you using it to post these absurd messages? If you truly want to portray yourself as a purist, why not sell everything you own that owes its existence to science (that'd be pretty much everything you own), and become truly pure (and leave the science to those of us who actually understand it)?
Someone is getting desperate. You are either intentionally misrepresenting what I said, or I am using too big of words for you. I never said DNA does not effect Morphology, I said there has never been a natural increase in information at the DNA level that effects Morphology. That statement still stand un-refuted.
I also never said I am anti-science, I just don't worship it like you do.
I don't understand Science huh? That's funny, last week I just got promoted to the lead in teaching our CE courses for our...wait for it...Scientists. Apparently the US Government disagrees with you.
If you want to define faith that way then go ahead, but it is not the definition the Bible uses. So to use it to argue against religious people is another logical fallacy. Richard Dawkins even admits he has faith that his wife loves him. Is there no evidence of this?
Quote: Morphology. If this word is too big for you, buy a dictionary.
Haha, I was hoping you'd say morphology. I know enough about logic to know that using Morphology as evidence for Evolution is the good old logical fallacy of affirming the consequent. So keep doing it, it makes your argument beyond easy to refute. Are all of your beliefs based on invalid logic? Or just the ones you post on here?
Quote: They are in the textbooks. Clue- the Bible is not a science textbooks, so obviously you won't find them there.
Check out this definition of Archosaurs...
•Archosaurs (Greek for 'ruling lizards') are a group of diapsid amniotes represented by modern birds and crocodilians. This group also includes extinct non-avian dinosaurs, pterosaurs and relatives of crocodiles.
So when I asked you wehre Dinosaurs came from you pretty much just told me they came from Dinosaurs? That makes a lot of sense. I will try it again, where did the Dinosaurs really come from?
Quote: It is not an assumption. All you have to do is meet me at the Creation museum for an afternoon geology field trip and all your questions can be answered. It is not an assumption. Not all layers of strata were laid down "like we observed with Mt. Sty. Helens". In fact, most were not laid down in such a fashion. Sedimentary rocks and volcanic rocks are easily distinguichable and have unrelated origins. Secondly, we can measure the rate and modality of deposition in modern sediments and compare them to ancient sediments. This is called science, a notion that apparently escaped you.
You keep talking about meeting you at the Creation Museum, however if you can't give me any evidence on here why would I waste my time and money flying across the country and expect a different result? Hmm, so the mud flows caused by Mt. St. Helens didn't lay down any sedimentary rock? These mud flows didn't carve any canyons? I am thinking most geologists who work in that area would disagree with that assertion. So you are just assuming that the gradual processes that lay down layers today are exactly the same as the processes that laid them down in the past? There are numerous secular Geologists who disagree with that assumption. You are assuming something we have never observed happens more often than events we do actually observe, and you are calling this Science? I guess I just have a more strict definition of Science than you, because to me what you are doing is not Science at all.
Quote: What evidence, where? Are you saying that all lake sediments are deposited in catastrophic events? All ocean sediments are deposited in catastrophic events? If they were, we wouldn't see tens of thousands of feet of undisturbed sediments in nearly every corner of the globe. We would see highly disturbed strata. You do realize that the strata that Mt. St. Helens produced is chaotic and highly disturbed, right? of course you don't because you don't have a clue.
I do realize, I also realize that the Strata in the Grand Canyon is also highly disturbed. So thanks for providing me with more evidence! Even Stephen Jay Gould disagreed with your gradual uniformitarian ideas. He was hardly a Creationist.
Just off the top of my head there is loads of flood evidence...
Dinosaurs buried alive while fighting
Polystratic fossils
Huge amounts of bent but unbroken strata
Dinosaurs buried while giving birth
Coral buried upside down and unattached
Fish fossilized while eating other fish
Disagreeing radiometric dates
Fossils found in jumbles, not layers.
Huge boulders in the bottom of the grand canyon that are not moved by the Colorado River even in flood seasons.
Large bent but unbroken veins of coal
Quote:You might be able to push that lie on people in your camp. It isn't going to pass the smell test here, I'm afraid.
Notice you didn't give a reason, nice. Willful ignorance is never an excuse, and certainly not Science. No wonder you don't work in your field.
Quote: This is what passes for evidence in creationist circles? I've drill thousands of wells, logged thousands of feet of rock cores, and described hundreds of miles of rock outcrops in thirteen states. And I'm just one of thousands of geologists who have done the same. Got anything like that?
So you have directly observed evidence of a global flood, this does not add any validity to your un-observed claims that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. Observation always trumps bad inductive reasoning, sorry.
Quote: You have observation? Ha! You have about three pages of text from one ancient book of questionable provenence that was not written by any of your so-called eye witnesses, who, in fact, we don't know even existed. If you want to see all the evidence against your claims, I suggest you visit the geology section of the Library of Congress. Their collection is the largest on the planet, and were written by real people, many of whom are still alive. Or you could meet me at the Creation Museum and I can provide you with an entire afternoon of direct observation in the field.
You mean a book that is used in Archeology more than any other ancient book. Maybe archeologists aren't real Scientists?
As to the Library of Congress, how do you know they were written by real people? Apparently you think scripture was written by "fake" people, how do you know this is not the case with your beloved articles? Did you see these people write every one of these articles? Kind of sucks when your same ridiculous standards are applied to yourself huh? The Global Flood Model is the only model that can explain ALL the evidence we observe.
Quote:You should probably take this up more with the people who translated the Bible into English, not the original inspired text (which was in Hebrew).
Actually, sonny, as far as we can tell the original text was written in Greek. There are no hebraic texts which pre-date the Septuagint which only dates from c 275 BC. That's what made the Dead Sea Scrolls so important. They are the earliest "Hebrew" texts available and date from the mid 2d century BC to the Mid first century AD. Of course, some of them are written in Greek and Aramaic.
Kindly go ask you 'experts' to provide you with examples of the original 'hebrew' version. Let's see what kind of answers you get.
Should be good for a laugh.
Who is “we”? Obviously you are not talking about Biblical Scholars or Historians when you say “we”. You see, this is why I don't think Atheists are qualified to comment on Scripture, they always get their facts wrong. If you had your facts straight you would know that Jesus himself preached from texts that were far older than you just said they were. You would also know that these texts were written in Hebrew. Only the new testament was originally written in Greek. The Bible's Old Testament comes directly from Hebrew Scripture that was all written in Hebrew (many of which by Moses). This is why if you wanted to be an Old Testament Scholar you would take many courses in Hebrew and if you wanted to be a New Testament Scholar you would take courses in Koine Greek. Thanks for playing.
(November 3, 2010 at 10:37 pm)orogenicman Wrote:
Quote:Did your "B.S.-meter" go off while you were typing this?
It certainly went off when I read the following...
Quote:If it did not then maybe you need to get it looked at. Obviously genetics is not your strong point. Where did I say anything about races? Talk about strawman arguments.
You tell me to stay on topic and yet you bring in Adolf Hitler (A Darwinst btw)? I am sure you are aware that Darwin believed that Europeans were vastly superior to Blacks and he predicted the Blacks would be exterminated along with the other great apes right? So don't lecture me about racism, at least the Bible realized that all races are still humans and not different species like Darwin believed.
Anywways, back to my original point which you obviously didn't comprehend, so I will keep this very very simple for you. As humans genetic material replicates it does so with errors. It accumulates these errors over time. Outside events can also increase entropy and increase the rate at which these errors occur. Humans would have been created with a pure genome free of error. As more generations accumulate, these errors would also accumulate so our DNA is not a pure today as it would have been in the time of Noah. Pretty simple 7th grade stuff. Any geneticist will tell you that our genome today has more errors and harmful mutations in it than our great grandfather's would have. You should probably avoid genetics from now on.
If you still don't understand this I will use a really simple analogy for you. If you right a computer code for a software program, you can run that program for long periods of time without experiencing any problems. However, when you copy that program errors occur in the replication. So a copy of a copy of a copy of the original code will crash more often and experience far more problems than tthe original program because it was more "pure". Get it? Kind of funny though, since you are a Darwinist you actually believe that you could start off with a floppy of code and copy it enough times and end up with Windows Vista, just a side note haha.
So when someone says that "nobody could build a boat that large out of only wood!", and the fact that the Chinese did built a boat the same size out of wood is irrelevant? I see how you form your arguments now, ignore the evidence that refutes your claims. Nice.
The DNA of all species studied to date have mutations and copy errors. Furthermore, many fossils contain gross morphologies that clearly indicate the presence of genetic mutations. As such, no species is "pure", per your definition. Your argument actually supports evolution, dude. Oh, and whether the Chinese (the most advanced civilization of its day) built large boats is irrelevant to whether or not one was actually built by a nomadic tribesman in the Middle East, nor does it address the fact that there is no evidence for a global flood, much less the fact that no ship today can hold two of every "kind" of animal, much less two of every species. Boy, you are dumb.
There you go talking about Genetics again, clearly something you know nothing about. Where did I say that not all species experience mutations? Haha. Earlier genetic information would have LESS of these mutations than genetic information today. This is evident when we compare earlier generation's DNA compared to later generation's DNA. So of course Noah's DNA would have less mutation than mine does, so it would be more "pure". My point stand un-refuted since you completely missed it.
Mutation is not evidence of Evolution, sorry. It does not produce new and increased information.
So first it was "NOBODY can build a boat that big!", now it is "Nobody (except the Chinese) can build a boat that big!"- moving the goal posts again, nice.
(November 4, 2010 at 2:44 am)Loki_999 Wrote: Oh boy. Your post has so many problems it would take a day to dissect it all. Others are trying... However, I will pick up on the following points.
Ignorance is something to be hidden not flaunted. You obviously have no concept of what peer review means and its implications. Tiberius made a good example in the other thread and I will mimic him here.
Quote:The Earth was created last Thursday by God
Prove me wrong! Its not peer reviewed but don't worry about that eh? What? You remember last Thursday? Nah, that's just God fucking with you man. He created you (and everything else) last Thursday, memories of an earlier life, everything. Prove me wrong!
Oh boy, someone needs to study up on the nature of “proof”. Proof is never used in the Life or Origin Sciences; it is only used in Mathematics. Well that was easy enough lol.
Quote: Jesus fucking christ. Again displaying your complete ignorance of the scientific process. That is right, we don't know for sure and the scientists disagree and argue and publish papers and call each other names. This is the scientific process.
What the scientific process does is comes up with hypothesis until such a time (if ever) one of them can be proven or at least be reasonably certain of being more or less accurate, then it gets upgraded to being a theory (and I hope you understand the correct meaning of the word theory.
What the scientific process does not do is insert "God" as the answer to things we do not understand. This is the route to stagnation as then you can explain everything and no need for further inquiry. It also does not base scientific theories on things written centuries/millennia (eg: the bible) ago unless they are verifiable. Hypotheses, sure, why not? But not things we accept as fact. For example, while we have no proof for this, you could hypothesize that people did indeed live longer a few thousand years ago because it says so in the bible. It won't be accepted as scientific fact though until it can be corroborated with some evidence.
Let me expound on scientific process vs theistic acceptance further. You seem to like using the internet and your computer to talk on forums. Now, for computers to work one of the requirements is power, specifically electricity. Now, let us go back in time a couple of centuries to when people started experimenting with controlling electricity. What would have happened if everyone was really theistic.
Theist 1: "Where does lightening come from?"
Theist 2: "God"
Theist 1: "Can we control it? Generate it? Could be useful!"
Theist 2: "No, only God has the right and power to do this. To try and control it would be heretical and a sin"
Theist 1: "Oh, bugger, so we will never have Internet porn then?"
Theist 2: "No. Now stop talking and help me push my cart. I'm sure there must be a better design for wheels than a square"
Finally...
And yes, regarding your not providing of a list, well excuse me, but if you are going to claim it is possible that Noah built an ark big enough (to the exact specifications) and claim there are only a certain number of "kinds" that needed to be on the ark, then surely you must know what each of these "kinds" are. Otherwise how can you be so certain about it? I read through several of those apologetics articles on Noah and they are all making some sort of assumptions (different assumptions as well... i thought you all had access to the same sources and the same ultimate truth).
I suspect the real reason why there is no list is because if someone did produce a fixed list then within about 1 second of it being posted biologists would already spot so many holes in the list of "kinds" that it would be very embarrassing for the creationists.
Calling people names is part of the Scientific Process? That’s news to me.
You are absolutely correct; the “God of the gaps” argument is not a good argument. It’s a good thing I was not using that argument huh? You are making a category error by confusing mechanism and agency. Filling in the mechanism gaps does not reduce the need for an agent.
There are two kinds of gaps too, those that get smaller the more we learn, and those that get bigger the more we learn. The God of the gaps is the God of the second kind. The more we learn about the complexity of life and nature, the greater the need for a God to create it. Newton used Science to increase his love and faith in God, not diminish it. Yet he was one of the greatest Scientists the World has known.
Whitehead’s hypothesis states anyways that Modern Science directly originated out of Religion, particularly the reformation. Religion gives people a reason to seek the answers, it gives them the expectation that things will “make sense”. It also gives them the laws of logic that they can use to gain knowledge.
As to your silly little dialogue, it’s a straw man argument and you know it. I can make one myself just to demonstrate how easy it is.
Two bugs are sitting on a bus and are having a discussion…
Bug A: “Wow isn’t this bus amazing, I wonder who created it?”
Bug B: “Haha, that’s silly nobody created this bus! You fool”
Bug A: “How do you know nobody created it?”
Bug B: “Well none of the natural processes I have observed inside the bus could create it.”
Bug A: “So? Why would you use only the processes you observe inside the Bus? The people at the factory told me they created it.”
Bug B: “Haha! You are no scientist, people at the plant, that’s ridiculous, maybe a flying spaghetti monster created the Bus!”
So you can continue to pretend that Naturalists are the only “real” Scientists but this argument is just as absurd today as it was yesterday. Countless religious people devote their lives to Science. They just don’t worship it like you do, it has limitations.
(November 4, 2010 at 9:49 am)Thor Wrote:
Quote:There are "eyewitness accounts" that the flood occurred?
Well, since only 8 people survived this "flood", then I guess you must have some type of original written account from one of these survivors.
Right?
Why does it have to be written? When a police officer writes down a verbal account of what happened from a witness does he say, “Oh sorry, could you write this down? It is only accurate when you write it down.”?
Rather, we can build a model from what scripture claims and test this model with the evidence we observe. This is just as valid of Science as any other, develop a model and test your model. The evidence completely confirms the Biblical account of the flood.
Quote:There must "direct observation" that no flood took place? And how exactly do you come up with that? Do you expect us to provide ancient writings where the authors wrote something like, "No flood today."? But we don't even need this! If there was a global flood of the magnitude you believe within the last 10,000 years, there would be archaeological and geological evidence. There is none.
Nope you are just making claims about the age of the Earth that have no direct observation. Rather you use inductive reasoning (the weakest form of reasoning) to try and suggest the age of the Earth; where the Creation side has direct observation plus the evidence, so they have a superior theory.
[quote='thesummerqueen' pid='103490' dateline='1288892963']
[quote='theophilus' pid='103489' dateline='1288892074']
If it is this difficult then do you think the editors would even bother to consider articles which disagree with their opinions? If someone presented evidence against evolution they would be more likely to reject it without even checking its validity.
Disagreement is not automatic grounds for a science conspiracy to lazily suppress knowledge from the public.
ID'ers love to shout that they are summarily dismissed just because scientists disagree with them and won't give them the time of day, yet they never manage to produce the articles that were 'rejected.'
We learn new shit every day and some scientist or other is bound to disagree with it. If things weren't validated despite personal opinions we wouldn't have any advancement. Scientists are also human, but I'd be willing to wager the ridiculously small amount of money I have in my bank account that not all of them have the middle school self-esteem or mindset that would cause them to reject a piece of information just because they disliked it. People do occasionally mature and work for the betterment of humanity and knowledge.
Actually there are numerous instances where articles have been rejected on improper basis, and not on scientific grounds. Dr. Robert Carter submitted an article on Mitochondrial DNA and dating the Human Species. He is relatively new to the Creation scene so the reviewers did not recognize him as a Creationist. However, two other Creation Scientists helped him prepare some of the experiments so when their names were recognized the article was rejected for publishing. So being the clever Creationists they are, they just took the other two guys off the paper and left Dr. Carter’s name. What do you know! The paper got published even though the only difference was the names on it. Pretty obvious reviewers are not doing there job and critiquing the science but rather engaging in censorship.
(November 4, 2010 at 2:08 pm)Thor Wrote: If there was evidence of a worldwide flood taking place in the past 10,000 years, scientists would say so! Unlike believers who are desperate for "proof" of their Biblical fairy tales, scientists have no such agenda.
That's funny you would say that because Scientists DO say so, just not the ones you like to listen to. I could play the same silly games you play on here and see how you like it. "There are no reputable scientists who support an Old Earth." There I just did it.
(November 3, 2010 at 6:41 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Seriously? So since all software uses binary code then all computers must have evolved from a common ancestor?
The Colossus machines were electronic computing devices used by British codebreakers to help read encrypted German messages during World War II. These were the world's first programmable, digital, electronic, computing devices. They used vacuum tubes (thermionic valves) to perform the calculations.
(November 10, 2010 at 3:30 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote:
(November 3, 2010 at 6:41 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Seriously? So since all software uses binary code then all computers must have evolved from a common ancestor?
The Colossus machines were electronic computing devices used by British codebreakers to help read encrypted German messages during World War II. These were the world's first programmable, digital, electronic, computing devices. They used vacuum tubes (thermionic valves) to perform the calculations.
I would argue that Charles Babbage's Difference engine precedes that by far. You haven't lived if you haven't seen this awesome machine in operation.
![[Image: Untitled2_zpswaosccbr.png]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i1140.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fn569%2Fthesummerqueen%2FUntitled2_zpswaosccbr.png)
![[Image: cinjin_banner_border.jpg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=oggtheclever.com%2Fcinjin_banner_border.jpg)
