ShortNews
+ + + 3 BRANDNEW NewsTickers for your Website! + + + easy configurable in less than 1 Minute + + + GET'EM NOW! + + +

   Home | Join | Submit News | MyShortNews | HighScores | FAQ'S | Forums 0 Users Online   
   
                 01/16/2018 10:17 AM  
  ShortNews Search
search all Channels
RSS feeds
  ShortNews User Poll
Are you excited about the holiday season?
  Latest Events
  7.373 Visits   4 Assessments  Show users who Rated this:
Quality:Very Good
Back to Overview  
05/26/2007 08:00 PM ID: 62700 Permalink   

Dinosaurs on Noah's Ark?

 

A new museum in Kentucky dedicated to the belief in Creationism depicts dinosaurs co-existing with human beings and even surviving the Bible's world-wide flood by hopping aboard Noah's Ark.

The flood is also shown to have carved the Grand Canyon in a matter of days, and Cain is said to have married his sister in order to help populate the Earth.

People opposed to the belief that the world is 6,000 years old plan to picket the museum's opening, and an airplane flew over the building during a news conference trailing a banner reading "Thou Shalt Not Lie."

 
  Source: www.reuters.com  
    WebReporter: l´anglais Show Calling Card      
  Recommendation:  
ASSESS this news: BLOCK this news. Reason:
   
  119 Comments
  
  lol  
 
ok now that is funny
 
  by: groomsy     05/26/2007 08:16 PM     
  lol  
 
lol man i'm going to be laughing all day on that one..

for one the plausibility of the ark is shoddy at best... and secondly dinosaurs didn't exist 600 years ago. thirdly water cannot carve a canyon in 40 days, secondly there never was a global flood; there simply isn't enough water/ice on earth to make this happen.

"A Gallup poll last year showed almost half of Americans believe that humans did not evolve but were created by God in their present form within the last 10,000 years."

lol gotta love this... this just in: "half of americans lack the most basic knowledge of science"...
 
  by: havoc666     05/26/2007 08:18 PM     
  typo  
 
6000* years ago

**there never was a global flood (there shouldn't be a secondly there).

i'm preety sure the closest thing earth has ever seen to a global flood was at a point in time where flowing magma covered huge masses of land.
 
  by: havoc666     05/26/2007 08:21 PM     
  @havoc  
 
just because they prove some things doesnt mean they have proved everything. God or whatever you dont believe in could have his say in Evolution

whether or not its true, noone will ever really know
 
  by: groomsy     05/26/2007 08:23 PM     
  pff  
 
of course its in kentucky.
 
  by: Thearns   05/26/2007 08:23 PM     
  Of course?  
 
I had my chips on Kansas!
 
  by: caution2     05/26/2007 08:30 PM     
  @groomsy  
 
"just because they prove some things doesnt mean they have proved everything. God or whatever you dont believe in could have his say in Evolution"

science never claimed to have proven everything.

perhaps, though that would imply "god" infact does exist, whereas such has never been proven, which is why its called faith (belief without evidence is most litterialy the defintion of faith, likewise if you have proof you no-longer need faith, as as that point "god" would become part of science rather than antithesis of it)... the only way i could believe in "god" is if "god" were merely energy or the sum of the universe... though this removes the concept of cognition on the part of "god", meaning "god" would quite litterally be nature, not an intelligent designer, nor supernature, and certianly not outside the laws of science.

"whether or not its true, noone will ever really know"

well if no-one will ever know, its likely it cannot be know, if something cannot be known it cannot be proven, if something cannot be proven chances are it isn't true.
 
  by: havoc666     05/26/2007 08:42 PM     
  ...  
 
short of "god" being nature, esspecially he side of nature we don't understand fully "god" would need to be proven as a being for me to believe in it. i'm not big on superstition.
 
  by: havoc666     05/26/2007 08:44 PM     
  @thearns, caution2  
 
I heard on the radio yesterday that the museum's creators (no pun) chose its location because it would be less than a day's drive for about two-thirds of the U.S. population -- scary how much thought they put into that.
 
  by: l´anglais     05/26/2007 08:55 PM     
  Mindless Comments Above.  
 
There is a God-He is The God of the Bible. All people (will) know this. All dead people know it. Christians know that fact now and worship Him. It's time the atheistic world comes to acknowledge that Christians are worshipping the Only True God and Jesus Christ Whom He has sent. Jesus Christ came for sinners like me and yes like you. I've seen the museum and its exhibits. Awesome. If you saw the same, you would agree. And though you would enter as an unbeliever, after reading the content, perhaps your Creator, the God of the Bible, would impress upon your heart His truth, detailed in the museum you are currently slamming.
Thanks for listening.
Asa

P.S. I'm a Kentuckian, can spell, even wear shoes! And I must say to you and the world I Love Jesus Christ, your Maker and mine. Seek Him out!
 
  by: asaya   05/26/2007 09:29 PM     
  @asaya  
 
You can't be real, you just can't.
 
  by: fballer23   05/26/2007 09:41 PM     
  Very Real  
 
...just like your Creator.
 
  by: asaya   05/26/2007 09:44 PM     
  God is  
 
so Good and filled with kindness for not casting atheists into a quick judgement. We will all see eventually that He was incredibly patient with us all.

Former Atheist,
Asa
Eyes wide open
 
  by: asaya   05/26/2007 09:46 PM     
  No ether  
 
God is not nature. God is not female. God is not merely a collective conciousness. He is only 1. He is not a mystery. He is not violent. He is not superstition, He is not for fanatics. He is not religious.
He is Personal, Knowable! He is The God of The Bible and the One who came to earth 2000 yrs to save sinners.
He is The Lord, The King, The Savior, The Creator, The Eternal One.
Asa
 
  by: asaya   05/26/2007 09:56 PM     
  @asaya  
 
Ok.... *signals men in white coats*
 
  by: ukcn001XYZ   05/26/2007 10:15 PM     
  Interesting  
 
If creationists wish to put their view forward then I say let them, I don't believe a word of it, but I still don't think they should be criticised.

@havoc
RE: Global flood and amount of water on earth; at the time when the bible was written they thought the earth was flat, they didn't know 80% of it existed at all. Therefore when there was localised flooding on a large land mass (now several countries) they believed the world had flooded.

@asaya
There was a time that civilisation believed the world was flat (it's a sphere), that we could never fly(note: airplane), that god turned the tides (moon's gravitational pull), that god made the sun come up (note solar system), that shooting starts were more than just space debris. Science has explained, in turn, each of these and put us where we are today in terms of progress, understanding and society. Don't write is off so quickly, you owe to it your lifestyle and possibly your entire existence.
 
  by: Maxx20     05/26/2007 10:16 PM     
  @ asaya : Enough Already  
 
Take the preaching somewhere else.

You want to discuss this thread in context of the subject then fine, but take the crap that obviously no one here wishes to read (observed in thread after thread of other preaching attempts) back to church.
 
  by: Discarded Vet   05/26/2007 10:19 PM     
  Science, God  
 
and all things like evolution, alien life, and traveling to the future by slowing down time for yourself can co-exist. Intelligent design is B.S. but there's a reason things are complicated and unknown. Could you imagine a world where you knew everything? Life wouldn't be any fun, you'd never learn anything or have new experiences, you'd pretty much be 1/3 God.

The Bible was written by rich, white men.
 
  by: qhobbes   05/26/2007 10:23 PM     
  @asaya  
 
"Mindless Comments Above."

oh the following should be good if that comment is any indication...lol

"There is a God-He is The God of the Bible. All people (will) know this. All dead people know it."

ah conjecture based on faith; the worst kind... do you have a non-religious source for your claim or are you just going to hide behind faith and the bible like countless millions before you?

"Christians know that fact now and worship Him."

actually no they don't look up the word faith... belief without eveidence... therefor they don't know for a fact, they can say they do, but that negates faith... and if you read that damn book faith is a requirement, meaning evidence doesn't matter in religion, infact questioning "god" is a sin in and of itself.

"It's time the atheistic world comes to acknowledge that Christians are worshipping the Only True God and Jesus Christ Whom He has sent."

that require proof, got any? and as for the one and only "god" the majority of the world disagrees with that... christianity and its various sects are the majority religion, but the majority of people are not christian, infact i believe christians and catholic make up less that 25% of the population of earth, or about the population of china, but they are not the majority.

"Jesus Christ came for sinners like me and yes like you."

too bad he what sins are to me aren't sins to you... for instance do you consider stupidity a sin... how about ignorance?... also may sins are only requred to be forgiven by me... not a 3rd party that cannot be bother to prove its own existance...

"I've seen the museum and its exhibits. Awesome. If you saw the same, you would agree."

no i don't find bold faced lies to be "awesome"... how much longer is religion going to keep deluding people into fairy tales?

"And though you would enter as an unbeliever, after reading the content, perhaps your Creator, the God of the Bible, would impress upon your heart His truth, detailed in the museum you are currently slamming.
Thanks for listening.
Asa"

lol are you this foolish in person or is this an online only foolishness... i read the bible when i was 8 it was rediculas then and its even more rediculas to me now.

btw, truth might also be another word you want to look up.

its time to drop the bible and pick up an education book... if educational books aren't your thing i can recommend books like the bible for you... the lord of the rings series for instance, jack and the bean stock, any texts on the scientology, mother goose, books about the stork (baby delivering birds...lol).

"P.S. I'm a Kentuckian, can spell, even wear shoes! And I must say to you and the world I Love Jesus Christ, your Maker and mine. Seek Him out!"

Jesus loves you too... IN SPANDEX...lol

my "maker" isn't your "maker"... my "makers" were sherry and ken... neither call themselves "god" btw, one is an agnostic, the other a prodestant (not in that order btw), and me well i'm neither, i'm an atheist/ modern satanist... if you can't understand how that work don't trouble your little head, science seems to be difficult enough without getting into personal philosophy
 
  by: havoc666     05/26/2007 10:33 PM     
  @asaya  
 
"God is
so Good and filled with kindness for not casting atheists into a quick judgement. We will all see eventually that He was incredibly patient with us all."

lol its definately time to read that bible of yours... your calling "god" good... the bible explictly states "god" is vengeful... not to mention the kings of murder if you belive in him... recall that flood killing almost all life on earth, which for the record never actually happened, simply fo the fact that i mentioned before in that theres not enough water on earth to do such.

and about the olve leaf that just show how foolish people of the time were... salt water utterly destroys most plant life yet we are expected to believe that this would not be a case after 40 days of being buried under salt water... not to mention it would elimate the existing fresh water, so survival after the ark would be nearly impossible as i don't think they had desalinization machines back then...lol

"Former Atheist,
Asa
Eyes wide open"

i doubt this on both accounts.

but humor me, what (more often who would be more appropiate) caused the transition?
 
  by: havoc666     05/26/2007 10:42 PM     
  @asaya & maxx20  
 
"No ether
God is not nature. God is not female. God is not merely a collective conciousness. He is only 1. He is not a mystery. He is not violent. He is not superstition, He is not for fanatics. He is not religious.
He is Personal, Knowable! He is The God of The Bible and the One who came to earth 2000 yrs to save sinners.
He is The Lord, The King, The Savior, The Creator, The Eternal One.
Asa"

no violent...read the bible and see just how wrong you are...

god is not nature... well no shit... i can prove nature...lol, nature isn't attributed supernatural power that have no basis by the laws of science whereas nature does.

"god" is not female... that depend who you ask... in genesis "god" is plural, meanin there s more than one and example is "man and woman WE created them in OUR image"... other say "god" is genderless.

he's not a mystery/superstition... good than you should have no problem proven "god's" existance scientifically

jesus came to earth 2000 years ago... as yes from the virgin birth, in human this scientifically unfounded... unless mary was hermaphrodite... in which case she was an abomination according to the bible.


@maxx20,

" Interesting
If creationists wish to put their view forward then I say let them, I don't believe a word of it, but I still don't think they should be criticised."

indeed, except no-one is above critism, not me, not you and certianly not people they spew foolishness into open forum.

"@havoc
RE: Global flood and amount of water on earth; at the time when the bible was written they thought the earth was flat, they didn't know 80% of it existed at all. Therefore when there was localised flooding on a large land mass (now several countries) they believed the world had flooded."

bingo... your correct... devine knowledge at its finest.

"@asaya
There was a time that civilisation believed the world was flat (it's a sphere), that we could never fly(note: airplane), that god turned the tides (moon's gravitational pull), that god made the sun come up (note solar system), that shooting starts were more than just space debris. Science has explained, in turn, each of these and put us where we are today in terms of progress, understanding and society. Don't write is off so quickly, you owe to it your lifestyle and possibly your entire existence."

you forgot my favorite example lightning... its my favorite example for specific reason, when "god" is angered he cast lighting, why do churches have lightning rods? of course we know now that lighting is static electricity... and we still don't fully understand lightning, and some of its unique forms, ball lightning, spirits (might be sprits, i forget), and elves... i'm not sure who they hell coined the last two of why but i can only imagine drugs were involved...lol
 
  by: havoc666     05/26/2007 11:00 PM     
  Humoring you  
 
Havoc777,
The bible teaches that when people are transformed by having their sins removed, they are also enlightened to "see" what true existence is and what life is all about. So, the "Who" is God Himself that changed me.
Did you I humor you sufficiently?
ukcn: white coats are coming
ghobbes: not by rich, white men, buy Holy men of old who were taught by THe Holy Spirit.
Discarded Vet: it's the atheists that seems to be preaching. But fellow atheists of course cannot perceive that. It seems that according to the atheists, only believers preach.

In Truth,
Keepin' it real,
Asa
 
  by: asaya   05/26/2007 11:08 PM     
  @ asaya  
 
I wasn't talking to the athiest.
I was talking to YOU.

But then, you knew that, yet chose to negate that fact with an attempt to defer focus with negative aspects of another sect.

Yep ....... yer Christian alright.
 
  by: Discarded Vet   05/26/2007 11:13 PM     
  @Everyone  
 
Stop bashing creationism if you don't know the science they use to make their determinations.

For one the global flood as been proved scientically for years. It hasn't been proven that it made the grand canyon, but it hasn't been disproven either.

The flood happened from a layer of Earth's atmosphere that contained a layer of water. Yes Earth use to be a "bubble".

The age of the earth theories represent other scientific studies. Such as the largest desert in the world is 4200 years old according to mathmatical computer models. The oldest tree on earth is about the same.
This would be accurate with the histocally biblical timeline for the flood.

Do some research the water atmosphere created a global hyperbolic affect. This accounts for extinctions of certain creatures who no longer had the ability to breath after the loss of the layer. If you do any research on dinosaurs their projected Lung capacity is not enough to sustain thier massive size. This also accounts for other certain scientifically provable biblical facts. Things grow larger in hyperbolic enviroments. Including Humans. This has been proven many times over. I.E. "Giants" Could have existed. Although I believe scientific estimates for hypberbolic humans still restricts them to 12 feet or so. Also it extends life expectancy by a yet to be determined amount. Flies only live a few days, and have been seen to live for 6+ Months in hyberbolic conditions. Anyways meaning this supports the larger older humans of the bible.

But yeah I'm also gonna debunk the dinosaurs on the arc theory. Because even according to theories which support creationism's view, the Dinosaurs would have suffocated.

I'm also not saying that the bible proves all this. I'm saying science does. Even so though. Even if human ancestry and the flood in the bible is accurate. It doesn't prove genesis, or any other theological concepts from the good book.
 
  by: Tetsuru Uzuki     05/26/2007 11:19 PM     
  @asaya  
 
You're making rather grandiose claims here. So why should we accept your word for it?
Admit it, you wouldn't simply allow anyone to make the opposing claims, would you? You wouldn't believe someone who claimed to know 'for a fact' that your god doesn't exist, would you? So why should we listen to you?

Got any evidence?
And no, 'I got a feeling' isn't evidence.
 
  by: Ec5618   05/26/2007 11:22 PM     
  @ asaya - BTW  
 
It's athiests that seem to be preaching? What planet are you on?

I never see athiests preaching anything. I see and hear the likes of you preaching daily. Everywhere I go there you are IN MY FACE, even so much as to walk up to my damn car and start preaching. Damn I love pepper spray !!

Do you people not have the common sense to realize this is WHY people are starting to literally hate you? It's not becasue of the god you worship, it's because of the way you attempt to interject it into everyone elses life. You won't shut-up - people ask, tell, beg, threaten you to do so, but you won't quit.

If your Jesus is real, I highly doubt he would antagonize the non-believer in such a fashion.

Talk about counter-productivity.
 
  by: Discarded Vet   05/26/2007 11:22 PM     
  @Asaya  
 
Dear Asaya,

Go to hell.

Sincerely,

Luc1ddr3am
 
  by: luc1ddr3am     05/26/2007 11:34 PM     
  @asaya  
 
"Humoring you
Havoc777,"

oh how cute you can mess with my name.. oh i can do that too, aliya (i-lie-ya)...lol

666 is part of the religious superstition, 6 being the number of man (in wicca 6 in the divisiable diameter of a practicianers pentagram, typically 6 or 12 feet) 6 threescore being the the mark of the beast; the ultimate representation of man, while modern satanism is about embracing human nature rather than supressing it as most religions try to... not that you care but that why thats on the end of my handle.


"The bible teaches that when people are transformed by having their sins removed, they are also enlightened to "see" what true existence is and what life is all about. So, the "Who" is God Himself that changed me."

and true existance is believing in unknowns, unprovables ect... sound like self-deceit to me... and life is about worship rather than living al of a sudden... seems like an aweful waste of time and energy, to serve something that scientifically doesn't exist... and i assume by your standards enlightment can only come from religion as opposite to knowledge/wisdom, tolerance ect.

"Did you I humor you sufficiently?"

yeah i guess we can call it that... though if ths was baseball game you'd not be in left feild but totally out of the park... or as another phrase goes... off the reservation.


"ghobbes: not by rich, white men, buy Holy men of old who were taught by THe Holy Spirit."

and what make these self-proclaim holy men any more holy than say me or you... hell can call myself the holy of holy too... doesn't make it true.

"Discarded Vet: it's the atheists that seems to be preaching. But fellow atheists of course cannot perceive that. It seems that according to the atheists, only believers preach."

oh man your daft... completely daft...

every comment you've posted in this thread is you preach yet somehow us "non'believers" (for me this is true for some others this is not) are preaching for correcting your ignorance... gotta love how the fundies think.

even your outgoing comments at the end of almost every post is preaching... you belong on the pulpit or sitting subserviently in a pew. you'd fit right in... and the sheeple will love you for it... instead of laughing at or perhaps pitying you.
 
  by: havoc666     05/26/2007 11:49 PM     
  Close  
 
this thread.
 
  by: datsuncaptain1     05/26/2007 11:59 PM     
  @Tetsuru Uzuki  
 
"Stop bashing creationism if you don't know the science they use to make their determinations."

i'll stop "bashing" it then they stop calling superstition science... its appalling and an utter bastardization of what science is and stands for... but then again religion as rarely had any problem with perverting science and other beliefs other than ther own.

"For one the global flood as been proved scientically for years. It hasn't been proven that it made the grand canyon, but it hasn't been disproven either."

lol its not even possible let alone has it been proven... go back to science class and learn something.

"The flood happened from a layer of Earth's atmosphere that contained a layer of water. Yes Earth use to be a "bubble"."

lol, again utter foolishness, earth has always been a ball of rock and metal... the only kind of "bubble" earth has its whats known as the elctro-magnetic feild... but i suppose you'd rather believe whatever the bible has to say about as opposed to the science that makes that possible in the first place... one mass spinning in one direction and the core spinning opposite to the rest of earth... but no... "god" did it... no need for science... its the devils tool after all...lol

"The age of the earth theories represent other scientific studies. Such as the largest desert in the world is 4200 years old according to mathmatical computer models. The oldest tree on earth is about the same.
This would be accurate with the histocally biblical timeline for the flood."

then why do single cell organsm date back 3-4.5 bllion years???

why are the youngest dinosaurs 65 millon years old..

creatonism/ID only takes what science that favors their stance... this is not a scientific practice at all.

also the world oldest deserts are atleast 10,000 years old... your thinking of sandy deserts... not desert as in the actual definition, an extreme environment... technically the north and south poles are deserts neither has not been a desert since atleast before the last ice age

"Do some research the water atmosphere created a global hyperbolic affect. This accounts for extinctions of certain creatures who no longer had the ability to breath after the loss of the layer."

by loss of the layer you mean when earth oxygen levels decreased... and its not that they couldn't breath, its that they weren't gettng enough oxygen to support their size and so they dwarfed... similar is true for dinosaur whe nthe food chain was destroyed by an asteroid impact (thought to have been in modern-day mexico, i believe it was) the animals on the tops of the food chain didn't have enough food to sustain their size and so they too dwarfed.

"If you do any research on dinosaurs their projected Lung capacity is not enough to sustain thier massive size."

only if your comparing that to the current about of oxygen, contrary to the delicate balance belief earth oxygen level are quite a bt lower than then they were 65 millon years about... carbon emission, volcanic eruptions and deforestation all play a role in this.

did you know that the humans oxygen capacity is double that of the amount of oxygen currently in the air; or about 44%.

"This also accounts for other certain scientifically provable biblical facts. Things grow larger in hyperbolic enviroments. Including Humans. This has been proven many times over."

ok another think need to clear up hyperbolic means having the nature of exaggeration... you mean hyperbaric (baric meaning pressure).

anything which derives its energy from oxygen would have a postive effect in a hybaric environment... such as healing is faster, you'd live longer and healthier, though expectng to like more than 100 years is yet again foolish, even with modern medicine we only like an average of 70-75 years,

"I.E. "Giants" Could have existed. Although I believe scientific estimates for hypberbolic humans still restricts them to 12 feet or so. Also it extends life expectancy by a yet to be determined amount. Flies only live a few days, and have been seen to live for 6+ Months in hyberbolic conditions. Anyways meaning this supports the larger older humans of the bible."

giants do exist depending one what you call a giant... if most people are 5 or 6 feet would not someone 7 or 8 feet tall be a giant... i'm 6'2" tall and some people refer to me as a giant.. its relative... its a genetic mutation known as giatantism.

lol your comparing a fly (an insect) in a hyperbaric environment to a human in the same environment... ok first of insects thrive in high oxygen environments, its directly effects their size and life-span, why, they eloved in their earlier stages in extremely oxygenated environment... humans not so much... yes it would benifit us, but no where near the level you seem the be under the impression it would

and btw, flies don't live a day, fruit fly do.

"But yeah I'm also gonna debunk the dinosaurs on the arc theory. Because even accordi
 
  by: havoc666     05/27/2007 12:29 AM     
  Actually Havoc  
 
The ice core samples taken from antartica show there was a massive flood of biblical proportions in earth's past.

That doesn't mean it was THE flood, only that it was A flood.
 
  by: lauriesman     05/27/2007 12:56 AM     
  @lauriesman  
 
Actually, the ice core samples do no such thing. Where did you get such an idea?
 
  by: Ec5618   05/27/2007 01:00 AM     
  god  
 
will you stop arguing with all this u crap, fine Havoc you dont have to believe what you dont want to. let them be. your worse than a damn rightwinged christian forcing your so call nonsense shit down out throats
 
  by: groomsy     05/27/2007 02:09 AM     
  hmm  
 
our throats even
 
  by: groomsy     05/27/2007 02:10 AM     
  @asaya  
 
welcome aboard, I've been here a while and I'm not assuming to teach you anything that you don't already know....but depending on how long you stick around, you should get some good excercise defending the faith. Keep in mind that a few 'theological' discussions go on but many are seen as out of context with the initial topics, so be careful. Mods are fairly lenient but once they've had enough...your toast. I commend you for your dedication, there are Christians who simply avoid these types of interaction. It's not for the faint of heart. There are some intellectuals here, and at the least they can groom your ability to adequately substantiate your viewpoint...that's a good thing. Unfortunately the testimony is 'our' strongest basis for personal faith in Jesus Christ which some simply don't have and Biblically, you know why, show grace and mercy. Enjoy. On topic...
The Bible says that the end times will be like the days of Noah, and it's interesting to me the following: Replica recently built in Holland, Replica being built in Turkey, Evan Almighty,and now this. coincidence? I think not
 
  by: crosimoto     05/27/2007 02:16 AM     
  Man  
 
The nuts are out in full force in this thread.

"Ooo, look at me! The world is only 6 thousand
years old, there was a great flood and that means
that I'm the product of incest!"

Well, at least one of those statements are true.
 
  by: Mister crank     05/27/2007 02:49 AM     
  @groomsy  
 
"will you stop arguing with all this u crap, fine Havoc you dont have to believe what you dont want to. let them be. your worse than a damn rightwinged christian forcing your so call nonsense shit down our throats"

oh i'm sorry this is what adults call debate/discussion... i'm merely correct our misguided friends on their lack of knowledge of science... they can choose to listen or not... their ignorance is of no consequence to me, however when people are so obviously wrong on a scientific basis they should be corrected... if you cannot handle me doing this, simply disreguard my post, i don't force you to read it, however you do have the option of doing so.

perhaps if our resident preachers want to avoid criticism of some of their more illogical beliefs they should avoid putting it on open forum and instead try a fundy christian board where everyone will nod and agree then say praise the lord... unfortunately for people like asaya this is not a church and people will not uniformly believe what they say simply because its in the bible or because there preacher or creationism/ID teacher told them so.
 
  by: havoc666     05/27/2007 03:02 AM     
  Married his sister?  
 
I wonder if these crackpots realise what happens when you "keep it in the family" as it were. The same would apply to the animals. There isnt enough genetic material there.
 
  by: Eidron   05/27/2007 03:12 AM     
  lol  
 
Theres so much stuff agaisnt noahs ark too...

Localized floods in the region I can understand, but it doesnt explain carving the grand canyon in 40 days.

The big thing about 2 aniamls on the ark and then letting them re-populate is, genetic inbreeding. Over time the genetic pool is gonna get so bad the species will die off. Humans too.

Room on the ark too and feeding animals?

Proposed in the bible that it was a worl wide flood. So did noah put regional animals in counties? Like kangaroos in austrila, pandas in china? Moose in north america?

Im sorry but the idea of noahs ark is BS.
 
  by: hunt3r   05/27/2007 03:25 AM     
  Humoring you  
 
Havoc777,
The bible teaches that when people are transformed by having their sins removed, they are also enlightened to "see" what true existence is and what life is all about. So, the "Who" is God Himself that changed me.
Did you I humor you sufficiently?
ukcn: white coats are coming
ghobbes: not by rich, white men, buy Holy men of old who were taught by THe Holy Spirit.
Discarded Vet: it's the atheists that seems to be preaching. But fellow atheists of course cannot perceive that. It seems that according to the atheists, only believers preach.

In Truth,
Keepin' it real,
Asa
 
  by: asaya   05/27/2007 03:25 AM     
  @eidron  
 
"Married his sister?
I wonder if these crackpots realise what happens when you "keep it in the family" as it were. The same would apply to the animals. There isnt enough genetic material there."

this is true however, typically the effect on a single generation is negligable... the problems really start to occur when its done repeatidly over generations.

dog breeders will sometimes mate their dog (the bitch) with one of its male offspring, as it can result in shinier, more beautiful coats of fur, however if done over generation can result in failing organs or weak bones, and i'm sure the list goes on.

and i'm sure they had little knowledge of such effects way back when, a few people might have had a theory about it but it was unlikely common knowledge.
 
  by: havoc666     05/27/2007 03:27 AM     
  ha  
 
*IF*, and thats a big if, If there was a God, I would have to guess its actually the Aztec or Incan Gods or Ra the Sun God.... I mean, they *were* worshipped way before Jesus came along. Of course, this all stems from a time when humans knew absolutely nothing about the universe, and had to substitute their fears and unknown for something that makes sense -- to them.

Of course, everytime there is a thunderstorm, I wonder what the God of Thunder is doing...... pfffttttt

As for "The Great Flood", from reading one thing ages ago, it could have been caused from the Mediterranean being flooded when its opening (Gibralter/Spain?? ) allowed all the water to flow through after breaching.... dunno about the facts, haven't checked it, but if it did happened at that time, it would be a good truth to the story.


1 thing I have to know though.... how the hell do you fit several million animals onto a single boat? I believe the several varieties of Elephant would have had a tough time running over from Africa, and would hog the whole boat to themselves..... not to mention the millions and millions of tonnes of food that would need to brought on board.

REMEMBER: this story is not to be taken literally, it cannot, and if you say "because its in the Bible"...... wow
 
  by: JBish   05/27/2007 03:40 AM     
  hmm  
 
well stupid as it sounds to other people, i have a belief that this planet has been visited since the dawn of this planet's history by highly evolved beings, and also believe our species is a genetic engineering project of theirs as easy labor. So my ideas of noah's great ark and alla that was attributed to testing to see if the highly evolved species could get one of their experiments to do their bidding, knowing that what they're about to do to this planet, abduct or telepathically notify this guy *who thinks these voices are his deity, the capital G-o-d* that there's gonna be a flood *due to some kinda weapon perhaps?* and he needs to stockpile a ship with other species for a *reboot* of the experiment so to speak. Dinosaurs could have been on there, or their species could have evolved bipedally by then and gone underground where they still lie. W00tness.
 
  by: hedk45e   05/27/2007 03:50 AM     
  @lauriesman  
 
You know, it's people like asaya that make me happy we have you here as a regular christian user, instead of her.
 
  by: tellgar     05/27/2007 03:54 AM     
  @JBish  
 
"1 thing I have to know though.... how the hell do you fit several million animals onto a single boat? I believe the several varieties of Elephant would have had a tough time running over from Africa, and would hog the whole boat to themselves..... not to mention the millions and millions of tonnes of food that would need to brought on board."

time for devil advocate... they would need millions of species you could probably fill much of the arc with the 1/2 million different kinds of beetles alone... you would only need a few different species of such, as the inter-species breeding would result in many new forms of beetles, and if they were dispersed in different ecosystems the result would be that much greater... as for elephants a suffiencent number of a single species would probably suffice, as they would natural adapt to their new environment, living in a region long enough will alter genetics and give variation to the animal; also known as speciation, or if unable to die out. as for food... thats the kicker carnivores mixed with omnivores/herbivore and scavengers... the carnivores would be snacking on omnivores and herbivores, after which the scavengers would pick the bones... also some of the larger carnivore like lion, monitor lizards, snakes might even find noah and his family a tasty snack... with 40 days in captive and only 2 of each species or 7 of each for kosher animals you'd have a number of the smaller animals go exinct in a big hurry... of course after the flood you have he problem of destroyed soil from salt water... unless the flood was strictly isolated to freshwater, in which case irreguardless the global flood is yet again impossible as such would mix the fresh water with the salt water, and i think we all know how good salt water is for you in which case you can throw agriculture/horticulture out the window... most plants don't grow in salted area, infact if you want to kill plants, weeds for instance saturate the ground in salt... just don't be surprised if a garden cannot grow after the fact.

also another problem with the ark would be leaking and iron bracing (or for that matter any form of iron metallurgy) wasn't around yet, iron metellurgy is first noted around 1350BCE; a dagger in eygpt.
 
  by: havoc666     05/27/2007 04:07 AM     
  @asaya  
 
If you were a true christian you should know they disprooved 666 as the mark of the beast, and it was in fact mis-translated. The mark is 616, so you should have no problem saying Havoc666's full name.
 
  by: ssxxxssssss   05/27/2007 04:09 AM     
  i wouldnt doubt  
 
that most of the ideas and mettalurgy were taught by advanced outside interference so to speak
 
  by: hedk45e   05/27/2007 04:11 AM     
  @ssxxxssssss  
 
616? i thought that had to do Roman emperor Nero
 
  by: havoc666     05/27/2007 04:29 AM     
  PS Havoc, Asaya  
 
Havoc - You should know better than to argue with faith. ;-) (Reasons which are obvious if you consider the meaning of true faith.)

Asaya - All theological analysis aside personally I don't care what religion anyone follows but I do ask they blow it out their ear when it comes to that pushy 'preachy' attitude. Your presumptuous initial statements about your religion only tell me that you go on through your life actually believing that anyone not of your faith is unfortunate and will never live to their fullest until they are saved by the powerful intervention of Christ and your 'all-mighty' lord. Until certain religions begin to look upon their peers as equals I don't think that religion has accomplished anything.


When it comes to articles of faith I've always found it best to let a person come to their own decisions without the biased persuasion of another.
 
  by: luc1ddr3am     05/27/2007 04:33 AM     
  @hedk45e  
 
"that most of the ideas and mettalurgy were taught by advanced outside interference so to speak"

ah of course...when in doubt blame "god"...lol

they did indeed know of metallurgy, they were living in the copper age after all about 3000BCE is commonly accepted as the start of the bronze age... they were quite litterally just comming out of the stone age at the time as the copper age started about 4200BCE (before creation evidently, so here we are making copper tools before the earth was "created"...lol).
 
  by: havoc666     05/27/2007 04:39 AM     
  @luc1ddr3am  
 
"Havoc - You should know better than to argue with faith. ;-) (Reasons which are obvious if you consider the meaning of true faith.)"

oh i do, i've outline what faith is in this thread atleast twice... but debate/discussion is one of my favorite passtimes, next to loud music, video games and weed of course. debating with fundies is just fun... they're so out in left field in terms of scientific understanding that its wonder they can make it past highschool in areas like science, history (world history).

if they started printing 1+1=3 in the bible you'd have half the country failing math, refer to the quote from the source i gave in my first post, about half of the US believng in biblical creation within the last 10000 years, which clearly defies some of the most basic history, stone age, prehistoric... then of course the time on single cell organism being the only life just 3 or 4 billion years ago... then the fact that with out current optical technology we can quite litterally see 14.6 billion years worth of time... after this creation in the genesis sense just seem ludicris.
 
  by: havoc666     05/27/2007 04:54 AM     
  There's no point  
 
in argueing.
 
  by: datsuncaptain1     05/27/2007 05:09 AM     
  @ havoc666  
 
I'm pretty sure I recall correctly - of your comments about the age of everything: the Xtian "faith" has a scapegoat in their doctrine for that one as well ........ everything was "created with age".

They (all things older than 6K yrs) were made as if they were millions of years old, etc.

Pretty damn neat huh? !!!!!
Or would that be .... pretty damn convenient?
 
  by: Discarded Vet   05/27/2007 06:13 AM     
  it seems to me that these people  
 
have been touched by his noodly appendage!
 
  by: chieu   05/27/2007 08:49 AM     
  Dinosaurs on Noah's Ark?  
 
Regarding:
1.)
"dinosaurs co-existing with human" ???
Let's see what God,who was there, has to say about this:

Job 40 (New International Version)
15 "Look at the behemoth,
which I made along with you
and which feeds on grass like an ox.

16 What strength he has in his loins,
what power in the muscles of his belly!

17 His tail [b] sways like a cedar;
the sinews of his thighs are close-knit.

18 His bones are tubes of bronze,
his limbs like rods of iron.

19 He ranks first among the works of God,
yet his Maker can approach him with his sword.

20 The hills bring him their produce,
and all the wild animals play nearby.

21 Under the lotus plants he lies,
hidden among the reeds in the marsh.

22 The lotuses conceal him in their shadow;
the poplars by the stream surround him.

23 When the river rages, he is not alarmed;
he is secure, though the Jordan should surge against his mouth.

24 Can anyone capture him by the eyes, [c]
or trap him and pierce his nose?

http://www.biblegateway.com/...

And,
regarding:
2.)
"surviving the Bible's world-wide flood by hopping aboard Noah's Ark." ???

This is some of what God has to say:

Genesis 7 (New International Version)
7 And Noah and his sons and his wife and his sons' wives entered the ark to escape the waters of the flood. 8 Pairs of clean and unclean animals, of birds and of all creatures that move along the ground, 9 male and female, came to Noah and entered the ark, as God had commanded Noah. 10 And after the seven days the floodwaters came on the earth.
. . .
17 For forty days the flood kept coming on the earth, and as the waters increased they lifted the ark high above the earth. 18 The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. 19 They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. 20 The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet. 21 Every living thing that moved on the earth perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. 22 Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. 23 Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; men and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds of the air were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.

24 The waters flooded the earth for a hundred and fifty days.

http://www.biblegateway.com/...

 
  by: JoeU   05/27/2007 10:01 AM     
  @JoeU  
 
The whole of science disagrees with that interpretation of the bible. For one, the very nature of radioactivity, which powers quite a few cities, depends on predictable decay rates. Extrapolating those decay rates tells us that dinosaurs are over 6000 years old.

So, either the natural laws of this world are wrong, or your interpretation of the bible is wrong. I'm sure I can guess which you'd prefer to be wrong. But are you really willing to dismiss all of science based on your guess that dinosaurs were brought fruit by the hills, slept underwater and ate grass?
 
  by: Ec5618   05/27/2007 10:18 AM     
  @joeu  
 
WOW... that is a big steamy pile of crap.

"Feeds on grass like an ox." Oh and the big T-rex over there is gonna eat a bunch of you, dont worry about him.

"Let's see what God,who was there, has to say about this:"

God wasnt there, no one can say that.
 
  by: hunt3r   05/27/2007 12:51 PM     
  Three small points  
 
One, for Havoc666;

Claiming you are a modern satanist while blasting christians/catholics/other religious types is blatant hypocrisy. Your figurehead of faith comes from the same books as theirs, so you can't exactly dismiss them without dismissing yourself.

Secondly, for Asaya;
How come we so often hear about what Christians "know" (Know Jesus, Know the truth, Know all will worship Him) when talking about an article of faith? The major argument against needing scientific proof of God is that you don't need proof, you need faith. The terms used should be "Believe" or "have faith", not "know." Dismissing hard science and claiming you have facts without evidence (that's what you need to have 'facts') just undermines your own arguments.

You can have faith, or knowledge, but they're mutually exclusive. That's the definition of faith.

Thirdly, for the dinosaurs;
Anyone who's seen The Lost World knows what happens when you put dinosaurs on a boat. And that is an ENORMOUS boat if it has room for a pair of Gigantosaurs, a pair of Spinosaurus Triassica, and the generator to power the MASSIVE electric fence to keep the damn velociraptors inside...
 
  by: Tek   05/27/2007 02:02 PM     
  @Tek  
 
Modern satanism doesn't necesserily see Satan as the biblical entity, but rather as a motivating and balancing dark force in nature.

If you're interested you can easily find fascinatingly self-delusional explanations for the number of animals and the lack of space to put them. Answers in Genesis or something similar will surely be able to explain how the elephants fasted for most of the 40 days.

And the velociraptors were simply held at bay by Noah's body or wooden spikes or something, as the animals of different genders were.
 
  by: Ec5618   05/27/2007 02:16 PM     
  @tek & ec  
 
" Three small points
One, for Havoc666;

Claiming you are a modern satanist while blasting christians/catholics/other religious types is blatant hypocrisy. Your figurehead of faith comes from the same books as theirs, so you can't exactly dismiss them without dismissing yourself."

lol... this only displays your lack of knowledge for modern satanism... your are coralating it with traditional satanism which is for all purpose the exact same as christain with the role of the deities reverse.

if its so hard to think about modern satanism, think of it has humanism, as that was the oringally proposed name, satanism was choosen for "satans" ultimate symbolism of the nature of man... to almost all modern satanist dieties are nothing more than symbols.


@ec, "modern satanism doesn't necesserily see Satan as the biblical entity, but rather as a motivating and balancing dark force in nature."

dark force, not really perhaps to the perspective of a fundamentalists, dark would imply "evil", as opposed to natural, which is ultimately what modern satanism is; embracing human nature.

"And the velociraptors were simply held at bay by Noah's body or wooden spikes or something, as the animals of different genders were."

wooden spike would have to be taller than humans as velociraptors are jumpers and have great speed, not to mention almost all dinosaur can destroy just about anything human could make... wooden confinement wouldn't hold up well, and metallury was just comming into the world at the time in the form of copper.

not to mention the fact that it would be rather difficult seperate the animals in the first place due to these being wild animals... and i reall don't see the town drunkard being a ringmaster...lol

how is the ark going to accomediate Sauroposeidon' which is 60 feet tall, and 50-60 tonnes each... good luck holding two of those noah...lol, but wait its not done there or Seismosaurus or Titanosaur which are both over 140 feet long, or over 1/3 the total length of the ark, and weighed somewhere in
the neighborhood of 150-200 tonnes...each.... or the Amphicoelias, which is one of the far lesser known dinosaurs and may (no complete fossil has been found, this is based on parts of fossils compared to Diplodocus')
have been 200 feet long and 120 tonnes each.

or how about two Spinosaurus (world largest carnivoriious dinosaur), which was 55 feet long and weighing in at 8-12 tonnes (depending on the source)... then of course there the gigantososaurus and Tyrannosaurus
 
  by: havoc666     05/27/2007 03:21 PM     
  @Havoc  
 
Pshhhhh blasphemy wait till I tell a priest about this. We all know it was god's super-powerful almightiness that provided enough Valium to put Noah and all the animals in a coma for 40 days. Oh and the dinosaurs they weren't actually "on the boat" per say roped to the side maybe or dragged behind which coincidentally caused global warming. This upset god and he in turn buried every dinosaur and scattered their bones in random places.
 
  by: xufeelinlukyx   05/27/2007 04:32 PM     
  Damn, you guys need to take a chill pill  
 
My advice, head down to the local pub and order up a large high colonic. You will feel much better afterwards. Me, I’m going to the museum, sounds like a riot of a good time.
 
  by: valkyrie123     05/27/2007 04:40 PM     
  No Winner... Ever  
 
The whole problem with these kinds of "debates" is the incorrect logic used. You cannot disprove something based on rules that are not derived from the base assumption. If I assume that there is an all-powerful God with the ability to have an active hand in events that occur in our human reality (ie - cause floods, create animals, etc), then I cannot use statements like "the animals would've killed each other on the arc" to try and "logically" show that it never happened. Based on the assumption of what God is, the animals could've been under His control the whole time, overriding their natural instincts. God could've stopped rot and leaks from happening to the arc, God could've slowed the animals' metabolisms, God could've kept the boat afloat even if it were too heavy. The point is, nothing is off the table when you assume that you have such an all-powerful and active God.

If you want to use arguments based on our current understanding of biology and natural behavior, that's fine. Say things such as: the animals would've eaten each other by instinct, the animals would've needed too much food, the animals would not have been able to be controlled by a human, and there was not enough room for that many animals. The problem is that when you are saying those things, you are making an assumption that God can have no hand in controlling those factors. If you are going to make that assumption, then you are already assuming either that God is not all-powerful or, at an extreme, that God doesn't exist.

Either way, the two camps have different base assumptions and different supporting arguments that cannot be disproven by the other camp when they only use their own arguments. Certain groups of Christians can explain away any "scientific" discrepancies as Hand-Of-God, and no amount of carbon dating or rate of erosion arguments will have any effect, because those things go against their base assumption. At best we can disprove certain talking points based on other talking points (http://contradictions.darwin.ws/... but this does not prove that a form of God does not exist and does not prove what the abilities of that God may be.

Things that are true are not always easy to prove, and cannot always be proven. This is the case with many theories about the universe in physics and math. This is why there are things called unsolvable problems. Even a "simple" thing like the result of dividing integer numbers is not necessarily an "easy" thing to prove (http://en.wikipedia.org/... Why would we assume that something like God might be easy to prove or disprove? Nobody is even agreeing on what God might be. Who's to say this guy (http://en.wikipedia.org/... is wrong about his theory (http://www.ctmu.org/...
 
  by: nicohlis     05/27/2007 04:45 PM     
  @valkyrie123  
 
Don't get me wrong, I'd love to take a look at the little make-believe world 27 million dollars can buy.

But hearing that 60% of Americans completely miss the point is saddening, and anyone who applauds or tries to further such ignorance should be yelled at.
 
  by: Ec5618   05/27/2007 04:47 PM     
  @ JoeU  
 
Using the Bible to prove writings of the Bible ...... do you have ANY idea how incredibly redundant that is?

In doing so, this thought process also verifies that all other religions ARE ALSO correct - your proof is your book, their proof is their book. You can't legitimatly have one and not the other.

In essenc, you have validated Scientology, Buddism, Satanism, Hinduism, and oh my god you've even validated the Koran !!!

Use resources other than Christian writings as your base of proof to non-Xtians, and they *might* listen to you.

Something I never could figure out about you Christians ..... why is it so inphathomable that at the felling of the tower of Babel, when God sent man into the lands with their own language, that with these men and new language and new way of life also came about different religions and ways of serving their God, which is the same God every other language had?

All I ever got for an answer is that "that isn't in the Bible" - well niether is mention of a friggen molecule, but here we are comprised of billions of them, niether is everything ELSE not mentioned in the Bible, but here everything is!
 
  by: Discarded Vet   05/27/2007 04:49 PM     
  @nicohlis  
 
Most people who believe this stuff have never really given it any real thought. Sure, anyone can say that they believe that god made it possible through supernatural means, and in so doing basically invalidate any logical counterargument. But getting a believer to admit that the story isn't possible within established scientific laws is surprisingly difficult. Have you heard of the vapour canapy? It 'explains' where the water came from, and why Noah lived to be 900 or so.

Some of these believers want to believe that their fantasies are scientific. You remember what happened with the Kansas school board, right? This isn't about belief anymore, when 60% of eligible American voters have been so confused that they don't trust in evolution.
 
  by: Ec5618   05/27/2007 04:55 PM     
  @nicolis  
 
"No Winner... Ever
The whole problem with these kinds of "debates" is the incorrect logic used. You cannot disprove something based on rules that are not derived from the base assumption. If I assume that there is an all-powerful God with the ability to have an active hand in events that occur in our human reality (ie - cause floods, create animals, etc), then I cannot use statements like "the animals would've killed each other on the arc" to try and "logically" show that it never happened. Based on the assumption of what God is, the animals could've been under His control the whole time, overriding their natural instincts. God could've stopped rot and leaks from happening to the arc, God could've slowed the animals' metabolisms, God could've kept the boat afloat even if it were too heavy. The point is, nothing is off the table when you assume that you have such an all-powerful and active God.

If you want to use arguments based on our current understanding of biology and natural behavior, that's fine. Say things such as: the animals would've eaten each other by instinct, the animals would've needed too much food, the animals would not have been able to be controlled by a human, and there was not enough room for that many animals. The problem is that when you are saying those things, you are making an assumption that God can have no hand in controlling those factors. If you are going to make that assumption, then you are already assuming either that God is not all-powerful or, at an extreme, that God doesn't exist."

oh but of course just suspend all logic and laws of science on the whim of something that cannot or atleast has never been proven... tried and true, unless your a member of the scientific community... this is not to say that scienctists don't believe in "god" as many do, however the stories presented in religion directly defy logic and science and are therefor highly improbable at best; scientifically speaking.

if you believe in the biblical "god" nothing is beyond its power, which is rather illogical as energy itself has its limitations.

"Either way, the two camps have different base assumptions and different supporting arguments that cannot be disproven by the other camp when they only use their own arguments. Certain groups of Christians can explain away any "scientific" discrepancies as Hand-Of-God, and no amount of carbon dating or rate of erosion arguments will have any effect, because those things go against their base assumption. At best we can disprove certain talking points based on other talking points (http://contradictions.darwin.ws/... but this does not prove that a form of God does not exist and does not prove what the abilities of that God may be."

in debate theres something called burden of proof... this is where tyhe religious side of the debate always falls short... its fine and well to say you believe in "god" and you believe in creation, however to pass it off as fact requires proof, not faith. to prove creation you must first prove "god", faith has never nor can ever prove anything, this is not the basis of faith.

"Things that are true are not always easy to prove, and cannot always be proven. This is the case with many theories about the universe in physics and math. This is why there are things called unsolvable problems. Even a "simple" thing like the result of dividing integer numbers is not necessarily an "easy" thing to prove (http://en.wikipedia.org/... Why would we assume that something like God might be easy to prove or disprove? Nobody is even agreeing on what God might be. Who's to say this guy (http://en.wikipedia.org/... is wrong about his theory (http://www.ctmu.org/...

things that are true may not be easy to prove, however they can be proven... things that are not true cannot be proven... also you cannot prove a negative, which is why the burden of proof for creation in on the shoulders of the religious people promoting the idea, not those not in favor of the idea.

for instance you cannot prove goblins, pegusus' ect... don't exist... to do this you have to exist in all point of space and time at once in order to prove they don't... however scientifically speaking there is no basis for them and therefor it can be said they don't exist...

similarly aliens haven't been proven to exist either... however there is basis for them... life formed on this planet... that are litterally 100's of billions of other planets therefor it likely that some other form of life would exist in the vast reaches of the universe, which has is 46.5 lightyears in size (14.5 times pi), the known universe is spherical with earth in the middle, however this is only true because earth is our point of observation and we only have the technology to see a finite distance of 14.6 billion lightyears, which is amzing enough in and of itself.
 
  by: havoc666     05/27/2007 05:23 PM     
  Response  
 
@Ec5618
I can't (quickly) find a reference, but didn't Al Gore talk about the Vapor Canopy in "Inconvenient Truth"? Not saying anything either way, but that came to mind right away.


@havoc666
Please do not repost my entire statement. If people want to read it, they can see what I wrote by just scrolling up.

"to prove creation you must first prove 'god'"
- Why is there anything? I think many people see that the existence of anything at all is proof of God.

"things that are true ... can be proven."
- Yes, if you know that something is true, it can be proven, but don't make your statement seem more profound than it really is. The only way I know something is true is if I already have a proof of it. What is the point of your statement? There is no statue of limitations on how long a statement has to be proven true until it is accepted as false. It has taken many years and many geniuses to prove the things that we know now. Even in some cases the only proofs that we have of certain statements is the fact that a computer processed through every possible state of a system and checked the truth-value at that state. This is different from what I said. If something is true (in a rhetorical sense, we don't actually know and don't have a proof), we may not be able to prove it (yet) and there is no general proof that a proof will be found for any given statement.

The problem is not that people choose to believe in a god, it is that they choose to believe in the Bible/Koran/etc. When that piece of writing is your base assumption, you have to defend those words, which is not necessarily the same as defending your faith or defending your god. Along with that, people feel they have to defend ALL those words, because they are not entitled to pick and choose which ones apply. The Papacy and various heads of religions seem to be able to pick and choose and interpret, but not the bottom-level-believer. This belief in words, not in a god, has been the cause of most of the world's problems.

Further, just because a certain portion of a religious text seems unlikely hardly negates the entire text. If one statement shown unlikely were reason enough not to read a whole book, there would be quite a pile of dust on many classic philosophical texts. Proving or disproving any given creation story will do nothing to make humans better at being humane.
 
  by: nicohlis     05/27/2007 06:58 PM     
  @ nicohlis  
 
"....it is that they choose to believe in the Bible/Koran/etc...."

Not always the case.

There are countless gazillions just like me, that were, what I now call, 'brainwashed' since childhood.

There are another gazillion that may have been at a bottom point of life, and Christianity took advantage of it. Preying on the weak, as it were, a prominent factor of the "who to witness to".

When a mind is that weak (at a bottom point of life), it is suceptable to just about anything. I don't consider them having chose Xtianism, I consider them having got sucked in.

When you are told repeatedly the Bible is the absolute truth, that the Christian God is the ONLY god, that all others are going to hell, day after day after year after year - it's not choosing the Bible nor the diety at all - it's being chose for you.

It wasn't until far into my adult life that I began to see clearly, in spite of the brain corruption having taken place for all of my (then) life, in spite of all the "don't question the Bible, don't question the church, don't question the preacher (why do you think so many preacher pervs are Christian - becasue you don't question the pulpit).

It was then, that a choice was made, and I got out of what I now call - a cult.
 
  by: Discarded Vet   05/27/2007 07:12 PM     
  The only way to prove this stuff  
 
is to build a time machine.
 
  by: datsuncaptain1     05/27/2007 07:30 PM     
  @nicohlis  
 
You're right in saying that for many people, the existence of the universe is all the 'proof' they'll ever ask for that there is a god.
I hope you're not quite so foolish.

As for the vapour canopy, it is a concept imagined by creationists with too much time and not enough sense. They take the Genesis account literally, and envision the world as having been created between two waters, the waters above and the waters below. The waters above, in the form of ice crystals suspended in the air or a contiguous sheet of ice) protected humanity from harmful radiation (which is why humans lived long lives in those days), and explains where the water to flood the Earth with came from.
Oddly, several of the largest creationism websites still propound this notion, as though it had any merit whatsoever, proving, to me atleast, that they are either purposely deceiving their followers, or unfathomably pigheaded and stupid.
 
  by: Ec5618   05/27/2007 08:14 PM     
  @nicolis  
 
"Please do not repost my entire statement. If people want to read it, they can see what I wrote by just scrolling up."

i repost typically only what relevent to what i'm replying to, beit one line or the whole post... this is done so other people don't ask me for clarification of what i'm replying to (though i'm replying you, others will likely reply to me, from my reply to you), people also typically post more than once in a single thread after multiple posts, or in long threads it can become confusing what people are replying to and also as a reference for myself as opposed to constantly scrolling up and down to the bottom and tops of the page to read and re-read what i'm replying to, instead up just scroll up one mouse wheel's spin to find what i'm replying to.

"- Why is there anything? I think many people see that the existence of anything at all is proof of God."

well if there was nothing how would "god" exist... how can anything come of nothing?

which is more logical that matter and energy have simply always existed in some form or the laws of science were negate; something created everything out of nothing and leaving no evidence other than books written by men in the time when the world being flat was considered a fact, in a time where people couldn't differeiate a bird from a bat, in a time where earthquakes, lighting, disease, floods, the sun rising and falling all had no natural explation as far was most people were concerned.

ockham's (ocham's; can be spelled both ways) razor has alittle something to say about this. although i don't think i'll need to tell you what ockham's razor is about, as you seem to be a fairly intelligent, fairly informed person, so you probably have atleast some understanding of it or atleast the concept behind it, if not by name.

"- Yes, if you know that something is true, it can be proven, but don't make your statement seem more profound than it really is. The only way I know something is true is if I already have a proof of it. What is the point of your statement? There is no statue of limitations on how long a statement has to be proven true until it is accepted as false. It has taken many years and many geniuses to prove the things that we know now. Even in some cases the only proofs that we have of certain statements is the fact that a computer processed through every possible state of a system and checked the truth-value at that state. This is different from what I said. If something is true (in a rhetorical sense, we don't actually know and don't have a proof), we may not be able to prove it (yet) and there is no general proof that a proof will be found for any given statement."

the point of the statement is the point of logic, you cannot prove something which does not exist, whereas you can prove things that do exist... furthermore "god" has never been observed, you cannot prove something until you can atleast observe it.

you right about it taking many years to prove some thing... actually a great many things evolution has been proven, however macro-evolution is where the problems lay, and quite honestly i think the answer to this is absurbedly simple, in that enough small genetic mutation will eventually have the species branch off into related, but seperate species, (a somewhat related example of this is how a sunken patch of ultra-photosenitive skin over time become the modern human eye; one organ (skin) over time became another (the eye)) however we don't live for million of years therefor its extremely hard to observe this... even micro-evolution in human is relatively hard to observe, though its readily observable in fruitflies as they only live about 24 hours and therefor carry out many generations much more quickly.

if the day come where "god" can be and is proven, i'll believe it... though don't expect me to become a worshipper... until that day i'm an atheist for the same reason i don't believe in ghost and goblin... they they do make good characters in books, as atleast to me "god" also has.

"The problem is not that people choose to believe in a god, it is that they choose to believe in the Bible/Koran/etc...."

quite right my specific problem with relgion is when known science is dismissed on the whim of faith as if the two were equally credible...

the bible makes many extrodinarly claim, but provide no evidence, aside from the bible itself, and as someone else said if your going to use the bible to prove the bible is right by the same logic no religion could be wrong, they would all be "right" yet in disagreeance with each other, thus creating a logical contradiction.

and yes interpretations of the bible has been the cause of quite a few great conflicts through time.

"Further, just because a certain portion of a religious text seems unlikely hardly negates the entire text. If one statement shown unlikely were reason enough not to read a whole book, there would be quite a pile of dust on many classic philosophic
 
  by: havoc666     05/27/2007 08:45 PM     
  @nicohlis  
 
"Further, just because a certain portion of a religious text seems unlikely hardly negates the entire text. If one statement shown unlikely were reason enough not to read a whole book, there would be quite a pile of dust on many classic philosophical texts."

this is true... however if you come accross lies being presented as truth it does tend to destroy the author credibility... there are some good lesson to be learn from the bible, like trying to love your neighbors, not killing people, not stealing ect.

however in other threads i've demostrated how vile some aspects of the bible are and how ludacris some of the beleifs therein are. and its esspecially appalling how many fundies that come here ecpect you to follow a religion that they do, yet have very limited understanding of.

"Proving or disproving any given creation story will do nothing to make humans better at being humane."

indeed, however it will make us more aware of history and of our origin either by either confirming or origin or eliminating one or some of the possibilities.
 
  by: havoc666     05/27/2007 08:47 PM     
  Response  
 
@Discarded Vet
- Absolutely. I did not mean to suggest that everyone is free to just decide to be part of one or another religion. One of the worst things about organized religions is the way that they can force people to "believe" as they do.

@havoc666
"well if there was nothing how would "god" exist... how can anything come of nothing"
- If there were nothing at all in any sense, then not a lot would make sense. Luckily, no things would be around to be confused by the nothingness, not even God.

- If there were no reality (as seen on TV), it wouldn't matter much to any sort of being that didn't exist in that reality, such as God may exist. If I have a computer program running, it knows what exists in memory locations. If I turn the computer off and void the program and all memory location reality, nothing much will happen to me since I don't exist in the computer.

- I don't know how things exist. If I did, quite a few philosophers would be hunting me down trying to preserve their professions (Douglas Adams humor). All I have is that there are things, and I'm out on a limb with that belief in the first place. How do you suppose energy came to exist in any form or another? Big Bang created the universe and planets, fine. What caused Big Bang? What caused that to cause Big Bang? This is the infinite reduction problem in philosophy. The issue here may come from our perception of time. We feel all things need to be considered in relation to time because that's all we know. Consider the computer program example. The program operates at a rate determined by the system clock. This clock does not "tick" at the same rate as my reality, but how could a program be aware of anything other than the system clock? God may be considered an infinite being because there is no such thing as time on God's plane of existence. What we perceive as time may be the result of some internal mechanism of God. There are theories of god that hold this true with very scientific roots (I don't care to find links).

"you cannot prove something until you can atleast observe it"
- You do not directly have to observe something in order to know it exists. If I see a pile of crap in the woods and if I trust my senses, it only directly proves that crap exists. I use other knowledge to derive that a deer probably also exists. Some scientists observed some light wobbling last month and derived that a planet exists and it may have water on it. There are theories of the universe that are supported by actual observed phenomena that are anticipated consequences of the theory. This does not prove the theory true, it only does not disprove parts of it. If I observe reality, maybe that means there is some sort of thing people call a god. I can't have any scientifically observed supporting arguments, because I am only aware of my current reality. Unfortunately, I also don't have observation knowledge of any other gods to know how one might perceive the side effects of the existence of a god. My inability to prove God's existence might be a consequence of my existence "within" God.

"ockham's razor has a little something to say about this"
- You are assuming that you are adding God to reality to explain reality; that reality exists regardless of God. Yes, if you are going to do that, it does seem to be an unnecessary addition. However, if you assume that reality can only exist in terms of God, it is no longer an extraneous addition, rather it is absolutely necessary. It's just a point of view issue.

I would say that curing the hypocritical behavior of the religious - behaviors that cause lasting societal damage - would be a better use of time that making sure people believed or disbelieved in a flood story. People aren't killing each other over the specifics of the flood. Seems secondary.
 
  by: nicohlis     05/27/2007 10:35 PM     
  @nicohlis  
 
"- If there were no reality (as seen on TV), it wouldn't matter much to any sort of being that didn't exist in that reality, such as God may exist. If I have a computer program running, it knows what exists in memory locations. If I turn the computer off and void the program and all memory location reality, nothing much will happen to me since I don't exist in the computer."

thats not entirely true... the computer "knows" you exist... the computer requires input, typically refered to as a "user", input such as a string value or an integer (or real number), everytime the mouse is moved or a keystroke is made you've made an input and in so doing the computer "knows" your there...

however think "knowing" isn't true cognitive knowledge as it can ultimately on distingish if your there or not by user input.

and actually you faguely touched on inadvertly of not another thing i verily dislike about fundies, when they have been able to prove "god" they tend to say things like "god" exists outside of reality, or in another dimension... which is all fine and well in terms of faith, but doesn't fly in the world of science.

"- I don't know how things exist. If I did, quite a few philosophers would be hunting me down trying to preserve their professions (Douglas Adams humor)."

lol yeah just about every religious or sci-fi writter...lol

"How do you suppose energy came to exist in any form or another? Big Bang created the universe and planets, fine. What caused Big Bang? What caused that to cause Big Bang?"

personally even before the big bang i believe level of matter/energy was equal to now... i believe the big bang was likely the result of the former universe collapsing in on itself from such immense gravity; a black on a universal scale to the point where it became so dense that it acted as a white hole and ejected the energy/matter in a supernova fashion... what would cause the universe to collapse... well its theorized that if the universe expands beyond a certian point it will not have its integrity and collapse in on itself... in all honesty i don't know, but you already knew that... i can only go by what most logical.

"This is the infinite reduction problem in philosophy. The issue here may come from our perception of time. We feel all things need to be considered in relation to time because that's all we know. Consider the computer program example. The program operates at a rate determined by the system clock. This clock does not "tick" at the same rate as my reality, but how could a program be aware of anything other than the system clock?"

indeed, we humans are a measuring calculating people... time is merely the duration between 2 point.

and no system clocks don't tick like real clocks do, but they are indeed based on the same principal of real clock, and that is of a single second, 1 hertz = 1 second (1 cycle per second).

"God may be considered an infinite being because there is no such thing as time on God's plane of existence. What we perceive as time may be the result of some internal mechanism of God. There are theories of god that hold this true with very scientific roots (I don't care to find links)."

i've never heard of a Theory (scientific theory) that gives "god" scientific roots... there've been many theories (an idea, a guess) giving "god" "scientific" roots, but that is generally christian science (psuedo-science). esspecially for time to be a mechanism of "god" and accepted scientifically, this again require that burden of proof just like creation does... if your to say someone did/is doing something, you must first prove that that someone exists in the first place, after all if they cannot be proven to exist they cannot be proven to do anything let alone something as unfounded as litterial creation.

"- You do not directly have to observe something in order to know it exists. If I see a pile of crap in the woods and if I trust my senses, it only directly proves that crap exists. I use other knowledge to derive that a deer probably also exists."

actually thats called logic, if there feces on the ground you can bet your house on animal being there or having been there. we know animal take a crap, and we know the craps exists, there we know that some form of animal has been there.

"Some scientists observed some light wobbling last month and derived that a planet exists and it may have water on it."

indeed ... the hot ice planet, but again we know what water is, we know it exists, we know how to detect it, and we previously already had learn that hot ice and can will take form under great pressure.

"There are theories of the universe that are supported by actual observed phenomena that are anticipated consequences of the theory. This does not prove the theory true, it only does not disprove parts of it."

thats the beauty of theories (esspecially scientific theory) they adapt to new data and observations

"If I observe reality, maybe that means th
 
  by: havoc666     05/28/2007 01:03 AM     
  @nicohlis part 2  
 
"If I observe reality, maybe that means there is some sort of thing people call a god. I can't have any scientifically observed supporting arguments, because I am only aware of my current reality."

if thats the case your not observing reality, as reality is by definition independent from everything and everyone... otherwise it would not be real; constant... which by its very definition is.

"Unfortunately, I also don't have observation knowledge of any other gods to know how one might perceive the side effects of the existence of a god. My inability to prove God's existence might be a consequence of my existence "within" God."

well now ain't that a can of worms were openning...lol

actually that would more be in line with what i was telling asaya, if ans you say we are within "god" than "god" is merely a useless concept of redundancy, when the matter from universe and energy already fill that role... energy as never demonstrated cognition, which would nullify the concept of the biblical "god", as its a cognitive "god"

"- You are assuming that you are adding God to reality to explain reality; that reality exists regardless of God. Yes, if you are going to do that, it does seem to be an unnecessary addition. However, if you assume that reality can only exist in terms of God, it is no longer an extraneous addition, rather it is absolutely necessary. It's just a point of view issue."

actually that only the first part of ockham's razor, the latter part being for example... we know the universe exists this is an undeniable fact... we know we exist, this too is an undeniable fact... we don't know that "god" exists, this is conjecture. so given this what is more likely, that something that probably does not exist (based on the fact that it hasn't been proven to exist) created the universe, us and everything else... or that the universe simple always was in some form or another, beit the 46.5 billion light years in size that we see the universe to be or the size of a pea by comparison?

"I would say that curing the hypocritical behavior of the religious - behaviors that cause lasting societal damage - would be a better use of time that making sure people believed or disbelieved in a flood story. People aren't killing each other over the specifics of the flood. Seems secondary."

lol, true enough... but i feel compelled to point of the illogical nature of the global flood as depicted in the bible and now depicted in a museum.

though wars have been fought over less such has misinterpretations between groups, and whats even funnier to me atleast is that was are basically fighting over the same damn "god" catholics, christian, muslims and jews are all believing, worshipping and fighting over the samne "god" jewish god simply giving him a differenty same and adding onto or taking away from the original writtings.
 
  by: havoc666     05/28/2007 01:04 AM     
  Final Comments  
 
- Your computer statements didn't really pertain to what I said about a voided RAM reality. The running program doesn't know where its operating parameters come from, it only knows where to look for them. The program can make no assumptions about any kind of human user. The program may receive all its input randomly from another program which was set to start when the computer did. Then what? Regardless, the point was only to create an analogy: God is to Reality and Humans as Computer is to "Memory Space" and Programs. Having no active memory or programs does not imply that the computer does not exist, just as having no humans or reality does not negate God in any way. Reality needs God, not the other way around (at least that's the assumption one could make).

- Why does God have to exist somewhere in our space-time? Why is it so out of the realm of plausibility that there exist things which are beyond our perception? Do you automatically dismiss this theory (http://www.physorg.com/... on the universe because it requires a change to our current perceptions? Just because you may not typically get sound arguments in favor of an "external" god, doesn't mean you can dismiss the possibility.

- Much like a computer, God could be thought of as a Cellular Automaton (http://en.wikipedia.org/... Time is an internal function of the Cellular Automaton. Our perception of time is simply the cycling of the CA and the rules applied are those we know as physics and math, etc. We may be able to only exist in certain dimensions available within the CA, there is nothing that requires we occupy all of the dimensions. There's a theory that gives God scientific roots.

- Yes, logic dictates that an animal was in the woods, but only because I had previous knowledge that living organisms excrete waste and previous knowledge of what waste looks like. Without that previous knowledge, what could I say about what I saw in the woods? I could only say that it smelled a certain way, had a certain color, and had a certain texture. Those statements could only help me identify that same something if I ever see it again, but they provide no other useful information. If I apply Occam's Razor as you suggest and assume the excrement was there for all time so I don't have to add anything to the system, I'd be wrong as soon as I observe an animal creating more of the same excrement I saw earlier. Reality is like that piece of stinky, colorful stuff, only I have never seen it before and may never see it again. I have no previous knowledge at all. I can describe the stuff I observe in many ways, but I cannot say anything about where it came from, or what its existence means. I can either assume it came from something, or that it has been there for all time. I don't know that one assumption is more likely than another. I don't suppose I'll see God creating any other realities so I could know, but I'll leave the door open just in case.

That's pretty much all I'll say on this topic here. The thread is old and far off topic. Respond if you like, but I won't likely continue the discussion unless "I feel compelled to point out the illogical nature of" any further comments.
 
  by: nicohlis     05/28/2007 08:24 AM     
  Re: Flood and ice cores  
 
First, I said "Antartic" ice cores specifically. Secondly, yes there is record of a flood of possibly biblical scale in the Antartic ice cores, however keep in mind those ice cores are calculated to stretch back around 800,000 years. The disruption to the record including unusual deposits and changes in core composition is there. Is this the 'biblical' flood? Who knows. I've never felt that Genisis could be tied to a literal time line, so it is possible - in my view - that it is.

Now, there is a raging debate over where the Antartic ice cores are as old as calculated running between young-earth creationists and traditional science but I see no need to get involved with that.
 
  by: lauriesman     05/28/2007 08:51 AM     
  @everyone!  
 
It would take another 6,000 years to read all the comments above (and actually pay attention.) The only great flood I attend to is the one in my bathroom cause I've been drinkin all night. if there is an Ark, it needs to take me to McDonalds right now.
 
  by: headoxygenwaste   05/28/2007 09:35 AM     
  @lauriesman  
 
the greenland ice sheet core samples would say differently. I would like to see a link to this flood evidence if you don't mind. If it's anything by Oard, then never mind. If you subscribe to his method of "science" then there isn't much to say.
 
  by: ouka   05/28/2007 10:19 AM     
  @lauriesman  
 
Again, what makes you say that?
 
  by: Ec5618   05/28/2007 10:31 AM     
  @creationist geniuses  
 
This is from "a friend"s letter to "some school" that I found to be amusing, I believe many of you will agree

"What these people don’t understand is that He built the world to make us think the earth is older than it really is. For example, a scientist may perform a carbon-dating process on an artifact. He finds that approximately 75% of the Carbon-14 has decayed by electron emission to Nitrogen-14, and infers that this artifact is approximately 10,000 years old, as the half-life of Carbon-14 appears to be 5,730 years. But what our scientist does not realize is that every time he makes a measurement, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage. We have numerous texts that describe in detail how this can be possible and the reasons why He does this. He is of course invisible and can pass through normal matter with ease."
 
  by: chieu   05/28/2007 10:42 AM     
  Ice Cores As Proof  
 
Granted, it may be something I simply don't understand, but gaining proof of the flood from ice cores never made sense to me.

Would it not be that pertinant proof (if existing) would be high in the mountains, instead of buried in the ice?

Just seems as logic to me that if the water covered the world, then things not natural of mountains (fossiles from sea life, etc) would be in the mountains.

If you are muddy and take a bath, where is the evidence of that mud - in the ring around the top of the tub.
 
  by: Discarded Vet   05/28/2007 11:11 AM     
  @nicohlis  
 
"Final Comments
- Your computer statements didn't really pertain to what I said about a voided RAM reality. The running program doesn't know where its operating parameters come from, it only knows where to look for them. The program can make no assumptions about any kind of human user. The program may receive all its input randomly from another program which was set to start when the computer did. Then what?"

my point is that irreguardless at some point that computer will be receiving computer imput.

"Regardless, the point was only to create an analogy: God is to Reality and Humans as Computer is to "Memory Space" and Programs. Having no active memory or programs does not imply that the computer does not exist, just as having no humans or reality does not negate God in any way. Reality needs God, not the other way around (at least that's the assumption one could make)."

its not a very good analogy in that your comparing a reality (humans and computers) to faith ("god"), saying reality needs "god" is akin (logically) to saying we need unicorns to exist.

reality is ONLY what can be proven/preceived to exist unifromily...

example you have 12 people sitting in a room, 3 claim to have seen "god" appear in the room... this is not reality as it could not be uniformily preceived which is a requirement of the definition of reality.

"- Why does God have to exist somewhere in our space-time? Why is it so out of the realm of plausibility that there exist things which are beyond our perception? Do you automatically dismiss this theory (http://www.physorg.com/... on the universe because it requires a change to our current perceptions? Just because you may not typically get sound arguments in favor of an "external" god, doesn't mean you can dismiss the possibility."

i believe we're actually up to 10 or 11 demensions by some Theories... my problem with this scapegoat is instead of the onus being on the person making the claim they also put the onus on the sciencific community to disprove their wild claim rather than them proving their claim... again the burden of proof is on the person making the claim, as you cannot prove a negative, short of perhaps existing everyone at once. perhaps theres is life outside pyshical demensions... however there is no basis for this what so ever... sure theres superstition but superstition and science just don't jive.

"- Much like a computer, God could be thought of as a Cellular Automaton (http://en.wikipedia.org/... Time is an internal function of the Cellular Automaton. Our perception of time is simply the cycling of the CA and the rules applied are those we know as physics and math, etc. We may be able to only exist in certain dimensions available within the CA, there is nothing that requires we occupy all of the dimensions. There's a theory that gives God scientific roots."

we exist in space-time... why, because you have matter, 3 physical dimension (think of it as length, height and depth) and 1 demension for sequence, this is a demension as it can be measured.

btw that doen't give "god" scientific roots, it in not way makes "god" any closer to reality (being able to be uniformily preceived), what it does though is open up the possibility of physically nonexistance (in terms of our 3 physical demension) matter/energy. but simply because we don't live in all demension does not in any way mean "god" could, would or does.

theres also no rule that all demensions occupy all the known universe either, i believe a few of the Theorized demension take up limited space by comparsion

"- Yes, logic dictates that an animal was in the woods, but only because I had previous knowledge that living organisms excrete waste and previous knowledge of what waste looks like. Without that previous knowledge, what could I say about what I saw in the woods? I could only say that it smelled a certain way, had a certain color, and had a certain texture. Those statements could only help me identify that same something if I ever see it again, but they provide no other useful information. If I apply Occam's Razor as you suggest and assume the excrement was there for all time so I don't have to add anything to the system, I'd be wrong as soon as I observe an animal creating more of the same excrement I saw earlier. Reality is like that piece of stinky, colorful stuff, only I have never seen it before and may never see it again. I have no previous knowledge at all. I can describe the stuff I observe in many ways, but I cannot say anything about where it came from, or what its existence means. I can either assume it came from something, or that it has been there for all time. I don't know that one assumption is more likely than another. I don't suppose I'll see God creating any other realities so I could know, but I'll leave the door open just in case."

as a human (an animal) i should hope you would be familiar with feces well before you found another animals feces.. and give
 
  by: havoc666     05/28/2007 08:52 PM     
  @nicohlis part2  
 
"- Yes, logic dictates that an animal was in the woods, but only because I had previous knowledge that living organisms excrete waste and previous knowledge of what waste looks like. Without that previous knowledge, what could I say about what I saw in the woods? I could only say that it smelled a certain way, had a certain color, and had a certain texture. Those statements could only help me identify that same something if I ever see it again, but they provide no other useful information. If I apply Occam's Razor as you suggest and assume the excrement was there for all time so I don't have to add anything to the system, I'd be wrong as soon as I observe an animal creating more of the same excrement I saw earlier. Reality is like that piece of stinky, colorful stuff, only I have never seen it before and may never see it again. I have no previous knowledge at all. I can describe the stuff I observe in many ways, but I cannot say anything about where it came from, or what its existence means. I can either assume it came from something, or that it has been there for all time. I don't know that one assumption is more likely than another. I don't suppose I'll see God creating any other realities so I could know, but I'll leave the door open just in case."

as a human (an animal) i should hope you would be familiar with feces well before you found another animals feces.. and given the knowledge that you (an animal) expells feces (waste) it would be only logical to assume that if theres feces on the ground and its not yours its something elses...

but yes to an extent you could say its always been there, just simply not in that form, but rather another form of energy or matter.

substituting ignorance for logic has never made any sense, as the feces example would clearly have been an example of ignorance... even the dumbest of animals know what foreign feces being in the area implies..

i'm hoping ths was just a case of a bad example as that about on par with a relgious debator saying "look, here you see a watch, made by a watchmaker... now here you have you, made "god""... the problem is of course quite fundamental... you canactually prove the former statement is true, whereas not the this is not true for the latter; atleast not to date.

but agian is "god" could be proven i would believe it... i still wouldn't be a christian of a follower of the faith but i would believe the exsts of such.

"That's pretty much all I'll say on this topic here. The thread is old and far off topic. Respond if you like, but I won't likely continue the discussion unless "I feel compelled to point out the illogical nature of" any further comments.""

well if that the case it was a good discussion while it lasted... though f you got time or inclination for one more reply i wouldn'tmind knowing your stance on the ockham's razors application to the unverse, IE, being created or simply always existing.

i have a fundamental problem with creation of "always" existing... because it always comes down to something always existing... beit "god" (to the relgious) or the universe (to the scientific; certianly not all scientfically inclined however)... i simply find it absurd that if one always had to exist it has to the one which is an unknown and potentially even quite likely unprovable, as opposed to something we know exists, it can be observed, studied and tested.

basically for creation, if we require a creator, should not logically "god" need a creator, and therefor should not the creator of the creator need a creator itself... at some point something has to always exist... why the unknown?
 
  by: havoc666     05/28/2007 08:53 PM     
  Ec5618  
 

Regarding:
"The whole of science disagrees with that interpretation of the bible."

There is no "whole of science" agreement or disagreement,

And, the number of scientists who are creationists continues to grow.

The Reuters article these comments are attached to:
"New museum says dinosaurs were on Noah's Ark"
is about the Answers in Genesis (http://www.answersingenesis.org)
Creation Museum in Kentucky.

On their web-site, Answers in Genesis lists numerous scientists
who are creationists.
(see: http://www.answersingenesis.org/... )

Other web-sites, such as The Institute for Creation Research,
also list Creation Scientists
http://www.icr.org/...

A list of Catholic creation scientists is available at:
The Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation
Advisory Council:
http://www.kolbecenter.org/...

The number of scientist who look at the evidence,
and do not censor God from their answer,
are turning in an ever increasing number from evolutionism into Bible believing creationists:

Romans 1: 19-20 (New International Version)
19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.
20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made,
so that men are without excuse.
http://www.biblegateway.com/...

Acts 17 (New International Version)
24"The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands.
25And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else. 26From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live."
27God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us.
http://www.biblegateway.com/...

 
  by: JoeU   05/29/2007 02:14 AM     
  @ouka  
 
That would be because the greenland ice cores only reliable distinguish up to about 16,000 years ago. This is because the actual weight of the glaciers themselves due to constant addition causes dispersion of the lower levels of the glacial record, degrading and finally obliterating those records.

Antartica on the other hand does not have that level of gain, and as such the cores are more reliable, but harder to pinpoint specific years without referencing the composition changes with similar records in deep sea cores (and hence, the ongoing debate about how old the cores really stretch)
 
  by: lauriesman     05/29/2007 02:17 AM     
  hunt3r and Tek  
 
Regarding:

hunt3r ... "the big T-rex"
and
Tek ....... "for the dinosaurs;Anyone who's seen The Lost World knows what happens when you put dinosaurs on a boat. And that is an ENORMOUS boat if it has room for a pair of Gigantosaurs, a pair of Spinosaurus Triassica,"

Noah's Ark was huge,
and the dinosaurs God caused to come on the Ark
http://www.biblegateway.com/...
most likely were young and small:

See:
Were dinosaurs on Noah’s Ark?
"How did those huge dinosaurs fit on the Ark?

(partial quote)
"Although there are about 668 names of dinosaurs, there are perhaps only 55 different “kinds” of dinosaurs. Furthermore, not all dinosaurs were huge like the Brachiosaurus, and even those dinosaurs on the Ark were probably “teenagers” or young adults.
Creationist researcher John Woodmorappe has calculated that Noah had on board with him representatives from about 8,000 animal genera (including some now-extinct animals), or around 16,000 individual animals. When you realize that horses, zebras, and donkeys are probably descended from the horse-like “kind”, Noah did not have to carry two sets of each such animal. Also, dogs, wolves, and coyotes are probably from a single canine “kind”, so hundreds of different dogs were not needed.

According to Genesis 6:15, the Ark measured 300 x 50 x 30 cubits, which is about 460 x 75 x 44 feet, with a volume of about 1.52 million cubic feet. Researchers have shown that this is the equivalent volume of 522 standard railroad stock cars (US), each of which can hold 240 sheep. By the way, only 11% of all land animals are larger than a sheep.

Without getting into all the math, the 16,000-plus animals would have occupied much less than half the space in the Ark (even allowing them some moving-around space)."

From the Answers in Genesis article: Were dinosaurs on Noah’s Ark?

http://www.answersingenesis.org/...


 
  by: JoeU   05/29/2007 02:31 AM     
  Discarded Vet  
 
Regarding:

"Something I never could figure out about you Christians ..... why is it so inphathomable that at the felling of the tower of Babel, when God sent man into the lands with their own language, that with these men and new language and new way of life also came about different religions and ways of serving their God, which is the same God every other language had?"

When
Genesis 11 (New International Version)
http://www.biblegateway.com/...
"the LORD confused the language of the whole world. From there the LORD scattered them over the face of the whole earth."
...
it was about 500 years before the first written language (Chinese) was created.
(see http://www.wbschool.org/... )

Parents in various parts of the world,
(scattered according to various language groups)
would have been instructing their children on how to worship God verbally, stressing the parts they thought were most important.

These descendants in turn would instruct the following generations in various parts of worship they thought was most important, with some making their own additions and deletions.

Being verbal, some of these instructions most likely started to become very different, ... becoming "different religions".

Some of these forms of "worship" were NOT acceptable to God:

Romans 1:18-23 (New International Version)
21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.
22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools
23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles."
http://www.biblegateway.com/...

Acts 17:29-30 (New International Version)
29"Therefore since we are God's offspring,
we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone—
an image made by man's design and skill.
30In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent.
http://www.biblegateway.com/...

It was not until the days of Moses, Abraham, and others, that God
had His instructions put in written form:

Exodus 17:14
Then the LORD said to Moses,
"Write this on a scroll as something to be remembered and make sure that Joshua hears it, ...
http://www.biblegateway.com/...

Exodus 34:1
[ The New Stone Tablets ]
The LORD said to Moses, "Chisel out two stone tablets like the first ones, and I will write on them the words that were on the first tablets,
which you broke.
http://www.biblegateway.com/...

This written "word of God" has been preserved and passed on to us
in the Judeo-Christian Scripture,
As an example, see:
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/...

 
  by: JoeU   05/29/2007 02:45 AM     
  @JoeU  
 
christian science is a psuedo-science its not scientific what-so-ever... they use what little science will fit their claims which is never much... like yes was a localized flood at the time the great flood was supposed to have occured, they then twist this to show how the global flood occured dispite it being a scientific impossibility... not an improbability but an impossibility, there simply isn't enough water on earth to flood the whole of earth, and certianly not over earths tallest features, like mount everest. science does not ever have a predetermined answer as christian "science" does.

try using actual science to prove creation, it can't be done, or atleast never has been, esspecially as proving creation requires proof of "god"... would be easier to prove the biblical flood happened, and again theres simply not enough water for that, short of a massive ball of ice crashing into earth and accounting for all that extra water it would require... but then where did all the water go... everything that exists, must exist somewhere, nothing can just disappear entirely as the water from a global flood would have had to.

but its easy to believe such when you attribute unlimited power to something that cannot be proven and likewise cannot be disproven, as you can't prove a negative.

this is one of my favorite quotes about overly religious people, esspecially true to creationists:

"Theology is never any help; it is searching in a dark cellar at midnight for a black cat that isn't there. Theologians can persuade themselves of anything." - Robert A. Heinlein

this article is proof of theologians persuading themselve to believe anything...

water cannot carve rock like the grand canyon in 40 days and 40 nights. i'm quite sure that if it were possible the water would have to be very focused in it direction and dispersion, and moving much faster than sound to even add merit to the claim.... its has taken the colorado river between about 5-6 million years to carved the canyon as it exists today.. geological exposures in the canyon are as old as 2 billion years. much of the down cutting of the canyon has occur with the last 2 million years. for the carving of the canyon claim they are off by a factor of about 45.6 milion (40 days compared to 5 million year; or 1.825 billion days, i used the more conservative age)

dinosaurs did not exist 6000-10000 years ago, the most recent ones dying about 65 million years ago... not to worry they were only off by a factor of 65000

and lastly, there not enough water to substantiate the claim of a global flood occuring... even if all the water on earth was ice to begin with at the time of the flood the water level can only raise 10% and thats assuming the area of dispersion is constant, in the case of any flood this is never true.
 
  by: havoc666     05/29/2007 03:10 AM     
  @JoeU  
 
"According to Genesis 6:15, the Ark measured 300 x 50 x 30 cubits, which is about 460 x 75 x 44 feet, with a volume of about 1.52 million cubic feet. Researchers have shown that this is the equivalent volume of 522 standard railroad stock cars (US), each of which can hold 240 sheep. By the way, only 11% of all land animals are larger than a sheep."

thats assuming he built a crate... not a ark, railroad stock cars are built like crate not like boats...lol

and furthermore living 600 year to make the boat that about 12 lifetimes at the time assuming you live a good long life of 50 years.

and also a cubit isn't an exact measurement... its quite litterially th length from the elbow to the tip of your middle finger... usually 17-21 inches; or 43 to 53cm... the lengths of a cubit for me is 20.25 inches, but i'm a tall person will large arms, if noah existed he was likely not 6'2" but rather closer to 5 feet, maybe 5'6" if he was tall for his time.

then the the problem of there was no boat ever built of that size until atleast 4000-5000 years after the fact, even boats of that size were prone to heavy leakage until iron bracing was invented which requires iron metallurgy which came about at around 1800BCE or about 200-1200 years after the flood was alleged to occur.
 
  by: havoc666     05/29/2007 03:37 AM     
  @JoeU  
 
"And, the number of scientists who are creationists continues to grow."

What growth? The number of biologists willing to sign a statement saying they are sceptical of evolution is around 30. Would you care to guess at the number of biologists who aren't? Would you care to guess at the number of Christian scientists who aren't?

As much as you'd like to believe that your position is scientifically valid, it isn't, plain and simple. Quoting the bible isn't going to change that, and quoting Answers in Genesis certainly won't change that.
 
  by: Ec5618   05/29/2007 07:27 AM     
  havoc666  
 
Regarding several (5) of your statements:

1.) there simply isn't enough water on earth to flood the whole of earth, and certianly not over earths tallest features, like mount everest.
...
2.) try using actual science to prove creation
...
3.) and again theres simply not enough water for that, short of a massive ball of ice crashing into earth and accounting for all that extra water it would require
...
4.) but then where did all the water go
...
5.) everything that exists, must exist somewhere, nothing can just disappear entirely as the water from a global flood would have had to.

Answer:

(Partial quote)
Where did the waters go?
The whole earth was covered with the floodwaters (see Chapter 10, Was the Flood global?), and the world that then existed was destroyed by the very waters out of which the land had originally emerged at God's command ( Gen. 1:9, 2 Pet. 3:5–6). But where did those waters go after the Flood?

There are a number of Scripture passages that identify the floodwaters with the present-day seas ( Amos 9:6 and Job 38:8–11, note 'waves'). If the waters are still here, why are the highest mountains not still covered with water, as they were in Noah's day? Psalm 104 suggests an answer. After the waters covered the mountains (verse 6), God rebuked them and they fled (verse 7); the mountains rose, the valleys sank down (verse 8) and God set a boundary so that they will never again cover the earth (verse 9). 18 They are the same waters!

Isaiah gives this same statement that the waters of Noah would never again cover the earth ( Isaiah 54:9). Clearly, what the Bible is telling us is that God altered the earth's topography. New continental land-masses bearing new mountain chains of folded rock strata were uplifted from below the globe-encircling waters that had eroded and leveled the pre-Flood topography, while large deep ocean basins were formed to receive and accommodate the Flood waters that then drained off the emerging continents.

That is why the oceans are so deep, and why there are folded mountain ranges. Indeed, if the entire earth's surface were leveled by smoothing out the topography of not only the land surface but also the rock surface on the ocean floor, the waters of the ocean would cover the earth's surface to a depth of 2.7 kilometers (1.7 miles).19 We need to remember that about 70% of the earth's surface is still covered by water. Quite clearly, then, the waters of Noah's Flood are in today's ocean basins. (End of partial quote)
...
From: Noah's Flood—what about all that water? by Don Batten (editor), Ken Ham, Jonathan Sarfati, and Carl Wieland First published in The Revised & Expanded Answers Book Chapter 12 http://www.answersingenesis.org/...

In closing, concerning "the world-wide flood", as at least one person ( Buddy Davis) has recorded in song ... the following question and answer:

Billions Of Dead Things
"If there really was a world-wide flood,
what would the evidence be?

Billions of dead things
buried in rock layers
laid down by water,
all over the earth."

To listen,
click: http://media.gospelcom.net/...
(Requires the free RealPlayer Basic software).
 
  by: JoeU   05/29/2007 09:46 AM     
  @JoeU  
 
Yes, if there was a flood, there would be evidence of it in the form of billions of dead things.
They wouldn't be layed out as they are though. They would be layed out quite differently.

Honestly, why doesn't anyone trust that scientists as a group aren't incompetent? You don't study and train your entire life just to miss obvious things. If a flood was likely, or even possible, scientists would have found evidence.
 
  by: Ec5618   05/29/2007 10:48 AM     
  @JoeU  
 
And Answers is Genesis is making a mockery of free speech and of values such as honesty. They actively promote things that are blatantly false, and lie to ignorant people like yourself. You can hardly expect sane people to take you seriously when your source material is so easily debunked.
Please consider upgrading to a scientific source, the next time you feel an urge to learn something.
 
  by: Ec5618   05/29/2007 10:55 AM     
  @havoc666  
 
"saying reality needs "god" is akin to saying we need unicorns to exist"
No, actually, it's really not. I basically said: Reality [subset of] God [implies] God. This is a valid logical statment that, if true, tells us something about God. You said: Unicorn [subset of] Reality [implies] Reality. This tells us nothing because we already know we have Reality.

"at some point that computer will be receiving computer imput"
So what? Again, in regards to my computer analogies, you seem to be making loosely related observations that actually have nothing to do with my point. I'm not sure why you are saying what you are.

"i'm hoping ths was just a case of a bad example"
I basically said you had to act as if you did not and could not have knowledge of the waste seen in the woods. I asked you to think about what knowledge could be gained by only observation of existence and absolutely no associated "causality" knowledge. You said you already knew what waste was and where it came from and determined then that the example was bad. I disagree. You cannot call my example bad just because you did not consider it based on the specified premise. I'll try again in a very general sense so you don't get lost in tangibles: If you ONLY know that a specific object exists, what can you know about the object's origins or meaning, and more specifically, what the cause of the origins may be?

You created the following logical progression:
[1] I know from science that waste comes from animals.
[2] I observe something that looks like waste in the woods.
[3] I guess that some animal was in the woods.

This is fine, so consider:
[1] I know from science that certain behaviors can be expected within Cellular Automata.
[2] I observe that Reality exhibits those expected behaviors.
[3] I guess that Reality exists within a CA.

That seems to be the same logic you used. The only difference is that with repeated and controlled observation, we are able to gain knowledge of causality and confirm the waste I observed in the woods did come from a deer and could not have ended up there otherwise. How can I possibly hope to observe the casality of Reality so I may know for sure?

"...at some point something has to always exist... why the unknown?"
Even if you do not see the logic above as sound, how do you escape the paradox you are now in:
[1] Things can only exist in Reality after created.
[2] Only things that exist in Reality can create.

This is by no means a new concept, but what caused the first thing(s)? You say our universe came from energy that came from another universe that collapsed. Well that's swell, but you're still stuck in the paradox. Where did that universe come from? If you say that [1] is incorrect, how can anything exist if it hasn't been created by something else? You've already stated that things cannot come from nothing, so [1] has to be true. If you claim that [2] is wrong, how do you claim things are created? You've already stated that there is nothing outside of this Reality that has any bearing on this Reality (ie - there is no God), so [2] has to be true. If [1] and [2] are true, you're awfully happy to be existing in an impossible state.

So what do we do? Go for a contradiction. Assume [2] is true. Let Object_A be the first thing. Applying [1] automatically contradicts the assumption (by requiring that Object_A is not the first thing), so it would seem that [2] cannot be true. If [2] cannot be true, then how do things get created? Something that doesn't exist within Reality must also be able to create things within Reality. Let's say the first things came to exist by God (the Cellular Automaton) entering its initial state. Why isn't this a paradox too? Why isn't it possible that God is just within another CA, within another CA, etc? That might be the case, but ONLY if God is bound by the same rules as I ONLY know to exist WITHIN God. I'd hate to just assume the same rules apply for God as apply for me just because I can't explain it otherwise. Someone saying that would sound like a religious fanatic bent on believing something just so they can tell themselves they are right. I know you're not one of those, so I know you won't try that argument.

You ask, "Why the unknown?". I ask you, given the two points and logic above, "How the known?"
 
  by: nicohlis     05/30/2007 01:20 AM     
  @Evolutionists  
 
I'm not a creationist. I'm just saying they have more scientific merit then you do. You also don't explain why you think things are scientifically inaccurate, you quote text books that are ENTIRELY inaccurate themselves.
Do text books explain how they determin the age of things? Its called Radio Carbon Dating. Do you know this is in NO WAY SCIENTIFIC. It itself is a theory, and your basing a theory on a theory if you guesstimate the age of dinosaurs. I've heard of people's toe nails radio carbon dating to be 32 million years old.

@Havoc.
At no point in your incoherant rambling did you once use any scientific study or method to disprove any of my statements. All you provided was your ignorance of science and an inability to be open minded to possiblities.

I at no point made religous statements,I was stating scientific observations.

@ Not enough water people.

You do know that matter can break down into other elements and become something new don't you? Were you
alive 4200 years ago to know what the global water mass was? Did we have things in space orbiting the earth to give us accurate readings? Certainly not.(And we certainly didn't 32 BILLION years ago hahaha or 230913029301812038120 Quadrillion years ago. since its all the same number when you have no proven scientific method to base it on.
 
  by: Tetsuru Uzuki     05/30/2007 01:50 AM     
  @JoeU  
 
If the story of Noah's Ark were true there would be molecular evidence of the event in DNA of all living things.

If each species of animal currently alive on this planet were descended from a single mating pair of animals (or even 7 pairs of "clean" animals") of each species, there would be fixed amount of genetic drift across all species.

This is not the case at all. Molecular evidence shows genetic drift at rates that require entire populations occurring over spans of time that far predate humanity.

There are far too many allelic combinations in existence, far too many unique tandem repeats, and far too many satellite regions evident in all organisms which have had their genomes unraveled to have had their genetic drift reset to a single mating pair, much less every species of animal on the planet. The known amount and rate of drift between individuals and between species is different even though the basal rate of mutation is generally the same.

@lauriesman

Forgive me if I don’t take your word for it. I’ve read reports on the Greenland ice sheet cores that explain to my satisfaction the estimated ages of the cores. I’ve road Oard’s counter claims and they are utterly absurd. The events that must take place for his interpretation of the evidence are not just improbable but patently impossible – collaborating evidence of the volcanic evidence he needs for his hypothesis to pan out would be abound in rock layers, sediment layers, even in the gases trapped within rocks and ice. But there is no such evidence. Anywhere. Therefore his claims to explaining away the inconvenient facts of the Greenland icesheet are entirely without merit.

And again, I would like a link to this evidence of a great flood in your Antarctic core claim. I’ve googled and I find no such creditable evidence in existence anywhere. What I have seen is independent conclusions being drawn that show how the data obtained in all ice core samples to date have *disproved* the existence of any global flood.
 
  by: Ouka   05/30/2007 01:55 AM     
  @JoeU  
 
water does not disappear... like i said try using science.

if they were the same waters as in the the mythical flood waters then all water would be salt water.

ah yes "god" set boundaries to prevent something which is scientifically impossible from happening... just rule "god" out and you have the exact same outcome.

mount everest did not grow 8Km within 6000-10000 years. so you can rule out "God rebuked them and they fled (verse 7); the mountains rose"

"That is why the oceans are so deep, and why there are folded mountain ranges. Indeed, if the entire earth's surface were leveled by smoothing out the topography of not only the land surface but also the rock surface on the ocean floor, the waters of the ocean would cover the earth's surface to a depth of 2.7 kilometers (1.7 miles)."

and can you tell me just when in earths history its topography was completely smooth?

"19 We need to remember that about 70% of the earth's surface is still covered by water. Quite clearly, then, the waters of Noah's Flood are in today's ocean basins. (End of partial quote)
..."

lol, yes because there were not oceans at the time (4000-5000 years ago)... give me a break...lol

"From: Noah's Flood—what about all that water? by Don Batten (editor), Ken Ham, Jonathan Sarfati, and Carl Wieland First published in The Revised & Expanded Answers Book Chapter 12 http://www.answersingenesis.org/...

got anything scientific... or just mythical (biblical) "evidence"

"In closing, concerning "the world-wide flood", as at least one person ( Buddy Davis) has recorded in song ... the following question and answer:

Billions Of Dead Things
"If there really was a world-wide flood,
what would the evidence be?

Billions of dead things
buried in rock layers
laid down by water,
all over the earth."

To listen,
click: http://media.gospelcom.net/...
(Requires the free RealPlayer Basic software)."

if there was a flood you'd find the fossils of aquatic life like in mountians, your find land-life en mass in the depths of the waters.

if there was a global flood all water would be salt water, most plant life couldn't live

if there was a flood the water would still exist rather than disappear into nothingness from when it would have came both of which are scientific impossibilities.

and people (some people) wonder why creationism isn't taught in science class.
 
  by: havoc666     05/30/2007 01:58 AM     
  @tetsuru  
 
"I'm not a creationist. I'm just saying they have more scientific merit then you do. You also don't explain why you think things are scientifically inaccurate, you quote text books that are ENTIRELY inaccurate themselves.
Do text books explain how they determin the age of things? Its called Radio Carbon Dating. Do you know this is in NO WAY SCIENTIFIC. It itself is a theory, and your basing a theory on a theory if you guesstimate the age of dinosaurs. I've heard of people's toe nails radio carbon dating to be 32 million years old."

you see its like this atoms of certian element decay at certian rates, half life it how long it takes for a given atom to lose half radioactive substance... this is static, and therefor can but used to date things with roguh accuracy, when dating dinosaurs theres not need to be accurate to the year to the million year is quite suffiencent.

the reason dating can give result like that is parts of us are millions of years old minerals don't have our limited life-span.

"@Havoc.
At no point in your incoherant rambling did you once use any scientific study or method to disprove any of my statements. All you provided was your ignorance of science and an inability to be open minded to possiblities."

i provided explaination whicvh are logical and scientifically accepted you offered religious superstition

if you have nothing intelligible to further add don't bothering directing comments my why...

take a science class that not taught by a creationist and taught from the bible... use science, using the bible is not scientific by any stretch of the imagination.

"I at no point made religous statements,I was stating scientific observations."

bullshit

the flood has never been proven, not a global flood you asserted that it was a fact.

the closest thing you gave to facts was hyperbolic environment (its hyperbaric btw), and your knowledge on such is clearly quite limited, yes for the most part about its affects on life is true however nowhere near the extent to which you hyperbolize them to be.

"@ Not enough water people.

You do know that matter can break down into other elements and become something new don't you? Were you
alive 4200 years ago to know what the global water mass was? Did we have things in space orbiting the earth to give us accurate readings? Certainly not.(And we certainly didn't 32 BILLION years ago hahaha or 230913029301812038120 Quadrillion years ago. since its all the same number when you have no proven scientific method to base it on."

yes 2 hydrogen atom and 1 oxygen make 1 water molecule, but how in any way do you think this make the story of the flood any more likely of a possibility.

your basically saying the bible is right because of ignorance, not knowing the answer, science may not know all the answer but it wont substitute something with no basis for the answer...

and btw theres a critical difference between a theory and a Theory, scietific Theory is supported by evidence and observation, whereas theory is a guess.
 
  by: havoc666     05/30/2007 02:17 AM     
  @JoeU, Tetsuru Uzuki  
 
JoeU: Yes, the Old Testament can be interpretted, much as the words of Nostradamus, to explain our world. Have you considered that this might be because this was its purpose for primitive people with no better way to understand their world? Given this, it should come as no surprise that it seems to make sense for people who reject science today.

Basically, as far as your "evidence" goes, I could cite passages from Star Wars to explain modern faith, but that doesn't make the Force real. It just means that the fiction finds its roots in our world.

Tet: "I'm just saying [creationists] have more scientific merit then you do. You also don't explain why you think things are scientifically inaccurate, you quote text books that are ENTIRELY inaccurate themselves."

There's nothing scientific about creationism to begin with, sorry. Furthermore, as soon as someone utters the phrase, "just a theory" in such a way pretty much shows there's little scientific backing to their opinion, either. Given that, why don't you cite a few sources for your questionable opinions before you deride Havoc for not doing so to debunk them? Carbon dating a sham? More scientific proof for creationism than evolution? Those two alone are a lot to prove, and they're your (as yet)baseless claims. Even the most well-respected scientists cannot get away with just tossing out ideas without validation. Who are you to think you can?
 
  by: MomentOfClarity     05/30/2007 02:30 AM     
  @Tetsuru Uzuki  
 
“I'm not a creationist. I'm just saying they have more scientific merit then you do.”

And you obviously aren’t a scientist either. Radio carbon dating is but one of a multitude of dating techniques. In biology it would not be a theory, it’s a Theory. I hope you know the difference. In fact, in the given field I think it’s a Principle.

Clearly you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about and expose yourself to be completely ignorant of the principle if you think radio isotope labeling can be off by 32 million years: Dating is only accurate to 50,000 years or so. Beyond that and we turn to different techniques.

Educate yourself a little please before making yourself look ignorant again

http://archserve.id.ucsb.edu/...

As far as your water comments:

Very good. Matter can shift form. I’m glad you got that much out of chemistry at least. But did you take physics? Matter shifts forms can shift forms during chemical reactions, but it’s not created or destroyed. The mass you have at the beginning of the reaction balances to the amount of mass at the end.

Let’s go through a little math exercise, shall we? The earth is, on average, 12,715,000 meters in diameter. Mt. Everest is 8,848 meters tall. For Everest to be under 20 feet of water, the sea level would have to be at 8,853 meters relative to modern sea levels, therefore having the diameter of 12,723,853 meters.

The volume of a sphere is defined by the equation 4/3 PI r^3.

The volume of earth as it currently exists would therefore be 4/3 * 3.1415 * 6,357,500 ^ 3

That’s 1,076,303,883,281,052,083,333 cubic meters of volume.

The volume of the earth covered with water topping Everest by 20 feet would be 4/3 * 3.1416 * 6,361926^3

That’s 1,078,553,624,732,516,518,966 cubic meters of volume.

The difference, therefore, would be 2,249,741,451,464,435,633 cubic meters of volume.

That’s 2.2 million trillion cubic meters of water above and beyond the current mass of water on this planet. That’s a whole lot of H20 to just disappear into thin air. There isn’t that much oxygen and hydrogen available anywhere on this planet. Even allowing for evaporation, photolysis, unknown underground water deposits, loss to space, etc there just isn’t that much extra mass sitting around this planet anywhere that would account for that volume of water.

Not to mention that 8,853 meters of water would have exerted 12,606 psi of pressure at anything at or around current sea level, absolutely crushing any and all surface features.
 
  by: Ouka   05/30/2007 02:36 AM     
  @nicohlis  
 
"No, actually, it's really not. I basically said: Reality [subset of] God [implies] God. This is a valid logical statment that, if true, tells us something about God. You said: Unicorn [subset of] Reality [implies] Reality. This tells us nothing because we already know we have Reality."

lol... all i did was subject one unknown and unproven for another... the outcome wouldn't logically change your predisposition to reality requiring "god" is false because in both cases we know reality exists.


"So what? Again, in regards to my computer analogies, you seem to be making loosely related observations that actually have nothing to do with my point. I'm not sure why you are saying what you are."

obviously using computer terms my resurt was returned you you in terms of computers... every computer requires user input as some point programming the hardware, programming the software, running the program, imputting parameters.

perhaps computer logic isn't the best example to be using for an analogy

"I basically said you had to act as if you did not and could not have knowledge of the waste seen in the woods. I asked you to think about what knowledge could be gained by only observation of existence and absolutely no associated "causality" knowledge. You said you already knew what waste was and where it came from and determined then that the example was bad. I disagree. You cannot call my example bad just because you did not consider it based on the specified premise."

and i said that as a living shitting being you would be familiar with excerminate, irreguardless of from what animal.

"I'll try again in a very general sense so you don't get lost in tangibles: If you ONLY know that a specific object exists, what can you know about the object's origins or meaning, and more specifically, what the cause of the origins may be?"

short of some scientific analysis your not going to know much or maybe not anything about it but as a being you would.

"You created the following logical progression:
[1] I know from science that waste comes from animals.
[2] I observe something that looks like waste in the woods.
[3] I guess that some animal was in the woods.

This is fine, so consider:
[1] I know from science that certain behaviors can be expected within Cellular Automata.
[2] I observe that Reality exhibits those expected behaviors.
[3] I guess that Reality exists within a CA."

i think the latter arguement is backwards... CA would exist within reality not the other way around...

though to be honest i know very little of cellular automaton, i'll try to research it.

"That seems to be the same logic you used. The only difference is that with repeated and controlled observation, we are able to gain knowledge of causality and confirm the waste I observed in the woods did come from a deer and could not have ended up there otherwise. How can I possibly hope to observe the casality of Reality so I may know for sure?"

i'm not entirely sure causality of reality can be proven... even if you can seen the beginning of time i fail to see how this would prove not disprove reality.

"Even if you do not see the logic above as sound, how do you escape the paradox you are now in:
[1] Things can only exist in Reality after created.
[2] Only things that exist in Reality can create.

This is by no means a new concept, but what caused the first thing(s)? You say our universe came from energy that came from another universe that collapsed. Well that's swell, but you're still stuck in the paradox. Where did that universe come from? If you say that [1] is incorrect, how can anything exist if it hasn't been created by something else? You've already stated that things cannot come from nothing, so [1] has to be true. If you claim that [2] is wrong, how do you claim things are created? You've already stated that there is nothing outside of this Reality that has any bearing on this Reality (ie - there is no God), so [2] has to be true. If [1] and [2] are true, you're awfully happy to be existing in an impossible state."

i fully accept i don't know where the initial matter/energy came from. i don't subcribe to creating matter/energy as its totally unfounded scientifically, and ultimately in the end it seems one must always have existed otherwise something had to be created from nothing its therefor most logical that the one that we know exist has simply always existed.

i don't see a paradox, only mystery

"So what do we do? Go for a contradiction. Assume [2] is true. Let Object_A be the first thing. Applying [1] automatically contradicts the assumption (by requiring that Object_A is not the first thing), so it would seem that [2] cannot be true. If [2] cannot be true, then how do things get created? Something that doesn't exist within Reality must also be able to create things within Reality. Let's say the first things came to exist by God (the Cellular Automaton) entering its initial state. Why isn't
 
  by: havoc666     05/30/2007 02:50 AM     
  Ouka  
 
Let's read what has been written by:
a Molecular Biologist (Pierre Jerlström) "the ... created kind would all then stem from the original parent kind present on the Ark."
and
a Geneticist Dr. Maciej Giertych, "Evolution is not a conclusion drawn from observations. It is an ideology to which observations are applied when convenient and ignored when not"


Jumping wallaby genes and post-Flood speciation
by Pierre Jerlström Ph.D. in Molecular Biology

Jumping genes or transposable elements (TEs) are present in virtually all life forms, from bacteria to humans. They are short DNA sequences that can move from site to site in the chromosomes of their hosts. They have been divided into two groups, DNA transposons and retroelements.1 (portion omitted)

Evidence supports biblical model
The very rapid genetic changes caused by TEs could help explain the formation of the variants from the original kinds on Noah’s Ark in the relatively short biblical time frame.1 Rapid speciation apparently occurred, since early historical records already show a large variety of types similar to those present today. The various species representing the variants in e.g. the kangaroo/wallaby created kind would all then stem from the original parent kind present on the Ark.
From: http://www.answersingenesis.org/...

In regard to alleles:

"An allele is one of two or more alternative forms of a gene, which determine the same characteristic but produce a different effect (e.g. the eye-colour gene can have a 'brown' or 'blue' allele)."

See also: Professor of genetics says 'No!' to evolution
http://www.answersingenesis.org/...
by Dr. Maciej Giertych, Geneticist

(Partial quote)
MOLECULAR GENETICS

Many hoped that molecular genetics would confirm evolution. It did not. It confirms taxonomic distances between organisms, but not the postulated phylogenetic sequences.* It confirmed Linnaeus, not Darwin.
Molecular genetics presented new problems. Genomes [all the genes in an organism] have multiple copies of genes or of noncoding sequences, very homogeneous within a species but heterogeneous between species. Such 'repeats' could not have been formed by random mutations acting on a common genome of a postulated ancestor. Some unexplained 'molecular drive' is postulated to account for these copies. It is simpler to assume there was no common ancestral genome.**

What do we see in the short time interval available to our cognition? An increase in the number of useful alleles or a decrease? An increase in the number of species or a decrease? An increase in information in nature or loss of it? Is nature moving from chaos to ever-increasing organization, or from an organized state towards ever-increasing chaos? Evolution is not a conclusion drawn from observations. It is an ideology to which observations are applied when convenient and ignored when not. From: http://www.answersingenesis.org/...


 
  by: JoeU   05/30/2007 03:15 AM     
  @JoeU  
 
Do you understand anything you just posted? Half of it isn't relevant and the other half is patentently false.

Transposable elements - or P elements - cannot account for the genetic variation seen between individuals of the same species or variations between related species.

45% of the human genome is comprised of transposable elements. However the variation seen within that 45% of our DNA is too great to be accounted for if we all sprang from a relativly recent ancestor. That and the history record off these TEs go back over 100 million years -- it takes about that long for the sequence within the TE to degrade past the point of being able to recognize the sequence for what it is.

Furhtermore the percentage and volume of TEs in a given genome differs greatly bewtween speices - from 30% to 80%. If all species restarted their genetic drift at the same time we would see much closer percentages.

As far as TEs serving as a method of rapid evolution -- show me an example. TEs are by and large non-coding regions. They don't have selective pressures applied to them.

Alleles -- excellent. So you can copy paste what an allele is. If you understood what you read then you'd know that the number of alleles present in modern populations cannot be accounted for if all members of those populations were decended from a single ancestral pair only a geologically short time ago.

Non-coding regions -- whomever wrote that drivel needs to take a course in genetics instead of trying to write about it. Yes the non-coding regions can be largely explained by a) basal mutation rates, b) gene dupication events, and c) chromosome alteration events.

 
  by: ouka   05/30/2007 03:45 AM     
  @ouka  
 
I'd love to give you a link to a discovery channel episode (yes, not all educational material resides on the Internet) but unfortunately I can't. More to the point, I can't even give you the name of the program because as it happens, I don't remember it. What I can tell you is that it was several years ago, that involved deep drilling of Antarctic ice cores, and that there was some evidence of a flood of 'biblical' proportions. Heck, I can't even tell you circa what year the analysis put the flood event.

Now, whether you believe it or not is irrelevant to me. I'm not trying to convince you of anything.
 
  by: lauriesman     05/30/2007 03:58 AM     
  missed a few things..  
 
copy paste obliterated a few lines of text

More on transposable elements --

TEs are SHORT sequences. 3000 base pairs or so. They are of insufficent size to create new gene elements which are orders of magnitude greater in size.

More on allels --

Alleles are "flavors" of genes. New alleles are created via mutation -- typically via a replication event then subsequent mutation. Any given organism has two alleles for a given gene loci -- one from each parent. With a single pair of ancestors you'd have a maximum of 4 alleles for a given gene loci. If my modern population shows dozens of alleles then one of two things happened -- there has always been a large enough population to support the number of alleles observed or all these alleles came into existance very rapidly.

The later cannot be true because when we examine the "legacy" data within the genome we find evidence for these alleles to have had existed and developed over a long period of time, not just at the drop of the hat.
 
  by: ouka   05/30/2007 04:01 AM     
  @havoc666... No, no, no  
 
"all i did was subject one unknown and unproven for another"
No, you did not. As I stated, you changed out Reality for a Unicorn and God for Reality. Care to state which one of those pairs of switches involved two unknowns? I'll save you the effort; since Reality is in both pairs, and you state that Reality is the only known thing we have, you did not switch out an unknown for an unknown in either pair.

"every computer requires user input as some point"
No. No computer ever requires any user input. The computer can remain off for all eternity. By the logic you use in defining Reality, let's just say that the computer has always been on and various programs live happily in RAM space. If you say the computer had to be turned on in order for RAM space to exist, then how can you say Reality just exists without requiring an initial creation?

"and i said that as a living shitting being you would be familiar with excerminate"
Not the point, against the premise, and you know it. Why do you keep trying to detract from the point?

"your not going to know much or maybe not anything about it"
So how do you figure you know anything about Reality when all you have is one instance of Reality to observe?

"i think the latter arguement is backwards"
No, try again. If something behaves a certain way inside a CA, and Reality behaves the same as something inside a CA, then Reality is likely inside a CA.

"therefor most logical that the one that we know exist has simply always existed"
How is it more logical to have a paradox? That's a contradiction in and of itself.

"i don't see a paradox, only mystery"
How poetic of you. Why don't you go out on a limb and state something for the record? Either the two statements were both correct and do not contradict, or at least one of them was false. If they do not contradict each other, please explain how. If one of the statements was false, please say which and why. Shouldn't be too hard, afterall, if what you're going to say is true, it can be proven, right?
 
  by: nicohlis     05/30/2007 04:09 AM     
  @Now, wlauriesman  
 
"Now, whether you believe it or not is irrelevant to me. I'm not trying to convince you of anything."

Facinating. So you bring up a point to support a particular point of view-- specifically that the ice core samples of the antarctic show evidence of a massive flood, even giving a possible time frome for the maximum age of said samples, but then fail to be able to substantiate the claim in any sort of meaningful way.

You'd think something of such import would be readily avaialable on the interweb, heralded by the fanatical literalists of the Bible as defacto proof of their claims; the same people that will doggedly take any little piece of scientific evidence and twist it out of context to support their preconceived ideas.

I was giving you the opportunity to find the sources yourself, but since you appear to be unwilling let me tell you what I think you have greatly misunderstood:

The core samples you refer to are not ice core samples, they are sediment samples. The show evidence of a LOCAL flood when the underground lakes of the antartic destablized. This even happend 12 to 14 MILLION years ago. Well outside the reach of any ice core sample, let alone human history.
 
  by: ouka   05/30/2007 04:19 AM     
  @nicohlis  
 
"How is it more logical to have a paradox?"

About as logical as it is to insist upon the existence of an infinitely-superior father figure simply because a void needs to be filled, I'd wager. Me, I propose that Lord Edward Hyde Cornbury began creation. Hey, the Big Bang theory doesn't explain it all, so I guess all bets on reality are off. Or, perhaps it was Linda Tripp...or maybe a marshmallow.
 
  by: MomentOfClarity     05/30/2007 04:29 AM     
  @ouka  
 
"Facinating. So you bring up a point to support a particular point of view-- specifically that the ice core samples of the antarctic show evidence of a massive flood"

Actually, I didn't bring it up to support a point of view, but as an aside to another persons comment about there being no evidence. I'm not concerned on whether you believe it or not, just adding information to the pool. I have no agenda here.

"then fail to be able to substantiate the claim in any sort of meaningful way."

Boo hoo. Sometimes life sucks, doesn't it? If you're really that concerned that i might be lying, I'm sure you could get in contact with the network and ask them to track down the particular episode.

"You'd think something of such import would be readily avaialable on the interweb, heralded by the fanatical literalists of the Bible as defacto proof of their claims; the same people that will doggedly take any little piece of scientific evidence and twist it out of context to support their preconceived ideas."

Most of those self same fanaticals also believe in the "young earth" theory. Can't profess to support the ice cores because of the evidence of a flood then rubbish them when they suggest the earth is indeed older than 6000 years.

"The core samples you refer to are not ice core samples, they are sediment samples. The show evidence of a LOCAL flood when the underground lakes of the antartic destablized."

You could be right about sediment samples, but you'd definitely be wrong about the nature of the flood suggested - since the word 'biblical' was used in defining the scope of it. Maybe if you're that desperate you can find a transcript of the show and prove me wrong that way. I'll happily stand corrected if you can do that.
 
  by: lauriesman     05/30/2007 05:06 AM     
  @lauriesman  
 
Are you honestly saying that you don't have a problem stating things as fact when all we have to substatiate them is your word that remembered a Discovery Channel documentary (hardly unfamiliar with hyperbole) correctly?
NExt time, please say something along the lines of: "I once saw a documentary that suggested that core samples suggested that there once was a global flood."
 
  by: Ec5618   05/30/2007 08:59 AM     
  @nicohlis  
 
"No, you did not. As I stated, you changed out Reality for a Unicorn and God for Reality. Care to state which one of those pairs of switches involved two unknowns? I'll save you the effort; since Reality is in both pairs, and you state that Reality is the only known thing we have, you did not switch out an unknown for an unknown in either pair."

again no, i merely replace "god" with unicorn... both are unknown, neither is proven to exist.

therefor saying reality requires "god" to exist has equal merit yo saying reality requires that unicorns exist. if you cannot understand the simple point being made, it probably best to drop it as i don't think i can make it any more simplist for you.


"No. No computer ever requires any user input. The computer can remain off for all eternity. By the logic you use in defining Reality, let's just say that the computer has always been on and various programs live happily in RAM space. If you say the computer had to be turned on in order for RAM space to exist, then how can you say Reality just exists without requiring an initial creation?"

well of course you could leave the computer of... in the case of a computer computer must be programmed, and that programming at some point comes from a user as i illustrated in the variious forms of input and programming computers have or tend to get.

the problem with comparing reality being created to a computer being created is we know the computer hasa creator, because we are the creator... in the case of reality and us this is not true... its BELEIVED we require a creator, and this is without PROOF with makes it faith.

i don't believe in initial creation because voids known and observed laws of science; "energy can neither created nor destroyed, it can only change form".

unless your ready to demostrate how energy can be created, creation doesn't have merit... not scienctifically... in the pulpit it can have all the merit the follower choose to have faith in, but in no way will tht ever make it true.

and if you can demostrate it you'd be a world renouned scientist for figuring out how to do what is scienctifically impossible.


"Not the point, against the premise, and you know it. Why do you keep trying to detract from the point?"

of course it not the point logic doesn't seen to have much foothold with you, or a few other on this thread for that matter... you're basically asking me to suppose i'm living and can find shit in the woods, yet as a living being not be familiar with shit and to guess where it came from.

so your in essense supposing this person it completely ignorant, both on a level of science and of animal instinct.

"So how do you figure you know anything about Reality when all you have is one instance of Reality to observe?"

ok, i suggest you take a break and look up what reality means. i've defined it in this thread numberous times, yet appartently you must have missed it

try this definition "something that constitutes a real or actual thing, as distinguished from something that is merely apparent. "

or would you rather keep beleiving "reality is "god""... if so fine, but but your no longer fit for this discussion, as the clearly demostrates a lacking of knowledge of just what reality is... can be observe by everyone, and is independent of everything else, requiring nothing else for existance. "god" is not in this catagory as "god" requires faith.

"No, try again. If something behaves a certain way inside a CA, and Reality behaves the same as something inside a CA, then Reality is likely inside a CA."

have you heard of having the cart before the horse? this is a clear example of that. again refer to arguement of reality.

reality isn't in something it is everything... everything thats REAL that is, if something cannot be proven than it obviously isn't reality... again i don't know about CA, but assuming it entirely true would be PART OF reality not reality a part of it.

"How is it more logical to have a paradox? That's a contradiction in and of itself.

its puzzling to say the least but you assume something created everything from nothing is scientifically impossible and has no basis... whereas everything simply always existing while puzzling is a scinetific fact, in that energy can neither be created nor destroyed.

and its a contradiction how? all energy and thusly matter has always existed in some form... how is this a contradiction? what is it contradicting... aside from obviously faith.

"How poetic of you. Why don't you go out on a limb and state something for the record? Either the two statements were both correct and do not contradict, or at least one of them was false. If they do not contradict each other, please explain how. If one of the statements was false, please say which and why. Shouldn't be too hard, afterall, if what you're going to say is true, it can be proven, right?"

well thank you... i actually am a poet (or atleast was, i'm poeticall
 
  by: havoc666     05/30/2007 03:20 PM     
  @nicohlis part 2  
 
"How poetic of you. Why don't you go out on a limb and state something for the record? Either the two statements were both correct and do not contradict, or at least one of them was false. If they do not contradict each other, please explain how. If one of the statements was false, please say which and why. Shouldn't be too hard, afterall, if what you're going to say is true, it can be proven, right?"

well thank you... i actually am a poet (or atleast was, i'm poetically inactive), perhaps thats why.

both statements are false, though the latter has a semblance of truth in it... we do not "create" we multiply, by our human understanding we are "creating" but scientifically we are not, we are multiplying by dividing (birth), this is not creation, though life as we know it has been "created".

again i see no paradox, only a mystery.

does this satasify your question?
 
  by: havoc666     05/30/2007 03:20 PM     
  @Ec  
 
If you can disprove it, go ahead. I've watched a lot of educational television, documentaries, and heck, I've read a lot of really good non-fiction books.

You make of it what you will. It is NOT my job to spoon feed you with line and page sources, or even more general accounts.

FWIW "Hyperbole" = exaggeration to excess. The scientist was asked what the findings meant, his response was that there had been a mammoth flood at that time of possibly 'biblical' scale. Now, if a scientist says the evidence shows a flood of possibly 'biblical' scale, then I'm going to assume that is indeed what the evidence shows. It doesn't meant eh flood was indeed biblical, or that it was THE biblical flood.
 
  by: lauriesman     05/30/2007 03:48 PM     
  @lauriesman  
 
I know what hyperbole means, which is why I used the word when I wanted to express my opinion that documentaries are often laden with excessive exaggeration.

And if you're going to make a statement that you're unwilling and unable to corroborate, please make a note of that in your statement. When you make a claim, the onus is on you to back it up. When you share an opinion, you invite others to share theirs, or to come up with evidence against your opinion.

Now, again, you said that 'Antactic ice core samples show that there was once a flood of biblical proportions'. What you meant to say was something along the lines of 'I once saw a documentary that suggested that core samples suggested that there once was a global flood.'
 
  by: Ec5618   05/30/2007 03:55 PM     
  @lauriesman  
 
“Actually, I didn't bring it up to support a point of view, but as an aside to another persons comment about there being no evidence.”

Bullox. You brought it up as evidence of the event. Unless you don’t believe what you said then you used it to bolster an argument.

“If you're really that concerned that i might be lying”

I don’t think you are lying, I think you are horribly misinformed and are spreading a half-remembered idea out of context as proof of a Biblical event. The very sort of nonsense that encourages the ill-educated masses to continue their unfounded march against all things rational that slight their Faith.

Stating unsubstantiated items as facts leads to people like Tetsuru Uzuki above who probably picked up his patently false fact about radiocarbon dated 32 myo toenails from a website forum much like this one, then regurgitated it here where some other uncritical thinker will of course pass it on again. I’d rather crush such fountains of misinformation at their source and hopefully keep the woeful ignorance from spreading.

“I'm sure you could get in contact with the network and ask them to track down the particular episode. “

I’d need more information about the show. Was it solely about Antarctic floods or was it one of those pseudo-science religious specials they used to air on occasion that touch on a variety of loosely-related subjects and tie them though a series of clever but unsubstantial claims to Biblical events?

“Most of those self same fanaticals also believe in the "young earth" theory. Can't profess to support the ice cores because of the evidence of a flood then rubbish them when they suggest the earth is indeed older than 6000 years.”

Hardly. There’s many a prominent figure working hard to warp the age estimates of ice cores so they fit the mold of a Biblical time-frame, then the legions of faithful followers, who have no real understanding of the topic, that spread these shaky conclusions as absolute fact.

“You could be right about sediment samples, but you'd definitely be wrong about the nature of the flood suggested - since the word 'biblical' was used in defining the scope of it.”

As hyperbole or as fact? The Black Sea flood has been described by geologists as “biblical” even though they weren’t speaking literally. Hell, Katrina was described as “biblical”.

I could see describing the Antarctic floods of 12 mya ago as “biblical” (note: not “Biblical”) due to the awesome & raw power behind them. A flood that pumped 1000x the volume of Niagara Falls would aptly be described as “biblical”. And those floods had global effect as well. Not in terms of flooding the world, but in terms of unbalancing ecosystems world-wide. The influx of that much cold, fresh water into the oceans played havoc on the world’s oceans for centuries, maybe millennia. It’s even thought that much smaller but recent sub-glacial releases directly contributed to the recent ice ages that man lived through.
 
  by: Ouka   05/30/2007 10:30 PM     
  @havoc666, really final this time  
 
"if you cannot understand the simple point being made, it probably best to drop it"
If only you would take your own advice. So what you really said was "Reality [subset of] Unicorn [implies] Unicorn". You have "replaced" "God" (which has been argued to be a CA) with a Unicorn (which is not a CA). I'm curious, where in your obviously vast studies of logic did you learn that you can interchange two things which are not equivalent in order to nullify the original statement? Please do drop it, because you will never admit that your "logic" is not actually logic. It is just you talking.

"the problem with comparing reality being created to a computer being created is..."
The problem is that you're the only one comparing reality to the computer itself. I am comparing Reality to the internal RAM space inside the computer. Even at that, this is an exercise in abstract thought, and much like the example in the woods, you cannot seem to get past the tangibles. Once again, interchanging two non-equivalent things is simply wrong.

"of course it not the point logic doesn't seen to have much foothold with you"
I have shown over and over again that your arguments are not logical. Worse, they continue to barely respond to what I've actually said or asked.

"or would you rather keep beleiving reality is god"
I have not once said Reality is God. Again, you keep saying things, playing make-believe that you're actually making counter-points, but you say things that don't apply. You're shadow boxing.

"'god' is not in this catagory as 'god' requires faith."
If you could've got past the fact that I used God to name my CA, this might have been easier on everyone. Let's give the CA the following name: "*". Since I've only changed the name of the CA and have not changed the CA itself, everything I've already said still applies. Since it's a simple symbol now, you can stop twitching about me saying "God".

"have you heard of having the cart before the horse?"
Are you kidding?

"we do not "create" we multiply"
The shift of energy to matter is an act of creation that seemingly should have a cause. Matter fills up that possible states allowed by the CA, such as the ordering and limited number of elements.

You "know" energy exists and the laws of physics state that energy cannot be created or destroyed. Great, I'm largely in agreement on it, but how did the energy come to be? I'm not too confident on Systems Theory, but it appears we exist in a system where every subsystem has initial states, transitional states, and possibly end states. We are in a transitional state, and you claim we have always been in a transitional state. Do you say then that the universe had no initial state? That's tough considering systems models have initial states. Again, I'm very light on Systems Theory. If the universe did have an initial state, what caused it to leave the initial state?

Just because you can repeat a few physics laws at the end of several random comments does not make your entire post logical or correct. More often it just shows that you don't really know what your talking about. I'm done. I'm sure you'll post again pointing out that I've misunderstood how your arguments logically and absolutely refute everything I've said, but I feel comfortable knowing that it won't be true.
 
  by: nicohlis     05/31/2007 04:43 AM     
  ...  
 
Wether you believe in god or not, if you literally believe every single word in the Noah's Ark story there's something wrong with you. Can you honestly say that it's possible that and old man built by himself the largest and most technologically advanced ship for many centuries to come, managed to feed hundreds of animals that were suddenly "friends" with each other, sail for days and days withouth pretty much any experience and survive withouth any of the common diseases that affect sailors up untill modern times?
 
  by: rajah   06/03/2007 01:11 AM     
 
 
Copyright ©2018 ShortNews GmbH & Co. KG, Contact: info@shortnews.com