Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

1…212213215217218…232

Comments

  • #6422
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    I've already debunked that rubbish in an earlier post.
    What 'rubbish' did you 'debunk'?


  • #6423
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    Quote:-
    What Austin did was to exploit a known caveat in radiometric dating; dramatically illustrate it with a high-profile test using the public's favorite volcano, Mount St. Helens; and sensationalize the results in a paper that introduces nothing new to geologists, but that impresses laypeople with its detailed scientific language. Occasionally scientists do actually make huge discoveries that everyone else in their field had always missed, but such claims are wrong far more often than they're right; and Dr. Austin and his finding that radiometric dating has always been useless is a perfect example.
    What is this 'known caveat in radiometric dating' ?
    I think you'll find that this caveat makes radiometric dating a totally unreliable method for dating rocks.


  • #6424
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,392 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    J C wrote: »
    What 'rubbish' did you 'debunk'?

    The rubbish in the video you posted. Incidentally, did you know that Bob Enyart was convicted of child cruelty? That he wants all homosexuals executed? That he read out the obituaries of men who died from AIDS calling them 'sodomites? I wouldn't be associating myself with him in anyway if I were you.

    I know the Earth is billions of years old. How old do you think it is?


  • #6425
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,392 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    J C wrote: »
    What is this 'known caveat in radiometric dating' ?
    I think you'll find that this caveat makes radiometric dating a totally unreliable method for dating rocks.

    Nah. He misrepresented the science as many real scientists have stated over the 33 years since it was written. Also, his methodology was unsound.

    Any luck with the recent peer reviewed research from creationist scientists?

    How old is the Earth?


  • #6426
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    The rubbish in the video you posted. Incidentally, did you know that Bob Enyart was convicted of child cruelty? That he wants all homosexuals executed? That he read out the obituaries of men who died from AIDS calling them 'sodomites? I wouldn't be associating myself with him in anyway if I were you.
    I know nothing about Bob Enyart or his personal life ... and I'm not 'associating' myself with him ... but how does his views on homosexuals have any effect on his scientific conclusions on the formation of sedimentary rocks?

    ... and what is the 'rubbish' in the video to which you refer?


  • Advertisement
  • #6427
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    Nah. He misrepresented the science as many real scientists have stated over the 33 years since it was written. Also, his methodology was unsound.
    Strong on accuation ... but very weak on substantiation !!!
    ... anyway Dr Austin submitted rocks formed 10 years previously in the Mount Saint Helen's explosion and got K Ar 'ages ' 0.34 ± 0.06 Ma (million years) to 2.8 ± 0.6 Ma i.e. 'ages' between 340,000 and 2.8 million years !!!

    He also submitted rocks from the Grand Canyon and got ages of between 1.16 ± 0.18 Ma and 1.25 ± 0.2 Ma ... i.e. about one million years old ... which is much 'younger' than the hundreds of millions of years old, that the Grand Canyon 'long ages' proponents believe it to be.

    Any luck with identifying the 'know caveat in radiometric dating' ... that your quoted source refers to?
    ... one of things that invalidates radiometric dating, actually.


  • #6428
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,392 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    J C wrote: »
    I know nothing about Bob Enyart or his personal life and I'm not 'associating' myself with him ... but how does his views on homosexuals have any effect on his scientific conclusions on the formation of sedimentary rocks?

    ... and what is the 'rubbish' in the video to which you refer?

    It's all rubbish that I debunked earlier in the thread. Those scientists are being misrepresented. If you knew what you're talking about, then you'd know that.

    It's a bit disappointing that the character of a person you use as reference is a matter of indifference to you. Anyway, I couldn't give a crap about Enyart's scientific conclusions because......he's not a scientist. He's a child abusing, homophobic, Christian fundamentalist shock jock without any qualifications in anything. You can take what he says seriously if you like, but I won't.

    How's the search for recent peer reviewed research from creationist geologists doing? Any luck with it?

    How old is the Earth?


  • #6429
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,392 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    J C wrote: »
    All very vague ...
    ... anyway he submitted rocks formed 10 years previously in the Mount Saint Helen's explosion and got Ar K 'ages ' 0.34 ± 0.06 Ma (million years) to 2.8 ± 0.6 Ma i.e. 'ages' between 340,000 and 2.8 million years !!!

    He also submitted rocks from the Grand Canyon and got ages of between 1.16 ± 0.18 Ma and 1.25 ± 0.2 Ma ... i.e. about one million years old ... which is much 'younger' than the hundreds of millions of years old, that the Grand Canyon is supposed to be.

    Ok. Even though his methodology is very flawed, your creationist scientist has proved that the Earth is at least 1 million years old. Oh dear.


  • #6430
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,886 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    J C wrote: »
    I have answered most posts and questions put to me ... and the videos aren't 'random' they are directly on the topics under discussion.

    I don't expect anybody to do anything ... and I have summaried the points I make ... and provided the videos as backup ... and for anybody who wants further details about what I'm saying.

    I don't particulary care how old you think the Earth is ... so why do you care what age I think it is?
    Please stop personalising this to me (especially when you won't accept a word I say anyway).

    Lets look at the objective evidence presented in my postings for rapid recent worldwide catastrophic fossilisation events that created most of the fossiliferous sedementary rock formations around the world ... and tell me what this tells you about it.

    Because your opinion on what age the earth is (this isn't what I asked by the way I asked what age the earth is according to the bible) would be an important point in this endless debate.


  • #6431
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    I know the Earth is billions of years old.
    How are you so certain about something that is so scientifically debatable?


  • Advertisement
  • #6432
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,392 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    J C wrote: »
    How are you so certain about something that is so scientifically debatable?

    Because I believe in science. And that science is conclusive.

    How old do you think the Earth is?


  • #6433
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    Ok. Even though his methodology is very flawed, your creationist scientist has proved that the Earth is at least 1 million years old. Oh dear.
    ... or 10 years old ... in the case of the Mount Saint Helens rock ... so we'll agree that it is somewhere between 10 years ... and a million years ... then !!!:)


  • #6434
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,392 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    J C wrote: »
    ... or 10 years old ... in the case of the Mount Saint Helens rock ... so we'll agree that it is somewhere between 10 years ... an a million years ... then !!!:)

    No, we won't. His work isn't to be taken seriously. How old do you think the Earth is?


  • #6435
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    Because I believe in science. And that science is conclusive.
    Your beliefs may be absolute ... but what is the evidence for your belief that the Earth is billions of years old ... other than some book says so?


  • #6436
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    No, we won't. His work isn't to be taken seriously.
    Why is his work not to be taken seriously, given that Dr Austin is an eminent conventionally qualified Geologist?


  • #6437
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,392 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    J C wrote: »
    Why is his work not to be taken seriously, given that Dr Austin is an eminent conventionally qualified Geologist?

    Because he hasn't published any peer reviewed work since the 80s. Plus his research methodology is fundamentally flawed. If you knew what you are talking about, you would understand this and you would stop using Austin as a credible scientist to support your argument.

    Any luck with recent peer reviewed research by creationist geologists?

    How old is the Earth?


  • #6438
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,392 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    J C wrote: »
    Your beliefs may be absolute ... but what is the evidence for your belief that the Earth is billions of years old ... other than some book says so?

    Science says so. Verifiable bona fide science.

    Any luck with recent peer reviewed research by creationist geologists?

    How old is the Earth?


  • #6439
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    It's all rubbish that I debunked earlier in the thread. Those scientists are being misrepresented. If you knew what you're talking about, then you'd know that.
    Links please?
    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    It's a bit disappointing that the character of a person you use as reference is a matter of indifference to you.
    I give due weighting to a persons character in so far as it affects what s/he is talking about.
    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    Anyway, I couldn't give a crap about Enyart's scientific conclusions because......he's not a scientist. He's a child abusing, homophobic, Christian fundamentalist shock jock without any qualifications in anything. You can take what he says seriously if you like, but I won't.
    ... and in the video he was reporting on scientific conclusions by other people on how the Mount Saint Helens eruption changed the way Geologists are starting to look at the formation of sedimentary rocks ... which has nothing to do with child abuse or homosexuality.
    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    How's the search for recent peer reviewed research from creationist geologists doing? Any luck with it?
    No luck ... peer review is banned by the powers that be on Creation Science work.
    So, you are asking for something you know to be impossible ... because of the anti-religious bias within the rules of modern science.


  • #6440
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    Science says so. Verifiable bona fide science.
    Can you see the circular nature of your beliefs ... so-called 'bona fide' science bans the consideration of all ideas other than long ages and the spontaneous generation of life and you have absolute faith in its conclusions on long ages and the spontaneous generation of life ... when nothing else is allowed to be considered.

    Its like somebody saying that they believe Roman Catholic dogma to be true ... because the Pope and the Vatican says that it is ... and any crticism of the dogma isn't allowed !!!:)


  • #6441
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,392 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    J C wrote: »
    Links please?

    I give due weighting to a persons character in so far as it affects what s/he is talking about.

    ... and in the video he was reporting on scientific conclusions by other people on how the Mount Saint Helens eruption changed the way Geologists are starting to look at the formation of sedimentary rocks ... which has nothing to do with child abuse or homosexuality.

    No luck ... peer review is banned by the powers that be on Creation Science work.
    So, you are asking for something you know to be impossible ... because of the anti-religious bias within the rules of modern science.

    Nope. Creationist geologists' research isn't peer reviewed because.....they don't offer their research for review.

    Any luck with recent peer reviewed research by creationist geologists?

    How old is the Earth?


  • Advertisement
  • #6442
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,392 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    J C wrote: »
    Can you see the circular nature of your beliefs ... so-called 'bona fide' science bans the consideration of all ideas other than long ages and the spontaneous generation of life and you have absolute faith in its conclusions on long ages and the spontaneous generation of life ... when nothing else is allowed to be considered.

    Its like somebody saying that they believe Roman Catholic dogma to be true ... because the Pope and the Vatican says that it is ... and any crticism of the dogma isn't allowed !!!:)

    My belief is based on science that is verifiable and proven. Nothing I have seen has convinced me that the science is bad. Nothing circular about that. In fact, it is quite linear.

    What is circular is the fact that you ignore these two questions:

    Any luck with recent peer reviewed research by creationist geologists?

    How old is the Earth?


  • #6443
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,779 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    J C wrote: »
    Strong on accuation ... but very weak on substantiation !!!
    ... anyway Dr Austin submitted rocks formed 10 years previously in the Mount Saint Helen's explosion and got K Ar 'ages ' 0.34 ± 0.06 Ma (million years) to 2.8 ± 0.6 Ma i.e. 'ages' between 340,000 and 2.8 million years !!!

    He also submitted rocks from the Grand Canyon and got ages of between 1.16 ± 0.18 Ma and 1.25 ± 0.2 Ma ... i.e. about one million years old ... which is much 'younger' than the hundreds of millions of years old, that the Grand Canyon 'long ages' proponents believe it to be.
    Hold on though... Are you saying he is correct here? I seem to recall from some years ago, that you believe the earth is only 6,000 to 10,000 years old. Why are you attempting to use someone that has aged rocks as a couple orders of magnitude older than you think the earth is to try to strengthen your position?

    MrP


  • #6444
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,779 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    Professor Moriarty wrote: »

    How old is the Earth?
    Not sure why he is being so coy now...

    6500, plus or minus 500

    MrP


  • #6445
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,779 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    J C wrote: »
    Can you see the circular nature of your beliefs ...
    Ah JC. I think I am going to have to put you on ignore again. You are costing me a fortune in irony meters.

    MrP


  • #6446
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,392 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    MrPudding wrote: »
    Not sure why he is being so coy now...

    6500, plus or minus 500

    MrP

    Even his creationist scientist's theory, albeit based on disproven methodology, shows it to be at least a million years old. I'd love to see some science that proves the Earth is 6000 years old.


  • #6447
    Harika
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,594 ✭✭✭Harika


    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    Even his creationist scientist's theory, albeit based on disproven methodology, shows it to be at least a million years old. I'd love to see some science that proves the Earth is 6000 years old.

    The science is simple arithmetic. You count the generations before King David? back and get the age of the earth. 6000 years. :cool:


  • #6448
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,392 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    Harika wrote: »
    The science is simple arithmetic. You count the generations before King David? back and get the age of the earth. 6000 years. :cool:

    Brilliant. Let's fire all those pesky geologists, paleontologists, archeologists....


  • #6449
    Harika
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,594 ✭✭✭Harika


    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    Brilliant. Let's fire all those pesky geologists, paleontologists, archeologists....

    There is already a book written about it, who needs a second opinion?


  • #6450
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    Nope. Creationist geologists' research isn't peer reviewed because.....they don't offer their research for review.
    ... and if they did, it would be rejected because it doesn't fit into the Evolutionist narrative that science has settled on.
    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    Any luck with recent peer reviewed research by creationist geologists?
    I have answered this question already.
    Peer review of Creation Science work is banned by the powers that be in science.
    So, you keep asking for something you know to be impossible ... because of the anti-religious bias within the rules of modern science.


  • Advertisement
  • #6451
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    Even his creationist scientist's theory, albeit based on disproven methodology, shows it to be at least a million years old. I'd love to see some science that proves the Earth is 6000 years old.
    Yea, known 10 years old rock from Mount Saint Helens was dated at up to 2.8 million years old.

    I think the problem might just be with radiometric dating ... rather than with the Bible !!!:)


Advertisement