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

Silly Question

13»

Comments

  • #62
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    babyvaio wrote:
    Our minds concluded by observing/researching the universe that there is a perfect set of laws which do not let this universe to fall apart or to collapse within.

    Indeed. In science, this is ascribed to the "anthropic principle".

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • #63
    MooseJam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,111 ✭✭✭MooseJam


    babyvaio wrote:
    How about the law of gravity? Or any similar law?

    The fact that we humans call it a "Law" does not mean that it had to have been written by someone, all "laws" are just how we interpret the various interactions in nature, no one needed to have written anything


  • #64
    babyvaio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 354 ✭✭babyvaio


    Scofflaw wrote:
    It's what's called "a happy accident". See, if it wasn't just right for life, we wouldn't be here to be (in some people's cases) amazed by the fact that it's just right for life.

    Just imagine - every day you are not run down by literally millions of cars! Surely this is proof that God has singled you out for some higher purpose?



    Oh? "Expanding" means exactly the same as "growing", does it? An interesting idea, but one that lacks popular support or the weight of custom.



    That's rather confused, I think. You appear to be saying that you look out your window, imagine some footprints, and claim that God made them....stronger glasses, perhaps?

    It is, after all, quite normal to assume that footprints in your garden were left by someone, but I don't look up at the Wicklow Mountains every day and go "blimey! who dropped those!?". Perhaps you do?

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    Just a happy accident?? Do you have any idea that if any of the cosmic constants was just a slightly different that the whole universe wouldn't exist any more (at least not in this shape or form)? Now you give me a math chance for all this to work out - what is it? 1 to zillion of zillions? And you're still so brave to call all of this a happy incident? I don't think so.

    Do a well-known test - let's see if you can make it having 1000 tries.
    Take 10 equally shaped marbles and mark them from 1 to 10 respectively. Then put them in the bag so that you cannot see the marbles and the numbers on them. Now take out all 10 marbles one after another in the way that the marbles you pick follow one another in this order:

    1. marble with the number 1 on it
    2. marble with the number 2 on it
    ...
    10. marble with the number 10 on it

    Now calculate the math chance for that to happen - what did you get? 1 to several millions? 1 to 26000000 maybe or something like that?

    Are you now trying to say that the creation of this universe with all the cosmic laws, constants, rules and finally the complete order it has within was a mere chance? How? Please elaborate.

    And are you saying that (if we were only able to do so) if we could even calculate this chance that it would be way smaller than 1 to 26000000?
    Like what, like 1 to 10 that it happened by some mere chance?

    I don't think so.
    Scofflaw wrote:
    It is, after all, quite normal to assume that footprints in your garden were left by someone, but I don't look up at the Wicklow Mountains every day and go "blimey! who dropped those!?". Perhaps you do?

    So you would assume that for the footprints but you wouldn't for something way way bigger (you can't even compare that) than the footprints? Like a galaxy, or a cluster, or even this universe?
    So to you it makes sense for small tiny footprints but it doesn't make sense for the universe? How come - sticking with microscopic examples, but avoiding macroscopic examples? Hmmm...


  • #65
    babyvaio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 354 ✭✭babyvaio


    MooseJam wrote:
    The fact that we humans call it a "Law" does not mean that it had to have been written by someone, all "laws" are just how we interpret the various interactions in nature, no one needed to have written anything

    It's a law if it's valid for everybody/everything. Now there are certain phenomenal things like black holes, etc. but they are still obeying a certain law. So the law of gravity is valid for everybody, if my eyes falls out my scull, they won't go up, but down, same as yours (now let's assume we're both standing up like trees when they're not knocked down, just to make sure we understand each other). This law and all others did not design themselves, they in fact are not the living things anyway. Every single law points out that also they were invented/designed/... - in other words - created by some super intelligent power or being. Those who believe in such power, call it The Lord of The Heavens and The Earth, etc.

    Humans just discovered these laws and constants and learned how to apply them, but they have to obey or to follow them. You can't fill your car with a red bull and except it to accelerate with the speed of light. Who knows, maybe somebody tried even that...

    So all these things must have been designed and set up in the perfect way - and they were. We only started really discovering the universe, yet we are solid witnesses that there's an intelligence out there that we cannot compare too. Finally, we didn't create anything from nothing - we people only make something out of something.

    Call that interpretation what you want, but it's a set of laws which holds this universe and whatever is within it - together. One cosmic constant changes - and we all can say goodbye (if we have time that is). You're right about no one needed to write them down - we humans however did write them down in order to understand them and the correlations between them. So whoever created them didn't have to write them down, but - as I said - we had to.


  • #66
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,313 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    babyvaio wrote:
    Just a happy accident?? Do you have any idea that if any of the cosmic constants was just a slightly different that the whole universe wouldn't exist any more (at least not in this shape or form)? Now you give me a math chance for all this to work out - what is it? 1 to zillion of zillions? And you're still so brave to call all of this a happy incident? I don't think so.
    You may not think so but in the absence of any other proof it'll have to do as a theory for the moment.
    Do a well-known test - let's see if you can make it having 1000 tries.
    Take 10 equally shaped marbles and mark them from 1 to 10 respectively. Then put them in the bag so that you cannot see the marbles and the numbers on them. Now take out all 10 marbles one after another in the way that the marbles you pick follow one another in this order:
    Apples and oranges TBH. Do you not get it? In an infinite universe(or universes) the chances of us not being here are slim. The fact that we are proves it.

    So you would assume that for the footprints but you wouldn't for something way way bigger (you can't even compare that) than the footprints? Like a galaxy, or a cluster, or even this universe?
    So to you it makes sense for small tiny footprints but it doesn't make sense for the universe? How come - sticking with microscopic examples, but avoiding macroscopic examples? Hmmm...
    Simply put you're not comparing like with like. Anyway. We see footprints we assume feet/shoes exist. It could also be a guy walking on his hands wearing boots. Either way we know what made them, so it's not rocket science to suggest someone was walking around. Now we don't know who that someone was, when they were there or what they were doing there in the first place(other than walking). You don't know their intentions. Anyone could give you a hundred reasons why the footprint leaver was there. We could say the same about religions. Even if you think God left footprints, you don't know who he/she/it is/was/will be. You don't know the intention. Anybody could have a theory as to who walked there and build a religion around it. Sound familiar? In the end it's faith that drives the belief nothing else. fair enough I don't see the problem with that. However I do see the problem when one guys theory on the giant footprinter in the sky makes him arrogant enough to think everyone elses theory is "incorrect".
    So the law of gravity is valid for everybody, if my eyes falls out my scull, they won't go up, but down,
    Not quite, gravity and it's laws can vary depending on where you are. Plus if quantum theory is anything to go by, its possible for your eyes to go up after they fall from your skull. Highly improbable, but possible.
    Every single law points out that also they were invented/designed/... - in other words - created by some super intelligent power or being. Those who believe in such power, call it The Lord of The Heavens and The Earth, etc.
    Eh no. No they don't. You are just applying rather simplistic human logic to something more complex.
    yet we are solid witnesses that there's an intelligence out there that we cannot compare too.
    In your opinion. Opinion is not always fact. In any case how do you know your version of the "intelligence" is the right one. EG Why would a pandimensional hyperbeing require his creations to worship, fear and obey him and have very "human" emotions(anger, sadness, love)? In a "perfect" universe surely no such things would be required? In the end it's faith, nothing more(not suggesting faith is worthless BTW).

    Many worry about Artificial Intelligence. I worry far more about Organic Idiocy.



  • Advertisement
  • #67
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    babyvaio wrote:
    How, just how do you know that it doesn't replicate? Are you standing on its boundaries so you can say that?
    Do you see any other universes floating around the shop?
    babyvaio wrote:
    Wouldn't you say that start, galaxies, cluster, etc. are being replicated?
    No I wouldn't, as seemingly neither would you .... you sure you are not trolling for the fun of it?
    babyvaio wrote:
    It doesn't show any structured organisation? Well, your eyes are a bit different than mine, but isn't our solar system perfectly organized?
    No its not. In fact it is barely holding together.
    babyvaio wrote:
    Try to move Earth a bit closer to the sun and you'll get burnt, try to move it a bit away from the sun and everything will die on this planet.
    Which could happen at any moment, due to a collision with any number of asteroids or comets. In fact this probably will happen some time in the future.

    Besides, this isn't "organistation" any more than a tree falling in a forest is "organisation"
    babyvaio wrote:
    BTW universe is growing, expanding, that's a well known scientific fact.
    The universe is not "growing" in the biological sense of the word. It is expanding. There is a different :rolleyes:


  • #68
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    babyvaio wrote:
    Would you be able to see someone's footprints in the desert or in your own garden? Well if did, you would most probably conclude that someone was in your garden or no?

    Now look up in the sky and imagine for a second that all those zillions of clusters of galaxies are somebody's footprints (not literally of course).

    Are you saying you would believe that someone left his footprints or shoe trails in your garden but you wouldn't believe that somebody must have done something to make this universe appear with all the stars, etc.?? Hmmm...

    BTW, I didn't get you on the big bang theory - you don't believe that it happened that way or? :eek:

    Imagine someone hit you in the face. You would be pretty angry, no? And quite right too, no one should hit you in the face. You would be prefectly entitled to hit him back.

    Ok, no imagine your boss has hit you in your face (not literally of course, we are just pretending here).

    Ok ok, still with me. Are you honestly telling me that tomorrow you are not going to hit him back. You have to march straight into work and hit him straight in the cheek ....


    ... except you aren't going to do that because he DIDN'T HIT YOU.

    The stars and galaxies ARE NOT foot prints in sand. They are no indicator at all of any intelligent entity creating the universe.


  • #69
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    babyvaio wrote:
    Just a happy accident?? Do you have any idea that if any of the cosmic constants was just a slightly different that the whole universe wouldn't exist any more (at least not in this shape or form)? Now you give me a math chance for all this to work out - what is it? 1 to zillion of zillions? And you're still so brave to call all of this a happy incident? I don't think so.

    Yes, thanks, aware of all that.
    babyvaio wrote:
    Do a well-known test - let's see if you can make it having 1000 tries.
    Take 10 equally shaped marbles and mark them from 1 to 10 respectively. Then put them in the bag so that you cannot see the marbles and the numbers on them. Now take out all 10 marbles one after another in the way that the marbles you pick follow one another in this order:

    1. marble with the number 1 on it
    2. marble with the number 2 on it
    ...
    10. marble with the number 10 on it

    Now calculate the math chance for that to happen - what did you get? 1 to several millions? 1 to 26000000 maybe or something like that?

    You know, that's really not a very difficult calculation - factorial 10, or 1 in 3,628,800. It's not necessary to make guesses, as you appear to have done.

    Now let's do a very similar test which every Creationist fails. Take any ten marbles out of the bag - the chances of you getting the exact order you got are exactly the same as the sequence that so amazes you. Incredible eh? How can it be explained?

    Let's do another test. How likely was it that your mother and father met? And that they decided to marry, and conceived you in particular, with your particular set of genes? And that you survived childhood? And that, in turn, their parents met? And so on? Do you know how unlikely all of that is, even if we only look at the last few thousand years? What are the chances? Let's be generous and say 1 in 1000 overall, per generation - let's use (back of envelope) 4000 years - 130 generations, roughly. What does 1 in 1000 over 130 generations equate to? Gosh - 1 in 1e+390. 1e+390 is 1 followed by 390 noughts! Absolutely astronomical - but there you are. Let's be really generous, and say it was 1 in 100 that any two people met, married, and had kids that lived to do the same. After 130 generations, you're looking at 1 in 1.00E+244 - that's only 1 followed by 240 noughts.

    Everything is unlikely. Absolutely everything - me, you, the table, the cat, everything.

    So, an argument that the Universe/the World/etc is so unlikely that it must have had a designer leads on pretty inexorably to the following possibilities:

    1. Events/things, no matter how astronomically unlikely, never require intervention by the Creator
    2. Events/things, no matter how likely, require intervention by the Creator as long as there is even a tiny bit of uncertainty
    3. The Creator steps in at some particular level of odds
    4. The "argument from improbability" makes no sense

    (1) is actually the same as (4) - if the Creator is never required by a given level of improbability, then improbability does not imply a Creator, and the "argument from improbability" is meaningless. So we have (2), where every toss of a coin requires special intervention by the Creator of the Universe, and the whole Universe is completely God-powered - no free-will, no chance, everything has to be determined and dictated on a moment by moment basis by the Creator. Or, finally, we have (3), and then we need to work out - how improbable does an event have to be before the Creator steps in? Does he, intervene at 10 to 1? Does he mandate the Lotto results? Fix horse races? Only the more unlikely horse races (say, where the odds against the winner go over 16/1)? What figure exactly do you have in mind?

    Now, it may not be possible for the truly devout to see exactly how silly the argument from improbability is, but I hope it is clear enough to everyone else that the correct answer is (4).
    babyvaio wrote:
    Are you now trying to say that the creation of this universe with all the cosmic laws, constants, rules and finally the complete order it has within was a mere chance? How? Please elaborate.

    And are you saying that (if we were only able to do so) if we could even calculate this chance that it would be way smaller than 1 to 26000000?
    Like what, like 1 to 10 that it happened by some mere chance?

    I don't think so.

    By the way, if the Universe is unlikely, how unlikely is it? Let's see:

    Observed Universes = 1 (total known population of Universes)

    Universes like this one = 1

    So, dividing the number of universes observed to be like this one by the total available population of Universes yields...1 (one). As far as we know, the observed probability of this universe being like it is, is 100%.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • #70
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    babyvaio wrote:
    So you would assume that for the footprints but you wouldn't for something way way bigger (you can't even compare that) than the footprints? Like a galaxy, or a cluster, or even this universe?
    So to you it makes sense for small tiny footprints but it doesn't make sense for the universe? How come - sticking with microscopic examples, but avoiding macroscopic examples? Hmmm...

    Let's see - if I watched the wind make a pile of leaves in the corner of my garden, then by your logic I should assume an invisible "intelligent leaf-pile designer"?

    Whenever I see the intricate patterns made by clouds, I should assume that there's an invisible "intelligent cloud sculptor" at work?

    When I see frost patterns on a window pane, I should perhaps assume "Jack Frost" made them?

    What an amazingly, outstandingly, incredibly, hugely, almost fantastically silly, silly, silly idea!

    I am laughing at you,
    Scofflaw


  • #71
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,313 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    Scofflaw wrote:
    By the way, if the Universe is unlikely, how unlikely is it? Let's see:

    Observed Universes = 1 (total known population of Universes)

    Universes like this one = 1

    So, dividing the number of universes observed to be like this one by the total available population of Universes yields...1 (one). As far as we know, the observed probability of this universe being like it is, is 100%.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw
    Never saw it put like that. Interesting way to look at it.

    Many worry about Artificial Intelligence. I worry far more about Organic Idiocy.



  • Advertisement
  • #72
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,313 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    Wicknight wrote:
    Do you see any other universes floating around the shop?
    I have read of some research in physics that has suggested that there are other universes "close" by as it where. One theory has is that it explains why gravity is such a weak force in our universe. The theory goes that there's a universe close to ours where gravity is the strong force and it leaks through to ours. Tip of the iceberg sort of thing. The brane theory suggests other universes and suggests that collisions between these branes/universes is what gave rise to our big bang(s). Fascinating stuff. Maybe not a sprituality matter. Then again maybe it is. :D

    No its not. In fact it is barely holding together.
    True enough. Look at the weirdness of Venus' orbit for a start. It staggers and lurches like a drunk barely staying upright, which in many ways is more amazing that it's held together for long enough to give rise to anything like life. For me it would be far more boring if it ran like clockwork.
    Which could happen at any moment, due to a collision with any number of asteroids or comets. In fact this probably will happen some time in the future.
    You can bet the farm on that one.
    Besides, this isn't "organistation" any more than a tree falling in a forest is "organisation"
    Well put. That said the tree is an organised thing, it's fall obeys natural organised laws. etc. The problem here is the language. We say organisation and that leads some to make the leap to design and all that implies. Personally I sit on the fence looking into the field of blind chance looking for evidence to the contrary or not. Hey I could be wrong. I don't know. The point is nobody knows for sure. IMHO We all have "faith" in one system or the other.

    The universe is not "growing" in the biological sense of the word. It is expanding. There is a different :rolleyes:
    Biiig difference.

    Many worry about Artificial Intelligence. I worry far more about Organic Idiocy.



  • #73
    L31mr0d
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,067 ✭✭✭L31mr0d


    As a non-YEC Christian here is my understanding of the Dinosaurs.

    Firstly lets consider the dating of dinosaurs?

    Dinosaur bones are regularly found in lower earth layers than are human bones, leading many to conclude that they belong to an earlier time period. Geologists call this time the Mesozoic period and subdivide it into the Cretaceous, Jurassic, and Triassic periods. The time frames used for these periods are on the order of tens of millions of years. But has this been established with any certainty?

    One method being used to measure the age of fossils is called radiocarbon dating. This dating system measures the rate of decay of radioactive carbon from the point of death of the organism.

    However, there are severe problems with the system. First, when the fossil is considered to be about 50,000 years old, its level of radioactivity has fallen so low that it can be detected only with great difficulty. Second, even in more recent specimens, this level has fallen so low that it is still extremely difficult to measure accurately. Third, scientists can measure the present-day rate of radioactive carbon formation but have no way of measuring carbon concentrations in the distant past.

    So whether they use the radiocarbon method for dating fossils or other methods, such as employing radioactive potassium, uranium, or thorium, for dating rocks, scientists are unable to establish the original levels of those elements through ages of time.
    Professor of metallurgy Melvin A. Cook wrote:
    One may only guess these concentrations of radioactive materials, and the age results thus obtained can be no better than this guess

    That would especially be so when we consider that the Flood of Noah’s day over 4,300 years ago brought enormous changes in the atmosphere and on earth.
    Dartmouth College geologists wrote:
    We conclude that iridium and other associated elements were not deposited instantaneously . . . but rather that there was an intense and variable influx of these constituents during a relatively short geologic time interval on the order of 10,000 to 100,000 years.

    They argue that the breakup and movement of the continents disrupted the entire globe, causing volcanic eruptions, blocking sunlight and fouling the atmosphere. Certainly, such disruptive events could change radioactivity levels, thus distorting results from modern-day radioactive clocks.

    Refute this?

    Next we need to consider the Genesis account and Dinosaurs.

    While the radioactive dating method is innovative, it is still based on speculation and assumption. In contrast, the Bible account in the first chapter of Genesis simply states the general order of creation. It allows for possibly thousands of millions of years for the formation of the earth and many millenniums in six creative eras, or “days,” to prepare the earth for human habitation.

    Some dinosaurs (and pterosaurs) may indeed have been created in the fifth era listed in Genesis, when the Bible says that God made “flying creatures” and “great sea monsters.” Perhaps other types of dinosaurs were created in the sixth epoch. The vast array of dinosaurs with their huge appetites would have been appropriate considering the abundant vegetation that evidently existed in their time. (Genesis 1:20-24)

    When the dinosaurs had fulfilled their purpose, God ended their life. But the Bible is silent on how he did that or when. We can be sure that dinosaurs were created by God for a purpose, even if we don't fully understand that purpose at present. They were no mistake, no product of evolution. That they suddenly appear in the fossil record unconnected to any fossil ancestors, and also disappear without leaving connecting fossil links, is evidence against the view that such animals gradually evolved over millions of years of time. Thus, the fossil record does not support the evolution theory. Instead, it harmonizes with the Bible’s view of creative acts of God.


  • #74
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,583 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    L31mr0d wrote:
    We can be sure that dinosaurs were created by God for a purpose, even if we don't fully understand that purpose at present.
    Why insist you on searching for evidence to fit the theory, when science is all about searching for a theory to fit the evidence?

    Creationism is a square peg in my round hole.


  • #75
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,458 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    > However, there are severe problems with the system.

    Before embarking on a creationist "demolition" of radiometric dating, I suggest that you take a short break and read up a little bit on what people who are knowledgeable in radiometric dating have to say:

    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html#CD

    ...then take the discussion over to our long-running creationism thread here, if you'd like to continue.

    Briefly, you claims, while well-expressed, are based upon a series of fundamental errors in your understanding which the TO website may be able to help you fix.


  • #76
    L31mr0d
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,067 ✭✭✭L31mr0d


    robindch wrote:
    > However, there are severe problems with the system.

    Before embarking on a creationist "demolition" of radiometric dating, I suggest that you take a short break and read up a little bit on what people who are knowledgeable in radiometric dating have to say:

    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html#CD

    ...then take the discussion over to our long-running creationism thread here, if you'd like to continue.

    Briefly, you claims, while well-expressed, are based upon a series of fundamental errors in your understanding which the TO website may be able to help you fix.

    Why take my discussion anywhere else? This thread is solely concerned with the opinions on the dinosaurs, which I have duly commented on, from my perspective, and referencing "talkorigins" to me, is equivalent of myself referencing the whole Bible to you as the defacto answer to creationism. Unless you are going to identify what exactly you are refuting, specifically I don't see how you have made any argument otherwise to my statement? Also, aside from radiometric dating, I have also questioned the fossil record as an example. Which has not been explained?

    I am just looking for answers to my understandings, and would prefer you to refute my standpoint with scientific information to the contrary, than to just quote bodies of information.


  • #77
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,458 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    > I am just looking for answers to my understandings

    ...which are expressed in clear and comprehensible terms in the TO website as a series of creationist "points" and scientific "rebuttals". I can't imagine that too many people in this thread are going to spend much time cutting and pasting answers from there to here, if you're not interested in looking there yourself in the first place.

    > I have also questioned the fossil record as an example. Which has not been explained?

    Lets try getting one topic sorted out first, before moving on to the next.

    .


  • #78
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,583 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    L31mr0d wrote:
    referencing "talkorigins" to me, is equivalent of myself referencing the whole Bible to you as the defacto answer to creationism
    Eh, no. The bible is a reason behind creationism, not a proof. There's a big difference.


  • #79
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    L31mr0d wrote:
    Why take my discussion anywhere else? This thread is solely concerned with the opinions on the dinosaurs, which I have duly commented on, from my perspective, and referencing "talkorigins" to me, is equivalent of myself referencing the whole Bible to you as the defacto answer to creationism. Unless you are going to identify what exactly you are refuting, specifically I don't see how you have made any argument otherwise to my statement? Also, aside from radiometric dating, I have also questioned the fossil record as an example. Which has not been explained?

    I am just looking for answers to my understandings, and would prefer you to refute my standpoint with scientific information to the contrary, than to just quote bodies of information.

    Actually, the OP was a question on the meaning of the dinosaurs in the Old Earth Creation or Theistic Evolution frame of reference. If you follow the Bible literally, accepting fully the Genesis account of origins, then you're a Young Earth Creationist - so while you have valid questions about the dinosaurs, they're off-topic here.

    As robin says, there's an enormous thread devoted to Creationist/Evolutionist head-bashing, and if you'd like to leave your coat with a friend we'll happily hit you with reason over there.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • #80
    L31mr0d
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,067 ✭✭✭L31mr0d


    The Atheist wrote:
    Eh, no. The bible is a reason behind creationism, not a proof. There's a big difference.

    depends who you talk to. The source of the idea of Creationism is the Bible, specifically the book of Genesis, and for some it contains enough information to answer the questions about the universe. I could tell you to just study the bible to find your answers. It wouldn't be much of a discussion forum if everytime a christian was posed with a question, they just post a link to the bible and say "find your own answers". The same is true if I pose a question to an atheist I don't expect to be given a link to a body of scientific texts and told to "find your own answers". If you know the answer to my question then say so, if not then kindly admit you don't have the answer. I wouldn't say "Go to the bible, the answers in there somewhere" to you, then don't do the same to me.
    Scofflaw wrote:
    Actually, the OP was a question on the meaning of the dinosaurs in the Old Earth Creation or Theistic Evolution frame of reference. If you follow the Bible literally, accepting fully the Genesis account of origins, then you're a Young Earth Creationist - so while you have valid questions about the dinosaurs, they're off-topic here.

    The OP asked does the bible support or deny the existence of dinosaurs. I offered proofs that show how the bible does show their existence, do you believe YOU have been keeping to this topic?

    cordially,
    L31mr0d


  • #81
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    L31mr0d wrote:
    The OP asked does the bible support or deny the existence of dinosaurs. I offered proofs that show how the bible does show their existence, do you believe YOU have been keeping to this topic?

    Yes thanks. If you read the thread you can see where I checked with the original poster.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,583 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    L31mr0d wrote:
    I offered proofs that show how the bible does show their existence, do you believe YOU have been keeping to this topic?
    The word "proofs" here is somewhat tenuous (read: preposterous) but I'd have to agree with you in that you were on topic. :)


  • #83
    L31mr0d
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,067 ✭✭✭L31mr0d


    The Atheist wrote:
    The word "proofs" here is somewhat tenuous (read: preposterous) but I'd have to agree with you in that you were on topic. :)

    I don't understand why something so preposterous can't so easily be dismissed? The fact that there are still questions about the validity of present radiometric dating methods and the apparent holes in the fossil record mean that as an atheist you can't conclusively disprove the bible texts.

    It's funny though, I came onto this Christianity forum expecting to talk to Christians, and all i've come across thus far are Atheists and Agnostics? Was this forum just set up as a lure for Christians to be brow beaten by Atheists? I guess its because you don't have your own section to argue atheism... ohh wait!


  • #84
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    L31mr0d wrote:
    But has this been established with any certainty?
    Yes
    L31mr0d wrote:
    However, there are severe problems with the system.
    Firstly, it is not a system, there are 80 or so different dating methods under the term "radiometeric dating".

    Secondly, there are not "servere problems" with these system. Occationally, as in all equipment, the wrong answer will be given. This is why scientists don't use one unsure measurement, they make lots of them, and they compare them to others, and different dating systems.

    Creationists like to hark on about the errors in these systems, but what are the chances that the "errors" would all give the same answer?
    L31mr0d wrote:
    Refute this?
    Thats pretty easy, the flood didn't happen.
    L31mr0d wrote:
    While the radioactive dating method is innovative, it is still based on speculation and assumption.
    There is no reason to believe that the fundamental laws of physics were altered approx 4000 years ago by a god. That is not an assumption.
    L31mr0d wrote:
    In contrast, the Bible account in the first chapter of Genesis simply states the general order of creation.
    Wrongly, since it states the Earth was created before the Sun, the water on Earth came before the land, and that darkness came before light.
    L31mr0d wrote:
    That they suddenly appear in the fossil record unconnected to any fossil ancestors, and also disappear without leaving connecting fossil links, is evidence against the view that such animals gradually evolved over millions of years of time.
    You are right it is.

    Luckly for the theory of evolution dinosars didn't suddenly appear in the fossil record, and they didn't suddenly disappear from the fossil record. Phew!

    You can also see different dinosar species evolving into later ones. So even if evolution wasn't happening before dinosars, or after them, it was happening while they were around. Funny that ....


  • #85
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    L31mr0d wrote:
    The fact that there are still questions about the validity of present radiometric dating methods
    There are not questions about present day radiometric dating methods. Radiometeric dating can fail, as all equipment and scientific methods can. Scientists are well well aware of this, and compensate by running independent tests and comparing dating to other dates.

    Put simply they can't all be wrong, because they all give similar answers. If they were all based on errors then the dating would be all over the shop.
    L31mr0d wrote:
    you can't conclusively disprove the bible texts.
    If you mean the book of Gensis, yes you can. Quite easily in fact. You should see the other thread running beside this one.
    L31mr0d wrote:
    It's funny though, I came onto this Christianity forum expecting to talk to Christians, and all i've come across thus far are Atheists and Agnostics?
    That is because Creationsists like yourself keep presenting very incorrect information (dare I say misinformation) on this forum about evolution, biology history and science in general.

    If people stopped presenting untruths, errors and down right nonsense about science on this forum I doubt any atheists would even venture in here.
    L31mr0d wrote:
    Was this forum just set up as a lure for Christians to be brow beaten by Atheists?
    You were lured into presenting errors and incorrect statements about history?


Advertisement