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…126127129131132…232

Comments

  • #3842
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Safehands wrote: »
    Billions of light years, is not only distance, it enables us to age the planet at billions of years old.
    Has reality finally struck home????
    Light years are a measure of distance ... not age.:)


  • #3843
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    J C wrote: »
    Light years are a measure of distance ... not age.:)

    In simple terms so maybe you will understand.


    http://science.howstuffworks.com/dictionary/astronomy-terms/question94.htm


  • #3844
    Safehands
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,348 ✭✭✭Safehands


    J C wrote: »
    Light years are a measure of distance ... not age.:)

    So to clarify in your terms, 1 million light years away from Earth, light takes about 10,000 years to get here, whereas 1 billion light years away light takes… 10,000 years to get here. Is that about right JC?


  • #3845
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,779 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    J C wrote: »
    Age is a valid reason to discriminate as it applies to everybody ... and many jobs have valid minimum and/or maximum age limits.

    Nothing to do with equal opportunities employment legislation ... please try again!!!:):D
    Age is not a valid reason to discriminate. Discrimination on grounds of age is as illegal as discrimination based on sex or religion.
    J C wrote: »
    A reasonable assumption (based on the fact that 46% of the American population are Creationists and NASA is an equal opportuities employer) is indeed a factual and valid assumption ... unless you know otherwise?
    of all the stupid things you have said over the years, this is well up there.

    What percentage of scientists working at NASA do you think have a degree? I am going to go ahead and gues the figure would be around the 100% mark, given that only 33% of Americans have degrees, it seems fairly clear that NASA does not necessarily follow the statistical trend in the country at large. I have done a bit of digging around, and according to a Pew survey only 2% of scientist claim to be creationists, here is a reasonable article on the subject:

    http://phylointelligence.com/dissent.html

    So then I had a look at the Discovery institute, and I will never forgive you for making me go to that place, I feel dirty. Anyway, I downloaded their dissent from Darwin list. I did not count the names on it, but I allowed a generous 45 names per page, giving a total of 900. Then I had a look at the number of scientist in America. This seems to be a reaosnable list:

    http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/us-workforce/1999/tables/TableB1.pdf

    A couple of things, it is an old list, but I suspect a newer list would not help you out. I also realise that the discovery list covers scientist from the entire world and my list of scienttists only covers the US, but again, this is to you benefit.

    So, we have 900 scientist claiming to be creationists and we have a figure of roughly 13 million scientists or engineers in the US, educated to at least undergraduate level. We then have an organisation which has a likely percentage of degree holders (or better) in it engineering or scientific sections of approaching 100%, so you think over 40% of the people in that organisation are going to be creationists?

    MrP


  • #3846
    brian_t
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,921 ✭✭✭brian_t


    MrPudding wrote: »
    So, we have 900 scientist claiming to be creationists and we have a figure of roughly 13 million scientists or engineers in the US, educated to at least undergraduate level.

    I think is quite reassuring to know that 900 scientists accept that there is insuffient proof for evolution.

    As for the 13 million - “If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing.” Anatole France


  • Advertisement
  • #3847
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    brian_t wrote: »
    I think is quite reassuring to know that 900 scientists accept that there is insuffient proof for evolution.

    As for the 13 million - “If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing.” Anatole France

    And if 900 "scientists" believe something stupid, it is still a stupid thing. Bumper234


  • #3848
    PopePalpatine
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,165 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    You'd wonder how these creationist engineers and "scientists" managed to get their degrees without being able to understand this:
    Explanation_of_Evolution_v2.png


  • #3849
    Safehands
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,348 ✭✭✭Safehands


    brian_t wrote: »
    I think is quite reassuring to know that 900 scientists accept that there is insuffient proof for evolution.
    As for the 13 million - “If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing.” Anatole France
    This comment is fair enough, so long as the 900 stop making quotes like:
    “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.” without first offering their scientific research, or any scientific research which proves that creationism is true.

    It is very easy to say "we are skeptical" about anything. A scientist offers proof that his beliefs are true, so show us the evidence for the creationist position.


  • #3850
    Mister Trebus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 119 ✭✭Mister Trebus


    Just posting so I can follow this thread


  • #3851
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    PopePalpatine wrote: »
    You'd wonder how these creationist engineers and "scientists" managed to get their degrees without being able to understand this:
    Explanation_of_Evolution_v2.png
    They understand it allright,

    ... it's all 'fine and dandy' except for the logical (and evidential) 'fly in this particular ointment' ... that mutatagenesis always destroys genetic information.

    ... and that is why Creation Scientists have eminent conventional scientific qualifications ... but don't accept 'big picture evolution'.:)


  • Advertisement
  • #3852
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    MrPudding wrote: »
    Age is not a valid reason to discriminate. Discrimination on grounds of age is as illegal as discrimination based on sex or religion.
    I guess then 'out goes' our driving licencing age laws, our child protection age laws, pension age laws ... even the law that the President of this Fair Land must be over 35 years old is 'illegal' according to you????
    ... and there are no commercial airline pilots flying at seventy!!!

    ... there must be a lot of 'illegal' legality around, Mr P, I guess!!!

    but like I have said :-
    Originally Posted by J C
    Age is a valid reason to discriminate as it applies to everybody ... and many jobs have valid minimum and/or maximum age limits.

    MrPudding wrote: »
    of all the stupid things you have said over the years, this is well up there.

    What percentage of scientists working at NASA do you think have a degree? I am going to go ahead and gues the figure would be around the 100% mark, given that only 33% of Americans have degrees, it seems fairly clear that NASA does not necessarily follow the statistical trend in the country at large. I have done a bit of digging around, and according to a Pew survey only 2% of scientist claim to be creationists, here is a reasonable article on the subject:

    http://phylointelligence.com/dissent.html
    Most Creationists find it very difficult to 'come out' as Creationists ... so it is pretty safe to assume that Creationits within the scientific community are roughly the same percentage as in the population in general ... unless there is serious discrimination being prosecuted against Creationists, even those who have never revealed to their work colleagues that they are Creationists. Pretty unlikely, I'm sure you'll agree!!!:)
    MrPudding wrote: »
    So then I had a look at the Discovery institute, and I will never forgive you for making me go to that place, I feel dirty.
    I didn't make you do anything ... you got 'down and dirty' all on your own on this one!!!:)


    MrPudding wrote: »
    Anyway, I downloaded their dissent from Darwin list. I did not count the names on it, but I allowed a generous 45 names per page, giving a total of 900. Then I had a look at the number of scientist in America. This seems to be a reaosnable list:

    http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/us-workforce/1999/tables/TableB1.pdf

    A couple of things, it is an old list, but I suspect a newer list would not help you out. I also realise that the discovery list covers scientist from the entire world and my list of scienttists only covers the US, but again, this is to you benefit.

    So, we have 900 scientist claiming to be creationists and we have a figure of roughly 13 million scientists or engineers in the US, educated to at least undergraduate level. We then have an organisation which has a likely percentage of degree holders (or better) in it engineering or scientific sections of approaching 100%, so you think over 40% of the people in that organisation are going to be creationists?

    MrP
    Yes.:)


  • #3853
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Safehands wrote: »
    So to clarify in your terms, 1 million light years away from Earth, light takes about 10,000 years to get here, whereas 1 billion light years away light takes… 10,000 years to get here. Is that about right JC?
    Yes it is ... it's a version of the Cosmic Inflation Theory.

    http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_cosmo_infl.html


  • #3854
    Safehands
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,348 ✭✭✭Safehands


    J C wrote: »
    Yes it is ... it's a version of the Cosmic Inflation Theory.

    http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_cosmo_infl.html

    Wow JC, you are quoting some information as proof of your beliefs, which supports the big bang.
    So the light of a star 10 billion light years takes the same time to get here as the light from a star 1 million light years away, 10,000 years, which just happens to be the age you claim for the Earth, because the bible says so. And somehow you say that that link proves this, how? please JC, do enlighten the world.


  • #3855
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Safehands wrote: »
    Wow JC, you are quoting some information as proof of your beliefs, which supports the big bang.
    So the light of a star 10 billion light years takes the same time to get here as the light from a star 1 million light years away, 10,000 years, which just happens to be the age you claim for the Earth, because the bible says so. And somehow you say that that link proves this, how? please JC, do enlighten the world.
    I'm merely pointing out that all forms of Cosmology (including the Big Bang and the Big Whisper Hypotheses) necessarily have starting conditions where present physics (and physical measurements) were suspended - and you therefore cannot simply extrapolate present trends and conditions backwards to the start of the Universe.


  • #3856
    Safehands
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,348 ✭✭✭Safehands


    J C wrote: »
    I'm merely pointing out that all forms of Cosmology (including the Big Bang and the Big Whisper Hypotheses) necessarily have starting conditions where present physics (and physical measurements) were suspended - and you therefore cannot simply extrapolate present trends and conditions backwards to the start of the Universe.

    Yes, but to say that the time it takes light to get here from a star which is a billion light years away, is 10,000 years and argue that light from a star which is only one million light years away takes the same time, is ridiculous.

    Lets be a little honest here JC, you are making these statements simply because, it says in the bible and so it is in your mind, the universe all started about 10 or 12 thousand years ago. It has NOTHING to do with the laws of physics, now or at any other time. It is a simple attempt to justify your biblical and religious beliefs.


  • #3857
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Safehands wrote: »
    Yes, but to say that the time it takes light to get here from a star which is a billion light years away, is 10,000 years and argue that light from a star which is only one million light years away takes the same time, is ridiculous.

    Lets be a little honest here JC, you are making these statements simply because, it says in the bible and so it is in your mind, the universe all started about 10 or 12 thousand years ago. It has NOTHING to do with the laws of physics, now or at any other time. It is a simple attempt to justify your biblical and religious beliefs.
    All belief systems have their own starting points and paradigms ...
    ... and all forms of Cosmology (including the Big Bang and the Big Whisper Hypotheses) necessarily have starting conditions where present physics (and physical measurements) were suspended. Just how long and how radically they were suspended is open to debate and speculation.

    Intelligence and information ... and intelligent design aren't governed by physical laws either ... yet they objectively exist ... but are rejected in relation to life systems by people who want to justify their faith position that there is no God ... (or if there is one He has had no input into the origins of life).
    Safehands wrote: »
    It is a simple attempt to justify your biblical and religious beliefs.
    There is an element of the 'kettle calling the pot black' about this statement ... I find that everybody will try to justify/support their belief systems using whatever evidence they can find ... and this isn't unique to Bible Believing Christians ... Atheists are just as likely to engage in it.
    ... and BTW, I'm not criticising anybody for doing so ... that is how all Humans behave ... and you 'pays your money and takes your choice'!!!!:)


  • #3858
    tommy2bad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,254 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    J C wrote: »
    All belief systems have their own starting points and paradigms ...
    ... and all forms of Cosmology (including the Big Bang and the Big Whisper Hypotheses) necessarily have starting conditions where present physics (and physical measurements) were suspended. Just how long and how radically they were suspended is open to debate and speculation.

    Intelligence and information ... and intelligent design aren't governed by physical laws either ... yet they objectively exist ... but are rejected in relation to life systems by people who want to justify their faith position that there is no God ... (or if there is one He has had no input into the origins of life).

    No it dose not. Zero evidence for the existence of intelligent design and tellingly, no need for it for God to exist, even the God of Abraham.


  • #3859
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    tommy2bad wrote: »
    No it dose not. Zero evidence for the existence of intelligent design and tellingly, no need for it for God to exist, even the God of Abraham.
    Are you denying the existence of all intelligent design (i.e. the very concept of intelligent design, including Human directed intelligent design) ... or is it only the evidence for the intelligent design of life that you deny (because that could indicate an involvement by God)?


  • #3860
    tommy2bad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,254 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    J C wrote: »
    Are you denying the existence of all intelligent design (i.e. the very concept of intelligent design, including Human directed intelligent design) ... or is it only the evidence for the intelligent design of life that you deny?

    Oh please! ID as you use it is understood to be designed by God. Unless... your intimating that we are god's?
    The trick of using the term 'denying evidence' is old, I am refuting such evidence, it's been refuted several times already on this thread, your the one in denial.


  • #3861
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    tommy2bad wrote: »
    Oh please! ID as you use it is understood to be designed by God. Unless... your intimating that we are god's?
    The trick of using the term 'denying evidence' is old, I am refuting such evidence, it's been refuted several times already on this thread, your the one in denial.
    So you're not denying that intelligent design exists ... just the fact that God used it to design life?


  • Advertisement
  • #3862
    Benny_Cake
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,105 ✭✭✭Benny_Cake


    Mod: JC & bumper234, I've removed a series of posts that were little more than a series of digs and childish one-liners. Discuss the issue or don't bother posting.


  • #3863
    Mister Trebus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 119 ✭✭Mister Trebus


    J C wrote: »
    So you're not denying that intelligent design exists ... just the fact that God used it to design life?

    I would think that is correct save for the intelligent design bit


  • #3864
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Benny_Cake wrote: »
    Mod: JC & bumper234, I've removed a series of posts that were little more than a series of digs and childish one-liners. Discuss the issue or don't bother posting.
    Thanks Benny.

    I may not have expressed myself as well as I should ... but I was making a serious point that when we are dealing with billions of light years and equally gargantuan distances ... almost anything can be conjectured (by both Young-agers and Long-agers).

    I actually think its no co-incidence that all fairy stories (which require us to suspend our logical and critical faculties) begin with the well-worn starting line of 'Long, long ago ... and far, far away'.

    I didn't mean to be provocative ... I just wanted to make a valid observation ... about when any of us start to use 'large numbers/distances/timelines'.
    The 'anaesthetic effect' can be so strong that people's eyes literally 'glaze over'.


  • #3865
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Mister Trebus wrote: »
    I would think that is correct save for the intelligent design bit
    The point I'm making is that if Human Intelligent Design exists ... and I think everybody is agreed that it does ... then it must be possible to scientifically identify the evidence for Human Intelligent Design ... and if we can (and I know that we can) ... then the same scientific process can be used to assess all phenomena that have been potentially intelligently designed ... even where we don't know who was the intelligent designer.


  • #3866
    Mister Trebus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 119 ✭✭Mister Trebus


    J C wrote: »
    The point I'm making is that if Human Intelligent Design exists ... and I think everybody is agreed that it does ... then it must be possible to scientifically identify the evidence for Human Intelligent Design ... and if we can (and I know that we can) ... then the same scientific process can be used to assess all potential phenomena that have been intelligently designed ... even where we don't know who was the intelligent designer.

    Do you have an example in mind of a godlike design?


  • #3867
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Mister Trebus wrote: »
    Do you have an example in mind of a godlike design?
    It doesn't have to be 'god-like' ... although I do consider the quality and quantity of intelligent design in life to be of this magnitude.
    However, my basic point is that we can scientically identify Human Intelligent Design ... and we can apply the very same process to identifying Intelligent Design of unknown provenance.


  • #3868
    Mister Trebus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 119 ✭✭Mister Trebus


    J C wrote: »
    It doesn't have to be 'god-like' ... although I do consider the quality and quantity of intelligent design in life to be of this magnitude.
    However, my point is that we can scientically identify Human Intelligent Design ... and we can apply the very same process to identifying Intelligent Design of unknown provenance.


    Ok I take your point, so do you have an example if this ?


  • #3869
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Mister Trebus wrote: »
    Ok I take your point, so do you have an example if this ?
    It could be an artefact found in an archaeological dig ... or life itself.


  • #3870
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    J C wrote: »
    It could be an artefact found in an archaeological dig ... or life itself.

    But if someone finds something in an archaeological dig and says it's 3 million years old yo7 would be the first to say no it's only 10,000 years old.


  • Advertisement
  • #3871
    Mister Trebus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 119 ✭✭Mister Trebus


    J C wrote: »
    It could be an artefact found in an archaeological dig ... or life itself.

    An artefact is evidence if a designer...I am talking about a deity here, are you?


Advertisement