quote:Don't assume that just because evolutionists have come up with a "response" they have really answered the creationists' arguments and successfully dismissed their evidence.
Ron, the irony of this escapes you.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
They linked to a step by step dismembering of his arguments regarding the helium, among other things that is extremely detailed and technical. Any one of his missteps is enough to invalidate his entire argument, and he made numerous ones (including significant mathematical errors).
Of course they don't like him, he's a crank peddling bad science. I looked at his response to their dismantling, and it completely ignores most of their arguments and fails to repudiate the part it does look at.
In other words, looking at the back and forth has only made it more clear to me how much of a crank he is.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fugu we are sitting at a metaphysical campfire singing kumbayah... don't interupt with actual physics! AJ
Posts: 11265 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zgator: The chicken was once a bird in the air, but he was the snake's minion in the Garden. Satan could never have succeeded in tempting Eve if the chicken hadn't been in the background saying "Yeah, yeah, you tell her Snake."
It didn't really get mentioned, but when the snake lost his legs, the chicken got his wings clipped.
posted
you know, i remember being a child, probably around the age of 10-12 i guess and reading the Torah(OT) and without even questioning it just assuming that the 7 days of creation weren't actual days, but metaphorical days. 7 periods of time in which God created created the universe. In my mind that helped gel with the fact that I thought it was obvious the world was older than 57XX years as well as how the dinosaurs could have existed and become extinct(i just assumed they had been created during one of the metaphorical days, and had gone extinct in one of the other days, way before our actual calendar started).
I'm not saying this to attack creationists. I just never understood how people could believe the universe/world was really only 6000 years old and why every word in the bible had to be taken so literally. I mean, if we literally followed every word in the bible, it would be a pretty messed up place. Case in point, the middle east.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Strider, me too. I remember it quite clearly. I was about ten as well. I also remember thinking about how cro-magnon, neandethal, etc. were the shape humans took as God was forming them. Us. And that we are still being formed.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
huh, that's interesting. I don't exactly remember what i thought of evolution at that point, but I know I never thought that science and religion were mutually exclusive. Again, I just assumed that God would bring things about in a logical/orderly manner.
Then again, i had all sorts of crazy thoughts when i was younger. I was a jew who believed that Santa Claus existed. I believed that EVERY religion was true. And that for people in each religion those things existed for them. I guess sort of ancient greek/roman way of looking at things.
Even though I'm an athiest now, I still don't see why the idea of evolution would discount the idea of a deity. It just comes down to a question of first cause, which as of now, no one can answer.
edit - my "then again, i had all sorts of crazy thoughts when i was younger" was sort of a non-sequitur and was not meant to follow "I just assumed that God would bring things about in a logical/orderly manner." in the way it did. That was by accident. Or possibly, God's will...
posted
Considering that Genesis makes it clear that the sky is a physical dome with water above it, and that underneath the earth is a vast ocean of water, oh, and it's not a round ball but actually flat... does anyone actually argue that bit? That all the evidence of leaving the world is either some lie, God is sending false data for some perverse reason (which WOULD probably make Him a liar) or that there's some vast conspiracy?
Also: Pi isn't 3. In the Tanak it's called 3, even though it's not. (again, God screwing with us?)
Are these not true? If you are to claim they are, how do you rationalize the fact that the world simply doesn't work the way it's said in the Bible? By denying everything that doesn't fit, regardless of "Truth"?
If you do concede these things aren't accurate, how can you claim that everything else is absolutely true, including the yet more improbable bits?
Where the heck were the dinosaurs, and why were they never mentioned?
Can you really say Pi is three, even though all physical evidence discredits this?
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: I once came close came close to having Intangible Conglomerate Love.
If by Intanigible you mean metaphoric
and if by Conglomerate you mean a corporation, like, say, Microsoft
and if by love you mean sexual relations of an upleasant kind.
Ah, Dan, I was really scared coming back into this thread, thinking I'd find something depressing and upsetting (considering my last post consisted of Turkish mercenaries), but yet again you have me laughing. You da man.
And at least you haven't been attacked by OpenOffice. I was freely distrubuted.
Posts: 2827 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The earth is around 6000 years old and that lovable trickster God likes to plant ample evidence that it is not, so that He might condemn those who actually trust the empirical sensibility He gave them.
posted
Maybe God simultaneously made an old earth and a young earth and we each inhabit the earth that we most believe in. Hey, why not? God's omnipotent. If God can violate every law of physics and time, why not just make two seemingly identical earths and superimpose them.
I'm happily typing on a keyboard in my billions-years-old Earth. You (whoever you are) may be happily typing away on a keyboard in your approximately 6,000 year old Earth.
It's all good.
There's not one shred of proof that this hypothesis is less viable than the Young Earth "hypothesis." The hypothesis is completely in line with Scripture (heck, pick a scripture, we'll accommodate it with yet another version of Earth, no worries! And it has the advantage of being at least partially provable -- I can point to things that show that at some version of Earth is billions of years old.
<ding>
problem solved.
Everyone go home now.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Huh. So someone like Rivka, who isn't sure . . . what, she fades in and out of each Earth like Captain Kirk? Or does she have twice as much Earth as you and I do? 'Cause that's not fair at all. Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I also remember thinking about how cro-magnon, neandethal, etc. were the shape humans took as God was forming them. Us. And that we are still being formed.
Joseph Smith said this about his brother Alvin: "...a very handsome man, surpassed by none but Adam and Seth"
I don't know if anybody has dug up a handsome Neanderthal.
Posts: 2655 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: Maybe God simultaneously made an old earth and a young earth and we each inhabit the earth that we most believe in. Hey, why not? God's omnipotent. If God can violate every law of physics and time, why not just make two seemingly identical earths and superimpose them.
I'm happily typing on a keyboard in my billions-years-old Earth. You (whoever you are) may be happily typing away on a keyboard in your approximately 6,000 year old Earth.
It's all good.
There's not one shred of proof that this hypothesis is less viable than the Young Earth "hypothesis." The hypothesis is completely in line with Scripture (heck, pick a scripture, we'll accommodate it with yet another version of Earth, no worries! And it has the advantage of being at least partially provable -- I can point to things that show that at some version of Earth is billions of years old.
<ding>
problem solved.
Everyone go home now.
The problem is not solved because the texts that I accept as incontrivertable faith do not say so. And my axioms are incontrovertable, because the texts say as such.
posted
We aren't disagreeing with your Scripture at all. Are you trying to say that God is not omnipotent???
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think we missed Sam's joke, Bob. (I did anyway, until I went back to check his previous posts). The thing about this topic is that it is so...unique...that I can't tell posts layered thick with sarcasm from posts that are...sincere.
Posts: 57 | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah...I wondered about that, but was too lazy to re-read the thread. Frankly, up to this point, I've merely read it to see how rivka and Dagonee demonstrate how extremely brilliant they both are.
Then I decided to demonstrate how silly I think this argument is. I hope I haven't spoiled other people's enjoyment of the thread, but there are so many tautologies and flawed assumptions inherent in both extremes of this argument that I find myself frustrated into complete nonsensical utterances when I see it come up in the Hatrack topic rotation.
At any rate, I now declare my unwavering belief in God having created a version of Earth to accommodate sarcastically witty explanations of the Earth's origin as well.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
You could extend the idea to create versions of earth created for each different religious creation mythology. It would be pretty cool, because the Ásatrú would get a world made out of a god's armpit and eyebrow.
Seriously, who can pass that up?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know. I sort of look at it the other way. Consider, you're a teacher and a student brings you a complicated science project. They give you a simplistic explanation of the surface aspects of it but this explanation turns out to be wrong.
Would you conclude that the student made it or that someone else made it and the student is trying to take credit for it?
I think all these gods came along, found the world and universe already made and have spent the centuries trying to take credit for it. Those tricksy gods.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by 0Megabyte: Considering that Genesis makes it clear that the sky is a physical dome with water above it,
No, it doesn't. If you think it does, cite a source. It should be right there at the beginning, so it shouldn't be that hard for you to do. But you won't, because you can't, and you can't, because it doesn't say any such thing.
quote:Originally posted by 0Megabyte: and that underneath the earth is a vast ocean of water,
Nope. Doesn't say that, either.
quote:Originally posted by 0Megabyte: oh, and it's not a round ball but actually flat... does anyone actually argue that bit?
Since you made all of that up, why would anyone argue it?
quote:Originally posted by 0Megabyte: Also: Pi isn't 3. In the Tanak it's called 3, even though it's not. (again, God screwing with us?)
No, pi is not called 3 in the Tanakh. Anywhere. Where are you getting all of this nonsense from? I defy you to cite a place in the Tanakh where pi is given as 3.
quote:Originally posted by 0Megabyte: Are these not true? If you are to claim they are, how do you rationalize the fact that the world simply doesn't work the way it's said in the Bible? By denying everything that doesn't fit, regardless of "Truth"?
Do you understand that making up "facts" that aren't true doesn't strengthen your argument? I mean, I could start by saying that George W. Bush is a cleverly disguised lizard, go on to point out that lizards aren't allowed, per the Constitution of the United States, to serve as President, and conclude from that that Bush should be removed for being a lizard. But I'd sound about as irrational as you if I were to try that.
quote:Originally posted by 0Megabyte: If you do concede these things aren't accurate, how can you claim that everything else is absolutely true, including the yet more improbable bits?
You started that sentence with the word "if". Since the clause beginning "if" is false, the rest of what you wrote is correspondingly meaningless.
quote:Originally posted by 0Megabyte: Where the heck were the dinosaurs, and why were they never mentioned?
And why doesn't it ever say that Adam and Eve went to the bathroom, dammit? You expect me to believe that a guy lives for 930 years and never takes a dump?!
quote:Originally posted by 0Megabyte: Can you really say Pi is three, even though all physical evidence discredits this?
No one says that. Just you.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
0Megabyte, that old canard about pi in the Bible is typical of the superficial arguments that people come up with. Kings 7:23–26 and II Chronicles 4:2–5 describe a huge brass bowl built by King Solomon. The diameter of this bowl was said to be 10 cubits, and the circumference was said to be 30 cubits. You say this is a mathematical error?
Here is what Kent Hovind said about this: "The diameter of 10 cubits is from outer rim to outer rim, the way anyone would measure a circular object. The circumference of 30 cubits, however, was of the inner circle, after subtracting the thickness of the brass (two handbreadths—one for each side) from which the bowl was made."
He also notes that the bowl could have had a lip; the bowl did not actually have to have sides that thick.
The diameter would be used to determine how much space the bowl would take up as furniture; the circumference would be used to calculate the volume of liquid the bowl could contain.
I love to quote Kent Hovind when he so easily exposes the thoughtlessness of critics, because anti-creationists are so fond of him.
[ November 18, 2006, 07:22 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
OMegabyte, many people believe the Bible does give some descriptions of dinosaurs in Job 40:15-24; and in 41:1-34 (entire chapter). The first one, behemoth, seems to be describing an apatosaur (or brontosaur). The second one, leviathan, spoken of in chapter 41, seems to be describing a T-Rex. There is some reason to believe T-Rex actually could breathe fire, in the sense of ejecting from its nostrils binary chemicals that when mixed together would burst into flame. The bombardier beetle does something similar today, ejecting from its abdomen binary chemicals that when mixed heat up quickly to the boiling point. T-Rex skulls do show two extra cavities behind the nasal cavities, which could have been reservoirs for flammable binary compounds. I heard that when Japanese filmmakers were first dreaming up Godzilla, they used the description of leviathan given in Job chapter 40.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
You don't need to defend the pi thing, actually: pi is equal to three.
Before you accuse me of not knowing basic mathematics, let me ask you what value of pi the Bible should have used. 3.14? 3.14 is scarcely a better value than 3 is. It is not correct either. I it were said that the pool was 10 cubits across and 31 and 2/5 cubits around, it would still be open to the exact same criticism, because 3.14 is not the value of pi. 3.1415926535897932384626 is a bit closer, but still not correct. 3.14 is an estimate with three significant digits. 3 is an estimate with one significant digit. I have read the entire Old and New Testaments, and I don't, offhand, ever remember decimals used (though I am open to correction), so it doesn't seem at all unreasonable that a one-significant-digit estimate should be used. (The number 30 also has one significant digit, before somebody jumps in to say that it should have read 31 cubits. I'm not a literalist anyway--heck, I don't even know what I believe--but there is no reason why being a literalist precludes estimates. When it says it rained for forty days and forty nights--am I remembering that correctly--does that necessarily mean that it rained for precisely 960 hours, or would the statement be just as true if it actually rained for 953 hours and 27 minutes?)
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: Huh. So someone like Rivka, who isn't sure . . . what, she fades in and out of each Earth like Captain Kirk? Or does she have twice as much Earth as you and I do? 'Cause that's not fair at all.
That is not really an accurate summation of my position. I am pretty sure that the Earth is quite a bit older than 6000 years. I simply am willing to accept the possibility that I am wrong. I am also willing to accept the possibility that it was created last Tuesday, while I was in the middle of my week of training in NYC. However, since I have absolutely no way to detect whether either of the latter two scenarios is the case, I will act on the assumption which is supported by the evidence of my senses -- and not in contradiction to my beliefs. (Although not because of anything Schroeder said. I wince every time his name gets brought up in these debates. To quote my father (who has a physics degree, which I do not), the book is "bad physics and bad Torah." There are many better ones.)
So I'm more like a slightly polar molecule, I think.
posted
Icarus, the value for pi cannot be calculated from the dimensions given in Kings 7:23–26 and II Chronicles 4:2–5, because, as I explained earlier, the thickness of the side of the bowl was not given. The outside diameter was given so it could be figured how much room the brass bowl would take up, and the inside circumference was needed to calculate the capacity.
I doubt that the decimal point could be used in the Bible, since zero and the decimal point were inventions of Arabic numerals.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
My point is simply that you don't have to defend that point, especially with explanations that sound like rationalizations. pi does equal three. End of story.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
KarlEd
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
