|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu Aug 02, 2007 6:16 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 05, 2007 11:05 am
Alright, sorry it took me so long to look at this video. I have not had a lot of free time because I have worked long shifts at work for the last three days. Not that I am trying to make excuses, just explaining myself. First, I just want to say that this video is less informative than either you or Lethkar has been, by that I mean you both provided more information than him not that you are not informative. He spent about half of his argument (up until 4:35 ish) attacking the museum, not actually saying anything. For starters, I am going to list some of his points, then deal with them in the next post. Please quote this post if you see anything I have said wrong about his speech, but if you have a problem with my argument, please quote my next message in which I will state my contentions. -He said that creationism is "the antithesis of modern science." -Scientists ask questions and "let nature tell us [them] the answer." -The museum "pick[ed] facts to support creationism." -Creationism is the "opposite of everything we know about the universe." -Creationism "lie about science."
-"Science makes predictions that can be tested."
-"Everything we use goes against a 6,000 year-old earth"
(That was the first half of his speech. Again, no actual facts for four and a half minutes.)
-We have proof that the earth started with the big bang because there is still "radiation from the big bang."
-Each galaxy is so far away that the light takes billions of years to travel from it to the earth and since we can see the light the universe must be billions of years old. (I don't have the direct quotes, but that was his point.)
-We have "carbon-14 dating" to prove how old the earth is.
-The rate of "continental drift" and the "fossil records" which show the earth used to only have one continent, provide a time-line of billions of years.
-The "rock strata" prove the age of the earth.
-There is a "genetic relationship between species." (That was all he said.)
-There are cave paintings that are 30,000 years old.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 05, 2007 11:20 am
I know that the following arguments make many assumptions that God is real; however, my point is that the same evidence this man uses for Darwinism can be used just as easily for creationism. There will always be a degree of faith in believing either scenario. I merely want to prove that both ideas are possible and let the individual person determine what they believe. My only goal is to show that there is not ABSOLUTE proof for Darwinism and let the individual know what I believe, and what science backs, in each situation. I have no intention of telling anyone that what they believe is wrong. I just want people to know that science has not yet disproven for certain the existence of God. There is faith in believe AND disbelieving God. Quote: -He said that creationism is "the antithesis of modern science." Since he did not elaborate, I can not be sure I am arguing his specific point, but I will argue it as I interpretid it: christianity is not scientific. On the contrary, christianity is completely supported by science, if you understand it completely. God created the rules that govern the universe. I will get into more specifics as I contend some of the facts he used.-Scientists ask questions and "let nature tell us [them] the answer." How is that proof? That is an observation. Christians use observations all the time and are attacked for it because an observation is not scientific analysis. To say that your observations are proof for a fact is a dangerous area. If your fact is popular, it is completely acceptable, but if it is not, observation will be attacked as a wrong way to prove a hypothesis. Letting nature provide the answer can be used as a way to prove creationism as well. -The museum "pick[ed] facts to support creationism." Seeing as I have not been to the museum, I will not argue for or against this point because I do not know what facts the museum utilizes.That scientist should do the same. He should either be more specific or leave this out of his argument.-Creationism is the "opposite of everything we know about the universe." Again, he was not specific, so I will address this later.-Creationism "lie about science."
Unless he provides facts, this is not a "scientific observation," which he did not.
-"Science makes predictions that can be tested."
If all "theories" could be thoroughly tested, we would not be having this argument. Science is full of "predictions" as the scientist said and facts that simply must be "believed" to be true.
-"Everything we use goes against a 6,000 year-old earth."
He mentioned all the electronic devices we use as proof against a young earth. While I see those machines as support for physics, saying that because one thing in physics is true, all things in physics are true is a grave miscalculation and a statement that should not be made by a "scientist."
(That was the first half of his speech. Again, no actual facts for four and a half minutes.)
-We have proof that the earth started with the big bang because there is still "radiation from the big bang."
I will list two different arguments here: one under the assumption that the big bang did happen and one under the assumption that it did not.
The theory of the "big bang" as I understand it is that a compilation of matter and energy exploded some billions of years ago and realesed the energy found in the universe right now. As for "radiation from the big bang," isn't everything in the universe (if this theory it true) left-over matter and energy from that big bang? Also, if the "radiation" is a unique type that only existed in the initial explosion, why would it prove that the earth is older if it is still around? Isn't the idea that it would disperse and eventually disappear? If it still exists, that would be proof that it did not happen a long time ago. Also, even if this theory is correct, we do not know how much radiation existed in this "big bang," so we do not know how much should be left. Finally, where did the matter and energy from the big bang come from? Inevitably, you must account for something being created from nothing unless you believe that there is something outside of time and the current rules of physics, which would point TOWARDS an omnipotent being not away from one.
If the big bang did not occur, than this "radiation from the big bang" could just be radiation that God created in the universe for a purpose. How is that harder to believe? If God created the energy, He could have placed it wherever He wanted in whatever concentration He wanted.
-Each galaxy is so far away that the light takes billions of years to travel from it to the earth and since we can see the light the universe must be billions of years old. (I don't have the direct quotes, but that was his point.)
I will mostly debate this using the above examples.
If the big bang occured, we have no way of knowing how much energy was in that initial explosion. The explosion could have sent all the different universes so far away from each other in a single instance because of the force behind it, and to believe a "big bang" created the entire universe, you have to believe that the force of that explosion was very powerful. As for the light from far away supernovas only reaching earth now, how do we know there was a star there? We only see the after-effects and ASSUME that because we witnessed these effects from supernovas that that is the only way for this energy to be created. The energy could have been created in any number of ways. The light could have been by-products of another reaction. Or, it could simply be left-overs from the "big bang."
If we believe God created the universe, he could have placed the light and energy in the positions they are in for any number of purposes: a greater understanding of the effects of supernovas, as light for study, as means for astronomical navigation, or just to fill the night sky.
-We have "carbon-14 dating" to prove how old the earth is.
I study carbon dating in Chem II. The principle is that carbon decays at a somewhat constant rate, so by testing the amount of decay it has undergone, we can extrapolate how old it is. However, what most scientists don't tell you is that this process can be altered with extenuating circumstances, such as a major flood, great earthquakes, or asteroids, all of which are mentioned in the bible. The event which shaped my knowledge of this the most was the explosion of Mt. St. Helens in Washington. I grew up in washington, as did my parents. In fact, my father experienced the force of Mt. St. Helens personally. Anyway, the point is, the volcano exploded and half of the mountain literally vanished into smoke and ash. The "carbon-14" left in the wake of the explosion had "aged" several thousands of years in those few moments. The bible frequently talks of catastrophes that the earth experienced. This "age" from carbon-14 could have been the result of so many of things.
-The rate of "continental drift" and the "fossil records" which show the earth used to only have one continent, provide a time-line of billions of years.
My first contention with this theory is how do we know whether this "rate of continental drift" was the same thousands of years ago? As with the above argument, a catastrophic event could have resulted in an increase in the rate at which the continents drifted apart. The event I find the most convincing is the flood of Noah's time. A world wide flood could certainly change the rate at which continents move because they would all be under water. It is much easier to move things under water, as you can experience for yourself by taking a large weight and moving it first on land, then underwater in something like a swimming pool. God said that the earth "opened up" for the flood and water came rushing out from the earth. Now whether or not the earth opening up was a result of God's direct influence or God's use of natural phenomenon such as earthquakes is irrelevant.
-The "rock strata" prove the age of the earth.
Same argument as above. a massive flood can quickly move around dirt and sand, as seen in rock slides and mud slides.
-There is a "genetic relationship between species." (That was all he said.)
Again, since he did not elaborate, I do not know specifically what he meant, but all I can say is, if God found something that worked for one species, why change it in another species? Why invent something completely new when you already have something that works perfectly? Why reinvent the wheel, so to speak?
-There are cave paintings that are 30,000 years old.
Same argument as carbon dating
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 06, 2007 11:04 am
Alright, this'll take me a while to respond to. I'm only gonna brush over your arguments for the first half because they're pretty much all the same. I'll go in depth for the second half, as that's more interesting and more worth arguing. First, the reason he didn't elaborate on a lot of stuff is that he was making a speech to people who already agreed with him, not having a debate with you, or any other Christian. That's really all I have to say about your first half arguments. I should cover anything else you said in the second half, if I don't and you want to hear, tell me and I should get around to it. I'm also only going to argue your "secular" arguments, not your God-based ones because it will not help either of us. Again, if you want me to go into those as well, ask me. Quote: The theory of the "big bang" as I understand it is that a compilation of matter and energy exploded some billions of years ago and realesed the energy found in the universe right now. As for "radiation from the big bang," isn't everything in the universe (if this theory it true) left-over matter and energy from that big bang? Also, if the "radiation" is a unique type that only existed in the initial explosion, why would it prove that the earth is older if it is still around? Isn't the idea that it would disperse and eventually disappear? If it still exists, that would be proof that it did not happen a long time ago. Also, even if this theory is correct, we do not know how much radiation existed in this "big bang," so we do not know how much should be left. Finally, where did the matter and energy from the big bang come from? Inevitably, you must account for something being created from nothing unless you believe that there is something outside of time and the current rules of physics, which would point TOWARDS an omnipotent being not away from one. I don't have the proper information to argue this, as this speech was the first I heard of the radiation. I now plan to find out more. However, I'm sure it's dozens times more elaborate than he let on in the speech. The people who discovered got a Nobel Prize in physics. It must have been tested and analyzed many times. They found it to be the exact temperature that they expected. Quote: If the big bang occured, we have no way of knowing how much energy was in that initial explosion. The explosion could have sent all the different universes so far away from each other in a single instance because of the force behind it, and to believe a "big bang" created the entire universe, you have to believe that the force of that explosion was very powerful. As for the light from far away supernovas only reaching earth now, how do we know there was a star there? We only see the after-effects and ASSUME that because we witnessed these effects from supernovas that that is the only way for this energy to be created. The energy could have been created in any number of ways. The light could have been by-products of another reaction. Or, it could simply be left-overs from the "big bang." The speed of light is, to our knowledge, the universal speed limit. Nothing we know of travels faster than the speed of light. No matter how force you put into something, it won't go past the speed of light, which is, I will remind you, insanely fast. It doesn't matter whether a star was there. In what way is that helping your argument. Whether it was a star, a planet or a floating llama, it was proven that the explosion was hundreds of thousands of lightyears away. That's the point Quote: I study carbon dating in Chem II. The principle is that carbon decays at a somewhat constant rate, so by testing the amount of decay it has undergone, we can extrapolate how old it is. However, what most scientists don't tell you is that this process can be altered with extenuating circumstances, such as a major flood, great earthquakes, or asteroids, all of which are mentioned in the bible. The event which shaped my knowledge of this the most was the explosion of Mt. St. Helens in Washington. I grew up in washington, as did my parents. In fact, my father experienced the force of Mt. St. Helens personally. Anyway, the point is, the volcano exploded and half of the mountain literally vanished into smoke and ash. The "carbon-14" left in the wake of the explosion had "aged" several thousands of years in those few moments. The bible frequently talks of catastrophes that the earth experienced. This "age" from carbon-14 could have been the result of so many of things. I didn't know that. It's interesting, but doesn't convince me. First, I don't completely believe in a world-wide flood and many other things in the Bible. I will saw that at some poit or another every place in the world has some kind of earthquake or flood, so it may throw things off a bit, but I don't think you know the magnitude of the difference between the "true" age of the earth and 6,000 years. It's like saying the distance between LA and New York City is five or six feet. Huge, huge error. Quote: My first contention with this theory is how do we know whether this "rate of continental drift" was the same thousands of years ago? As with the above argument, a catastrophic event could have resulted in an increase in the rate at which the continents drifted apart. The event I find the most convincing is the flood of Noah's time. A world wide flood could certainly change the rate at which continents move because they would all be under water. It is much easier to move things under water, as you can experience for yourself by taking a large weight and moving it first on land, then underwater in something like a swimming pool. God said that the earth "opened up" for the flood and water came rushing out from the earth. Now whether or not the earth opening up was a result of God's direct influence or God's use of natural phenomenon such as earthquakes is irrelevant. I have a first contention right back at you. While we may not know that the rate is constant, the contenants are the right distance apart for them to have been drifting at the same speed for the legth of time that the earth has been around. You seem not to know much about continental drift. Continents are not big rafts being shoved along by some invisible force. The world is divided into tectonic plates, which drift and get shoved together and cruched into each other. In a great flood, the water would be on top of the tectonic plates, as it always is. If anything, the continents would move slower because of greater resistance. Also, the drift that happening right now in because there is new earth forming in the atlantic ocean, making the atlantic larger and, in turn, making the pacific smaller. Basically, the continents are ground to the plates, which are always under the water. Simple, right? I'm gonna pass over the next one, because I forget his rock strata argument. I might get back to it. Quote: Again, since he did not elaborate, I do not know specifically what he meant, but all I can say is, if God found something that worked for one species, why change it in another species? Why invent something completely new when you already have something that works perfectly? Why reinvent the wheel, so to speak? Not sure what you're getting at, but I'll take a shot. Well, being on all fours worked great for just about every animal secies, except us, not we're the only species that has back problems. It's not because we have hands, apes have those too? Did God reinvent the back for humans? I won't bother to quote you on the cave paintings. If earthquakes significant enough to affect the carbon dating had happened, wouldn't the caves have caved in? Or the flood washed them away? Or at least seriously damaged them?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 06, 2007 12:09 pm
First, I want to restate that I know a lot of the evidence I used could be false, but it could also be true. My point in all of that was to show that the same evidence he used FOR an old earth could at the very same time be used AGAINST an old earth. I only want to show that "facts" no matter how scientific must still be interpretid by a "human" mind and no matter how scientific a person tries to be, they still have biases. Just as you argue this facts with the assumption that he is correct and I argue under the assumption that he is wrong. I am not saying either one of us is right, only that we must interpret it in our own minds, which contain obvious biases. Now to your arguments. I have no contentions about not debating the first part of his speech. As I said, he really did not provide a lot of facts in that part. I just wanted to make sure to cover all my bases. I did not want to be attacked later for not mentioning something. Do not assume that I know little about physics. My father is a ph.d. in physics and he would often show me his expiriments. Also, I took two years of physics classes. The speed of light is constant, yes, but the place at which it originated in the universe is not. As I said in my previous argument, the light could have come from a point much earlier than this man assumes. We have no way of knowing exactly where the light originated from. It could have come from a point closer than these scientists ASSUME it came from and thus would not have traveled for billions of years. Also, for the big bang theory to be correct there has to be a large explosion that was GREATER than a supernova. An explosion greater than a supernova could influence the way light and energy travel. Scientists already know that black holes change the way light works. Under the rules of physics, light travels in straight lines, but when near a black hole, the gravitational pull of the black hole changes the direction of the light, thus changing the "rules" which govern how light travels. A "big bang" containing all the matter and energy currently present in the entire universe would certainly be an event which could change the "rules" of light. Finally, how do we know where the big bang happened? How was the explosion proven to be that far away? We could not see the explosion only light that is traveling through the universe. As I said before, there is no "proof" that this light came from a supernova. All we know is that the light is 'similar' to the light we observe from supernovas. I believe that covers your first two arguments. As forr the carbon-14 dating. Look to the top of this post. I said that these facts could be used either for or against an old earth. Yes, to believe that the carbon-14 dating was wrong, you have to believe in a world wide flood, but it would still account for the discrepencies. However, there is evidence for a massive flood that is recognized by even secular scientists, now they don't believe in "Noah's flood" persay. But, they still have evidence for a massive flood. I completely understand continental drift. Yes, the continents are divided into tectonic plates, but to even believe that there was once a single continent, you have to believe these tectonic plates were once connected. The theory is that some event caused these plates to separate: evolutionists would say an asteroid or the ice age and creationists would say it was probably the great flood or other biblical phenomenon. The event which caused these tectonic plates to form could also have spread them apart much quicker than they are moving now. Now, whether or not the tectonic plates were on or under the water, the water would still influence the way they moved. At the bottom of the ocean, there is a lot more pressure on something than at the top of the ocean. That pressure could have changed the rate at which the continents moved. Also, as I said, the bible said the water under the tectonic plates came up out of the ground in addition to the rain. This surge of underground water could have sped up the separation of the continents. Again, this argument works under the assumption that the Bible is true. All I ask is that you consider it under this perspective. It is plausible if the flood happened. Similar genetic triats show that some things work for some species. If walking on two legs is so detrimental for humans, we would not have "evolved" that way, under Darwin's theory. All I can say is that while similar traits may be beneficial for multiple species there are also traits that would differ among species. That in itself is not proof for or against evolution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 02, 2007 11:49 am
Goldenlici I know that the following arguments make many assumptions that God is real; however, my point is that the same evidence this man uses for Darwinism can be used just as easily for creationism. There will always be a degree of faith in believing either scenario. I merely want to prove that both ideas are possible and let the individual person determine what they believe. My only goal is to show that there is not ABSOLUTE proof for Darwinism and let the individual know what I believe, and what science backs, in each situation. I have no intention of telling anyone that what they believe is wrong. I just want people to know that science has not yet disproven for certain the existence of God. There is faith in believe AND disbelieving God. I think you should define "God" before you make claims like that. Quote: -He said that creationism is "the antithesis of modern science." Since he did not elaborate, I can not be sure I am arguing his specific point, but I will argue it as I interpretid it: christianity is not scientific. On the contrary, christianity is completely supported by science, if you understand it completely. God created the rules that govern the universe. I will get into more specifics as I contend some of the facts he used. I can't wait. rolleyes Quote: -Scientists ask questions and "let nature tell us [them] the answer." How is that proof? That is an observation. Christians use observations all the time and are attacked for it because an observation is not scientific analysis. To say that your observations are proof for a fact is a dangerous area. If your fact is popular, it is completely acceptable, but if it is not, observation will be attacked as a wrong way to prove a hypothesis. Letting nature provide the answer can be used as a way to prove creationism as well. How is it proof? Isn't it obvious that what is observed in reality is most likely to be reality? Quote: -"Science makes predictions that can be tested." If all "theories" could be thoroughly tested, we would not be having this argument. Science is full of "predictions" as the scientist said and facts that simply must be "believed" to be true.Actually, even if all the theories could be tested, we would probably still have this argument. There are a lot of people out there that have trouble agreeing with things like a spherical earth. Quote: -"Everything we use goes against a 6,000 year-old earth." He mentioned all the electronic devices we use as proof against a young earth. While I see those machines as support for physics, saying that because one thing in physics is true, all things in physics are true is a grave miscalculation and a statement that should not be made by a "scientist."(That was the first half of his speech. Again, no actual facts for four and a half minutes.) Eh, I'm not going to defend the speaker since I didn't think it was all that great either. Quote: -We have proof that the earth started with the big bang because there is still "radiation from the big bang." I will list two different arguments here: one under the assumption that the big bang did happen and one under the assumption that it did not. The theory of the "big bang" as I understand it is that a compilation of matter and energy exploded some billions of years ago and realesed the energy found in the universe right now. As for "radiation from the big bang," isn't everything in the universe (if this theory it true) left-over matter and energy from that big bang? Also, if the "radiation" is a unique type that only existed in the initial explosion, why would it prove that the earth is older if it is still around? Isn't the idea that it would disperse and eventually disappear? If it still exists, that would be proof that it did not happen a long time ago. Also, even if this theory is correct, we do not know how much radiation existed in this "big bang," so we do not know how much should be left. Finally, where did the matter and energy from the big bang come from? Inevitably, you must account for something being created from nothing unless you believe that there is something outside of time and the current rules of physics, which would point TOWARDS an omnipotent being not away from one. I've never even heard of this "radiation", so I can't defend it. I've always thought the Big Bang theory's biggest advocate was the red shift of light. Let's talk about that, instead. I do not believe the Big Bang represented the "beginning of the universe", as we have already discussed. Quote: If the big bang did not occur, than this "radiation from the big bang" could just be radiation that God created in the universe for a purpose. How is that harder to believe? If God created the energy, He could have placed it wherever He wanted in whatever concentration He wanted. It's harder to believe because it takes the unnecessary step of an invisible pixie. Sure, it could be true, but it seems a lot less credible. Quote: -Each galaxy is so far away that the light takes billions of years to travel from it to the earth and since we can see the light the universe must be billions of years old. (I don't have the direct quotes, but that was his point.) I will mostly debate this using the above examples. If the big bang occured, we have no way of knowing how much energy was in that initial explosion. The explosion could have sent all the different universes so far away from each other in a single instance because of the force behind it, and to believe a "big bang" created the entire universe, you have to believe that the force of that explosion was very powerful. As for the light from far away supernovas only reaching earth now, how do we know there was a star there? We only see the after-effects and ASSUME that because we witnessed these effects from supernovas that that is the only way for this energy to be created. The energy could have been created in any number of ways. The light could have been by-products of another reaction. Or, it could simply be left-overs from the "big bang." Many of the stars we look at produce similar light emissions to our sun. We know our sun is a star, so we conject that the stars are stars as well. Quote: -We have "carbon-14 dating" to prove how old the earth is. I study carbon dating in Chem II. The principle is that carbon decays at a somewhat constant rate, so by testing the amount of decay it has undergone, we can extrapolate how old it is. However, what most scientists don't tell you is that this process can be altered with extenuating circumstances, such as a major flood, great earthquakes, or asteroids, all of which are mentioned in the bible. The event which shaped my knowledge of this the most was the explosion of Mt. St. Helens in Washington. I grew up in washington, as did my parents. In fact, my father experienced the force of Mt. St. Helens personally. Anyway, the point is, the volcano exploded and half of the mountain literally vanished into smoke and ash. The "carbon-14" left in the wake of the explosion had "aged" several thousands of years in those few moments. The bible frequently talks of catastrophes that the earth experienced. This "age" from carbon-14 could have been the result of so many of things. First of all: What do you mean by "the carbon-14 left in the wake of the explosion"? What were they carbon-14 dating? All of those catastrophes are testable and calculable to correct the about of carbon-14. We can find how much it fluctuated each year by examining ice cores collected from any ice that's been around for a very long time. Of course, Carbon-14 dating is only measurable for several thousand years. Eventually, we have to use other radioactive substances. Quote: -The rate of "continental drift" and the "fossil records" which show the earth used to only have one continent, provide a time-line of billions of years. My first contention with this theory is how do we know whether this "rate of continental drift" was the same thousands of years ago? As with the above argument, a catastrophic event could have resulted in an increase in the rate at which the continents drifted apart. The event I find the most convincing is the flood of Noah's time. A world wide flood could certainly change the rate at which continents move because they would all be under water. It is much easier to move things under water, as you can experience for yourself by taking a large weight and moving it first on land, then underwater in something like a swimming pool. God said that the earth "opened up" for the flood and water came rushing out from the earth. Now whether or not the earth opening up was a result of God's direct influence or God's use of natural phenomenon such as earthquakes is irrelevant. A worldwide flood would have very little effect on continental drift, since continental drift is almost completely dependant on what's going on beneath the ocean in the earth's mantle. The continental plates "roll", so to speak, with the edges going under into the mantle with new edges emerging out of it. Things on the surface have almost no effect on it. Quote: -The "rock strata" prove the age of the earth. Same argument as above. a massive flood can quickly move around dirt and sand, as seen in rock slides and mud slides. And hence such ocurrences are recorded by the rock strata. Quote: -There is a "genetic relationship between species." (That was all he said.) Again, since he did not elaborate, I do not know specifically what he meant, but all I can say is, if God found something that worked for one species, why change it in another species? Why invent something completely new when you already have something that works perfectly? Why reinvent the wheel, so to speak?So we wouldn't have to argue about it later? blaugh
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 02, 2007 4:13 pm
Really don't want to argue about the first part, as I said. Quote: Many of the stars we look at produce similar light emissions to our sun. We know our sun is a star, so we conject that the stars are stars as well. "Conject" is the same as "assume." It has no proof. Quote: First of all: What do you mean by "the carbon-14 left in the wake of the explosion"? What were they carbon-14 dating? The carbon in the rocks and other remains on the mountains after the explosion. Quote: Of course, Carbon-14 dating is only measurable for several thousand years. Eventually, we have to use other radioactive substances. Other radioactive substances would have the same problems. Could you also look at my second post before saying more about this one because that one already fixed some of these problems.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 02, 2007 4:44 pm
Goldenlici Really don't want to argue about the first part, as I said. Quote: Many of the stars we look at produce similar light emissions to our sun. We know our sun is a star, so we conject that the stars are stars as well. "Conject" is the same as "assume." It has no proof. That was bad word choice on my part. I already explained it. There is evidence. Quote: Quote: First of all: What do you mean by "the carbon-14 left in the wake of the explosion"? What were they carbon-14 dating? The carbon in the rocks and other remains on the mountains after the explosion. Please explain to me how you would go about dating a rock using carbon-14. neutral Quote: Quote: Of course, Carbon-14 dating is only measurable for several thousand years. Eventually, we have to use other radioactive substances. Other radioactive substances would have the same problems. Could you also look at my second post before saying more about this one because that one already fixed some of these problems. Why don't you just copy/paste the parts I should read, so I don't have to go through the whole thing? sweatdrop
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 04, 2007 1:56 pm
Goldenlici First, I want to restate that I know a lot of the evidence I used could be false, but it could also be true. My point in all of that was to show that the same evidence he used FOR an old earth could at the very same time be used AGAINST an old earth. I only want to show that "facts" no matter how scientific must still be interpretid by a "human" mind and no matter how scientific a person tries to be, they still have biases. Just as you argue this facts with the assumption that he is correct and I argue under the assumption that he is wrong. I am not saying either one of us is right, only that we must interpret it in our own minds, which contain obvious biases. Now to your arguments. I have no contentions about not debating the first part of his speech. As I said, he really did not provide a lot of facts in that part. I just wanted to make sure to cover all my bases. I did not want to be attacked later for not mentioning something. Do not assume that I know little about physics. My father is a ph.d. in physics and he would often show me his expiriments. Also, I took two years of physics classes. The speed of light is constant, yes, but the place at which it originated in the universe is not. As I said in my previous argument, the light could have come from a point much earlier than this man assumes. We have no way of knowing exactly where the light originated from. It could have come from a point closer than these scientists ASSUME it came from and thus would not have traveled for billions of years. Also, for the big bang theory to be correct there has to be a large explosion that was GREATER than a supernova. An explosion greater than a supernova could influence the way light and energy travel. Scientists already know that black holes change the way light works. Under the rules of physics, light travels in straight lines, but when near a black hole, the gravitational pull of the black hole changes the direction of the light, thus changing the "rules" which govern how light travels. A "big bang" containing all the matter and energy currently present in the entire universe would certainly be an event which could change the "rules" of light. Finally, how do we know where the big bang happened? How was the explosion proven to be that far away? We could not see the explosion only light that is traveling through the universe. As I said before, there is no "proof" that this light came from a supernova. All we know is that the light is 'similar' to the light we observe from supernovas. I believe that covers your first two arguments. As forr the carbon-14 dating. Look to the top of this post. I said that these facts could be used either for or against an old earth. Yes, to believe that the carbon-14 dating was wrong, you have to believe in a world wide flood, but it would still account for the discrepencies. However, there is evidence for a massive flood that is recognized by even secular scientists, now they don't believe in "Noah's flood" persay. But, they still have evidence for a massive flood. I completely understand continental drift. Yes, the continents are divided into tectonic plates, but to even believe that there was once a single continent, you have to believe these tectonic plates were once connected. The theory is that some event caused these plates to separate: evolutionists would say an asteroid or the ice age and creationists would say it was probably the great flood or other biblical phenomenon. The event which caused these tectonic plates to form could also have spread them apart much quicker than they are moving now. Now, whether or not the tectonic plates were on or under the water, the water would still influence the way they moved. At the bottom of the ocean, there is a lot more pressure on something than at the top of the ocean. That pressure could have changed the rate at which the continents moved. Also, as I said, the bible said the water under the tectonic plates came up out of the ground in addition to the rain. This surge of underground water could have sped up the separation of the continents. Again, this argument works under the assumption that the Bible is true. All I ask is that you consider it under this perspective. It is plausible if the flood happened. Similar genetic triats show that some things work for some species. If walking on two legs is so detrimental for humans, we would not have "evolved" that way, under Darwin's theory. All I can say is that while similar traits may be beneficial for multiple species there are also traits that would differ among species. That in itself is not proof for or against evolution. Quote: Please explain to me how you would go about dating a rock using carbon-14. You take a sample of the rock and test the amount of decay present in the carbon contained in the rock.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 05, 2007 7:16 pm
Goldenlici First, I want to restate that I know a lot of the evidence I used could be false, but it could also be true. My point in all of that was to show that the same evidence he used FOR an old earth could at the very same time be used AGAINST an old earth. I only want to show that "facts" no matter how scientific must still be interpretid by a "human" mind and no matter how scientific a person tries to be, they still have biases. Just as you argue this facts with the assumption that he is correct and I argue under the assumption that he is wrong. I am not saying either one of us is right, only that we must interpret it in our own minds, which contain obvious biases. Now to your arguments. I have no contentions about not debating the first part of his speech. As I said, he really did not provide a lot of facts in that part. I just wanted to make sure to cover all my bases. I did not want to be attacked later for not mentioning something. Do not assume that I know little about physics. My father is a ph.d. in physics and he would often show me his expiriments. Also, I took two years of physics classes. The speed of light is constant, yes, but the place at which it originated in the universe is not. As I said in my previous argument, the light could have come from a point much earlier than this man assumes. We have no way of knowing exactly where the light originated from. It could have come from a point closer than these scientists ASSUME it came from and thus would not have traveled for billions of years. Also, for the big bang theory to be correct there has to be a large explosion that was GREATER than a supernova. An explosion greater than a supernova could influence the way light and energy travel. Scientists already know that black holes change the way light works. Under the rules of physics, light travels in straight lines, but when near a black hole, the gravitational pull of the black hole changes the direction of the light, thus changing the "rules" which govern how light travels. A "big bang" containing all the matter and energy currently present in the entire universe would certainly be an event which could change the "rules" of light. Finally, how do we know where the big bang happened? How was the explosion proven to be that far away? We could not see the explosion only light that is traveling through the universe. As I said before, there is no "proof" that this light came from a supernova. All we know is that the light is 'similar' to the light we observe from supernovas. I believe that covers your first two arguments. As forr the carbon-14 dating. Look to the top of this post. I said that these facts could be used either for or against an old earth. Yes, to believe that the carbon-14 dating was wrong, you have to believe in a world wide flood, but it would still account for the discrepencies. However, there is evidence for a massive flood that is recognized by even secular scientists, now they don't believe in "Noah's flood" persay. But, they still have evidence for a massive flood. I completely understand continental drift. Yes, the continents are divided into tectonic plates, but to even believe that there was once a single continent, you have to believe these tectonic plates were once connected. The theory is that some event caused these plates to separate: evolutionists would say an asteroid or the ice age and creationists would say it was probably the great flood or other biblical phenomenon. The event which caused these tectonic plates to form could also have spread them apart much quicker than they are moving now. Now, whether or not the tectonic plates were on or under the water, the water would still influence the way they moved. At the bottom of the ocean, there is a lot more pressure on something than at the top of the ocean. That pressure could have changed the rate at which the continents moved. Also, as I said, the bible said the water under the tectonic plates came up out of the ground in addition to the rain. This surge of underground water could have sped up the separation of the continents. Again, this argument works under the assumption that the Bible is true. All I ask is that you consider it under this perspective. It is plausible if the flood happened. Similar genetic triats show that some things work for some species. If walking on two legs is so detrimental for humans, we would not have "evolved" that way, under Darwin's theory. All I can say is that while similar traits may be beneficial for multiple species there are also traits that would differ among species. That in itself is not proof for or against evolution. I'm pretty sure I already covered this one. confused Goldenlici Quote: Please explain to me how you would go about dating a rock using carbon-14. You take a sample of the rock and test the amount of decay present in the carbon contained in the rock. Hm...Honestly, I would have expected better of you. I've had to explain this to people before who made claims about the volcanoes of Hawaii. The problem with your statement boils down to this fact: You cannot date something that wasn't ever alive using carbon-14. Carbon-14 dating can only be used on substances that were once living. When we're alive all living things intake a certain, stable amount of carbon-14, with it decaying at the same rate that we intake it. When we die, we don't intake it anymore and it just starts to decay. That's the whole basis of carbon-14 dating. It can't work on things that were never alive, like rocks, because the amount of carbon-14 in them is erratic and there's no standard amount of carbon-14 to trace back to. There is no way someone could date rocks from Mt. St. Helens using carbon-14 dating. The rocks are inorganic, and carbon-14 dating can only be used for organic substances.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 09, 2007 8:37 am
You argued about my first post, not the changes I made in the second, so please don't be so quick to dismiss my posts. Carbon-14 dating is still a flawed process: organic or inorganic. We know carbon can change forms under pressure: diamonds.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 09, 2007 2:51 pm
Goldenlici You argued about my first post, not the changes I made in the second, so please don't be so quick to dismiss my posts. Carbon-14 dating is still a flawed process: organic or inorganic. We know carbon can change forms under pressure: diamonds. When was the last time you saw a dead organism go under so much pressure that diamonds were developed out of the carbon in its body? confused It's irrelevant, since carbon-14 will decay at the same rate no matter how much pressure is applied to it. That's the beauty of radioactivity. Once again, I ask that you paraphrase. I skimmed your second post and saw no significant differences.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 16, 2007 4:08 pm
Lethkhar Goldenlici You argued about my first post, not the changes I made in the second, so please don't be so quick to dismiss my posts. Carbon-14 dating is still a flawed process: organic or inorganic. We know carbon can change forms under pressure: diamonds. When was the last time you saw a dead organism go under so much pressure that diamonds were developed out of the carbon in its body? confused When was the last time you saw a rock turn into a diamond?It's irrelevant, since carbon-14 will decay at the same rate no matter how much pressure is applied to it. That's the beauty of radioactivity. Not quite. That's my point. Even in a public high school chemistry class we were taught that the radioactive decay process can be flawed.Once again, I ask that you paraphrase. I skimmed your second post and saw no significant differences. crying Ok, give me a few minutes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 16, 2007 4:12 pm
Continental drift: The theory is that some event caused these plates to separate: evolutionists would say an asteroid or the ice age and creationists would say it was probably the great flood or other biblical phenomenon. The event which caused these tectonic plates to form could also have spread them apart much quicker than they are moving now. The speed of light is constant, yes, but the place at which it originated in the universe is not. The light could have come from a point much earlier than this man assumes. We have no way of knowing exactly where the light originated from. It could have come from a point closer than these scientists ASSUME it came from and thus would not have traveled for billions of years. Also, for the big bang theory to be correct there has to be a large explosion that was GREATER than a supernova. An explosion greater than a supernova could influence the way light and energy travel. Scientists already know that black holes change the way light works. Under the rules of physics, light travels in straight lines, but when near a black hole, the gravitational pull of the black hole changes the direction of the light, thus changing the "rules" which govern how light travels. A "big bang" containing all the matter and energy currently present in the entire universe would certainly be an event which could change the "rules" of light. Similar genetic triats show that some things work for some species. If walking on two legs is so detrimental for humans, we would not have "evolved" that way, under Darwin's theory. All I can say is that while similar traits may be beneficial for multiple species there are also traits that would differ among species. That in itself is not proof for or against evolution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
