Freethought & Rationalism Archive

09-20-2001, 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Xtopher:
<STRONG>Amos,

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or serious. I thought you were joking about how creationists can't count past two, but then....????

What do they say on the X-files -- Obfuscation is policy?</STRONG>

No, this is very simple.

The reality is that the ark story is an allegory or it would not be part of every mythology even predating the origen of ours.

In this sense we are all ark builders with the 10% time spend called tithing for self reflection and contemplating our day. We all do this, without question. If this time is directed towards a proper end, it will become our ark that will carry us through when the time comes that reason will fail us. It is when reason fails you (when yu are non-rational) that it is impossible to count to two because the faculty of reason is needed to count past one.

So when you talk about obfuscation I can point at your unstructured space and conclude that your ark is not yet loaded with all of the animals.

...If he had known
unstructured spage
. . . is a deluge,
And stocked his lifehouseboat
with all of the animals
. . . . even the wolves
he might have floated.

But obstinate he stated:
The land is solid . . . and stamped,
watching his foot go down through stone
up to his knee.

Amos

rcs · 09-20-2001, 03:16 PM

Okay, Okay, Okay,

As a Christian, I have to role my eyes from time to time due to the statements of some extremly sincere, but hopelessly dumb Christians. And I must admit that answersingenises is about as low as it comes.

It is to bad that some Christians spend so much time worrying about whether the story of Genises fits a rational and scientific explination of how everything got started, and not enough time worring about feeding the poor and comforting those who need comfort (for a better example see any web site on Mother Teresa).

People of faith simply need to realize that their argument is not with science, but with those who attempt to fit their faith in to a very small box. My faith accepts the natural world as it is, accepts science as the greatest tool for obtaining knowlege about the natural world, but allows me at the end of the day to reach beyound the natural world for a fundamental purpose.

Further, I understand that those of you on this site, which take a view that the Universe is all there is, can not accept my view. But on the other hand, it seems to me that a faith which wants to obtain the greatest good for man, and does not believe modern scinece is the great devil (which for me is real Christianity), can coexist with metaphysical naturalisum very well.

Who knows, if all Christians practised what Jesus preached instead of mumbo-jumbo science we might actualy convert a few of you guys - just kidding, sort of. -

RCS

[ September 20, 2001: Message edited by: rcs ]

[ September 20, 2001: Message edited by: rcs ]

DarkBronzePlant · 09-20-2001, 03:28 PM

Quote:

When you realize that horses, zebras, and donkeys are probably descended from the horse-like �kind�, Noah did not have to carry two sets of each such animal. Also, dogs, wolves, and coyotes are probably from a single canine �kind�, so hundreds of different dogs were not needed.

How dare the creationists imply that creatures could evolve differently from a common ancestor! Oh, oops, I forgot... it suits them in this case.

A Disciple · 10-04-2001, 12:03 PM

rcs
Secular Web Regular
Member # 3948
Who knows, if all Christians practised what Jesus preached instead of mumbo-jumbo science we might actualy convert a few of you guys - just kidding, sort of.

First rcs, Jesus said in Matthew 19:4 "...He which made them at the beginning made them male and female." NOT "little tiny blob" So Jesus did concern Himself with Creation and Genesis.
And ARE you just kidding about converting people or not?? I don't know if I would class you as a Christian yet.
By the way, the big bang can and has been easily disproven by the law: Conservation of angular momentum. Please email me if you have any questions, I would like to clear some things up.

My question is: why does everyone see something on tv stating that it is Science and just take it as such without asking some questions. eg. dating methods, Do they only come up with one date(the correct one)? NO! They actually come up with many dates, then scientists just pick out the date that closly matches their belief.
The 1969 moon rock: James P. Dawson P.O. Box 1328 Edmond, Oklahoma 73083 Ph. (405) 348-3410,
He was Chief of Engineering and Operations for the Lunar and Earth Science Division at the Manned Spacecraft Center NASA in Houston.
He worked on Lunar samples including the Genesis rock. He said they found ages from 10,000 years to several billion years in the same rock. www.jpdawson.com or www.aaronc.com
But scientists picked out the date that came closest to the preconceived age of the earth of 4 billion.
Why can't they just be honest and publish all dates. (Lots more examples like this)

[ October 04, 2001: Message edited by: A Disciple ]

faded_Glory · 10-04-2001, 01:24 PM

Disciple,

You are seriously slandering honest scientists, many of whom are Christians (although not of the YEC variety). Scientists do not just pick the dates they like best. That would constitue fraud and will result in the perpetrator being expelled from the scientific community - the ultimate disgrace.

I strongly urge you to take some time and study this website. The ins and outs of radiometric dating are very well explained by a Christian geologist.

This is the technique you are misrepresenting, and he is one of the people you are throwing muck at. Please read it carefully, and come back if you have any questions left.

fG

A Disciple · 10-18-2001, 12:08 PM

Hello again fg.

Here's a link, http://www.icr.org/research/as/uthpbdating.html

Like I said before, many geochronologists that have a preconceived age of the earth will discard dates that are too young. Think about it, if a specimen being dated is thought to be over 5myo and some older and some younger dates are acheived, the younger will most likely be discarded. And the same goes for the other way around like the Salt Lake Crater in Oahu. It was 'thought' to be less than a million years old. Out of--I believe 17 different methods--one age was "less than 400,000 yrs. which was called the real age. The other sixteen methods ranged from two and a half million to 3 and a half BILLION. And explained away were the older dates because,
1. The results didn't agree with the 'known' age.
2. The results didn't agree with eachother.

I don't believe geochronologists omit or explain away data because it's a conspiracy.
I think most actually mean well...it's what they believe in...so they explain away the young strange dates and explain away all the dates, even ones that are too old--for what they believe.
And there are many that don't rely on dating methods as evidence.
Dating methods are based on too many assumptions and end with many inconsistencies.
Just an opinion
Jay

Flynn McKerrow · 10-18-2001, 01:30 PM

Quote:

By the way, the big bang can and has been easily disproven by the law: Conservation of angular momentum.

I don't think I've heard this one before. Please explain.

Muad'Dib · 10-18-2001, 01:56 PM

Okay, an observation here: this discussion seems to be venturing pretty far afield from Biblical criticism.

The discussion of dating methods is more appropriate for the Evolution/Creation forum, and the discussion of anything related to the Big Bang will receive better responses in the Science & Skepticism forum.

I suggest that anyone who wishes to pursue these issues post a new thread in the appropriate forum(s).

Edit to add: I'm moving this one to Evo/Cre, so a new thread there will not be necessary.

[ October 18, 2001: Message edited by: Muad'Dib ]

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-20-2001, 03:16 PM	#12
rcs Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Fresno California, USA Posts: 35	Okay, Okay, Okay, As a Christian, I have to role my eyes from time to time due to the statements of some extremly sincere, but hopelessly dumb Christians. And I must admit that answersingenises is about as low as it comes. It is to bad that some Christians spend so much time worrying about whether the story of Genises fits a rational and scientific explination of how everything got started, and not enough time worring about feeding the poor and comforting those who need comfort (for a better example see any web site on Mother Teresa). People of faith simply need to realize that their argument is not with science, but with those who attempt to fit their faith in to a very small box. My faith accepts the natural world as it is, accepts science as the greatest tool for obtaining knowlege about the natural world, but allows me at the end of the day to reach beyound the natural world for a fundamental purpose. Further, I understand that those of you on this site, which take a view that the Universe is all there is, can not accept my view. But on the other hand, it seems to me that a faith which wants to obtain the greatest good for man, and does not believe modern scinece is the great devil (which for me is real Christianity), can coexist with metaphysical naturalisum very well. Who knows, if all Christians practised what Jesus preached instead of mumbo-jumbo science we might actualy convert a few of you guys - just kidding, sort of. - RCS [ September 20, 2001: Message edited by: rcs ] [ September 20, 2001: Message edited by: rcs ]

10-04-2001, 12:03 PM	#14
A Disciple Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 30	rcs Secular Web Regular Member # 3948 Who knows, if all Christians practised what Jesus preached instead of mumbo-jumbo science we might actualy convert a few of you guys - just kidding, sort of. First rcs, Jesus said in Matthew 19:4 "...He which made them at the beginning made them male and female." NOT "little tiny blob" So Jesus did concern Himself with Creation and Genesis. And ARE you just kidding about converting people or not?? I don't know if I would class you as a Christian yet. By the way, the big bang can and has been easily disproven by the law: Conservation of angular momentum. Please email me if you have any questions, I would like to clear some things up. My question is: why does everyone see something on tv stating that it is Science and just take it as such without asking some questions. eg. dating methods, Do they only come up with one date(the correct one)? NO! They actually come up with many dates, then scientists just pick out the date that closly matches their belief. The 1969 moon rock: James P. Dawson P.O. Box 1328 Edmond, Oklahoma 73083 Ph. (405) 348-3410, He was Chief of Engineering and Operations for the Lunar and Earth Science Division at the Manned Spacecraft Center NASA in Houston. He worked on Lunar samples including the Genesis rock. He said they found ages from 10,000 years to several billion years in the same rock. www.jpdawson.com or www.aaronc.com But scientists picked out the date that came closest to the preconceived age of the earth of 4 billion. Why can't they just be honest and publish all dates. (Lots more examples like this) [ October 04, 2001: Message edited by: A Disciple ]

10-04-2001, 01:24 PM	#15
faded_Glory Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Cairo, Egypt Posts: 1,128	Disciple, You are seriously slandering honest scientists, many of whom are Christians (although not of the YEC variety). Scientists do not just pick the dates they like best. That would constitue fraud and will result in the perpetrator being expelled from the scientific community - the ultimate disgrace. I strongly urge you to take some time and study this website. The ins and outs of radiometric dating are very well explained by a Christian geologist. This is the technique you are misrepresenting, and he is one of the people you are throwing muck at. Please read it carefully, and come back if you have any questions left. fG

10-18-2001, 12:08 PM	#16
A Disciple Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 30	Hello again fg. Here's a link, http://www.icr.org/research/as/uthpbdating.html Like I said before, many geochronologists that have a preconceived age of the earth will discard dates that are too young. Think about it, if a specimen being dated is thought to be over 5myo and some older and some younger dates are acheived, the younger will most likely be discarded. And the same goes for the other way around like the Salt Lake Crater in Oahu. It was 'thought' to be less than a million years old. Out of--I believe 17 different methods--one age was "less than 400,000 yrs. which was called the real age. The other sixteen methods ranged from two and a half million to 3 and a half BILLION. And explained away were the older dates because, 1. The results didn't agree with the 'known' age. 2. The results didn't agree with eachother. I don't believe geochronologists omit or explain away data because it's a conspiracy. I think most actually mean well...it's what they believe in...so they explain away the young strange dates and explain away all the dates, even ones that are too old--for what they believe. And there are many that don't rely on dating methods as evidence. Dating methods are based on too many assumptions and end with many inconsistencies. Just an opinion Jay

10-18-2001, 01:56 PM	#18
Muad'Dib Senior Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 845	Okay, an observation here: this discussion seems to be venturing pretty far afield from Biblical criticism. The discussion of dating methods is more appropriate for the Evolution/Creation forum, and the discussion of anything related to the Big Bang will receive better responses in the Science & Skepticism forum. I suggest that anyone who wishes to pursue these issues post a new thread in the appropriate forum(s). Edit to add: I'm moving this one to Evo/Cre, so a new thread there will not be necessary. [ October 18, 2001: Message edited by: Muad'Dib ]

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.