<< I happen to know the most ignorant person in the world. He once mentioned that he thinks the world is a few thousand years old. Seriously. >>
and that satan buried the dinosaur bones to fool us?
<< I happen to know the most ignorant person in the world. He once mentioned that he thinks the world is a few thousand years old. Seriously. >>
and that satan buried the dinosaur bones to fool us?
<< PowerEngineer, I'll give you some of my beliefs aquired through the literal interpretation of the KJV Bible:
1) I believe the world is about 6,000 years old.
2) I believe Jesus Christ is, was, and will always be God
3) I believe the Jewish people are God's choosen people and are a witness to the world of His existance. And that while many Jews will spend eternity in Hell for their unbelief many will accept Christ and be Saved.
4) I believe Noah spent 100 years building the ark.
5) I believe it did not rain prior to the flood. And that the flood was worldwide.
6) I believe dinosaurs existed alongside man.
7) I believe the world was created in 6 literal days.
8) I believe God exists apart from His creation.
9) I believe Satan exists as an angel of light and is the god of this world. And that Satan is the wisest and most knowledgable of all of God's creations.
10) I believe God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are One. (a good analogy I heard was that they are like man in that I have a body, soul, and spirit)
11) I believe that Salvation is by Grace alone through Faith alone, and that it is not of works lest any man should boast.
Dave >>
Do you believe that if a part of you (say, your penis or your brain) offends you, you should hack it off? That seems to be happeneing a lot lately.
FelixDeCat
Lifer
- Aug 4, 2000
- 31,242
- 2,779
- 126
<< The 17 billion figure was for the universe, Nemesis, not the earth. >>
Let me quote your post here:
<< Half a century ago, the common scientific viewpoint was that the age of the earth was around 200 hundred million years. Now it's 17 billion. That's an 8500% increase in 50 years, or 170% per year >>
You didn't say a word about the Universe, you were talking about Earth. If that was a simple error on your part please do tell.
<< 4.5 billion years is enough for the earth now, but are you sure that's not going to be stretched further as we find more information that tells us, "Whoops! Um... this just isn't enough time for evolution to work!" >>
The age of Earth might get determined more accurately in the future when more evidence is uncovered. But I seriously doubt that there will be any drastic changes one way or another.
<< jfur, are you implying that dinosaurs and men could not coexist as they do now? >>
The fossil record agrees with Jfur.
GasX
Lifer
- Feb 8, 2001
- 29,033
- 6
- 81
<< Notice on the third link how he initially states in regards to the priciples of C14 dating that: "Radiocarbon dating has become one of the most widely known and, perhaps, the most useful absolute archaeological dating method." and then goes on to state the limitations, thus negating the absoluteness of the dating method. >>
And therefore you can't use the method? Just because it isn't accurate to the day, date and year doesn't mean it isn't a good method to make estimates. There is this thing called precision. An absolutely precise measurement will be exactly right everytime. An imprecise measurement will have a margin of error. Carbon dating is imprecise. I forget the exact margin of error, but let's say (for arguements sake) that it is 5000 years +/-. Even with this huge margin of error, you can still establish that living things were alive on this planet >6000 years ago.
Petrek - I completely disagree with nearly everything you have to say, but you are at least keeping it interesting around here.
But I'm still curious: what evidence did you find that you prefer the 'god-theory' over the 'aliens-from-another-universe-theory'?
Elledan,
You have asked this question a number of times, so I will attempt to answer it as it relates to the generation of life.
There are three possibilities as to the origin of life on Earth.
1. Spontaneous generation
2. God
3. Alien Intelligence
I submit that #3 can be discarded because it simple begs the question as to how did life on the Aliens world come to be. If other Aliens, then once again is simple begs the question as to how life on that Alien world came to be. Etc.
There are now two possibilities of the origin of life.
I submit that #1 is impossible for a number of reasons ranging from irreducible complexity to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
The question simply becomes Who is God?
I have found the God of the Bible to be the most logical choice due to the Creation account and the fact that Salvation is thru Grace rather than earned by good works.
Elledan,
You have asked this question a number of times, so I will attempt to answer it as it relates to the generation of life.
There are three possibilities as to the origin of life on Earth.
1. Spontaneous generation
2. God
3. Alien Intelligence
I submit that #3 can be discarded because it simple begs the question as to how did life on the Aliens world come to be. If other Aliens, then once again is simple begs the question as to how life on that Alien world came to be. Etc.
There are now two possibilities of the origin of life.
I submit that #1 is impossible for a number of reasons ranging from irreducible complexity to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
The question simply becomes Who is God?
I have found the God of the Bible to be the most logical choice due to the Creation account and the fact that Salvation is thru Grace rather than earned by good works.
<< But I'm still curious: what evidence did you find that you prefer the 'god-theory' over the 'aliens-from-another-universe-theory'?
Elledan,
You have asked this question a number of times, so I will attempt to answer it as it relates to the generation of life.
There are three possibilities as to the origin of life on Earth.
1. Spontaneous generation
2. God
3. Alien Intelligence
I submit that #3 can be discarded because it simple begs the question as to how did life on the Aliens world come to be. If other Aliens, then once again is simple begs the question as to how life on that Alien world came to be. Etc. >>
Ah, but #3 is still valid: these aliens could have come from another universe.
Don't believe me? Heretic!!
Besides, where does this 'god' (#2) come from? It just pops up out of nowhere? It's a lifeform as well, so no matter how you look at it, somwhere, sometime life must have generated spontaneously.
<< There are now two possibilities of the origin of life.
I submit that #1 is impossible for a number of reasons ranging from irreducible complexity to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
The question simply becomes Who is God?
I have found the God of the Bible to be the most logical choice due to the Creation account and the fact that Salvation is thru Grace rather than earned by good works. >>
Sorry, like I pointed out above, in the unlikely case that (a) god(s) exist, it/they is/are (a) mere lifeform(s), which must have come from somewhere.
Spontaneous generation of life is the only remaining choice.
<< Moonbeam, I think you've become guilty of the blind certainty you deride Petrek for. The very basic difference between religiously-based beliefs like his and scientifically-based beliefs like yours (and mine) is that religious beliefs start with the answer and incorporate only information that support that answer, while scientific beliefs accept all information and tentatively selects an answer that best matches that information. This means that religious beliefs can never change, while scientific beliefs change all the time as new information becomes available. There's no reason to not listen to arguments against the current theory of evolution as we know it today; if the arguments made by creationists about carbon dating, etc. are without merit, the theory will be unchanged -- if they have merit, then they set us on the road to a better scientific theory. One thing's pretty certain -- our understanding of the evolutionary process will be much better in 100 years. This advancement over time is the central beauty of the scientific process, especially when compared to stagnation inherent in religious beliefs derived from divine revelation. IMHO. >>
OUTSTANDING! I think you've really hit the nail on the head.
<< In order to declare an absolute date you need to know:
a) the amount of the parent isotope at the beginning of the specimen's existence
b) whether there were any daughter isotopes present at the beginning
c) whether parent or daughter isotopes were added or removed
d) that the decay rate from parent to daughter isotope has always been the same >>
Ok, seeing as how you can't seperate radiodating from Carbon dating lets discuss these.
In Carbon Dating, A, B, C, D are KNOWN quantities when dealing with previously living organisms. In regards to A, there is present in every living thing the same EXACT percentage of C14 vs. C12. In regards to B, the response to A handles the response to B. In regards to C, the response to A also handles the response to C because again, the percentage distributions are ALWAYS the same. In regards to D, decay rates are CONSTANT in all cases unless the planet is undergoing relatavistic accellerations that are altering time. To argue otherwise is to completely thow out half of modern science.
In other RadioIsotope dating methods. Skip A, deal with it in a minute. In regards to B, there are known and proven relationships on the percentage of Isotopes given in any sample (these have been experimentally verified). In regards to C, knowledge of basic chemistry would answer this question. It's simply impossible to remove a specific isotope from a sample without mechanical seperation (ie it ain't gonna occur naturally or chemically). In regards to D, see the response above. Now, finally in regards to A, there is a mild assumption on the purity of the samples in question when used. This is where the basic knowledge of Geology comes in. But again, when dealing with Isotopes the percentages of each isotope are fixed (hell they are listed on the periodic table!).
So in summary, you don't know what the hell you are talking about and your ignorance of the topic doesn't make a valid arguement.
<< 4) I believe Noah spent 100 years building the ark. >>
And just who exactly shoveled all the crap on the ship? How big was the ship?
<< "How can you ignore the fact that all of the continents fit together, like a puzzle? How long has it taken them to move to their current locations?"
as per rahvin's post "YOU CAN'T INTERPOLATE DATA BEYOND THE RANGE OF DATA COLLECTED" and if you do so you "attempt to convince the layman by BLATENTLY violating the rules!" >>
DO NOT QUOTE THAT AGAIN. You are using the quote out of context and without the caveat that I applied. That statement ONLY applies in statistics, not where a mathmatical model exists. Get it through your head.
<< jfur, are you implying that dinosaurs and men could not coexist as they do now? >>
Are you implying that an entire planets worth of 10-60' tall reptiles most with armored scales could be killed to extinction by a bunch of guys with wooden spears? How do you reconcile the fact that in the sedimentary layer that contains the jurrasic era there is a layer of soot worldwide and a worldwide distribution of shocked quartz? You should of course keep in mind that the conditions required to cause something like that would have killed every human being. Also are you implying that the sedimintary process was actually faster in the past, that water moved quicker, eroded quicker and deposited quicker than it does today?
Besides, where does this 'god' (#2) come from? It just pops up out of nowhere? It's a lifeform as well, so no matter how you look at it, somwhere, sometime life must have generated spontaneously.
This view comes from a poor knowledge of the physics of time. Time is a product of Creation, or as you would say, came into being at the Big Bang. Asking what existed prior to the Big Bang (or Creation) is like asking what is north of the North Pole. It is nonsensical.
How do you determine that God is a life form? God is spirit. Life is also a product of Creation.
Now you bring up the possibility of life from another Universe. I did read an article in which a British Astronomer was putting forth the ideas of multiple universes. He determined six critical numbers for which life is dependent, and if one of these are off the slightest bit then life would not have come into being. He is Sir Martin Rees, the British Royal Astronomer. His book, Just Six Numbers, is very interesting. His evidence is a combination of the NEAR perfection of this universe and the probability against the spontaneous generation of life.
Dr Victor Clube, an astrophysicist at Oxford University, said Rees's theories were merely a fashionable construct that would not stand the test of time. "There is no evidence for other universes. He is just using the theory as a way to explain our existence without recourse to religion. But, without evidence, believing in other universes is just as unscientific as believing in God."
In the "other universe aliens" vs. God there is much more reason to choose God.
So we are back to spontaneous generation vs. God.
This view comes from a poor knowledge of the physics of time. Time is a product of Creation, or as you would say, came into being at the Big Bang. Asking what existed prior to the Big Bang (or Creation) is like asking what is north of the North Pole. It is nonsensical.
How do you determine that God is a life form? God is spirit. Life is also a product of Creation.
Now you bring up the possibility of life from another Universe. I did read an article in which a British Astronomer was putting forth the ideas of multiple universes. He determined six critical numbers for which life is dependent, and if one of these are off the slightest bit then life would not have come into being. He is Sir Martin Rees, the British Royal Astronomer. His book, Just Six Numbers, is very interesting. His evidence is a combination of the NEAR perfection of this universe and the probability against the spontaneous generation of life.
Dr Victor Clube, an astrophysicist at Oxford University, said Rees's theories were merely a fashionable construct that would not stand the test of time. "There is no evidence for other universes. He is just using the theory as a way to explain our existence without recourse to religion. But, without evidence, believing in other universes is just as unscientific as believing in God."
In the "other universe aliens" vs. God there is much more reason to choose God.
So we are back to spontaneous generation vs. God.
<< Besides, where does this 'god' (#2) come from? It just pops up out of nowhere? It's a lifeform as well, so no matter how you look at it, somwhere, sometime life must have generated spontaneously.
This view comes from a poor knowledge of the physics of time. Time is a product of Creation, or as you would say, came into being at the Big Bang. Asking what existed prior to the Big Bang (or Creation) is like asking what is north of the North Pole. It is nonsensical. >>
Where was this 'god' of yours before the formation of the universe? 'Outside' it? How did it get in? Talking about nonsense.
So your god was created during or after the formation of the universe. Fine.
<< How do you determine that God is a life form? God is spirit. Life is also a product of Creation. >>
Lifeform: something which is alive.
Life: a construction of certain substances, capable of interactively responding to and capable of manipulation of its environment.
All life on this planet is carbon-based. All lifeforms we see, including ourselves, are highly complex collections of chemical processes.
Why would your god be any different? What's a spirit, anyway? What substance does your god consist out of? How was it formed? Did it evolve from some other lifeform?
The same observations we have made regarding lifeforms we're familiar with do apply to any 'gods', until we've found credible evidence to prove that this is incorrect.
<< Now you bring up the possibility of life from another Universe. I did read an article in which a British Astronomer was putting forth the ideas of multiple universes. He determined six critical numbers for which life is dependent, and if one of these are off the slightest bit then life would not have come into being. He is Sir Martin Rees, the British Royal Astronomer. His book, Just Six Numbers, is very interesting. His evidence is a combination of the NEAR perfection of this universe and the probability against the spontaneous generation of life. >>
Sigh... yet another old and tired argument....
We observe this universe because we exist. We exist because the conditions during the formation of the universe were right. If they weren't we wouldn't exist.
Call it pure luck.
<< Dr Victor Clube, an astrophysicist at Oxford University, said Rees's theories were merely a fashionable construct that would not stand the test of time. "There is no evidence for other universes. He is just using the theory as a way to explain our existence without recourse to religion. But, without evidence, believing in other universes is just as unscientific as believing in God." >>
Uh, no.
It's not illogical to assume that there might be other universes, since we've seen that one can be formed. Gods are still nothing more than a figment of the imagination.
<< In the "other universe aliens" vs. God there is much more reason to choose God. >>
Nope. There still remains the question how either of these lifeforms were formed. Only spontaneous generation applies.
<< So we are back to spontaneous generation vs. God. >>
Scratch the 'god' part and you're right.
IF gods exist, they're lifeforms and therefore they must consist out of certain substances, like all lifeforms, meaning that they were formed through spontaneous generation.
Elledan,
You are missing his point. He's making the assertian that god lies outside the bounds of our universe. Outside the bounds of our universe is an area we can't even speculate about because the physcial laws of our universe do not apply. Consider the analogy he used, what's north of the north pole?
You are missing his point. He's making the assertian that god lies outside the bounds of our universe. Outside the bounds of our universe is an area we can't even speculate about because the physcial laws of our universe do not apply. Consider the analogy he used, what's north of the north pole?
<< Elledan,
You are missing his point. He's making the assertian that god lies outside the bounds of our universe. Outside the bounds of our universe is an area we can't even speculate about because the physcial laws of our universe do not apply. Consider the analogy he used, what's north of the north pole? >>
Well, how about this one:
There is no 'outside' of the universe.
And then the point remains that all lifeforms are build up out of certain substances and must therefore have been formed through some kind of process. Spontaneous generation.
FelixDeCat
Lifer
- Aug 4, 2000
- 31,242
- 2,779
- 126
<< There is no 'outside' of the universe. >>
There are some very very smart people that would disagree with you. String theory and it's decendents and their associated mathmatical models require the exitence of other [edit]Universes[/edit]. Hawking has theorized that contained within the center of blackholes are baby universes with their own physical laws and constraints. In theory our universe could be contained within another universe with different physical laws then our own. You have to understand that even the supposition of something outside the bounds of our universe is probably beyond our ability to prove. Regardless though the possibility does exist and honest people interested in discovery will admit the possibility of something (even nothing is something) outside the bounds of our universe.
<< please define "universe" so that I can prove that statement. >>
I believe you can find an accepted definition of the universe in some scientific journal if you choose to investigate. It should be along the lines of everything contained within space-time.
FelixDeCat
Lifer
- Aug 4, 2000
- 31,242
- 2,779
- 126
>please define "universe" so that I can prove that statement.
Universe = A word created by placing the letters u, n, i, v, e, r, s and e together.
Why wait for a definition? Just go ahead and tell us dumb people what you think. But wait. You really dont want a definition. You want to play word games, because your are incapable of refuting my statement.
*yawn*
Universe = A word created by placing the letters u, n, i, v, e, r, s and e together.
Why wait for a definition? Just go ahead and tell us dumb people what you think. But wait. You really dont want a definition. You want to play word games, because your are incapable of refuting my statement.
*yawn*
<< << There is no 'outside' of the universe. >>
There are some very very smart people that would disagree with you. String theory and it's decendents and their associated mathmatical models require the exitence of other dimensions. Hawking has theorized that contained within the center of blackholes are baby universes with their own physical laws and constraints. In theory our universe could be contained within another universe with different physical laws then our own. You have to understand that even the supposition of something outside the bounds of our universe is probably beyond our ability to prove. Regardless though the possibility does exist and honest people interested in discovery will admit the possibility of something (even nothing is something) outside the bounds of our universe. >>
I'm sorry, I should have said that it wasn't my personal opinion, but merely one of many theories/thesises.
I'm not that unfamiliar with Theoretical Physics, you know
But all of this is irrelevant to the whole 'god/alien' discussion.
<< You want to say that the bible is the more superior dating technique? >>
Nope. The Bible wasn't written to tell us how old the earth is. It has a far more significant purpose. I'm saying that we don't have an accurate dating technique and shouldn't be content with a "this is the best we have, let's call it a fact and carry on" approach.
As far as the God/Alien approach... I suppose you could call God an alien in that He is separate from this universe. His "Godness," if He exists, explains why He cannot be created. I know that doesn't prove His existence and probably doesn't help you out at all, but we have more reason to believe in God than we have to believe in any of your wild theories. At least, I do.
Red Dawn
Elite Member
- Jun 4, 2001
- 57,529
- 3
- 0
<< I know that doesn't prove His existence and probably doesn't help you out at all, but we have more reason to believe in God than we have to believe in any of your wild theories. At least, I do. >>
Wild huh? I bet you are one of these pathetic Christian type who acts like a Martyr when someone says your beliefs are complete bullsh!t (which in my opinion they are) but feel it's ok to label Elledan's beliefs wild. It's wankers like you that make those who aren't Christian dislike those who are.
Nemesis: Sorry about that. Yes, I did mean the age of the universe, not the age of the earth at 17 billion years. I still don't see where scientists are pulling their numbers from.
<< Wild huh? I bet you are one of these pathetic Christian type who acts like a Martyr when someone says your beliefs are complete bullsh!t (which in my opinion they are) but feel it's ok to label Elledan's beliefs wild. It's wankers like you that make those who aren't Christian dislike those who are. >>
I never said my beliefs weren't wild. I think both sets of beliefs are completely bonkers. Neither side makes any sense. And no, I'm not a "wanker" or a "Martyr." At least, I don't intend to die over this issue. Not sure where you're getting that. And I'm sorry you think Christians are "pathetic." Or perhaps you meant that there was just one type of Christian who was "pathetic" and that I was of that type. Thanks for the generalization.
How you can immediately form your own presuppositions about me without even holding a conversation, I will never know. I think the same principles hold to the ideas about evolution. You decide what you like and don't like and then force the evidence into your framework, rationalizing the stuff that won't fit no matter how much you try.
But hey, I didn't mean to flame, and I'm sorry if I generated so much hostility within you. And Elledan, I'm sorry if it offended you that I called your theory wild. Like I said, I think that all theories that describe the formation of the universe are completely wild. That doesn't *necessarily* make them bogus, but at least out of the ordinary, don't you think? I mean, it doesn't happen every day. We can't observe it scientifically, so all we can do is make guesses based on what we can observe now. However, what we are observing now is a regular, ordinary process during our time. If we accept the idea of a "beginning" of the universe -- and it makes more sense to me to accept that viewpoint than to accept the idea that the universe had no beginning -- those beginnings wouldn't necessarily conform to what we now observe. I really don't see the need to have such a hyped argument about it. Those who believe in God do so because they believe it to be true. I give the same credence to those who believe that the universe spontaneously came into existence along with all other life. Elledan, do you really believe that our universe, or perhaps just our world, was created by alien intelligence?
<< Wild huh? I bet you are one of these pathetic Christian type who acts like a Martyr when someone says your beliefs are complete bullsh!t (which in my opinion they are) but feel it's ok to label Elledan's beliefs wild. It's wankers like you that make those who aren't Christian dislike those who are. >>
I never said my beliefs weren't wild. I think both sets of beliefs are completely bonkers. Neither side makes any sense. And no, I'm not a "wanker" or a "Martyr." At least, I don't intend to die over this issue. Not sure where you're getting that. And I'm sorry you think Christians are "pathetic." Or perhaps you meant that there was just one type of Christian who was "pathetic" and that I was of that type. Thanks for the generalization.
How you can immediately form your own presuppositions about me without even holding a conversation, I will never know. I think the same principles hold to the ideas about evolution. You decide what you like and don't like and then force the evidence into your framework, rationalizing the stuff that won't fit no matter how much you try.
But hey, I didn't mean to flame, and I'm sorry if I generated so much hostility within you. And Elledan, I'm sorry if it offended you that I called your theory wild. Like I said, I think that all theories that describe the formation of the universe are completely wild. That doesn't *necessarily* make them bogus, but at least out of the ordinary, don't you think? I mean, it doesn't happen every day. We can't observe it scientifically, so all we can do is make guesses based on what we can observe now. However, what we are observing now is a regular, ordinary process during our time. If we accept the idea of a "beginning" of the universe -- and it makes more sense to me to accept that viewpoint than to accept the idea that the universe had no beginning -- those beginnings wouldn't necessarily conform to what we now observe. I really don't see the need to have such a hyped argument about it. Those who believe in God do so because they believe it to be true. I give the same credence to those who believe that the universe spontaneously came into existence along with all other life. Elledan, do you really believe that our universe, or perhaps just our world, was created by alien intelligence?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter