Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 63
  1. #16
    CC Grandmaster antichrist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    18,521
    Quote Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan View Post
    There is a perfect concept of design, but we now live in a fallen world where there are deteriorations. When it comes to teeth in particular, there are tufts in the enamel that greatly increase the toughness of what would otherwise be a brittle substance, because they block crack propagation, and the tooth repairs itself by filling in behind a crack. I wrote on this a few years ago.
    But surely root canal pain is punishment by God? Have you had it? My dentist was a Catholic named Corry but that didn't help. Was opposite the giant chess in Burwood Park but too painful to enjoy. Found the Alcatara Attack there by it's composer - a habital cigar muffler, wonder if it has got the better of him yet?
    Zionism is racism as defined by the UN, Israel by every dirty means available steals land and water, kill Palestinian freedom fighters and civilians, and operates an apartheid system to drive more Palestinians off their land

  2. #17
    CC Grandmaster antichrist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    18,521
    Quote Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan View Post
    Well, we do know what Catholic thought on the cosmos was even back in your day (and even back to the Middle Ages): the earth is almost perfectly spherical, it is tiny compared to the distance to the stars, every one of which is larger than the earth. But you choose to rely on a discredited 19th-century anti-Catholic polemic by John Draper masquerading as a book of science history. So you may not be the best judge of good science.
    But you must be referring to science classes amongst well educated people not semi illiterate peasants like Lebanon and OZ early last century where my teacher came from. Another beauty was we had to slap the devil on our left shoulder, that is probably not in Catholic doctrine either. What science is in Catholic doctrine makes the situation worse because they should have known better but then so should you because you are highly scientifically educated and they were not.

    Now I fully understand how rape victims get scoffed at so don't even bother reporting.
    Last edited by antichrist; 22-01-2020 at 10:07 AM.
    Zionism is racism as defined by the UN, Israel by every dirty means available steals land and water, kill Palestinian freedom fighters and civilians, and operates an apartheid system to drive more Palestinians off their land

  3. #18
    CC Grandmaster antichrist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    18,521
    Quote Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan View Post
    Well, we do know what Catholic thought on the cosmos was even back in your day (and even back to the Middle Ages): the earth is almost perfectly spherical, it is tiny compared to the distance to the stars, every one of which is larger than the earth. But you choose to rely on a discredited 19th-century anti-Catholic polemic by John Draper masquerading as a book of science history. So you may not be the best judge of good science.
    This may or may not be the case but I assure you there are no stupid stories in Draper's book like there are in the Bible.
    Zionism is racism as defined by the UN, Israel by every dirty means available steals land and water, kill Palestinian freedom fighters and civilians, and operates an apartheid system to drive more Palestinians off their land

  4. #19
    CC Grandmaster antichrist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    18,521
    Now Adamski, I know you are a dedicated decent guy and I am similar so let me under your guard for one instance. Science tells that distant galaxies are billions of light years away but YEC tells us that God created everything about six to ten thousand years ago. So using YEC arguments the speed of light has slowed down by about 99.99999%. We both know this is ridiculous and just a con job for simpletons. Think independently and rise above the con men. I grew up alongside my grandparents whom I loved but I realized what backwardness is even if they were excellent at making money and being responsible and respectable. So I rebel against backwardness. Have the courage to look outside your shell. After I got my meal ticket my real education began, for decades I never stopped reading and taking courses.
    Be your self don't be groomed and limited by others.
    Last edited by antichrist; 22-01-2020 at 07:12 PM.
    Zionism is racism as defined by the UN, Israel by every dirty means available steals land and water, kill Palestinian freedom fighters and civilians, and operates an apartheid system to drive more Palestinians off their land

  5. #20
    CC Rookie
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    12
    Usually these are round figures and upper limits. Big whoop.

    Ok then, but why round them or give it an upper limit when it is so small when it could just be given an exact number


    Try arguing against something that informed creationists are not aware of. It is one of the Arguments We Think Creationists Should NOT Use.


    This is like one of the most common arguments that I have seen, and I was just pointing that out.

    The fine tuning argument for the universe is invulnerable to those arguments. I.e. there is a very narrow range of constants that allow atoms and molecules to form. Without atoms and molecules, you can't have biology. See this book by evolutionist cosmologists in Australia, A Fortunate Universe: Life in a Finely Tuned Cosmos.

    Just because something has a very narrow chance of happening doesn't mean something supernatural caused that to occur. It's like winning the lottery, there is a very small change of that occurring, however, that does not mean something caused that to occur. We since the universe is so big, chances are there will be other planets that have the proper conditions for life, and here is the main flaw with that argument, why is it the supernatural being you believe in and not other ones. There are so many religions all over the world and in the past. Molecules are made of atoms. Also, that book that was linked, both authors are astronomers, it says on the Amazon page, and to check I even looked then up, and they have nothing to with evolutionists, so that statement was just a flat out lie.


    The result of the Fall. It's certainly time that the "backwardly wired retina is bad design" argument was thrown on the scrap heap.
    The fall? How do we even know that the "Fall" occurred?


    Debatable. Sinues reduce skull weight, increase resonance of the human voice, insulate the sensitive dental roots and eyes from the rapid temperature changes in the nasal cavity, and humidify inhaled air. The direction of drainage depends on posture.
    I never said that Sinuses don't do that did I? I just said that sinuses are poorly placed in our body due to evolution. Evolution just goes, if it works it works. If we were designed, why not make all sinuses drain down? Just like dogs. And unless the entire world decides to stand upside down for the rest of their lives, the drainage of sinuses is going to be both up and down the majority of times.


    Not at all. It is about the ability to support liquid water and carbon-based life. It's an argument from what we do know about the limitations of silicon, for example, because the main silicon oxide is an almost insoluble solid unlike the main carbon oxide.

    That just reaffirms my point, just because you don't understand how something could have occurred, you assume it is some supernatural being, that is a logical fallacy. And here's another question, why is it your god and not a different one? As for the other point, I don't understand what you are trying to say. Silicon oxide is obviously not soluble as it has a covalent network structure, as the amount of energy required to dissolve it into the water, will cause the water to evaporate, that also means "almost insoluble" is false, basic chemistry Please explain this point as I don't understand


    Both evolutionists and creationists have mishandled the Second Law, but you are mistaken if you think that thermodynamic considerations can be ignored in closed or open systems. It takes more than sunlight to make proteins or DNA fronm some sort of primordial soup. See The Second Law of Thermodynamics: Answers to Critics.



    I never said that it can't be ignored, but the actual law refers to isolated or possibly closed systems but usually isolated. I also never said it just takes sunlight, so please stop twisting it. I said that there is sunlight reaching the earth, so that would be it is an open system, so the 2nd law won't really be compared to the proper definition. The earth has also been bombarded with asteroids, ray and all other sorts of things before life billions of years ago. Abiogenesis is the process of how life originally formed on earth, and let me quickly say that abiogenesis and spontaneous generation are different, SP has already been disproven, while abiogenesis has not. I'm pointing this out as these arguments are seen too many times.

    You might try learning what creationists actually say instead of trying to refute arguments they caution against.

    Actually, most creationists recycle the same thing over and over again as they can't think of anything new. The majority of creationists I've seen always use arguments like those i've pointed out, which is why I said "Most common"


    Not so. It is found where the cell nuclei were in some cases.
    Evidence?

    https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/20....791W/abstract
    Also, this newer study conducted by Harvard in 2003 took permafrost that was between 400,000 years and 10,000 years old, which is clearly higher than what YECs state.


    No, the argument is that this is an upper limit, not the age. The normal DAPI probe for DNA, which requires a double helix, detected DNA in dino bones allegedly 68 Ma.

    That just makes my statement valid that the earth is not young, the upper limit, as of the moment is accepted as 100,000 which is higher than 10,000. I would also like to make a correction about one of my points. 100,000 years as the accept consensus was in fact decided many years ago. In 2013, scientists were able to sequence DNA from a horse in permafrost that was from 700,000 years ago. And from what math taught me, 700,000 is higher than 10,000. Take a look at these articles
    https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart...ata-180973117/
    https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0626142938.htm

    This shows that DNA was still intact, so the bacteria and the strata they are in are not that old.
    Refer to point above. 700,000 is larger than 10,000 so that strain of bacteria doesn't even matter that much.

    So only young-earth sites are biased, but not old-earth sites and other sites that are overtly atheopathic?
    The term "old-earth" is misused, as it not "old-earth" but instead accepted by the scientific community and the majority of people in the world. The studies that were linked by creation.com were not proper studies conducted following the scientific process, as scientists don't even bother debating the age of the earth, as basically all scientists agree that the universe and earth are billions of years old. It's like when conducting a study about climate change, the study shows that there has been a rise of CO2 in the earth. Some studies don't say, "this is why climate change is true" as the scientific consensus has already accepted that it is.


    No Nobel has been awarded for evolution theory. It's not what it's for. So it would never be awarded for a YEC discovery, quite aside from the politicization of the award committees, which means that warmonger Obama and terrorist Arafat were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, and [URL="https://creation.com/dr-damadians-vital-contribution-to-mri-nobel-prize-controversy-returns"]Damadian was denied a Nobel although he was the main inventor of MRI
    Did someone say that no Nobel Prize has ever been awarded for evolution? *cough* And 2, the reason no YEC would ever be awarded an Nobel is that there is no evidence that backed by science, through the scientific method, and published in peer-reviewed sources. I don't want to talk about Obama and Arafat, however, their Nobel Peace Prizes were not given without reason, just because you think that Obama is a "warmonger" and Arafat is a "terrorist" doesn't mean they are. For instance, someone people may think that Obama is bad, but Trump is much worse, as he was the one causing all the issues in Iran now.
    As for the inventor of the MRI, he was given one after a public complaint, but that is a separate statement and it has nothing to do with this.




    Now, I would like to offer some evidence against a young earth
    1. Petrification of living things, such as wood. The time it takes for wood to be petrified takes millions of years. That is more than 10,000
    2. The erosion of rocks. The Grand Canyon would have taken millions of years to erode into what it looks like now. The guess is between 6-17 million years, so erosion can change rates, so it is hard to determine.
    3. Coral Reefs. The coral reefs around the world can range from a wide array of years, from millions to hundreds of thousands. One example is the Great Barrier Reef, which is estimated to be 500,000 years old.
    4. Continental Drift. Alfred Wegener's Theory of Plate Tectonics has shown that the continents of the earth were all connected, and have taken hundreds of millions of years for the world to look like this.
    5. The decay of radioactive elements. There is a huge array of radioactive datings, such as carbon dating, uranium-lead dating, lead-lead dating and many more. All of them show that the earth is much older than 10,000.it
    6. The size of the universe. Since light travels at a constant speed in a vacuum, roughly 300 million metres per second, and there are stars that are millions of light-years away, how is it possible for the light from those stars to travel to earth in a few thousand years? For instance, the closest galaxy to the milky way is 2.5 million light-years away. That means light must have travelled for at least 2.5 million years before reaching earth. Unless all of a sudden, it is accepted that the universe is like billions of years old, and the earth is only 10,000.

    I can keep going on, but this should be enough for today.

    Final point, what really sucks about this "debate" is that there is no debate. Unfortunately for us, if we don't debate people like you, it makes it seem like that we are scared of not being able to win, even though we have science on our side, while if we do debate, it makes it look like creationism is scientific, even it has NO scientific basis at all. It's a lose-lose situation which is why the majority of scientists don't even debate this, and only a few do because it is a waste of time, when they could be doing something better.

  6. #21
    CC Grandmaster antichrist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    18,521
    Capa Fan, being proud of scientific and medical advancements made by Catholic and Christian's forget one thing AND THIS IS AN ANTICHRIST ORIGINAL ONLY PENNED TODAY - they are sinning. They are committing the exact same crime of Adam and Eve of WANTING KNOWLEDGE. God wants his followers to be dumb and by Jove many are following suit.
    Zionism is racism as defined by the UN, Israel by every dirty means available steals land and water, kill Palestinian freedom fighters and civilians, and operates an apartheid system to drive more Palestinians off their land

  7. #22
    CC Grandmaster Adamski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Penrith, NSW
    Posts
    8,843
    I din't think we know what the speed of light was at creation. I try to think biblically, rather than following any human writer.
    God exists. Short and to the point.

    Secretary of, and regularly arbiter at, Rooty Hill RSL Chess Club. See www.rootyhillchessclub.org.

    Psephological insight. "Controversial will only lose you votes. Courageous will lose you the election." Sir Humphrey Appleby on Yes Minister.

    Favorite movie line: Girl friend Cathy to Jack Ryan in "Sum of all Fears". "What kind of emergency does an historian have?".

  8. #23
    CC Grandmaster antichrist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    18,521
    Quote Originally Posted by Adamski View Post
    I din't think we know what the speed of light was at creation. I try to think biblically, rather than following any human writer.
    Do you really believe that it de-accelerated to about a hundred million times slower when Darwin's book came out and modern creationism was created. If you think so then you are agreeing with my new discovery above that God wants to keep us stupid by changing the rules of his creation to confuse us.
    Zionism is racism as defined by the UN, Israel by every dirty means available steals land and water, kill Palestinian freedom fighters and civilians, and operates an apartheid system to drive more Palestinians off their land

  9. #24
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA (formerly Brisbane, and before that Wellington, NZ)
    Posts
    20,171
    Quote Originally Posted by Username View Post
    Usually these are round figures and upper limits. Big whoop.

    Ok then, but why round them or give it an upper limit when it is so small when it could just be given an exact number
    Because we are providing round numbers with uncertainties.

    Quote Originally Posted by Username View Post
    Try arguing against something that informed creationists are not aware of. It is one of the Arguments We Think Creationists Should NOT Use.


    This is like one of the most common arguments that I have seen, and I was just pointing that out.
    Not in informed creationists circles. You can find uninformed creationists saying such things, just as you can find evolutionists who believe in gnosticism (like GB), astrology, and even a flat earth.

    Quote Originally Posted by Username View Post
    The fine tuning argument for the universe is invulnerable to those arguments. I.e. there is a very narrow range of constants that allow atoms and molecules to form. Without atoms and molecules, you can't have biology. See this book by evolutionist cosmologists in Australia, A Fortunate Universe: Life in a Finely Tuned Cosmos.

    Just because something has a very narrow chance of happening doesn't mean something supernatural caused that to occur. It's like winning the lottery, there is a very small change of that occurring, however, that does not mean something caused that to occur.
    There is a probability of one that a number must be drawn. There is no such probability that the constants had fine-tuned to produce atoms or molecules.

    Quote Originally Posted by Username View Post
    We since the universe is so big, chances are there will be other planets that have the proper conditions for life,
    Missed the point. If the constants are such that atoms and molecules can't form, then there won't be planets in the first place, let alone conditions for life.

    Quote Originally Posted by Username View Post
    and here is the main flaw with that argument, why is it the supernatural being you believe in and not other ones. There are so many religions all over the world and in the past.
    Different issue. The debate at the moment is theism v atheism. We can argue later about which brand of theism has the best evidence.

    Quote Originally Posted by Username View Post
    Molecules are made of atoms. Also, that book that was linked, both authors are astronomers, it says on the Amazon page, and to check I even looked then up, and they have nothing to with evolutionists, so that statement was just a flat out lie.
    You are not supposed to call people liars in this group. Just because there is nothing on that link to show that they are evolutionists, it doesn't mean they are not. Both accept the big bang, Lewis is an avowed materialist, and Barnes is on record as accepting biological evolution. Both authors are astronomers, yes, who have made special studies of the fine tuning arguments.

    Quote Originally Posted by Username View Post
    The result of the Fall. It's certainly time that the "backwardly wired retina is bad design" argument was thrown on the scrap heap.
    The fall? How do we even know that the "Fall" occurred?
    If you want to argue against biblical creation, then you shouldn't whinge when your opponents invoke aspects of it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Username View Post
    Debatable. Sinues reduce skull weight, increase resonance of the human voice, insulate the sensitive dental roots and eyes from the rapid temperature changes in the nasal cavity, and humidify inhaled air. The direction of drainage depends on posture.
    I never said that Sinuses don't do that did I? I just said that sinuses are poorly placed in our body due to evolution. Evolution just goes, if it works it works. If we were designed, why not make all sinuses drain down? Just like dogs. And unless the entire world decides to stand upside down for the rest of their lives, the drainage of sinuses is going to be both up and down the majority of times.
    Who says they are badly designed? You? We spend about a third of our lives lying down as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by Username View Post
    Not at all. It is about the ability to support liquid water and carbon-based life. It's an argument from what we do know about the limitations of silicon, for example, because the main silicon oxide is an almost insoluble solid unlike the main carbon oxide.

    That just reaffirms my point, just because you don't understand how something could have occurred, you assume it is some supernatural being, that is a logical fallacy. And here's another question, why is it your god and not a different one?
    Again, a different debate, while this is theism v atheism.

    Quote Originally Posted by Username View Post
    As for the other point, I don't understand what you are trying to say. Silicon oxide is obviously not soluble as it has a covalent network structure, as the amount of energy required to dissolve it into the water, will cause the water to evaporate, that also means "almost insoluble" is false, basic chemistry Please explain this point as I don't understand
    I doubt that a Ph.D. chemist like me needs lessons in chemistry from the likes of you. And when you come up with nonsense like causing water to evaporate, you really are stretching. If nett energy were required to dissolve SiO₂, then the water would cool as energy is taken out of it, not heat up. And we are talking about the tiny amount dissolved. "Almost insoluble" is totally true: the amount of SiO₂ dissolving in water is tiny. It is presumption to claim that not the slightest SiO₂ can dissolve. The solubility increases with temperature. Note that you can dissolve enough powdered glass, mainly SiO₂, in room-temp water, to turn phenolphthalein pink.

    Quote Originally Posted by Username View Post
    Both evolutionists and creationists have mishandled the Second Law, but you are mistaken if you think that thermodynamic considerations can be ignored in closed or open systems. It takes more than sunlight to make proteins or DNA from some sort of primordial soup. See The Second Law of Thermodynamics: Answers to Critics.

    I never said that it can't be ignored, but the actual law refers to isolated or possibly closed systems but usually isolated.
    It applies to all systems, but you need to consider entropy of systems and surroundings, which you do using the Gibbs function of the system at constant pressure.

    Quote Originally Posted by Username View Post
    I also never said it just takes sunlight, so please stop twisting it. I said that there is sunlight reaching the earth, so that would be it is an open system, so the 2nd law won't really be compared to the proper definition.
    Sunlight is irrelevant to the issue. But many of your fellow atheopaths glibly bring it up as if this is all that it takes.
    As I said, some creationists get the second law wrong. But most evolutionists get it wrong too when they think that it doesn't apply to open systems.

    Quote Originally Posted by Username View Post
    The earth has also been bombarded with asteroids, ray and all other sorts of things before life billions of years ago. Abiogenesis is the process of how life originally formed on earth, and let me quickly say that abiogenesis and spontaneous generation are different, SP has already been disproven, while abiogenesis has not. I'm pointing this out as these arguments are seen too many times.
    Abiogenesis and spontaneous generation mean the same thing. Historically SG was more ambitious and tried to explain origin of multicellular organisms. Abiogenesis aka chemical evolution hasn't the slightest experimental scientific support

    Quote Originally Posted by Username View Post
    You might try learning what creationists actually say instead of trying to refute arguments they caution against.

    Actually, most creationists recycle the same thing over and over again as they can't think of anything new. The majority of creationists I've seen always use arguments like those i've pointed out, which is why I said "Most common"
    We have only your word for this, as opposed to creationist writings.

    Quote Originally Posted by Username View Post
    Not so. It is found where the cell nuclei were in some cases.
    Evidence?
    Schweitzer, M. H. et al. Molecular analyses of dinosaur osteocytes support the presence of endogenous molecules, Bone, 17 October 2012, and discussed in DNA and bone cells found in dinosaur bone.

    Quote Originally Posted by Username View Post
    https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/20....791W/abstract
    Also, this newer study conducted by Harvard in 2003 took permafrost that was between 400,000 years and 10,000 years old, which is clearly higher than what YECs state.
    Upper limit again, far less than the claimed millions of years.

    Newer study? 2012 is newer than 2003.

    Quote Originally Posted by Username View Post
    No, the argument is that this is an upper limit, not the age. The normal DAPI probe for DNA, which requires a double helix, detected DNA in dino bones allegedly 68 Ma.
    That just makes my statement valid that the earth is not young, the upper limit, as of the moment is accepted as 100,000 which is higher than 10,000. I would also like to make a correction about one of my points. 100,000 years as the accept consensus was in fact decided many years ago. In 2013, scientists were able to sequence DNA from a horse in permafrost that was from 700,000 years ago. And from what math taught me, 700,000 is higher than 10,000. Take a look at these articles
    https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart...ata-180973117/
    https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0626142938.htm
    Do you know what upper limit means?

    Quote Originally Posted by Username View Post
    This shows that DNA was still intact, so the bacteria and the strata they are in are not that old.
    Refer to point above. 700,000 is larger than 10,000 so that strain of bacteria doesn't even matter that much.
    Of course, we already stated that under frozen conditions might survive as long as that, but not when the dinosaurs are meant to have lived in warm climates. The dinosaurs are alleged to be about 100 times older than that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Username View Post
    So only young-earth sites are biased, but not old-earth sites and other sites that are overtly atheopathic?
    The term "old-earth" is misused, as it not "old-earth" but instead accepted by the scientific community and the majority of people in the world. The studies that were linked by creation.com were not proper studies conducted following the scientific process, as scientists don't even bother debating the age of the earth, as basically all scientists agree that the universe and earth are billions of years old. It's like when conducting a study about climate change, the study shows that there has been a rise of CO2 in the earth. Some studies don't say, "this is why climate change is true" as the scientific consensus has already accepted that it is.
    Consensus is not a scientific term but a political one.

    Quote Originally Posted by Username View Post
    No Nobel has been awarded for evolution theory. It's not what it's for. So it would never be awarded for a YEC discovery, quite aside from the politicization of the award committees, which means that warmonger Obama and terrorist Arafat were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, and [URL="https://creation.com/dr-damadians-vital-contribution-to-mri-nobel-prize-controversy-returns"]Damadian was denied a Nobel although he was the main inventor of MRI
    Did someone say that no Nobel Prize has ever been awarded for evolution? *cough*
    Oh really? You can put an evolutionary spin, but this was an artificial simulation with rapid replication and modification and extreme unnatural truncation selection. Note that creationists long before Darwin understood that variation and natural selection were real processes, so are hardly the sole property of evolutionists. This experiment doesn't prove we are rearranged pond scum.

    Quote Originally Posted by Username View Post
    And 2, the reason no YEC would ever be awarded an Nobel is that there is no evidence that backed by science, through the scientific method, and published in peer-reviewed sources. I don't want to talk about Obama and Arafat, however, their Nobel Peace Prizes were not given without reason, just because you think that Obama is a "warmonger" and Arafat is a "terrorist" doesn't mean they are. For instance, someone people may think that Obama is bad, but Trump is much worse, as he was the one causing all the issues in Iran now.
    Arafat was a known terrorist, and Obama hadn't even done anything! Later he turned Libya into a basket case.

    Quote Originally Posted by Username View Post
    As for the inventor of the MRI, he was given one after a public complaint, but that is a separate statement and it has nothing to do with this.
    He was never given the Nobel, although he should have been. Without his discovery of a huge contrast in relaxation times in different tissues including cancerous ones, there would have been nothing to image.

    Quote Originally Posted by Username View Post
    Now, I would like to offer some evidence against a young earth
    1. Petrification of living things, such as wood. The time it takes for wood to be petrified takes millions of years. That is more than 10,000
    Who says? Rapid petrifaction is well known in the right conditions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Username View Post
    2. The erosion of rocks. The Grand Canyon would have taken millions of years to erode into what it looks like now. The guess is between 6-17 million years, so erosion can change rates, so it is hard to determine.
    Depends on the amount of water and flow rate, and we have good reason to think it was far larger and faster at some time in the past.

    Quote Originally Posted by Username View Post
    3. Coral Reefs. The coral reefs around the world can range from a wide array of years, from millions to hundreds of thousands. One example is the Great Barrier Reef, which is estimated to be 500,000 years old.
    Again assuming today's rate. Coral expert Dr Robert Carter:

    Even in the secular worldview, the GBR was exposed land as few as ten thousand years ago, at the height of the ‘last’ Ice Age. So even they believe it grew in only a few thousand years. Most people are surprised to learn that, even though the reef complex is very, very long, it is not very deep. In fact, the GBR has developed along a shallow-water shelf made mostly of (Flood-deposited) limestone, and only began to grow as the sea level began to rise to today’s levels when the massive ice sheets began to melt at the end of the Ice Age.

    Quote Originally Posted by Username View Post
    4. Continental Drift. Alfred Wegener's Theory of Plate Tectonics has shown that the continents of the earth were all connected, and have taken hundreds of millions of years for the world to look like this.
    Only at current rate. There is good reason to think that it has been much faster, so more like continental sprint.

    Quote Originally Posted by Username View Post
    5. The decay of radioactive elements. There is a huge array of radioactive datings, such as carbon dating, uranium-lead dating, lead-lead dating and many more. All of them show that the earth is much older than 10,000.
    Yawn, so many assumptions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Username View Post
    6. The size of the universe. Since light travels at a constant speed in a vacuum, roughly 300 million metres per second, and there are stars that are millions of light-years away, how is it possible for the light from those stars to travel to earth in a few thousand years? For instance, the closest galaxy to the milky way is 2.5 million light-years away. That means light must have travelled for at least 2.5 million years before reaching earth. Unless all of a sudden, it is accepted that the universe is like billions of years old, and the earth is only 10,000.
    Oh, we have already discussed the distant starlight issue here, and see also this book chapter.

    Quote Originally Posted by Username View Post
    Final point, what really sucks about this "debate" is that there is no debate. Unfortunately for us, if we don't debate people like you, it makes it seem like that we are scared of not being able to win, even though we have science on our side, while if we do debate, it makes it look like creationism is scientific, even it has NO scientific basis at all. It's a lose-lose situation which is why the majority of scientists don't even debate this, and only a few do because it is a waste of time, when they could be doing something better.
    You mean, we are just not going to surrender no matter how much you bluff and bluster.

    Really, is that the best you have?
    “The destructive capacity of the individual, however vicious, is small; of the state, however well-intentioned, almost limitless. Expand the state and that destructive capacity necessarily expands, too, pari passu.”—Paul Johnson, Modern Times, 1983.

  10. #25
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA (formerly Brisbane, and before that Wellington, NZ)
    Posts
    20,171
    Quote Originally Posted by antichrist View Post
    But you must be referring to science classes amongst well educated people not semi illiterate peasants like Lebanon and OZ early last century where my teacher came from. Another beauty was we had to slap the devil on our left shoulder, that is probably not in Catholic doctrine either. What science is in Catholic doctrine makes the situation worse because they should have known better but then so should you because you are highly scientifically educated and they were not.
    The common people in the middle ages knew the earth is round, for example.

    Quote Originally Posted by antichrist View Post
    Now I fully understand how rape victims get scoffed at so don't even bother reporting.
    I would hope that all women who claim rape are listened to by the proper authority, and without any nonsense about deserving to be raped because no one deserves that. But they have no automatic right to be believed. Presumption of innocence for the accused must not be abandoned.
    “The destructive capacity of the individual, however vicious, is small; of the state, however well-intentioned, almost limitless. Expand the state and that destructive capacity necessarily expands, too, pari passu.”—Paul Johnson, Modern Times, 1983.

  11. #26
    CC Rookie
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    12
    Quote Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan View Post
    Because we are providing round numbers with uncertainties.


    Not in informed creationists circles. You can find uninformed creationists saying such things, just as you can find evolutionists who believe in gnosticism (like GB), astrology, and even a flat earth.


    There is a probability of one that a number must be drawn. There is no such probability that the constants had fine-tuned to produce atoms or molecules.


    Missed the point. If the constants are such that atoms and molecules can't form, then there won't be planets in the first place, let alone conditions for life.


    Different issue. The debate at the moment is theism v atheism. We can argue later about which brand of theism has the best evidence.


    You are not supposed to call people liars in this group. Just because there is nothing on that link to show that they are evolutionists, it doesn't mean they are not. Both accept the big bang, Lewis is an avowed materialist, and Barnes is on record as accepting biological evolution. Both authors are astronomers, yes, who have made special studies of the fine tuning arguments.


    If you want to argue against biblical creation, then you shouldn't whinge when your opponents invoke aspects of it.


    Who says they are badly designed? You? We spend about a third of our lives lying down as well.


    Again, a different debate, while this is theism v atheism.


    I doubt that a Ph.D. chemist like me needs lessons in chemistry from the likes of you. And when you come up with nonsense like causing water to evaporate, you really are stretching. If nett energy were required to dissolve SiO₂, then the water would cool as energy is taken out of it, not heat up. And we are talking about the tiny amount dissolved. "Almost insoluble" is totally true: the amount of SiO₂ dissolving in water is tiny. It is presumption to claim that not the slightest SiO₂ can dissolve. The solubility increases with temperature. Note that you can dissolve enough powdered glass, mainly SiO₂, in room-temp water, to turn phenolphthalein pink.


    It applies to all systems, but you need to consider entropy of systems and surroundings, which you do using the Gibbs function of the system at constant pressure.



    As I said, some creationists get the second law wrong. But most evolutionists get it wrong too when they think that it doesn't apply to open systems.


    Abiogenesis and spontaneous generation mean the same thing. Historically SG was more ambitious and tried to explain origin of multicellular organisms. Abiogenesis aka chemical evolution hasn't the slightest experimental scientific support


    We have only your word for this, as opposed to creationist writings.


    Schweitzer, M. H. et al. Molecular analyses of dinosaur osteocytes support the presence of endogenous molecules, Bone, 17 October 2012, and discussed in DNA and bone cells found in dinosaur bone.


    Upper limit again, far less than the claimed millions of years.

    Newer study? 2012 is newer than 2003.


    Do you know what upper limit means?


    Of course, we already stated that under frozen conditions might survive as long as that, but not when the dinosaurs are meant to have lived in warm climates. The dinosaurs are alleged to be about 100 times older than that.


    Consensus is not a scientific term but a political one.


    Oh really? You can put an evolutionary spin, but this was an artificial simulation with rapid replication and modification and extreme unnatural truncation selection. Note that creationists long before Darwin understood that variation and natural selection were real processes, so are hardly the sole property of evolutionists. This experiment doesn't prove we are rearranged pond scum.


    Arafat was a known terrorist, and Obama hadn't even done anything! Later he turned Libya into a basket case.


    He was never given the Nobel, although he should have been. Without his discovery of a huge contrast in relaxation times in different tissues including cancerous ones, there would have been nothing to image.



    Who says? Rapid petrifaction is well known in the right conditions.


    Depends on the amount of water and flow rate, and we have good reason to think it was far larger and faster at some time in the past.


    Again assuming today's rate. Coral expert Dr Robert Carter:

    Even in the secular worldview, the GBR was exposed land as few as ten thousand years ago, at the height of the ‘last’ Ice Age. So even they believe it grew in only a few thousand years. Most people are surprised to learn that, even though the reef complex is very, very long, it is not very deep. In fact, the GBR has developed along a shallow-water shelf made mostly of (Flood-deposited) limestone, and only began to grow as the sea level began to rise to today’s levels when the massive ice sheets began to melt at the end of the Ice Age.


    Only at current rate. There is good reason to think that it has been much faster, so more like continental sprint.


    Yawn, so many assumptions.


    Oh, we have already discussed the distant starlight issue here, and see also this book chapter.


    You mean, we are just not going to surrender no matter how much you bluff and bluster.

    Really, is that the best you have?
    Since I don't have the time to respond to the first half, I'll go respond to the evidence against a young earth.



    Who says? Rapid petrifaction is well known in the right conditions.

    So you're telling me that all petrified wood in the world was petrified by rapid petrification? That website that you linked also has taken information from sources that don't even exist anymore, or unreliable sources, such as the second one, which is from the "Institute of creation research" Also, from a simple search, the only places where "natural rapid wood petrification" is a thing are creationist websites. A simple search of quotes used in that article only shows results of the same quote on other creationist websites. I can't find where some of those quotes came from, or even if they are real at all.
    A search of how long does petrified wood take to form, all say millions of years.


    Depends on the amount of water and flow rate, and we have good reason to think it was far larger and faster at some time in the past.
    Are you kidding me? Why is it that whenever someone is older than the age of what YECs think, they just bring up the "Flood" and say this is the reason. That is just a bad argument since if that even occurred is debatable. Like, where did the water come from and where did it go afterwards? There are so many reasons that the flood did not occur, a search on the internet and find a lot.

    Again assuming today's rate. Coral expert Dr Robert Carter:

    Even in the secular worldview, the GBR was exposed land as few as ten thousand years ago, at the height of the ‘last’ Ice Age. So even they believe it grew in only a few thousand years. Most people are surprised to learn that, even though the reef complex is very, very long, it is not very deep. In fact, the GBR has developed along a shallow-water shelf made mostly of (Flood-deposited) limestone, and only began to grow as the sea level began to rise to today’s levels when the massive ice sheets began to melt at the end of the Ice Age.


    You need to stop using creation.com as your source. The majority of marine biologists will say that coral reefs have existed for millions of years, and the Great Barrier Reefs has existed for hundreds of thousands of years. Just because of a small amount of "scientists" who says that, doesn't mean it is true, just like Behe's argument of intelligent design. There is a reason why the intelligent design proponents lost the Kitzmiller vs Dover case. Michael Behe was one of the "scientists" to testify on the side of the defendants, in which he even quoted other scientists falsely. The scientific community doesn't even recognise some of Behe's work anymore. Check out the Kitzmiller vs Dover documentary by NOVA.


    Only at current rate. There is good reason to think that it has been much faster, so more like continental sprint.

    You really need to stop using creationist sources, and actual scientific sources. Go and ask the scientific community on how long continental drift took. That chapter that you used also regards the bible as fact, and I really don't think you should do that, as the Bible is, how should I put this, not a good place to take information from. It says that women should stay quiet, 1 Timothy 2:12. It also promotes slavery, in the case of 1 Peter 2:18-25, and don't try to justify that commendable part, because it isn't. Slavery is just bad, to put it lightly.

    Yawn, so many assumptions.

    Just, stop. The same point as above, stop using creation.com or anything related to it as it is not science. Ask the scientific community about it. Also, why the hell is the flood the answer to the thing that proves the young earth wrong? Like seriously, if the earth is seriously that young, why is it not accepted in the scientific community and only between religious people and not any religious people, Christians and related.


    Oh, we have already discussed the distant starlight issue here, and see also this book chapter.

    One of the first thing in that chapter is the "Horizon Problem" but a search shows that it has been solved. And just stop using creation.com as a source, find something that is actually scientific, please.

    You mean, we are just not going to surrender no matter how much you bluff and bluster.

    Really, is that the best you have?


    What? You people are the ones bluffing about the earth being young. If the earth is really that young, why doesn't everyone accept that? Only people like you do. And the question of atheism vs theism is relevant, because why is it YOUR god, and not others? Why can't it be the flying spaghetti monster? Why can't it be Thor? Why is it YOUR one? Is everyone else on the plant wrong then?

  12. #27
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA (formerly Brisbane, and before that Wellington, NZ)
    Posts
    20,171
    Quote Originally Posted by Username View Post
    Who says? Rapid petrifaction is well known in the right conditions.
    So you're telling me that all petrified wood in the world was petrified by rapid petrification? That website that you linked also has taken information from sources that don't even exist anymore, or unreliable sources, such as the second one, which is from the "Institute of creation research" Also, from a simple search, the only places where "natural rapid wood petrification" is a thing are creationist websites. A simple search of quotes used in that article only shows results of the same quote on other creationist websites. I can't find where some of those quotes came from, or even if they are real at all.
    A search of how long does petrified wood take to form, all say millions of years.
    So you can show me an experiment where wood took millions of years? But actually, some secular Japanese scientists publishing in a secular journal demonstrated rapid petrifaction, and even cited a creationist geologist in a creationist publication with approval (Akahane, H. et al., Rapid wood silicification in hot spring water: an explanation of silicification of wood during the Earth’s history, Sedimentary Geology 169(3–4):219–228, 15 July 2004:

    This study reveals that silicified wood can form under suitable conditions in time periods as short as tens to hundreds of years, and contributes to the understanding of the mechanisms forming silicified wood.

    See also Wood petrified in spring: Creationist’s rapid claims recognized.

    Quote Originally Posted by Username View Post
    Depends on the amount of water and flow rate, and we have good reason to think it was far larger and faster at some time in the past.
    Are you kidding me? Why is it that whenever someone is older than the age of what YECs think, they just bring up the "Flood" and say this is the reason.
    Of course. In many physical processes, you can exchange intensity for time. So if there was an extremely intense event, then there is no need for eons of time.

    Quote Originally Posted by Username View Post
    That is just a bad argument since if that even occurred is debatable.
    It is the best explanation for continent-wide and even trans-continent–wide layers that had to be formed rapidly (e.g. to preserve fossils), and very little time between many successive layers (shown by ephemeral markings like footprints that could not have been exposed to surface erosion for very long and polystrate fossils).

    Quote Originally Posted by Username View Post
    Like, where did the water come from and where did it go afterwards?
    Oh really? Try this book chapter.

    Quote Originally Posted by Username View Post
    You need to stop using creation.com as your source.
    You need to stop whinging about it, because I have no intention of stopping. Maybe you should stop parroting village-atheopath sites.

    Quote Originally Posted by Username View Post
    The majority of marine biologists will say that coral reefs have existed for millions of years, and the Great Barrier Reefs has existed for hundreds of thousands of years. Just because of a small amount of "scientists" who says that, doesn't mean it is true,
    Dr Robert Carter has an earned doctorate in coral biology and genetics. So he is a genuine scientists with expertise in this area.

    Quote Originally Posted by Username View Post
    just like Behe's argument of intelligent design. There is a reason why the intelligent design proponents lost the Kitzmiller vs Dover case. Michael Behe was one of the "scientists" to testify on the side of the defendants, in which he even quoted other scientists falsely. The scientific community doesn't even recognise some of Behe's work anymore.
    Not interested, unless they can properly explain a plausible step-by-step scenario for machines he discusses, and indeed for many other machines such as topoisomerases.

    Quote Originally Posted by Username View Post
    Check out the Kitzmiller vs Dover documentary by NOVA.
    Who cares what a judge thought, when almost all he did was copy the ACLU brief. See discussion of that trial.

    Quote Originally Posted by Username View Post
    Only at current rate. There is good reason to think that it has been much faster, so more like continental sprint.

    You really need to stop using creationist sources, and actual scientific sources.
    You need to stop using evolutionist sources, and instead use actual scientific sources. Try the articles on creation.com authored by scientists with earned science doctorates from secular universities.

    Quote Originally Posted by Username View Post
    That chapter that you used also regards the bible as fact, and I really don't think you should do that, as the Bible is, how should I put this, not a good place to take information from. It says that women should stay quiet, 1 Timothy 2:12. It also promotes slavery, in the case of 1 Peter 2:18-25, and don't try to justify that commendable part, because it isn't. Slavery is just bad, to put it lightly.
    Thank you for revealing your real motives. You don't care about the science, but about trashing Christianity and the Bible with village-atheopathic attacks. You already screwed up on chemistry, evidently not realizing that I know the topic pretty well. E.g. slavery was ubiquitous in all inhabited continents, and all races were both perps and victims. It was only the likes of Wilberforce and his colleagues, who would be called "the religious right" if they were alive today, that finally eradicated it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Username View Post
    Yawn, so many assumptions.

    Just, stop.
    Nope. Maybe you should take a break and spend some time in some chess threads here. You started this anyway.

    Quote Originally Posted by Username View Post
    The same point as above, stop using creation.com or anything related to it as it is not science. Ask the scientific community about it. Also, why the hell is the flood the answer to the thing that proves the young earth wrong? Like seriously, if the earth is seriously that young, why is it not accepted in the scientific community and only between religious people and not any religious people, Christians and related.
    Because of uniformitarian bias.

    Quote Originally Posted by Username View Post
    Oh, we have already discussed the distant starlight issue here, and see also this book chapter.

    One of the first thing in that chapter is the "Horizon Problem" but a search shows that it has been solved.
    Bluff. Even evolutionist astronomers regard this as a huge headache for cosmogonists. They must resort to faster-than-light expansion of space, or light itself travelling much faster in the past.

    Quote Originally Posted by Username View Post
    And the question of atheism vs theism is relevant, because why is it YOUR god, and not others? Why can't it be the flying spaghetti monster? Why can't it be Thor? Why is it YOUR one? Is everyone else on the plant wrong then?
    Even the silly flying spaghetti monster nonsense basically concedes the intelligent design point: that their arguments are not pointing towards a particular religion. See this discussion.
    “The destructive capacity of the individual, however vicious, is small; of the state, however well-intentioned, almost limitless. Expand the state and that destructive capacity necessarily expands, too, pari passu.”—Paul Johnson, Modern Times, 1983.

  13. #28
    CC Grandmaster antichrist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    18,521
    Capa Fan, if the common people knew in the M/A that the planet was round then why was it shown in movies that sailors were afraid of sailing off the edge without somehow the water draining out?
    Zionism is racism as defined by the UN, Israel by every dirty means available steals land and water, kill Palestinian freedom fighters and civilians, and operates an apartheid system to drive more Palestinians off their land

  14. #29
    CC Rookie
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    12
    Since I don’t have access to a computer right now, it’s harder for me to respond till I get home. But I’d like to address this part for now. That is if I am even bothered because I’m going to start becoming really busy soon.
    Thank you for revealing your real motives. You don't care about the science, but about trashing Christianity and the Bible with village-atheopathic attacks. You already screwed up on chemistry, evidently not realizing that I know the topic pretty well. E.g. slavery was ubiquitous in all inhabited continents, and all races were both perps and victims. It was only the likes of Wilberforce and his colleagues, who would be called "the religious right" if they were alive today, that finally eradicated it.

    That is not my motif, I brought that up as in one of your so called “sources” it regards the bible as fact, and it tries to “prove” something around the bible. I said that because trying to prove the bible shouldn’t be regarded as scientific as only someone people even think that the bible is accurate. And yes, I admit that I screwed that up, but so what? I was making a point that the bible shouldn’t be used to prove something or attempt to prove the bible.

  15. #30
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA (formerly Brisbane, and before that Wellington, NZ)
    Posts
    20,171

    Medieval sailors knew very well that the earth is a globe

    Quote Originally Posted by antichrist View Post
    Capa Fan, if the common people knew in the M/A that the planet was round then why was it shown in movies that sailors were afraid of sailing off the edge without somehow the water draining out?
    Why indeed? This shows that you should get your information about history from real historians, not from movies or junk sources like Draper or White. Sailors knew even better than most that the earth is round:

    • They could see hills before the beach when coming into shore, although the beach is closer, because the beach is more hidden by the curvature,
    • They used the crow's nest to see further than you can see from the deck, again because you can see further past the curve.
    • They used the North celestial pole, or just approximated it with the North Star, for navigation, because its angle to the horizon = latitude, a geometry that requires a spherical earth.

    Most people would have seen the round shadow of the earth on the moon during a lunar eclipse, no matter where the moon was in the sky. This is possible only if a sphere is casting the shadow.
    “The destructive capacity of the individual, however vicious, is small; of the state, however well-intentioned, almost limitless. Expand the state and that destructive capacity necessarily expands, too, pari passu.”—Paul Johnson, Modern Times, 1983.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Stars as holes in the floor of heaven (sf Christians banned)
    By Patrick Byrom in forum Religion and Science
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 04-02-2020, 05:29 AM
  2. 2019 JZMC Rising Stars
    By Zelgiusfan5000 in forum Completed Tournaments
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 22-12-2019, 09:57 PM
  3. Origins - Evolution, Intelligent Design and Creationism
    By Spiny Norman in forum Religion and Science
    Replies: 796
    Last Post: 27-07-2019, 12:48 PM
  4. Replies: 107
    Last Post: 30-12-2006, 11:23 AM
  5. Holes in theory
    By Trent Parker in forum Coaching Clinic
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 14-10-2005, 05:34 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •