PDA

View Full Version : Creationism (sf stars as holes etc)



antichrist
20-01-2020, 12:18 PM
What I find incredulous is Capa Fan doubting it when he as a doctor of science he persists in believing in a young earth in the 21st century. I was only 4+ years old when accepting that whereas he is about fifty years old???

antichrist
20-01-2020, 01:42 PM
Apologies all round there AC. Not as stupid as Capa Fans young earth theory

Adamski
20-01-2020, 05:24 PM
Apologies all round there AC. Not as stupid as Capa Fans young earth theoryAC, there is much evidence for a Young Earth. Check out creation.com and search on Young earth.

antichrist
20-01-2020, 06:11 PM
Now Adamski, I presume we are also referring to a young universe. Now we know that are distant stars, not holes in floor variety, whose light has already reached Earth. And scientists tell us that it took hundreds of thousands of years to reach us. Don't come the con job that light travelled a lot quicker. before.

Username
20-01-2020, 09:32 PM
AC, there is much evidence for a Young Earth. Check out creation.com and search on Young earth.

Ummm, I'd like to point out that young earth creationists have certain issues, such as the fact that different people give different ages to the earth, which contradicts each other, such as some people say that the earth is only 4000 years old while others say 6000, some even say 10,000 but then which one is it. And if the earth is this young, why isn't there an exact age of the earth, as there have been people who have been saying the earth is [inset some age here] for a very long time, which doesn't exactly make sense, since it should be possible to pinpoint how old the earth is if it is so young.

Another point is that there is no way evolution can occur in only a few thousand years, that would be basically impossible since tiny changes occur over thousands to millions of years in order for evolution to occur.

Now let's get to the juicy part, the most common arguments for YEC that I hear, and how they are debunked. (Note, basically all YEC also believe that evolution is false, so I'm including thing about it.)

"Evolution is just a theory, not a fact"
Evolution is a scientific theory, which is far different from a theory. The definition of "scientific theory" according to the dictionary.com is
"a coherent group of propositions formulated to explain a group of facts or phenomena in the natural world and repeatedly confirmed through experiment or observation:"
Evolution has gone through years and years of research by scientists through the scientific method and has been classified as a scientific theory due to this. Same goes with gravity, gravity is also a scientific theory.

"Any sort of fine-tuning argument, such as "the body is designed so well" or "the earth is in the perfect spot to sustain life"
This is just straight-up wrong, no matter what you look at, there will always be flaws, nothing can ever be perfect, such as how come some people have a vision problem, or the fact that in our head, we have 2 poorly placed sinuses, 2 sinuses that drain down, and the 2 behind your cheeks drain UP. Which is why we get sinus infections and other issues related to the sinuses.
The "goldilocks zone" argument is even worse, as it is relying on the argument from incredulity, which is a logical fallacy, which is when someone decides that they do not understand how something could happen, so that can not happen. In this case, they add in "So did" Even though it is possible for the earth to form. (This is a very brief explanation)

[B]Evolution is disproved by the second law of thermodynamics
This is a straight-up lie, the second law of thermodynamics state that the entropy of an isolated system increases. (This is the most simplified definition) Note how it says "isolated." The earth is in no way close to an isolated system, there is the sun that gives energy directly to the earth, so this argument has already been disproved. Ask anyone who uses this argument what the other 3 laws of thermodynamics are and in most cases, it would be "uhhhhhhh, let me google it" or something

Now, there are many more, if anyone would like to bring up them, I would be happy to respond.

Onto the website, creation.com, after a search of "young earth" there is this article on the evidence. I don't go over all of them as that would take way to long, but I will go over some. Link: https://creation.com/age-of-the-earth (there are 101 "ev
DNA in ‘ancient’ fossils. DNA extracted from bacteria that are supposed to be 425 million years old brings into question that age, because DNA could not last more than thousands of years.

Now, even though a valid point has been made here, there is an issue with this argument. Many years ago, there were studies that were published on how scientists have thought to have isolated DNA from millions of years ago. In reality, this was most likely due to contamination in the lab, so it was not accurate. Nowadays, we say that DNA can last for around 100,000 years, which the scientific consensus says that it is accurate. It is thought that the maximum age DNA can last for is a million years, but that is just an opinion. The point is that 100,000 years is significantly larger than 10,000 so the first argument is debunked.


Lazarus bacteria—bacteria revived from salt inclusions supposedly 250 million years old, suggest the salt is not millions of years old. See also Salty saga.
This is not an argument for YEC, the "claimed" isolation of the bacteria is actually being debated, and we are still uncertain of the reliability. Even if this was proven false, it does not prove that the earth is young. It's like saying, I can't see subatomic particles, therefore they don't exist.
This point can be made to many "evidence" that the article provides. So I'll go debunk some that attempt to prove YEC.

Point 51-53 says that
Carbon-14 in coal suggests ages of thousands of years and clearly contradict ages of millions of years.
Carbon-14 in oil again suggests ages of thousands, not millions, of years.
Carbon-14 in fossil wood also indicates ages of thousands, not millions, of years.

The issue here is that the sources that were used are not accurate. The first source used for coal has disappeared from the internet, and the other 2 for oil and fossil wood uses sources that promote creationism, and not science. This can be seen as the title for the "scientific study" (it really isn't) is "Measurable 14C in Fossilized Organic Materials: Confirming the Young Earth Creation-Flood Model"
There is already a bias in the study which makes the study unreliable as a good source. The other source links to a creation.com article which is just terrible citation.

If anyone can come up with some new arguments that have not already been debunked by science feel free to conduct a study, get it peer-reviewed and published in a trusted source. Then collect your nobel prize for debunking decades of hard work by scientists.

Anyways, if anyone would like to bring up some points, feel free to.

antichrist
20-01-2020, 10:53 PM
What surprises me is that creationists think that other people are as gullible as they are. But then maybe I should not be so surprised. I consider them an insult to the modern scientific world but like cockroaches they will always be with us.

The nuns who taught me, probably like my parents and grandparents, had no scientific education so they had an excuse but modern day creationists have no such refuge to hide.

antichrist
20-01-2020, 11:35 PM
Don't get me started. Decades ago I had root canal trouble but unfortunately my nerve roots were coming in at strange angles so the dentist took two healthy roots out in error. So altogether I was in six weeks of excruciating pain that also cost me a fortune - more than a trip around the world including carbon off sets. Then about 20 years later those de-rooted teeth had to come out due to them being dead.

And creationists think our bodies are perfectly designed?? Pull the other tooth it is false too.

Adamski
21-01-2020, 10:05 PM
Ummm, I'd like to point out that young earth creationists have certain issues, such as the fact that different people give different ages to the earth, which contradicts each other, such as some people say that the earth is only 4000 years old while others say 6000, some even say 10,000 but then which one is it. And if the earth is this young, why isn't there an exact age of the earth, as there have been people who have been saying the earth is [inset some age here] for a very long time, which doesn't exactly make sense, since it should be possible to pinpoint how old the earth is if it is so young.

Another point is that there is no way evolution can occur in only a few thousand years, that would be basically impossible since tiny changes occur over thousands to millions of years in order for evolution to occur.

Now let's get to the juicy part, the most common arguments for YEC that I hear, and how they are debunked. (Note, basically all YEC also believe that evolution is false, so I'm including thing about it.)

"Evolution is just a theory, not a fact"
Evolution is a scientific theory, which is far different from a theory. The definition of "scientific theory" according to the dictionary.com is
"a coherent group of propositions formulated to explain a group of facts or phenomena in the natural world and repeatedly confirmed through experiment or observation:"
Evolution has gone through years and years of research by scientists through the scientific method and has been classified as a scientific theory due to this. Same goes with gravity, gravity is also a scientific theory.

"Any sort of fine-tuning argument, such as "the body is designed so well" or "the earth is in the perfect spot to sustain life"
This is just straight-up wrong, no matter what you look at, there will always be flaws, nothing can ever be perfect, such as how come some people have a vision problem, or the fact that in our head, we have 2 poorly placed sinuses, 2 sinuses that drain down, and the 2 behind your cheeks drain UP. Which is why we get sinus infections and other issues related to the sinuses.
The "goldilocks zone" argument is even worse, as it is relying on the argument from incredulity, which is a logical fallacy, which is when someone decides that they do not understand how something could happen, so that can not happen. In this case, they add in "So did" Even though it is possible for the earth to form. (This is a very brief explanation)

[B]Evolution is disproved by the second law of thermodynamics
This is a straight-up lie, the second law of thermodynamics state that the entropy of an isolated system increases. (This is the most simplified definition) Note how it says "isolated." The earth is in no way close to an isolated system, there is the sun that gives energy directly to the earth, so this argument has already been disproved. Ask anyone who uses this argument what the other 3 laws of thermodynamics are and in most cases, it would be "uhhhhhhh, let me google it" or something

Now, there are many more, if anyone would like to bring up them, I would be happy to respond.

Onto the website, creation.com, after a search of "young earth" there is this article on the evidence. I don't go over all of them as that would take way to long, but I will go over some. Link: https://creation.com/age-of-the-earth (there are 101 "ev
DNA in ‘ancient’ fossils. DNA extracted from bacteria that are supposed to be 425 million years old brings into question that age, because DNA could not last more than thousands of years.

Now, even though a valid point has been made here, there is an issue with this argument. Many years ago, there were studies that were published on how scientists have thought to have isolated DNA from millions of years ago. In reality, this was most likely due to contamination in the lab, so it was not accurate. Nowadays, we say that DNA can last for around 100,000 years, which the scientific consensus says that it is accurate. It is thought that the maximum age DNA can last for is a million years, but that is just an opinion. The point is that 100,000 years is significantly larger than 10,000 so the first argument is debunked.


Lazarus bacteria—bacteria revived from salt inclusions supposedly 250 million years old, suggest the salt is not millions of years old. See also Salty saga.
This is not an argument for YEC, the "claimed" isolation of the bacteria is actually being debated, and we are still uncertain of the reliability. Even if this was proven false, it does not prove that the earth is young. It's like saying, I can't see subatomic particles, therefore they don't exist.
This point can be made to many "evidence" that the article provides. So I'll go debunk some that attempt to prove YEC.

Point 51-53 says that
Carbon-14 in coal suggests ages of thousands of years and clearly contradict ages of millions of years.
Carbon-14 in oil again suggests ages of thousands, not millions, of years.
Carbon-14 in fossil wood also indicates ages of thousands, not millions, of years.

The issue here is that the sources that were used are not accurate. The first source used for coal has disappeared from the internet, and the other 2 for oil and fossil wood uses sources that promote creationism, and not science. This can be seen as the title for the "scientific study" (it really isn't) is "Measurable 14C in Fossilized Organic Materials: Confirming the Young Earth Creation-Flood Model"
There is already a bias in the study which makes the study unreliable as a good source. The other source links to a creation.com article which is just terrible citation.

If anyone can come up with some new arguments that have not already been debunked by science feel free to conduct a study, get it peer-reviewed and published in a trusted source. Then collect your nobel prize for debunking decades of hard work by scientists.

Anyways, if anyone would like to bring up some points, feel free to.Hi username. Since I know who you are maybe we can have a chat about this at the club one night! I haven't got the time for a point by point debate now.

Capablanca-Fan
22-01-2020, 01:58 AM
Ummm, I'd like to point out that young earth creationists have certain issues, such as the fact that different people give different ages to the earth, which contradicts each other, such as some people say that the earth is only 4000 years old while others say 6000, some even say 10,000 but then which one is it.
Usually these are round figures and upper limits. Big whoop.


"Evolution is just a theory, not a fact"
Evolution is a scientific theory, which is far different from a theory. The definition of "scientific theory" according to the dictionary.com is
"a coherent group of propositions formulated to explain a group of facts or phenomena in the natural world and repeatedly confirmed through experiment or observation:"

Try arguing against something that informed creationists are not aware of. It is one of the Arguments We Think Creationists Should NOT Use (https://creation.com/arguments-we-think-creationists-should-not-use#just_theory).


"Any sort of fine-tuning argument, such as "the body is designed so well" or "the earth is in the perfect spot to sustain life"
This is just straight-up wrong, no matter what you look at, there will always be flaws,
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 (https://www.amazon.com/Fortunate-Universe-Finely-Tuned-Cosmos/dp/1107156610).


nothing can ever be perfect, such as how come some people have a vision problem,
The result of the Fall. It's certainly time that the "backwardly wired retina is bad design" argument was thrown on the scrap heap (https://creation.com/backward-eye-colour-optimization).


or the fact that in our head, we have 2 poorly placed sinuses, 2 sinuses that drain down, and the 2 behind your cheeks drain UP. Which is why we get sinus infections and other issues related to the sinuses.
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.


The "goldilocks zone" argument is even worse, as it is relying on the argument from incredulity, which is a logical fallacy, which is when someone decides that they do not understand how something could happen, so that can not happen. In this case, they add in "So did" Even though it is possible for the earth to form. (This is a very brief explanation)
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.


[B]Evolution is disproved by the second law of thermodynamics
This is a straight-up lie, the second law of thermodynamics state that the entropy of an isolated system increases. (This is the most simplified definition) Note how it says "isolated." The earth is in no way close to an isolated system, there is the sun that gives energy directly to the earth, so this argument has already been disproved. Ask anyone who uses this argument what the other 3 laws of thermodynamics are and in most cases, it would be "uhhhhhhh, let me google it" or something
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. (https://creation.com/the-second-law-of-thermodynamics-answers-to-critics)


Now, there are many more, if anyone would like to bring up them, I would be happy to respond.
You might try learning what creationists actually say instead of trying to refute arguments they caution against.


Onto the website, creation.com, after a search of "young earth" there is this article on the evidence. I don't go over all of them as that would take way to long, but I will go over some. Link: https://creation.com/age-of-the-earth

Now, even though a valid point has been made here, there is an issue with this argument. Many years ago, there were studies that were published on how scientists have thought to have isolated DNA from millions of years ago. In reality, this was most likely due to contamination in the lab, so it was not accurate.
Not so. It is found where the cell nuclei were in some cases.


Nowadays, we say that DNA can last for around 100,000 years, which the scientific consensus says that it is accurate. It is thought that the maximum age DNA can last for is a million years, but that is just an opinion. The point is that 100,000 years is significantly larger than 10,000 so the first argument is debunked.
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 (https://creation.com/dino-dna-bone-cells).


Lazarus bacteria—bacteria revived from salt inclusions supposedly 250 million years old, suggest the salt is not millions of years old. See also Salty saga.
This is not an argument for YEC, the "claimed" isolation of the bacteria is actually being debated, and we are still uncertain of the reliability. Even if this was proven false, it does not prove that the earth is young. It's like saying, I can't see subatomic particles, therefore they don't exist.
This shows that DNA was still intact, so the bacteria and the strata they are in are not that old.


Point 51-53 says that
Carbon-14 in coal suggests ages of thousands of years and clearly contradict ages of millions of years.
Carbon-14 in oil again suggests ages of thousands, not millions, of years.
Carbon-14 in fossil wood also indicates ages of thousands, not millions, of years.

The issue here is that the sources that were used are not accurate. The first source used for coal has disappeared from the internet, and the other 2 for oil and fossil wood uses sources that promote creationism, and not science. This can be seen as the title for the "scientific study" (it really isn't) is "Measurable 14C in Fossilized Organic Materials: Confirming the Young Earth Creation-Flood Model"
There is already a bias in the study which makes the study unreliable as a good source. The other source links to a creation.com article which is just terrible citation.
So only young-earth sites are biased, but not old-earth sites and other sites that are overtly atheopathic?


If anyone can come up with some new arguments that have not already been debunked by science feel free to conduct a study, get it peer-reviewed and published in a trusted source. Then collect your nobel prize for debunking decades of hard work by scientists.
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 Damadian was denied a Nobel although he was the main inventor of MRI (https://creation.com/dr-damadians-vital-contribution-to-mri-nobel-prize-controversy-returns).

antichrist
22-01-2020, 06:44 AM
Capa Fan, what are the advantages of Bells Palsy and Vertigo that I suffer from both? Bells is a virus that was linked to some one with flu coughing on me after other known causes were eliminated. Vertigo may be caused by injury to the head, I can only think of about a million waves crashing on my skull. Some crystal like is supposed to loosen and travel along canals in middle ear.

Adamski
22-01-2020, 07:53 AM
Thanks Capa-Fan for taking the time to respond to Username's points

Capablanca-Fan
22-01-2020, 08:33 AM
Capa Fan, what are the advantages of Bells Palsy and Vertigo that I suffer from both? Bells is a virus that was linked to some one with flu coughing on me after other known causes were eliminated. Vertigo may be caused by injury to the head, I can only think of about a million waves crashing on my skull. Some crystal like is supposed to loosen and travel along canals in middle ear.

Sorry to hear that. The problems of life in a fallen world.

Capablanca-Fan
22-01-2020, 08:37 AM
And creationists think our bodies are perfectly designed?? Pull the other tooth it is false too.

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 (https://creation.com/tooth-enamel-sophisticated-materials-science).

Capablanca-Fan
22-01-2020, 08:42 AM
The nuns who taught me, probably like my parents and grandparents, had no scientific education so they had an excuse but modern day creationists have no such refuge to hide.
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.

antichrist
22-01-2020, 09:39 AM
Sorry to hear that. The problems of life in a fallen world.

I was hoping you could come up some compensatory benefit to make me feel better. My religious mother turned atheist at the end because of terrible disease leading to her youngish death. Her rational was that being a good church goer her whole life and this still happened so there is no God.

antichrist
22-01-2020, 09:47 AM
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 (https://creation.com/tooth-enamel-sophisticated-materials-science).

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?

antichrist
22-01-2020, 10:04 AM
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.

antichrist
22-01-2020, 06:35 PM
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.

antichrist
22-01-2020, 07:09 PM
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.

Username
22-01-2020, 08:05 PM
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 (https://creation.com/arguments-we-think-creationists-should-not-use#just_theory).


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 (https://www.amazon.com/Fortunate-Universe-Finely-Tuned-Cosmos/dp/1107156610).

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 (https://creation.com/backward-eye-colour-optimization).
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 :P 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. (https://creation.com/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/2003Sci...300..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 (https://creation.com/dino-dna-bone-cells).
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-news/million-year-old-rhino-tooth-provides-oldest-dna-data-180973117/
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/06/130626142938.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 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? *[URL="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/revolution-in-evolution-wins-2018-nobel-prize-in-chemistry1/"]cough (https://creation.com/dr-damadians-vital-contribution-to-mri-nobel-prize-controversy-returns)* 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.

antichrist
22-01-2020, 08:42 PM
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.

Adamski
23-01-2020, 07:49 AM
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.

antichrist
23-01-2020, 08:22 AM
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.

Capablanca-Fan
23-01-2020, 09:28 AM
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.


Try arguing against something that informed creationists are not aware of. It is one of the Arguments We Think Creationists Should NOT Use (https://creation.com/arguments-we-think-creationists-should-not-use#just_theory).


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 (https://creation.com/flat-earth-leader-is-an-evolutionist).


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 (https://www.amazon.com/Fortunate-Universe-Finely-Tuned-Cosmos/dp/1107156610).

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.


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.


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.


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.


The result of the Fall. It's certainly time that the "backwardly wired retina is bad design" argument was thrown on the scrap heap (https://creation.com/backward-eye-colour-optimization).
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.


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.


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.


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 :P 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.


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. (https://creation.com/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.


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.


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


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.


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 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23085295), Bone, 17 October 2012, and discussed in DNA and bone cells found in dinosaur bone (https://creation.com/dino-dna-bone-cells).


https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003Sci...300..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.


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 (https://creation.com/dino-dna-bone-cells).
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-news/million-year-old-rhino-tooth-provides-oldest-dna-data-180973117/
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/06/130626142938.htm
Do you know what upper limit means?


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.


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.


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 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? *[URL="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/revolution-in-evolution-wins-2018-nobel-prize-in-chemistry1/"]cough (https://creation.com/dr-damadians-vital-contribution-to-mri-nobel-prize-controversy-returns)*
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.


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.


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.


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 (https://creation.com/instant-petrified-wood)is well known in the right conditions.


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 (https://creation.com/geologic-catastrophe-and-the-young-earth).


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 (https://creation.com/coral-the-animal-that-acts-like-a-plant):


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.


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 (https://creation.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter11.pdf).


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 (https://creation.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter4.pdf).


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 (https://creation.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter5.pdf).


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?

Capablanca-Fan
23-01-2020, 09:49 AM
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.


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.

Username
23-01-2020, 10:51 AM
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 (https://creation.com/flat-earth-leader-is-an-evolutionist).


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 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23085295), Bone, 17 October 2012, and discussed in DNA and bone cells found in dinosaur bone (https://creation.com/dino-dna-bone-cells).


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 (https://creation.com/instant-petrified-wood)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 (https://creation.com/geologic-catastrophe-and-the-young-earth).


Again assuming today's rate. Coral expert Dr Robert Carter (https://creation.com/coral-the-animal-that-acts-like-a-plant):


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 (https://creation.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter11.pdf).


Yawn, so many assumptions (https://creation.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter4.pdf).


Oh, we have already discussed the distant starlight issue here, and see also this book chapter (https://creation.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter5.pdf).


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?

Capablanca-Fan
24-01-2020, 08:07 AM
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 (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0037073804001940), 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 (https://creation.com/creationists-rapid-claims-recognized).


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.


That is just a bad argument since if that even occurred is debatable.
It is the best explanation for continent-wide (https://creation.com/continent-wide-sedimentary-strata) and even trans-continent–wide layers that had to be formed rapidly (e.g. to preserve fossils (https://creation.com/dead-crocodiles-downunder)), and very little time between many successive layers (shown by ephemeral markings like footprints (https://creation.com/dinosaur-footprints-karoola-australia) that could not have been exposed to surface erosion for very long and polystrate fossils (https://creation.com/polystrate-fossils-evidence-for-a-young-earth)).


Like, where did the water come from and where did it go afterwards?
Oh really? Try this book chapter (https://creation.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter12.pdf).


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.


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.


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 (https://creation.com/misotheists-misology-richard-dawkins-attacks-michael-behe), and indeed for many other machines such as topoisomerases (https://creation.com/dna-detangling-motors-topoisomerase).


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 (https://creation.com/science-creation-and-evolutionism-refutation-of-nas#american).


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.


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 (https://creation.com/anti-slavery-activist-william-wilberforce-christian-hero), who would be called "the religious right" if they were alive today, that finally eradicated it.


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.


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.


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.


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 (https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/god-and-the-flying-spaghetti-monster/).

antichrist
24-01-2020, 01:56 PM
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?

Username
24-01-2020, 06:57 PM
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.

Capablanca-Fan
25-01-2020, 04:14 AM
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 (https://www.metabunk.org/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.

Capablanca-Fan
25-01-2020, 04:16 AM
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.

There is no rule that says that you must respond, let alone respond immediately.

antichrist
25-01-2020, 05:41 AM
There is no rule that says that you must respond, let alone respond immediately.

There are many more rounds left in this youngster. He fts the Iron Mike mode
direct and heavy hits. Capa is the Muhammad Ali variety, a lot of talk and distraction, avoiding direct contact, wearing the opponent out by making them reading reams. Hard for the judges.

Capa fan, when you post those long responses I don't read them. My attitude is the longer they are the more spin they contain. If you and Adamski can't prove in a 300 words how the speed of light has slowed down a million fold then forget it you are making up falsehoods. Hey isn't that the only constant we have. I do remember a bit of science.

Capablanca-Fan
25-01-2020, 06:00 AM
Capa fan, when you post those long responses I don't read them.
Who says I write them exclusively for your benefit?


My attitude is the longer they are the more spin they contain.
Does this apply to Username's long post that started the current debate?


If you and Adamski can't prove in a 300 words how the speed of light has slowed down a million fold then forget it you are making up falsehoods.
I don't believe that light has slowed down.


Hey isn't that the only constant we have. I do remember a bit of science.
You haven't shown this. You mainly whinge about what you believe you remember being taught at a Catholic school, and discredited 19th-century books supposedly about the history of science.

antichrist
25-01-2020, 06:05 AM
Who says I write them exclusively for your benefit?


Does this apply to Username's long post that started the current debate?


I don't believe that light has slowed down.


You haven't shown this. You mainly whinge about what you believe you remember being taught at a Catholic school, and discredited 19th-century books supposedly about the history of science.

You must realise maybe that is the only science book in my possession.

Must be other creations who argue that. I remember it was 186,000 miles a second. Good old fashioned miles. Well in 300 words answer how can the universe be young when light has already reached us from very distant galaxies?

antichrist
25-01-2020, 06:33 AM
I will tell you a secret. Though being top in class I was taken out of school. So I did night school for the Intermediate Certificate so that I could get permanency in the Commonwealth Public Service after passing an IQ test. By then science was compulsory but I only needed maybe four subjects to get the Certificate. As attending science meant five nights of lessons not four I did not attend. But I was enrolled for it but learned very little. I did not recall that until very recently. I found science boring as well. Just as I find motor mechanics etc.. Building science I appreciate.

antichrist
25-01-2020, 07:00 AM
User names material I have come across earlier in philosophy but not since then so interesting to be read again and it tempts the intellect more.

Capablanca-Fan
25-01-2020, 08:23 AM
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.

The accuracy of the Bible is a different debate. I do note that you were the one who brought up the Bible, while I stuck to science.

I hope you realize that the sun imparting heat to the earth increases the entropy of the earth, while reducing that of the sun to a lesser extent.

antichrist
25-01-2020, 08:47 AM
Hey CF. I did science from kindergarten - your - favourite variety Creation Science - other wise known as religion.

Patrick Byrom
25-01-2020, 01:19 PM
I hope you realize that the sun imparting heat to the earth increases the entropy of the earth, while reducing that of the sun to a lesser extent.You're not arguing that this prevents localised decreases in entropy on the Earth, I hope?

Patrick Byrom
25-01-2020, 01:34 PM
What surprises me is that creationists think that other people are as gullible as they are. But then maybe I should not be so surprised. I consider them an insult to the modern scientific world but like cockroaches they will always be with us.Actually most modern scientists wouldn't even know that scientist creationism exists - it's of no practical use to them. For example, no geologist (that I'm aware of) uses Flood Geology to find oil. They use conventional geology, as explained here (https://www.geomorphology.org.uk/sites/default/files/10_reasons_full.pdf).

antichrist
25-01-2020, 02:13 PM
Actually most modern scientists wouldn't even know that scientist creationism exists - it's of no practical use to them. For example, no geologist (that I'm aware of) uses Flood Geology to find oil. They use conventional geology, as explained here (https://www.geomorphology.org.uk/sites/default/files/10_reasons_full.pdf).

Listen mate, I attended the trial in Sydney of Dr Ian Plimer taking on that creationist who was selling videos claiming they found Noah's Ark fossilised. It went on for days. and a big waste of money and time I thought. The judge eventually agreed and Plimer and supporters wasted a ton of money even bringing witnesses from USA. h aha. The lawyers found gold that was all.

The guys looking for water up here on farms use divining? The skeptics disprove it but I don't know if they experiments are properly thought out. I think they only used bottles of water instead of stream volume. Divining is still sort of accepted here. My guy got a case of beer out of me for no water but he reckons I had to go much deeper. We found water together for the Mullumbimby community garden 40 years later - about 5 metres down by hand.

Patrick Byrom
25-01-2020, 06:47 PM
Listen mate, I attended the trial in Sydney of Dr Ian Plimer taking on that creationist who was selling videos claiming they found Noah's Ark fossilised. It went on for days. and a big waste of money and time I thought. The judge eventually agreed and Plimer and supporters wasted a ton of money even bringing witnesses from USA. h aha. The lawyers found gold that was all.Creation science was a big issue in Australia 40 years ago, although not in the scientific community. However, it's a complete non-issue now.


The guys looking for water up here on farms use divining? The skeptics disprove it but I don't know if they experiments are properly thought out. I think they only used bottles of water instead of stream volume. Divining is still sort of accepted here. My guy got a case of beer out of me for no water but he reckons I had to go much deeper. We found water together for the Mullumbimby community garden 40 years later - about 5 metres down by hand.The water dowsers all agree to the test conditions beforehand. If they can't find water in bottles, they should simply decline to be tested.

antichrist
25-01-2020, 07:05 PM
There is no rule that says that you must respond, let alone respond immediately.

I am not responding in chess players banning thread until impeachment over

antichrist
25-01-2020, 07:16 PM
Creation science was a big issue in Australia 40 years ago, although not in the scientific community. However, it's a complete non-issue now.

The water dowsers all agree to the test conditions beforehand. If they can't find water in bottles, they should simply decline to be tested.

Maybe that is why Capa Fan moved to USA he lost his customers here? I think Plimer may have even lost his house in legal fees so he began doing off beat things then for "right wing" causes. I wonder if water could be traced due to the level of growth of trees and type of trees in certain areas.

Adamski
25-01-2020, 07:21 PM
Calling creation science now a non-issue is a big call. As has been documented by CF elsewhere, there are many creationist scientists.

antichrist
25-01-2020, 07:28 PM
Calling creation science now a non-issue is a big call. As has been documented by CF elsewhere, there are many creationist scientists.

I think dino skeletons kicked the backside out of Creationism. Another reason could be demographics. The introduction of compulsory science in schools in about 1962 is finally taking effect, with the previous ignorant generation dying out.
Every young person I know thinks it is idiotic. Soon Capa fan will be trying to convince us that Catholic Doctrine supported evolution since 500 Bc.

Patrick Byrom
25-01-2020, 08:29 PM
Calling creation science now a non-issue is a big call. As has been documented by CF elsewhere, there are many creationist scientists.This list (https://creation.com/scientists-alive-today-who-accept-the-biblical-account-of-creation) only has about 150 living creation scientists with PhDs. There are probably at least that many living Nobel Prize winners in Physics, and they would be a very, very small subset of all living physicists with a PhD. For example, there are almost 2 000 PhDs awarded in physics in the US alone each year.

However I was making the point that creation science was taken fairly seriously in Australia 40 years ago. In Qld, the Education Minister was even calling for it to be taught in state high schools! Hard to imagine that happening today.

Capablanca-Fan
26-01-2020, 12:07 PM
Actually most modern scientists wouldn't even know that scientist creationism exists — it's of no practical use to them.
Evolution was no use to me in working out force constants from vibrational spectra. Evolution was no use to Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, and other founders of modern science (https://creation.com/creationist-scientist-contributions). Anti-creationist Larry Witham admitted:


“Surprisingly, however, the most notable aspect of natural scientists in assembly is how little they focus on evolution. Its day-to-day irrelevance is a great ‘paradox’ in biology, according to a BioEssays special issue on evolution in 2000. ‘While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky’s dictum that “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”, most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas’, the editor wrote. ‘Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superfluous one.’” (Where Darwin Meets the Bible: Creationists and Evolutionists in America (hardcover), p. 43, Oxford University Press, 2002)


For example, no geologist (that I'm aware of) uses Flood Geology to find oil. They use conventional geology, as explained here (https://www.geomorphology.org.uk/sites/default/files/10_reasons_full.pdf).
There are Ph.D. geologist creationists working in the oil industry. They know as well as anyone else how oil deposits correlate with geomorphological features. It doesn't require any belief that these features formed in a uniformitarian way.

Kevin Bonham
26-01-2020, 12:12 PM
This list (https://creation.com/scientists-alive-today-who-accept-the-biblical-account-of-creation) only has about 150 living creation scientists with PhDs.

I don't know how often they update that list but I notice that there are still no biogeographers.

Capablanca-Fan
26-01-2020, 12:12 PM
You're not arguing that this prevents localised decreases in entropy on the Earth, I hope?

Of course not. Ph.D. physical chemists understand thermodynamics quite well. You're not disputing my statement, I hope?

Capablanca-Fan
26-01-2020, 12:14 PM
Maybe that is why Capa Fan moved to USA he lost his customers here?
What customers do you think I lost? Actually a major reason for moving to the USA was granddaughters being born there.

antichrist
26-01-2020, 12:35 PM
Evolution was no use to me in working out force constants from vibrational spectra. Evolution was no use to Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, and other founders of modern science (https://creation.com/creationist-scientist-contributions). Anti-creationist Larry Witham admitted:


“Surprisingly, however, the most notable aspect of natural scientists in assembly is how little they focus on evolution. Its day-to-day irrelevance is a great ‘paradox’ in biology, according to a BioEssays special issue on evolution in 2000. ‘While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky’s dictum that “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”, most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas’, the editor wrote. ‘Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superfluous one.’” (Where Darwin Meets the Bible: Creationists and Evolutionists in America (hardcover), p. 43, Oxford University Press, 2002)


There are Ph.D. geologist creationists working in the oil industry. They know as well as anyone else how oil deposits correlate with geomorphological features. It doesn't require any belief that these features formed in a uniformitarian way.

Do they believe that all that oiled formed in 6,024 years?

antichrist
26-01-2020, 12:43 PM
What customers do you think I lost? Actually a major reason for moving to the USA was granddaughters being born there.
Any decent chessplayers amongst your offspring? Have they stayed true on creationism?

I was referring to CSF customers, is that mob still going? Did you work with them?

Patrick Byrom
26-01-2020, 12:59 PM
Evolution was no use to me in working out force constants from vibrational spectra. Evolution was no use to Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, and other founders of modern science (https://creation.com/creationist-scientist-contributions). ... I bet General Relativity wasn't much use to you either :) But it has a practical application in the real world - unlike creation science.


There are Ph.D. geologist creationists working in the oil industry. They know as well as anyone else how oil deposits correlate with geomorphological features. It doesn't require any belief that these features formed in a uniformitarian way.If Flood Geology is the correct scientific explanation for those features, then it should work at least as well as conventional geology. So which oil companies use Flood Geology to find oil?

Patrick Byrom
26-01-2020, 01:03 PM
Of course not. Ph.D. physical chemists understand thermodynamics quite well. You're not disputing my statement, I hope?It's correct as a simplified model, but the global increase in entropy tells us nothing about local conditions - which are what matter.

Capablanca-Fan
26-01-2020, 03:26 PM
I bet General Relativity wasn't much use to you either :)
Special relativity had a little.


But it has a practical application in the real world - unlike creation science.
You mean, unlike the dogma that chemicals spontaneously generated into living cells via chemical evolution, single cells evolved into multicelled creatures, etc.


If Flood Geology is the correct scientific explanation for those features, then it should work at least as well as conventional geology. So which oil companies use Flood Geology to find oil?
You need to know what formations correlate with oil, not how long they took to form. Geomorphology is what is needed, not uniformitarianism.


It's correct as a simplified model, but the global increase in entropy tells us nothing about local conditions - which are what matter.
Not under dispute, but it was your side that keeps invoking the sun shining on the earth, not understanding that this would increase earth entropy.

Patrick Byrom
26-01-2020, 04:53 PM
You need to know what formations correlate with oil, not how long they took to form. Geomorphology is what is needed, not uniformitarianism.You seemed to have missed my question, so I'll repeat it: Which oil companies use Flood Geology?

antichrist
26-01-2020, 05:35 PM
Do they believe that all that oiled formed in 6,024 years?

As you are a creation specialist surely this is a yes/no answer?

antichrist
27-01-2020, 10:23 AM
You seemed to have missed my question, so I'll repeat it: Which oil companies use Flood Geology?


ZION OIL & GAS, INC.
Exploring for Israel’s Political and Economic Independence.
Inspired by Genesis 49:25-26 and Deuteronomy 33:13-16.
Zion is publicly traded on NASDAQ: ZN.
https://www.zionoil.com/

The burning bush was their divining rod

Patrick Byrom
27-01-2020, 11:43 AM
ZION OIL & GAS, INC. Exploring for Israel’s Political and Economic Independence. Inspired by Genesis 49:25-26 and Deuteronomy 33:13-16. Zion is publicly traded on NASDAQ: ZN. https://www.zionoil.com/ The burning bush was their divining rodThey use Biblical references to identify sites where oil is likely to be found. But they use conventional geology to actually locate the oil - like every other oil company.

antichrist
27-01-2020, 12:48 PM
They use Biblical references to identify sites where oil is likely to be found. But they use conventional geology to actually locate the oil - like every other oil company.

If they state that it is only a con. They would not waste good money being led up the garden path by Capa mates.
Have the teutonic plates slowed down colliding since the early days 6,000 years ago when there must have been an earthquake a day?
.

antichrist
10-02-2020, 11:52 PM
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 (https://www.metabunk.org/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.

Isn't this last point that got atheopath Galileo into trouble with the Holy Inquisition? There is a hole in the bucket dear Capa

Capablanca-Fan
13-02-2020, 02:01 AM
Isn't this last point that got atheopath Galileo into trouble with the Holy Inquisition? There is a hole in the bucket dear Capa

For goodness' sake, stop confusing the shape of the earth with its motion. The Galileo debate was about the latter; both sides, the geocentric and the heliocentric, knew full well that the earth is nearly a perfect sphere. Galileo was also no atheopath, as can be seen from his famous Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina of Tuscany, explaining how the heliocentric view was compatible with the doctrines of the Catholic Church. Galileo's problem was that most astronomers of his day opposed heliocentrism because of the long tradition of Aristotle's physics and Ptolemy's astronomy—Aristotle was simply known "the Philosopher", and Ptolemy's Syntaxis was known as Almagest, an Arabic rendering of the Greek for "the greatest". Only about a dozen astronomers from Copernicus' time to Galileo supported Copernicanism.

Astronomers of his day realized that Galileo's discoveries of the phases of Venus and moons of Jupiter destroyed Ptolemaic geocentrism, but could be explained by Tycho Brahe's geo-heliocentric hybrid system. This has the sun, moon, and stars revolving around the earth, and the planets revolving around the sun.

After Galileo, Jesuit priest and astronomer Giovanni Battista Riccioli (1598–1671) wrote Almagestum Novum (New Almagest, 1651) that weighed the Copernican and Tychonian model, mainly using science, and found that the science of his day supported the Tychnonian system. Note that this was before Newtonian physics came decisively in favour of a barycentric model of the solar system, and several of Riccioli's strong arguments against Copernicanism could not be answered until the 19th century. Physicist and historian of science Dr Christopher Graney wrote Setting Aside All Authority: Giovanni Battista Riccioli and the Science against Copernicus in the Age of Galileo (https://www.amazon.com/Setting-Aside-All-Authority-Copernicus/dp/0268029881), pointing out that it's sometimes instructive to look at what became the losing side of a debate, if they were using the best science available to them.