Atheistforums.com

I think it is a fact if I say that Atheists do not think that the Creation story in Genesis and Science can be reconciled.
The reason for this is that, if the Bible and Science can be reconciled, one would have to admit that the Author of the Bible transmitted this information to humankind living in the 20th and 21st centuries.
Ok, I am not talking about some concocted Creationist Biblical explanation where Science itself needs to be adjusted to suit the Biblical view, no I am talking about taking the latest observed scientific discoveries on the development of our solar system and universe, and establishing if this scientific facts are the same as in the Bible.

Also, I am not talking about twisting the Scripture to somehow make the Bible sound Scientific as does men like Ken Ham and Kent Hoven.

You see, in 2005 a Muslim colleague gave me a CD of a debate between Zakir Naik and William Campbell where they debated at the university of Chicago in 2000. This Muslim thought I might be a candidate to embrace Islam, due to the arguments I and Christians used to have about their religion; and he said that I should watch this video and I will be amazed at how poorly the Bible, and how incredibly the Quran describes Science.
I decided to watch this video, and I was impressed at what I saw. However, I never believe anyone if I did not investigate for myself, and it was in my mind to use this info to destroy any further attempts from Christians to prove the existence of God and the validity of the Bible.

Well, what I learned initially was great stuff, especially where Zakir Naik destroyed William Campbell on the Genesis creation story.
We wont go into the Creation story of the Quran for now.
This was what Naik had to say.

Quote from: Zakir Naik 2000 The Bible and Quran in relation to Science[/quote
Let me make it very clear to everyone; that the Bible which the Christians believe,  is not the words of God; is not the Injil (Gospel of Jesus), which Muslims believe was revealed to the Prophet Jesus (peace be upon him).
This Bible, according to us, may contain the words of God, but it also contains the words of prophets, the words of historians; it contains absurdities, obscenities, as well as innumerable scientific errors!
If there are scientific points mentioned in the Bible, it might be possible, why not?
It might be part of the Word of God in the Bible, but what about the scientific errors?
What about the un-scientific portion?
Can you attribute this to God?
I want to make it very clear to my Christian Brothers and sisters. The purpose of my presentation on the Bible and science is not to hurt any Christian’s feelings. If I do hurt your feelings, I do apologise in advance. The purpose is only to point out that a God’s revelation cannot contain scientific errors.
As Jesus Christ (peace be upon him) said, “Search for the truth and the truth shall set you free.”
You have the Old Testament and the New Testament; now you should follow the last and final testament, the glorious Quran!

He follows this up in front of about 3000 people with:

Quote from: Zakir Naik1.   The Bible gives a description on the creation of the Universe. It simply tells us that God created everything in 6 days. However, the Biblical description in Genesis 1 â€" 31 is quite clear in its statement that these 6 days were 24 Hours each, for it is written in Gen 1: 5 that God created Light and called the Darkness Night and the Light He called day. “And it was evening and morning, the first Day.” (Gen 1: 8; 13; 19; 23; 31 gives the description of the other 5 days of creation.)

a.   Dr. Naik argues as follow. The days of Genesis can never be longer than 24 hours. It consists of an evening and morning. This is a huge problem to the Christian, because “Modern Science today knows that the Universe came into existence over billions of years, and not 6 literal days of 24 hours each!”
     b.   The Quran, however, does not contain this scientific error. It never uses the words evening and morning in conjunction of the days of creation. On the contrary, the word used for “day” can also mean “a long period of time”. Therefore the Quran corresponds to science, the Bible not!

Quote from: Zakir Naik2.   The Author of the Bible made a huge mistake in Gen 1: 3 when he said “let there be Light!” (This was before the first day) He forgot about this statement when He created the Sun, Moon, and Stars on the fourth day in Gen 1: 14 â€" 18!
     a.   What was the “light” He created before the first day?
     b.   If God created the Sun and Stars on the Fourth day, He is again in total contradiction with what Science knows today. It is a fact that the Sun and Stars was in existence long before the Earth.
     c.   In Short, the Bible thinks that God created the Earth before the Universe!

Quote from: Zakir Naik3.   In Genesis 1: 9- 14, the Bible states that God created the Earth on the third day.
     a.   How can you have a first and second day without an Earth turning on its own axis? The author of the Bible really did not know that you need a Sun shining on a rotating Earth to produce a “Day.”
     b.   If God made the Earth on the Third day and the Sun and Stars on the fourth day, the Bible is again in contradiction to what science today knows. The Sun existed long before the Earth and not vice versa.

Quote from: Zakir Naik4.   When God made the Sun and Moon on the fourth day (Gen 1: 14 - 17), He called the Sun a “Greater light” and the Moon a “Lesser light” and placed them in the firmament to rule over day and night.
     a.   The Author of the Bible does not know that the Moon only reflects the light of the Sun, but thinks that the Moon possesses its own source of light.

b.   Dr. Naik then gave an elaborate explanation on the scientific description on the differences between the light of the Sun and Moon from the Quran. He claims that the Quran knows that the Moon is a reflector of light from the Sun. He gave different meanings on the Arabic words used in the Quran in support to his theory.
     c.   To Dr. Naik, this was one of the best examples in the Bible, on its deficient scientific descriptions, and one of the greatest scientific descriptions contained in the Quran!
 

I must say that I found many arguments exactly as the above made by Atheist writers and websites, but the first person to have composed this accusation against the Biblical description of Genesis, was Maurice Buchaille in his book, the Bible, The Quran in relation to Science where he glorified the Quran and destroyed the Bible as "handbooks of scientific descriptions".

Well, I will over the next few weeks do the following.
       1. We will see what the Bible says about the origins of the Universe.
       2. Then we will look at what Science says.
and we will conclude with what we found.

I hope you all agree that DR. Naik's summary is a great reflection of what one may find in error with the Bible.

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 06, 2018, 09:07:02 AM
I think it is a fact if I say that Atheists do not think that the Creation story in Genesis and Science can be reconciled.

The creation stories of genesis cannot be reconciled with each other, much less with science.

Give it time...

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 06, 2018, 09:36:19 AM
Give it time...

Biblical stories have had something along the lines of 2000 to 2500 years already.  How much time do you expect?

Simply put, this is an effort to crowbar a modern understanding of science onto a nomadic myth structure.  You can only make the claim that the book is scientifically accurate if it points the way to scientific understanding before the discovery is made, not by reinterpreting the words to mean what you want them to mean post hoc.

And of course, since interpretation manipulation is being expressly allowed here, you're also legitimizing the idea that the ancient Greeks predicted being able to combine genes between different species since they wrote about blended creatures like centaurs, mermaids, chimeras, etc.

Last of all, it ignored genuine predictions clearly made before the relevant discoveries that proved true: Arthur C. Clarke quite clearly predicted the World Wide Web in 1962 in the book Man in Space, although of course he didn't call it exactly thatâ€"as I recall, he phrased it something like "dialing up the front page of a newspaper from Sao Paolo onto your television screen", which is a much better metaphor for the Web than anything Dr Naik twisted out of the Quran or the Bible to describe the creation of the universe.

Whither the First Church of Arthur, then?

You cannot have one without the other.  If you want to claim scientific "revelation" from the Bible or Quran, you have to accept it from every other source as well, and therefore it's useless as any sort of divine evidence.  If you want to dismiss all the other sources, the Bible and Quran can be dismissed for the exact same reasons.  And if you want to exempt the Bible and Quran, that's either cherrypicking or special pleading, take your choice.

Why do they come here and lie right off the bat?

Well, if God created the universe then I guess cosmologists are just wasting their time, huh?

Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 06, 2018, 01:19:05 PM
Why do they come here and lie right off the bat?

Presumably it makes them feel validated.

Quote from: Unbeliever on July 06, 2018, 01:24:42 PM
Presumably it makes them feel validated.

I'd violate 'em.

Whenever these folks visit us I always get a profound sense of deja vu...

Zakir Naik is a Joke

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7tenqQC7Zo

Apparently this Zakir Naik is a master debater...

Quote from: Unbeliever on July 06, 2018, 01:24:07 PM
Well, if God created the universe then I guess cosmologists are just wasting their time, huh?

Feminists ... they study the universe using cosmetology ;-)

Quote from: Unbeliever on July 06, 2018, 01:47:55 PM
Whenever these folks visit us I always get a profound sense of deja vu...

Wash your mouth out!  That is cultural appropriation!

I like washing my mouth - with beer!

Quote from: Unbeliever on July 06, 2018, 07:43:07 PM
I like washing my mouth - with beer!

Not the right quaf ... try a dry Bordeaux instead, you Anglophone you!

QuoteOrigins of the Universe. (Creation versus science. Do they contradict?)

Yes.

(https://d2v9y0dukr6mq2.cloudfront.net/video/thumbnail/BKaAXTX/videoblocks-a-retro-old-fashioned-wizard-of-oz-style-the-end-movie-or-film-end-title-page-includes-three-distressed-film-options-plus-normal-clean-version_blyaml72x_thumbnail-full09.png)

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 06, 2018, 09:07:02 AM
I think it is a fact if I say that Atheists do not think that the Creation story in Genesis and Science can be reconciled.
The reason for this is that, if the Bible and Science can be reconciled, one would have to admit that the Author of the Bible transmitted this information to humankind living in the 20th and 21st centuries.

That's what they all say. Thing is, were the near-ignorant goat-hearders to even experience visions of how the universe, the earth, and life on it came about, they would not describe what happen in remotely the manner it was actually described in Genesis.

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 06, 2018, 09:07:02 AM
I hope you all agree that DR. Naik's summary is a great reflection of what one may find in error with the Bible.

Dr. Naik's description is only the beginning and most superficial of the scientific errors of the bible. It's nothing less than myth, the same as the world being made from the body of the frost giant Ymir after Odin and his fellow gods slew him. The entire notion is deeply flawed on all levels. Dr. Naik concentrates on those "best examples" of the deficiencies of the Biblical discriptions because other examples I could give reveal that the Quran is just as deficient as the Bible on them. To me, these are not the best examples of the inaccuracies of the christian creation myth.

You make Thor sad.  Hulk will SMASH!

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 06, 2018, 09:07:02 AM
Well, I will over the next few weeks do the following.

Yeah, about that.....I don't think that's going to happen. But hey......give it time......

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 06, 2018, 09:07:02 AM

Quote
Well, I will over the next few weeks do the following.

Quote from: aitm on July 07, 2018, 05:11:27 AM
Yeah, about that.....I don't think that's going to happen. But hey......give it time......

Mousetrap seems to have had a well developed plan in place long before he even arrived. 
We are a flock of ducks sitting on his pond of enlightenment waiting for the first rays of the eternal dawn.
He's a man with ambition.  Hopefully, it's just a temporary manic state.

So, the stars were created after the Earth and sun, insects have four legs, the mustard seed is the smallest of seeds, pi equals 3, bats are birds, the Earth doesn't move, hares "chew the cud?

Why do scientists even waste their time when Christians already know everything?

Quote from: Unbeliever on July 07, 2018, 01:45:06 PM
Why do scientists even waste their time when Christians already know everything?

They just do it to bother them.

Apparently, it's working.

Quote from: Unbeliever on July 07, 2018, 01:45:06 PM
So, the stars were created after the Earth and sun, insects have four legs, the mustard seed is the smallest of seeds, pi equals 3, bats are birds, the Earth doesn't move, hares "chew the cud?

Why do scientists even waste their time when Christians already know everything?

And the sky is water and 2/3rds of all the stars have already fell to earth......must be where the dino bones came from..
.oh.......and a giant dragon is buried in the earth that can gather another 1/3 of the stars in its tail.....I mean how can you NOT believe them


.i

Of course, mousetrap gave away the store entirely in their first post.

The moment you have to interpret, the moment you go "what it really means is this..." you've surrendered any evidentiary value in the book because it's an admission that it doesn't actually say what it says.

And if you have to interpret it, well, we've all seen that you can make it say anything you want it to say.  Biblical (or Quranic) interpretation is not a process like deriving a mathematical theorem where one thing leads precisely and specifically to another.  It's a reflection of the funhouse mirror of the interpreter's own ideas of what they think it should say, what they want it to say.

Quote from: J.S. Bullion, Jr.Armies of Bible scholars and theologians have for centuries found respected employment devising artful explanations of the Bible not really meaning what it says.

Quote from: George Bernard ShawNo man ever believes that the Bible means what it says: He is always convinced that it means what he says.

Quote from: Bishop Augustine of HippoIt is a disgraceful and dangerous thing to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on topics non-Christians know from reason and experience.

If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him trying to support his foolish opinion from the Bible, how are they going to believe the Bible on the important matters of faith when they think the Bible is full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?

Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on us all when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of the Bible.

I forget the exact quote or who said it, but my favorite is something like this:
Christians speak with confident authority about things they have spent a lifetime knowing nothing about....or very similar

Hello Mousetrap,

The word is "atheist", not "Atheist". Do not capitalize the first letter, just like (I assume that) you don't capitalize the first "t" in theist.

Quote from: trdsf on July 06, 2018, 01:14:55 PM


You cannot have one without the other.  If you want to claim scientific "revelation" from the Bible or Quran, you have to accept it from every other source as well, and therefore it's useless as any sort of divine evidence.  If you want to dismiss all the other sources, the Bible and Quran can be dismissed for the exact same reasons.  And if you want to exempt the Bible and Quran, that's either cherrypicking or special pleading, take your choice.

Now why would you attempt to connect the Quran whith what I found in the Bible?
And who is cherrypicking?
I have not even shown you anything!

Quote from: Unbeliever on July 06, 2018, 01:24:07 PM
Well, if God created the universe then I guess cosmologists are just wasting their time, huh?

Why?
Do you have any idea what I am still going to show you?
Good Lord but atheists are bias!
What is this great myth that Atheists are openminded?

Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on July 06, 2018, 10:03:26 PM
That's what they all say. Thing is, were the near-ignorant goat-hearders to even experience visions of how the universe, the earth, and life on it came about, they would not describe what happen in remotely the manner it was actually described in Genesis.
Dr. Naik's description is only the beginning and most superficial of the scientific errors of the bible. It's nothing less than myth, the same as the world being made from the body of the frost giant Ymir after Odin and his fellow gods slew him. The entire notion is deeply flawed on all levels. Dr. Naik concentrates on those "best examples" of the deficiencies of the Biblical discriptions because other examples I could give reveal that the Quran is just as deficient as the Bible on them. To me, these are not the best examples of the inaccuracies of the christian creation myth.

Ok, so you say it is impossible to reconcile Genesis with Science?
Without twisting the Bible or science?
Well, wait for the forthcomming attraction.

OK, so we now have our Atheist members already knowing what I will show them, and Naik only superficially proved the Creation non accountable with Science.
I should actually just keep silent and let the Atheist bias minded wizards tell me what I want to say!

Well, only if I am stupid will I believe that miracle.
So, lets go with the "Biblical description of the Genesis creation explanation" and see if any atheists realise how they were denied the scientific description from the Bible.

Now, the Bible is very clear about how God created the Earth and Heavens.
In the beginning He created the Heavens and the Earth, and the Earth was without any form and dark throughout its deep.
God said, let there be light and it was night and day 1
Then he said there must be a divide which he called the firmament, and waters above the firmament and below the firmament. Day 2.
Then God told the waters and land to separate from the waters, and there was land and sea. day 3.
On day 4 God made 2 luminaries, and they shined into the Atmosphere. day 4.

We will wait here for a while.

Now, lets look at the 3rd day.
this is the key to it all, and if one can not grasp this little logical fact, you can just as well regard your intellect as lower than 80 points IQ.
Primary school children can answer this with ease.

IF LAND AND SEA WERE SEPARATED ON THE THIRD DAY, HOW DID THE EARTH LOOK ON THE MORNING OF THE 3RD DAY? (or for that matter on day 2)

Let see how many Atheists can answer this simple question.

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 08, 2018, 09:59:51 AM
Why?
Do you have any idea what I am still going to show you?
Good Lord but atheists are bias!
What is this great myth that Atheists are openminded?

Bias is normal.  Atheists are actually as normal as theists ;-)

Your hermeneutical quandaries are of little interest.  How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?  And are they Evangelical or Catholic?

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 08, 2018, 10:03:28 AM
Ok, so you say it is impossible to reconcile Genesis with Science?
Without twisting the Bible or science?
Well, wait for the forthcomming attraction.

The connection?  The Big Bang happened, somehow ... (actually cause isn't necessary, there is simply a very definite boundary to the past, the 3.5K radiation boundary).  Not much can be known before that, in spite of physics claims.  Without experiment (aka experimental cosmology) it isn't possible to have a "good" theory of origins.  Anyway, about 13.5 billion years later, as monkeys measure such things, some Jews over a long period of time, wrote some stuff, that got anthologizes into the Bible.  Later Gentiles got into the act, even Arabs, and pretty much ruined everything ;-)

[quote author=Mousetrap link=topic=12764.msg1222158#msg1222158 date=1531059628

IF LAND AND SEA WERE SEPARATED ON THE THIRD DAY, HOW DID THE EARTH LOOK ON THE MORNING OF THE 3RD DAY? (or for that matter on day 2)

Let see how many Atheists can answer this simple question.
[/quote]
This is rather tiring.  You came here with an agenda.  The Socratic method of teaching is great.  Except I, for one, do not consider you a teacher.  If you have a point, make it, and I will comment on it.  You tiresome lead-up is just that--tiresome.  If you want a conversation, say so.  And state your point.  Otherwise you are only wasting your finger power and driving most of us away.  If you came to annoy, you are doing that well.

Quote from: Mike Cl on July 08, 2018, 12:36:25 PM
If you have a point, make it, and I will comment on it.  You tiresome lead-up is just that--tiresome.  If you want a conversation, say so.  And state your point.  Otherwise you are only wasting your finger power and driving most of us away.

Self hype requires some nuance and skill, but this is like watching an SNL satire.

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 08, 2018, 10:20:28 AM
...
Now, the Bible is very clear about how God created the Earth and Heavens.
In the beginning He created the Heavens and the Earth, and the Earth was without any form and dark throughout its deep.
God said, let there be light and it was night and day 1
Then he said there must be a divide which he called the firmament, and waters above the firmament and below the firmament. Day 2.
Then God told the waters and land to separate from the waters, and there was land and sea. day 3.
On day 4 God made 2 luminaries, and they shined into the Atmosphere. day 4.

We will wait here for a while.

Now, lets look at the 3rd day.
this is the key to it all, and if one can not grasp this little logical fact, you can just as well regard your intellect as lower than 80 points IQ.
Primary school children can answer this with ease.

IF LAND AND SEA WERE SEPARATED ON THE THIRD DAY, HOW DID THE EARTH LOOK ON THE MORNING OF THE 3RD DAY? (or for that matter on day 2)

Let see how many Atheists can answer this simple question.

OK, I’ll give it a try.  Unfortunately, I’m a bit confused and I need some help.  I would appreciate it if you could provide me with some clarifications, insights and some of your special knowledge that, as I atheist, I cannot possibly possess, before I take the plunge to answer your “simple question”.  After all, I don’t want to be judged as a person with an IQ below 80.  Coming from such an important and nearly divine person such as yourself, that would be devastating.

1.  On this "THIRD DAY", were the laws of physics and chemistry the same as they are today?  Did gravity exist?  How about conservation of matter and energy? 

2.  What is the "LAND"?  Is it everything except water?  What about OH- or H+ ions?  Are those part of the water or part of the land?

3.  What is meant by “SEPARATED”?  Put in a different place?  Ordered never to associate or be near each other again?  Was gravity used?  How about plate tectonics?  If your god used those, was he cheating?  Today, water and land are often mixed together.  Did your god screw up?  Was it more of a "Then God told the waters and land to separate from the waters, and there was land and sea, except where there wasn't"?

4.  How could I see what the Earth looked like on the morning of the third day if the sun and moon (the two luminaries) did not show up until the fourth day?  Do I get to use a flashlight? 

5.  At which frequencies of light do I get to observe the Earth the morning of the third day?  Do I get to use X-ray vision, or an infrared scope? 

6.  If I answer wrong and do not see the Earth on the morning of the third day the same as you do, is your sky fairy going to punish me?  If so, would you put in a good word for me anyway?

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 08, 2018, 09:59:51 AM
Why?
Do you have any idea what I am still going to show you?
Good Lord but atheists are bias!
What is this great myth that Atheists are openminded?

You think we can't recognize preachers when we see them?

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 08, 2018, 10:20:28 AM
OK, so we now have our Atheist members already knowing what I will show them, and Naik only superficially proved the Creation non accountable with Science.
I should actually just keep silent and let the Atheist bias minded wizards tell me what I want to say!

Well, only if I am stupid will I believe that miracle.
So, lets go with the "Biblical description of the Genesis creation explanation" and see if any atheists realise how they were denied the scientific description from the Bible.

Now, the Bible is very clear about how God created the Earth and Heavens.
In the beginning He created the Heavens and the Earth, and the Earth was without any form and dark throughout its deep.
God said, let there be light and it was night and day 1
Then he said there must be a divide which he called the firmament, and waters above the firmament and below the firmament. Day 2.
Then God told the waters and land to separate from the waters, and there was land and sea. day 3.
On day 4 God made 2 luminaries, and they shined into the Atmosphere. day 4.

We will wait here for a while.

Now, lets look at the 3rd day.
this is the key to it all, and if one can not grasp this little logical fact, you can just as well regard your intellect as lower than 80 points IQ.
Primary school children can answer this with ease.

IF LAND AND SEA WERE SEPARATED ON THE THIRD DAY, HOW DID THE EARTH LOOK ON THE MORNING OF THE 3RD DAY? (or for that matter on day 2)

Let see how many Atheists can answer this simple question.

Well, setting aside my knowledge of how the Earth actually formed at this stage when we first have land and the sea, and taking the primary schooler point of view, several possibilities offer themselves. The first is that it would look like either some amalgam of land and water separating like oil and water. The second is that there was a world covered with water and then the water retreated from the land. This latter process naturally suggests itself from the fact that the previous day, there are great reservoirs of water above and below the earth. This suggests that the waters covering the earth could drain into the lower reservoirs.

Now, it didn't rain on dry land, because the ancients knew bloody well what rain was and would describe that scene as rain filling the ocean basins of already present dry land. They would have described God as speaking rain into existence and having the rain fill up those ocean basins. Ergo, this is not what the ancients were envisioning when they wrote the passage.

After all, the land and the sea would not need to be separated (as claimed in the day three description) if the land was already dry and we were just filling the oceans by filling them with rainwater. If anything, in this scenario, water (already separated) was added to the Earth to form the seas.

But, sadly, this is closest to what science says happened. See, the earth began as a clumpy amalgam of rocks gravitationally bound together, and whose gravity was attracting more and more material, which eventually through radioactivity and the Kelvin-Helmholtz process caused the rocks to melt and the Earth spent a few million years molten. Further, by the best scientific explanation, before it ever gets its first ocean, Earth was smacked with a planet-massed object whose mixed up ejecta formed the moon. It also remelted the Earth's crust. Only when it solidified millions of years later, and outgassing enough material to form the primeval atmosphere and cooling enough for water to condense out as rain, only then do we get the Earth's primeval ocean.

Note also, that science also says that the sun has already formed and is shining throughout this period. We know this because the Earth isn't a gas giant. The solar wind and radiation pressure blew away most of the lighter elements that would otherwise be gravitationally bound to the early Earth and leave it as a small, rocky world.

So, this is how the ancients would describe the formation of the earth, even without knowing much science:

Day 1 would have the sun coalesce and started glowing first, filling the solar system with light. It's light and heat would blow away the icy part of the disk-shaped cloud, leaving only a swarm of huge fuck-off boulders.

Day 2 would have the earth start to form from these boulders clumping together. It would also be painfully obvious why the earth would have day and night: the day is the sunlit half of the earth, and the night would be the land being in the earth's own shadow.

Day 3 would have the Earth start glowing. The ancients would not necessary know what they were looking at is molten rock/lava, but they would sure as hell knew what they were looking at was emitting light.

Day 4 would have a very huge fuck-off bolder around the same size as the earth smack into it, spewing rock into orbit and heating the earth even more. The ejecta would form the moon, and the earth would slowly cool down, cease glowing (restoring the observation of sunlit side = day and shadowed portion = night, and observe much the same thing about the moon and conclude that it must be for a similar reason â€" and the moon would not be a source of light, but a reflector of it), and only then gain an ocean from the cooling atmosphere raining water down on the earth to fill its dry basins.

So, by your own description, the bible gets the order and description of key events wrong, stuff it wouldn't get wrong if the ancients who wrote it had a vision of what happened that bore any resemblance to what science says happened. The ancients privy to the creation of the universe, even if they didn't know why, would know that the sun formed first and started glowing first, that the earth formed next out of what would be described as boulders, that the earth itself was smacked with a similar sized object, and only later the moon formed, and after that, the ocean formed by rain filling up the lowest part of the earth's now-solid crust â€" crust that was at some point glowing like a luminary itself. It would also be painfully obvious why the Earth had day and night, why the moon had phases, why there were eclipses of both types, and knew there was no way that there could be a solar and lunar eclipse at the same time, or even in the same month.

Instead, we have the earth form first, which is wrong. We have the day/night cycle form next (without the sun), which is wrong. Then we have the oceans and dry land separating out, which is wrong. And then we have the sun and moon form after the oceans, which is wrong. They didn't realize that the Earth was smacked with a gargantuan object and had at points a melted, glowing crust, which in any true-to-life vision would be obvious. The ancients didn't even realize that the day and phases of the moon were caused by the sun, which in any true-to-life vision would, again, be obvious.

So, yeah, mark this with a fail. Your cosmology, even the little piece you had presented, doesn't bear the slightest resemblance with what happened, or anything resembling how an ancient would describe happened, had God shown or informed him of anything resembling what science has concluded.

I think Mousetrap is just trying to push our buttons, not present any kind of coherent argument. Or maybe, like other theists that have come here, he's just trying to get us to be rude to him so he can go back to his Christian buddies and say "See - look how horrible those damned atheists are!"

Quote from: Unbeliever on July 08, 2018, 08:30:00 PM
I think Mousetrap is just trying to push our buttons, not present any kind of coherent argument. Or maybe, like other theists that have come here, he's just trying to get us to be rude to him so he can go back to his Christian buddies and say "See - look how horrible those damned atheists are!"

If he asks I'll be horrible to him without provocation. I'm just that kind of guy.

Quote from: sdelsolray on July 08, 2018, 07:58:59 PM
OK, I’ll give it a try.  Unfortunately, I’m a bit confused and I need some help.  I would appreciate it if you could provide me with some clarifications, insights and some of your special knowledge that, as I atheist, I cannot possibly possess, before I take the plunge to answer your “simple question”.  After all, I don’t want to be judged as a person with an IQ below 80.  Coming from such an important and nearly divine person such as yourself, that would be devastating.

1.  On this "THIRD DAY", were the laws of physics and chemistry the same as they are today?  Did gravity exist?  How about conservation of matter and energy? 

2.  What is the "LAND"?  Is it everything except water?  What about OH- or H+ ions?  Are those part of the water or part of the land?

3.  What is meant by “SEPARATED”?  Put in a different place?  Ordered never to associate or be near each other again?  Was gravity used?  How about plate tectonics?  If your god used those, was he cheating?  Today, water and land are often mixed together.  Did your god screw up?  Was it more of a "Then God told the waters and land to separate from the waters, and there was land and sea, except where there wasn't"?

4.  How could I see what the Earth looked like on the morning of the third day if the sun and moon (the two luminaries) did not show up until the fourth day?  Do I get to use a flashlight? 

5.  At which frequencies of light do I get to observe the Earth the morning of the third day?  Do I get to use X-ray vision, or an infrared scope? 

6.  If I answer wrong and do not see the Earth on the morning of the third day the same as you do, is your sky fairy going to punish me?  If so, would you put in a good word for me anyway?

^^This!

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 08, 2018, 09:58:14 AM
I have not even shown you anything!

You can say that again...

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 08, 2018, 09:58:14 AM
Now why would you attempt to connect the Quran whith what I found in the Bible?

You're the one who brought up the Quran, not me.  And they're already connected -- not only are they both big books of nomadic fables, but also the Quran is informed by the Bible.  Why would you act like this is a surprise given your own opening post?

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 08, 2018, 10:20:28 AM
IF LAND AND SEA WERE SEPARATED ON THE THIRD DAY, HOW DID THE EARTH LOOK ON THE MORNING OF THE 3RD DAY? (or for that matter on day 2)
Let see how many Atheists can answer this simple question.

Too simple.  The Genesis account is just a fable and there was no identifiable "third day", or "second day", or even "first day".  The Earth coalesced out of the solar debris disk over millions of years.  There was no particular day before which there was no Earth, and after which there was, alakazam*poof!*.  Just a continuum of development over geological/astronomical time.

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 06, 2018, 09:07:02 AM
I think it is a fact if I say that Atheists do not think that the Creation story in Genesis and Science can be reconciled.

Creationism is unscientific, unfactual, and like Flat Earthism, and I see no point in any of it.

Is that blunt and dismissive?  Yes.

Quote from: sdelsolray on July 08, 2018, 07:58:59 PM
OK, I’ll give it a try.  Unfortunately, I’m a bit confused and I need some help.  I would appreciate it if you could provide me with some clarifications, insights and some of your special knowledge that, as I atheist, I cannot possibly possess, before I take the plunge to answer your “simple question”.  After all, I don’t want to be judged as a person with an IQ below 80.  Coming from such an important and nearly divine person such as yourself, that would be devastating.

1.  On this "THIRD DAY", were the laws of physics and chemistry the same as they are today?  Did gravity exist?  How about conservation of matter and energy? 

2.  What is the "LAND"?  Is it everything except water?  What about OH- or H+ ions?  Are those part of the water or part of the land?

3.  What is meant by “SEPARATED”?  Put in a different place?  Ordered never to associate or be near each other again?  Was gravity used?  How about plate tectonics?  If your god used those, was he cheating?  Today, water and land are often mixed together.  Did your god screw up?  Was it more of a "Then God told the waters and land to separate from the waters, and there was land and sea, except where there wasn't"?

4.  How could I see what the Earth looked like on the morning of the third day if the sun and moon (the two luminaries) did not show up until the fourth day?  Do I get to use a flashlight? 

5.  At which frequencies of light do I get to observe the Earth the morning of the third day?  Do I get to use X-ray vision, or an infrared scope? 

6.  If I answer wrong and do not see the Earth on the morning of the third day the same as you do, is your sky fairy going to punish me?  If so, would you put in a good word for me anyway?

Wow!
1. Why would physics change if we are already at a stage where the Earth was a entity of Water and Land.
I propose that on the 3rd day physics was sill in existence as it was for over 13.5 billion years. Why not. Lets not over run this simple statement of How did the Earth look on the morning of the 3rd day when it turned into land and ocean lateron that day. The Question is quite simple and does not require any scientific elaboration at all.
2. Land and sea, it is a separation of What? that's the question. I do not need a full scientific scrutiny at all. What do you call land? Does it contain Ions, radiation ext. keep all these factors as a given and just think on how did the Earth look from the Biblical description on the morning of day 3.
3. So, what you say is that today you are living on something that can not be defined as Land?
Oh, gosh, please warn the maritime that they are not sailing on water. Again, simple, how did the Earth look before Land and sea was separated? So simple.
4. Great question. But we will come to that question also. I want you to answer this to me once we discuss what Science say on how the Sun appeared for over 1.5 Billion years. But that comes later.
All I want to know, (for the sake of darkness with your observation, What was the Earth on the Morning of day 3 if it changed into a separation of land and sea on day 3?
5. Dont worry, you will have enough light to observe what is in front of you.
You obviously forgot that God said "let there be light! This was before the first day. So obviously there will be light on day 3.
6. Dont worry, I dont believe in a sky fairy. If you answer wrong it is because you dont understand basic principles of experimental science.
The Queastion is very simple.
For the last time, How would the Earth have looked on the morning of the 3rd day, If land and sea separated on the 3dr day?
Dont break your head about it.

Quote from: Mike Cl on July 08, 2018, 12:36:25 PM
[quote author=Mousetrap link=topic=12764.msg1222158#msg1222158 date=1531059628

IF LAND AND SEA WERE SEPARATED ON THE THIRD DAY, HOW DID THE EARTH LOOK ON THE MORNING OF THE 3RD DAY? (or for that matter on day 2)

Let see how many Atheists can answer this simple question.

This is rather tiring.  You came here with an agenda.  The Socratic method of teaching is great.  Except I, for one, do not consider you a teacher.  If you have a point, make it, and I will comment on it.  You tiresome lead-up is just that--tiresome.  If you want a conversation, say so.  And state your point.  Otherwise you are only wasting your finger power and driving most of us away.  If you came to annoy, you are doing that well.

Now why would you make such a remark?
All I asked is if you ever took the Biblical description of creation and compared it with science?
If you did not, play with and answer the simple question.

Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 08, 2018, 08:06:31 PM
You think we can't recognize preachers when we see them?

Guess what?
I am not a theologian at all.
I never studied theology, I do not preach in any Church.
I dont even go to Church.

Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on July 08, 2018, 08:19:34 PM
Well, setting aside my knowledge of how the Earth actually formed at this stage when we first have land and the sea, and taking the primary schooler point of view, ...

Now, it didn't rain on dry land, because the ancients knew bloody well what rain was and would describe that scene as rain filling the ocean basins of already present dry land. They would have described God as speaking rain into existence and having the rain fill up those ocean basins. Ergo, this is not what the ancients were envisioning when they wrote the passage.
So, yeah, mark this with a fail. Your cosmology, even the little piece you had presented, doesn't bear the slightest resemblance with what happened, or anything resembling how an ancient would describe happened, had God shown or informed him of anything resembling what science has concluded.

Now this is what I am talking.
An Atheist that did take the scientific and Biblical description into consideration.
What you are actually propose is the Nebular Theory, mixed with Laplace's Hadean theory.
Great stuff. As for the formation of the Moon and the forming of oceans a few billion years after the formation of the Earth, it is a theory proposed by scientists. There are however many scientific critisizim against this theory, and with the latest discoveries about the formation of water on the Earth taken from Meteorites, silver ions and Zircon crystals, there are more theories about the age of the ocean, and the Moon.
But we will come to all of that.
I think what you did and wrote is excelent.
However, I would like you to keep in mind that I said I want to take the Biblical description FIRST. then we will compare that description with what science said.
I love your information, but allow me the time to continue with the Biblical description first.
Great stuff

Quote from: Unbeliever on July 08, 2018, 08:30:00 PM
I think Mousetrap is just trying to push our buttons, not present any kind of coherent argument. Or maybe, like other theists that have come here, he's just trying to get us to be rude to him so he can go back to his Christian buddies and say "See - look how horrible those damned atheists are!"

Not at all, I find many atheists are intellectual and mature, unlike those that somehow think I will go and complain about how rude Atheists are.

Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 08, 2018, 08:39:22 PM
If he asks I'll be horrible to him without provocation. I'm just that kind of guy.

You are welcome to be just what you are.
I can not and do not want to change your character.

Quote from: trdsf on July 09, 2018, 12:23:04 AM
Too simple.  The Genesis account is just a fable and there was no identifiable "third day", or "second day", or even "first day".  The Earth coalesced out of the solar debris disk over millions of years.  There was no particular day before which there was no Earth, and after which there was, alakazam*poof!*.  Just a continuum of development over geological/astronomical time.

So what do you say, If these ancient sheepherders in the desert wrote that on the 3rd day the Land separated from Sea, how did the earth look before this happened.
It is a simple question and claimed by simple people, can you answer?

Quote from: Cavebear on July 09, 2018, 01:44:28 AM
Creationism is unscientific, unfactual, and like Flat Earthism, and I see no point in any of it.

Is that blunt and dismissive?  Yes.

And Ateism is close minded, deaf and bias.
Taken your statement, if one gives you a riddle, there was a time when the earth was undergoing a separation of land and sea, how did it look before this happened, all you will say is:

Quote from: CavebearCreationism is unscientific, unfactual, and like Flat Earthism, and I see no point in any of it.

Is that blunt and dismissive?  Yes.

Is this your final answer, or do you want to phone a friend?

Mousetrap is merely another theistic twit.  We have seem many like him'

BORING!

Quote from: Cavebear on July 09, 2018, 03:07:29 AM
Mousetrap is merely another theistic twit.  We have seem many like him'

BORING!

Hey Cavebear.
Why are you so close minded?
Long before I even give my theory, you already decide that you already know what I will say.
If I were to act like you, do you think Ateists will accept such behavior?
Never, they will then shout ...see you are not open minded.

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 09, 2018, 03:15:07 AM
Hey Cavebear.
Why are you so close minded?
Long before I even give my theory, you already decide that you already know what I will say.
If I were to act like you, do you think Ateists will accept such behavior?
Never, they will then shout ...see you are not open minded.

1.  I'm not "close-minded" I'm experienced.
2.  You can't spell "atheist", LOL!
3.  I've run across superstitous theists like you for 40 years.
4.  Your type never comes up with any good argument I haven't laughed at before.
5.  Your arguments are the same ones I've seen for 40 years.
6.  None of them make any more sense now than they did 40 years ago.
7.  If I wanted to (purely as an intellectual challenge) I could make a better argument for your theistic view than you can.

Quote from: Cavebear
1.  I'm not "close-minded" I'm experienced.

Great, this means you will scrutinize everything you are told and wont just deliberately put your hands over your ears and eyes leaving only your mouth to force others to listen to your point.

Quote from: Cavebear2.  You can't spell "atheist", LOL!

I learned English only at a very late stage of my life. It is my 3rd language. Afrikaans, Zulu and English. How about you?
anyhow, If you volunteer, please fix my spelling and grammar. I continuously err on is, am and are. Sometimes I place is with boys, and so on. Sorry for the inconvenience. 

Quote from: Cavebear3.  I've run across superstitous theists like you for 40 years.

And who says I am superstitious? All I want to show you is that your bias recollection of what the Bible say is not correct. Perhaps you are scared of the light?
anyhow You spelled superstitious incorrect!
So, when did you in 40 years decide to stay ignorant to what is going on around you. Much have changed since 1987 you know.Much have changed in the last year for that matter.

Quote from: Cavebear4.  Your type never comes up with any good argument I haven't laughed at before.

really, and what if you realize that what I am going to show you might just be very interesting? Do you not think it wise to wait until the joke is told to laugh?

Quote from: Cavebear5.  Your arguments are the same ones I've seen for 40 years.

But I did not even show you anything yet? and how do you know that what I will show you is something you already did hear?
All the atheists I spoke to over 8 years had to admit they never knew what I showed them.
Guess what, they all ran away!

Quote from: Cavebear6.  None of them make any more sense now than they did 40 years ago.

Again, you dont even have a clue as to what I will show you.
If I acted in this mannerism, You would brand me as a fool! But I wont do it to you...not yet.

Quote from: Cavebear7.  If I wanted to (purely as an intellectual challenge) I could make a better argument for your theistic view than you can.

On what theistic viev?
The one I have not yet showed you? :smiley: :wink: :laugh:
You are funny!

Reminder to self:  Rule #1.  Never mention spelling when you can barely type, LOL!  Got me.  And I thought I checked twice...  With my new hand-clenching problems, it is hard to type at all.  But that is not YOUR problem.

But "atheist" is rather a more important word around here.  My spelling failure notwithstanding, you really should learn to spell "atheist".

Quote from: Cavebear on July 09, 2018, 06:45:06 AM
Reminder to self:  Rule #1.  Never mention spelling when you can barely type, LOL!  Got me.  And I thought I checked twice...  With my new hand-clenching problems, it is hard to type at all.  But that is not YOUR problem.

But "atheist" is rather a more important word around here.  My spelling failure notwithstanding, you really should learn to spell "atheist".

Naa, I should not be so sarcastic anyhow.
Sorry pal

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 09, 2018, 06:57:23 AM
Naa, I should not be so sarcastic anyhow.
Sorry pal

Type "atheist" to make up for it...

Quote from: Cavebear on July 09, 2018, 06:59:48 AM
Type "atheist" to make up for it...

Atheist, atheist, atheist, atheist, atheist, atheist, atheist, atheist, atheist, atheist, atheist, atheist, atheist, atheist, atheist, atheist, atheist, atheist, atheist, atheist, atheist, atheist, atheist, atheist, atheist, atheist, atheist, atheist, atheist, atheist, atheist, atheist, atheist, atheist, atheist, atheist, atheist, atheist, atheist, atheist, atheist, atheist, atheist, atheist, atheist, atheist, atheist, atheist, atheist, atheist, atheist, atheist, atheist, atheist, atheist, atheist, atheist, atheist, atheist, atheist, atheist.
Got-it!

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 09, 2018, 07:10:32 AM
Atheist, atheist, atheist, atheist, atheist, atheist, atheist, atheist, atheist, atheist, atheist, atheist, atheist, atheist, atheist, atheist, atheist, atheist, atheist, atheist, atheist, atheist, atheist, atheist, atheist, atheist, atheist, atheist, atheist, atheist, atheist, atheist, atheist, atheist, atheist, atheist, atheist, atheist, atheist, atheist, atheist, atheist, atheist, atheist, atheist, atheist, atheist, atheist, atheist, atheist, atheist, atheist, atheist, atheist, atheist, atheist, atheist, atheist, atheist, atheist, atheist.
Got-it!

OK, that was REALLY GOOD!  BTW, did you notice the 34th spelling?

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 09, 2018, 02:02:50 AM
Guess what?
I am not a theologian at all.
I never studied theology, I do not preach in any Church.
I dont even go to Church.

SFW?

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 09, 2018, 02:00:55 AM
Now why would you make such a remark?

Because you condescending attitude is  quite tiresome.  I am not in the 3rd grade and you are not my teacher.  So, make your point?  I am beginning to think you don't have one.

Quote from: Mike Cl on July 09, 2018, 08:47:35 AM
Because you condescending attitude is  quite tiresome.  I am not in the 3rd grade and you are not my teacher.  So, make your point?  I am beginning to think you don't have one.

Theist visitors to our site often do not have any point other than to say they love a deity they can't demonstrate.  Can't stop THAT.

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 09, 2018, 02:22:13 AM
So what do you say, If these ancient sheepherders in the desert wrote that on the 3rd day the Land separated from Sea, how did the earth look before this happened.
It is a simple question and claimed by simple people, can you answer?

You might as well ask me to write out the colophon in one of Harry Potter's textbooks at Hogwarts; it's fiction, not history or science.  Or do you also take the Iliad as documentary evidence for the classical Greek gods?

Why don't you tell me what the Earth looked like before the clear blue drop of dew falling from the sky mingled with the black drop of dew rising from the Earth, in the Korean Chronicles of Cheonjiwang?  What did it look like when Gaia gave birth to Ouranos in Hellenistic cosmology?  Describe the second, third and fourth worlds of Zuni creation.  Tell me what it looked like when the fireball dried the mud figures in Yoruba creation.  How were the cords connecting the floating island to the cardinal points attached in Cherokee creation?

Judea-Christo-Islamic myth is no more worth taking seriously than any of those.  Its place is in world literature, not laboratories.

Quote from: Cavebear on July 09, 2018, 09:06:25 AM
Theist visitors to our site often do not have any point other than to say they love a deity they can't demonstrate.  Can't stop THAT.

That is true.  But this guy keeps hinting (or hinting at hinting) that he has some life-changing message to impart.  He seems to think he is mounting the suspense since he just knows all of us are at the edge of our seats for him to reveal his nuggets of pure wisdom to us lowly 'Atheists' (that capital letter lets us know he has not much of a clue as to what an atheist is).  Tiresome.

Quote from: Cavebear on July 09, 2018, 09:06:25 AM
Theist visitors to our site often do not have any point other than to say they love a deity they can't demonstrate.  Can't stop THAT.

I see that too.  Why they would come here, I don't understand.  I sometimes wonder if it's to demonstrate their faith knowing they are going to get hammered.  That might explain why they are so locked into fallacies, just to have some response:  "See me talking?  My faith cannot be shaken.  I stand by the contradictions in the Bible, which are not contradictions at all when one opens his heart.  See me talking, Jesus.  I will always be by your side.

Quote from: Mike Cl on July 09, 2018, 11:49:45 AM
That is true.  But this guy keeps hinting (or hinting at hinting) that he has some life-changing message to impart.  He seems to think he is mounting the suspense since he just knows all of us are at the edge of our seats for him to reveal his nuggets of pure wisdom to us lowly 'Atheists'

He differs from other theists slightly because he doesn't pose arguments.  Instead he hangs around doing a 'Wolf Blitzer':  "Don't touch that dial. There will be more coverage of this important event when we come back." 

And there is, but it only shows up after 3 more commercial breaks, if it shows up at all.  Although it's been years since I've watched Wolf.  I don't know if he still does that.

Quote from: trdsf on July 09, 2018, 09:22:48 AM
You might as well ask me to write out the colophon in one of Harry Potter's textbooks at Hogwarts; it's fiction, not history or science.  Or do you also take the Iliad as documentary evidence for the classical Greek gods?

Why don't you tell me what the Earth looked like before the clear blue drop of dew falling from the sky mingled with the black drop of dew rising from the Earth, in the Korean Chronicles of Cheonjiwang?  What did it look like when Gaia gave birth to Ouranos in Hellenistic cosmology?  Describe the second, third and fourth worlds of Zuni creation.  Tell me what it looked like when the fireball dried the mud figures in Yoruba creation.  How were the cords connecting the floating island to the cardinal points attached in Cherokee creation?

Judea-Christo-Islamic myth is no more worth taking seriously than any of those.  Its place is in world literature, not laboratories.

Outstanding!  Could not have expressed it better myself

Quote from: SGOS on July 09, 2018, 12:21:27 PM
He differs from other theists slightly because he doesn't pose arguments.  Instead he hangs around doing a 'Wolf Blitzer':  "Don't touch that dial. There will be more coverage of this important event when we come back." 

And there is, but it only shows up after 3 more commercial breaks, if it shows up at all.  Although it's been years since I've watched Wolf.  I don't know if he still does that.

He is really into stage-setting.  He has set his stage over and over again.  When I run across this type of setting things up, I am always disappointed in what is finally 'revealed' as the next 'big' thing. 

Like hype for a blockbuster movie that turns out to be derivative, trite and tawdry.

Quote from: Unbeliever on July 09, 2018, 01:22:19 PM
Like hype for a blockbuster movie that turns out to be derivative, trite and tawdry.

Well at least Mousetrap (and recognizing the intent of the handle is rather psychologically transparent, he/she isn't TOO annoying YET!  I mean, after all, there seem to be full sentences and all...  We've seen dumber...

Quote from: Cavebear on July 09, 2018, 01:30:32 PM
Well at least Mousetrap (and recognizing the intent of the handle is rather psychologically transparent, he/she isn't TOO annoying YET!  I mean, after all, there seem to be full sentences and all...  We've seen dumber...

Well, maybe.  But think of his name--mousetrap.  I think he regards you (and the rest of us) as the mouse.

But he's keeping the cheese away from us, thinking he's got us already trapped. LOL

Quote from: Mike Cl on July 09, 2018, 02:02:08 PM
Well, maybe.  But think of his name--mousetrap.  I think he regards you (and the rest of us) as the mouse.

We are the cats...  Right?  MOL!

"This one weird trick turns atheists into believers!"

Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 09, 2018, 02:30:13 PM
"This one weird trick turns atheists into believers!"

OK, try it on me.

Quote from: Mike Cl on July 09, 2018, 02:02:08 PM
Well, maybe.  But think of his name--mousetrap.  I think he regards you (and the rest of us) as the mouse.

I was thinking more of the board game.  The set up takes forever, for a fundamentally pointless denouement.

Quote from: Cavebear on July 09, 2018, 02:04:57 PM
We are the cats...  Right?  MOL!

Yeah, and he's trying to herd us.................

Quote from: trdsf on July 09, 2018, 04:00:31 PM
I was thinking more of the board game.  The set up takes forever, for a fundamentally pointless denouement.

The Mousetrap game?  That never worked for us.  We always made sure it didn't work. LOL!

It's more like this slo-mo version of the game:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sy840XvnQRA

Quote from: Unbeliever on July 09, 2018, 04:16:13 PM
It's more like this slo-mo version of the game:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sy840XvnQRA

Bet that was faked...

Quote from: Cavebear on July 09, 2018, 02:39:05 PM
OK, try it on me.

I never click on those links, so I can't fake one.

Quote from: trdsf on July 09, 2018, 12:23:04 AM
Too simple.  The Genesis account is just a fable and there was no identifiable "third day", or "second day", or even "first day".  The Earth coalesced out of the solar debris disk over millions of years.  There was no particular day before which there was no Earth, and after which there was, alakazam*poof!*.  Just a continuum of development over geological/astronomical time.

That sounds awfully nuanced and complicated.  Goddidit fits better on a bumpersticker.

Quote from: trdsf on July 09, 2018, 04:00:31 PM
I was thinking more of the board game.  The set up takes forever, for a fundamentally pointless denouement.

I thought that was the point.  Mousetrap teaches nihilism, Monopoly teaches self-serving bias and ruthlessness, and Battleship is just fun.

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 09, 2018, 02:14:35 AM
Now this is what I am talking.
An Atheist that did take the scientific and Biblical description into consideration.
What you are actually propose is the Nebular Theory, mixed with Laplace's Hadean theory.

Well, stars are born in nebulae. There's no controversy in astrophysics that stars are born in nebulae, and as such, the sun and the rest of the solar system would be, too. As to the Hadean theory, it does explain why our crust is lacking in heavy elements, paricularly iridium. The explanation is that the Earth must have at some point been in a molten state, which not only fits our simulations of the coalescence of the Earth, but also why iridium and similar iron-loving elements are so rare in the Earth's crust. Iridium dissolves well in iron, and most of the iron in the Earth sunk to the center when it was molten. Hell, most of the Earth is still molten or nearly so. Unless the earth's crust did melt sometime in its early history, then those elements wouldn't have the mobility to sink down into the Earth's deep interior.

The plain fact is that the amount of energy of the Earth coalescing together represents a HUGE amount of energy, to the tune of at least 2e32 Joules (a number familiar to Star Wars fans everywhere), that has to be dissipated into space. That takes a while to radiate away, and meanwhile, it's freaking hot â€" too hot to hold an atmosphere or a liquid ocean.

Yet this is absent from the description of the Bible. It's something that the ancients would note, even if they didn't know what they were looking at, because it would have effects as plain as the nose on your face.

QuoteGreat stuff. As for the formation of the Moon and the forming of oceans a few billion years after the formation of the Earth, it is a theory proposed by scientists. There are however many scientific critisizim against this theory, and with the latest discoveries about the formation of water on the Earth taken from Meteorites, silver ions and Zircon crystals, there are more theories about the age of the ocean, and the Moon.

At present, there is no real serious criticism to the giant impact theory. While there are some details that the basic theory does not explain very well, no other theory really explians why we have a nearly co-planar moon of such size. But there is little doubt that the material of the moon and the upper layers of the Earth are the same material, as the isotopic and chemical composition of the both prove, and any event able to throw that much material up high enough and into orbit to form a moon that big would have melted the Earth's crust. If there had been any ocean there previously, it would have been destroyed. The present ocean was formed after the impactor hit, and after the moon had formed the Earth cooled enough for liquid water to exist once again on its surface, and would rain down from on high.

All theories of the origin of the moon have to explain how the material that forms the moon and the Earth's crust ended up with such similar composition, both chemical and isotopically, which constitutes a 'signature' that precludes mere coincidence. Either the material came from Earth, which required nuking of the Earth, or whatever object the moon originated from fell down upon the Earth to almost entirely replace that of the Earth's original crust, which again requires nuking the Earth. Either way, the original surface, including any ocean, would have been utterly destroyed. And this is not even getting into the Late Heavy Bombardment, which may have destroyed the ocean multiple times. Since the moon had already formed by the LHB, such a destruction would have absolutely put the formation of the current ocean later than the moon's.

Now, the water of the oceans did separate from the rock during this period, but not in an ocean. It was the primitive atmosphere. Water would separate from rock as water vapor, a gas, because this separation occurs at very high temperature, far above the boiling point of water, and as such no recognizable liquid water ocean would have formed at that stage. Only after the planet had cooled sufficiently to allow liquid water again would the ocean reform. But again this reformation would require the coming together (not separation) of liquid water and dry land in the form of rain.

Yet, again, this is absent from the description of the Bible. Absent is the impactor which imparted the energy from crustal material to make the moon, and the accompanying heating that would result from such an impactor. Any ocean that came before the moon would have been destroyed at least once, and then reformed. I think that this is something that the ancients would notice had they experienced a vision of this. Even if they wouldn't understand what they were seeing, the effects would be as plain as the nose on your face.

QuoteBut we will come to all of that.
I think what you did and wrote is excelent.
However, I would like you to keep in mind that I said I want to take the Biblical description FIRST. then we will compare that description with what science said.
I love your information, but allow me the time to continue with the Biblical description first.
Great stuff

I'm beginning to think not. You have been remarkably cagey with your Biblical description, and what little you do provide does not match up what science says at all, despite your insistence otherwise. You have STILL to explain why science says that the formation of the sun and moon straddle the Earth, in contrast to the plain-as-day description of the Bible having the sun formed AFTER the Earth. We know the sun formed first because it has to be shining by the time the Earth forms to blow away most of the light elements. Otherwise, the planet we call Earth would be a gas giant like Jupiter or Neptune. Those light elements make up the majority of any planetary disk, because they are the majority of any nebula. The sun shining prior to the Earth forming is the reason you live on a rocky world. Period.

Again, an ancient would note that the sun already was glowing by the time the Earth formed, because again, the effects are as plain as the nose on your face.

Now, you may not agree with my description. If so, bully for you, but then you're not talking about any science recognized by any astrophysicist on Earth, and I've kept myself to what is well-established by that science. The astrophysicist is the professional knowledgeable in the relevant field of planetary formation, which is what you are trying to get at with your reference to Genesis. If you want to claim that the Bible describes the science, it had better match those of the descriptions in the relevant field, or you're just talking crap.

So far, you have only presented us with a literal reading of the first few lines of Genesis, insisting that what was plainly described (such that a third grader would be able to describe it) would match what science says. Meanwhile, those of us who do know the science don't see anything of the sort. So hit us with the good stuff, no pussyfooting around. Describe a scene in the Bible that lines up with science that an ancient would not know what to make of, even if he could (and did) describe it. That is, after all, the challenge: that the Bible is scientifically accurate, n'est-ce pas?*

(*Doesn't actually speak French)

He wants to play us like sport fish, not interact on a sensible basis. You're wasting your time.

My time to waste. And furthermore, I'm morbidly curious what the hell this empty promise of a scientifically accurate Biblical description looks like. I'm sure it'll be hilarious.

Yeah, it might be fun - if we ever get around to seeing it.

Quote from: sdelsolray on July 08, 2018, 07:58:59 PM
OK, I’ll give it a try.  Unfortunately, I’m a bit confused and I need some help.  I would appreciate it if you could provide me with some clarifications, insights and some of your special knowledge that, as I atheist, I cannot possibly possess, before I take the plunge to answer your “simple question”.  After all, I don’t want to be judged as a person with an IQ below 80.  Coming from such an important and nearly divine person such as yourself, that would be devastating.

1.  On this "THIRD DAY", were the laws of physics and chemistry the same as they are today?  Did gravity exist?  How about conservation of matter and energy? 

2.  What is the "LAND"?  Is it everything except water?  What about OH- or H+ ions?  Are those part of the water or part of the land?

3.  What is meant by “SEPARATED”?  Put in a different place?  Ordered never to associate or be near each other again?  Was gravity used?  How about plate tectonics?  If your god used those, was he cheating?  Today, water and land are often mixed together.  Did your god screw up?  Was it more of a "Then God told the waters and land to separate from the waters, and there was land and sea, except where there wasn't"?

4.  How could I see what the Earth looked like on the morning of the third day if the sun and moon (the two luminaries) did not show up until the fourth day?  Do I get to use a flashlight? 

5.  At which frequencies of light do I get to observe the Earth the morning of the third day?  Do I get to use X-ray vision, or an infrared scope? 

6.  If I answer wrong and do not see the Earth on the morning of the third day the same as you do, is your sky fairy going to punish me?  If so, would you put in a good word for me anyway?

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 09, 2018, 01:58:54 AM
Wow!
1. Why would physics change if we are already at a stage where the Earth was a entity of Water and Land.
I propose that on the 3rd day physics was sill in existence as it was for over 13.5 billion years. Why not. Lets not over run this simple statement of How did the Earth look on the morning of the 3rd day when it turned into land and ocean lateron that day. The Question is quite simple and does not require any scientific elaboration at all.
2. Land and sea, it is a separation of What? that's the question. I do not need a full scientific scrutiny at all. What do you call land? Does it contain Ions, radiation ext. keep all these factors as a given and just think on how did the Earth look from the Biblical description on the morning of day 3.
3. So, what you say is that today you are living on something that can not be defined as Land?
Oh, gosh, please warn the maritime that they are not sailing on water. Again, simple, how did the Earth look before Land and sea was separated? So simple.
4. Great question. But we will come to that question also. I want you to answer this to me once we discuss what Science say on how the Sun appeared for over 1.5 Billion years. But that comes later.
All I want to know, (for the sake of darkness with your observation, What was the Earth on the Morning of day 3 if it changed into a separation of land and sea on day 3?
5. Dont worry, you will have enough light to observe what is in front of you.
You obviously forgot that God said "let there be light! This was before the first day. So obviously there will be light on day 3.
6. Dont worry, I dont believe in a sky fairy. If you answer wrong it is because you dont understand basic principles of experimental science.
The Queastion is very simple.
For the last time, How would the Earth have looked on the morning of the 3rd day, If land and sea separated on the 3dr day?
Dont break your head about it.

1.  Your first sentence is a question which is not relevant.  To avoid derailing the thread, I choose not to answer it.  This will confirm that you believe that on the "THIRD DAY" the laws of physics and chemistry were the same as they are today, which would include the existence of gravity and the conservation of matter and energy (as per my question).

2.  Standard protocol in rational discourse is to answer an earlier question (or explain why it cannot be answered), unless new questions need to be answered before an informed response can be given, and not merely interposed as a rhetorical device.  You pose new questions, not to help clarify your response but merely as a rhetorical device, and then describe these new questions as "factors" of which I am to assume "as a given" (your words).  That is quite confusing, at least to me.  However, your instruction to "just think on how did the Earth look from the Biblical description on the morning of day 3" returns us to your original question, which upon further reflection, I have concluded is quite vague, is based on a false premise and contradicts your own beliefs.  As you say, I will get to why the previous sentence is well founded.  Just wait.

3.  You failed to answer any of my questions and inject an infantile strawman.  I repeat one of those questions, "What is meant by SEPARATED"?  Surely, someone as well versed in Biblical interpretation and who, with little doubt, believes he has access to special revelation, can answer such a simple and direct question.  Still, you return to your original question, with one revision.  Instead of questioning how the Earth looked before the waters and land were separated, your question has morphed into how how the Earth looked before the sea and land were separated.  Did I miss something?  Why do you equate the waters with the sea before they were separated?  Some expectation bias, perhaps?  Obviously, you are conflating other claims and words in Genesis with your simple, focused question.  Why?

4.  Again, you fail to answer the two questions.  But the important point is you changed your original question once again (the first change involved replacing the word waters for sea).  Now your question is, "What was the Earth on the Morning of day 3 if it changed into a separation of land and sea on day 3".  Here, you assume the Earth changed on the morning of the THIRD DAY and assume the EARTH was different at the end of the SECOND DAY.  Again, you are relying on other claims in Genesis.  Why?  The remainder of your response to my question #4 (e.g., "once we discuss what Science say on how the Sun appeared for over 1.5 Billion years") is interesting, but not relevant.

5.  Says you.  Without sunlight and/or moonlight, the remaining galactic light would not be enough to see most things, at least with my 20/25 vision.  You say I only need to see "what is in front of me".  However, your original question was how did the entire Earth look, not just what was in front of me.  Try to be consistent, particularly when you attempt to string people along just to feed your need for attention.

6.  Of course you believe in a sky fairy, actually you probably believe in many of them.  Don't lie.  Don't be a coward about your wishful thinking.  The terms "sky fairy" (plural "sky fairies") is the collection of all gods, spirits, sprites, demons, saints and other imaginary supernatural beings and entities.  You have a sky fairy.  Actually, once you disclose more, I strongly suspect you will reveal you believe in several sky fairies.

Next, I turn to what I promised above at the end of #2.

You fucked up.  You claim the laws of physics and chemistry have not changed.  Yet your Biblical source claims your sky fairy "told" the waters and land to separate on the THIRD DAY.  Why would this sky fairy have to "tell" water and land to separate when the laws of physics and chemistry already provide for their SEPARATION (regardless of what SEPARATION means)?

Finally, to answer your morphing question (assuming the claims in Genesis are true):

On the morning of the THIRD DAY, the Earth would "look" the same as it did at the end of the SECOND DAY, unless God made other visible changes during the time interval in question which are not disclosed in Genesis.  Easy Peasy.

PS:  To answer your morphing question (assuming the claims in Genesis are fiction):

Your question is not important, probing or relevant.

Quote from: Cavebear on July 09, 2018, 02:04:57 PM
We are the cats...  Right?  MOL!

Not at all.
The Mousetrap is the metaphor used by Behe in his book Darwins' black box where he demonstrate the special composition of an one celled organism with a filament, hook, bushings, c rings, seals, rotary engine, and other workings as evidence that the cell could never have evolved into such an intricate composition. He compares this with the existance of a mousetrap that needs 6 components to work as a mousetrap.
he obviously does not stop there, but proves that proteins and DNA could also not evolve seperately, for you need both to create the other.

The Mousetrap is my "handle" as evidence that Biology does not support evolution.

Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on July 09, 2018, 07:41:03 PM


The plain fact is that the amount of energy of the Earth coalescing together represents a HUGE amount of energy, to the tune of at least 2e32 Joules (a number familiar to Star Wars fans everywhere), that has to be dissipated into space. That takes a while to radiate away, and meanwhile, it's freaking hot â€" too hot to hold an atmosphere or a liquid ocean.

Yet this is absent from the description of the Bible. It's something that the ancients would note, even if they didn't know what they were looking at, because it would have effects as plain as the nose on your face.

Well, keep this in mind in a few days.
It will be an interesting comparison with what science says.
Obviously there are many theories, but there are some developments on the composition of our solar system we found over the last few years.

What a job getting to load an image.
Anyhow, I managed to get it right.
I used imgur for those that is looking for a host.

Now that I managed to get a picture, a simple one indeed to show the simplicity of the question; how did the earth look on day 2 if on day 3 land and sea separated; the answer can only be one===land and water was mixed up into each other, therefore the answer is:
The Biblical description of the Earth's appearance on day two will be that of a ball of mud.
(http://i.imgur.com/lmblCim.jpg) (https://imgur.com/lmblCim)
Remember now, we are not talking about the scientific description yet, but what the logical explanation is in the Bible.
There is a reason to why I follow what scripture say, so bare with me a while.

1. Great, while we are now on speed, lets think about the claim that God say that he made a firmament on the second day, and this firmament separated the waters from below this firmament with the waters from above the firmament.
Good, so we know that the earth was a ball of mud on end of the second day, therefore the firmament can only be the surface of this MUD BALL EARTH.

2. Therefore, beneath the Firmament, there was a collection of water mixed with matter, it is then logical to conclude that the waters above the firmament was a thick cloudy mixture of Gas and vapor. The ancient atmosphere. (Waters above the firmament)

3. We can again follow the path of description backwards to the First day, or the morning of Day2. If the Atmosphere separated from the Mud Ball Earth to result in a Firmament with an atmosphere on day 2, how did the Earth look on day 1, is the question?

Well, it would be one huge collection of GAS, LIQUID, and MATTER.

4.Now, if this is the case, lets tie it up with the first day. The Bible say it was evening and morning, the first day. All we can recollect from this statement is that the Earth was this huge collection of Gas, Liquid, and matter; BUT IT WAS SPINNING AROUND ITS AXIS!

5. And eventually we arrive at the beginning of the Biblical description of the days of creation.
it says, in the beginning the Earth was a watery mass with no recognizable shape or form.

Like this.
(http://i.imgur.com/StWzPYr.jpg) (https://imgur.com/StWzPYr)
Now, this is very simplistic, and it will become more intriguing as we continue, but think about this!
1. if there was this huge collection of Gas Liquid and Space dust collected into this entity of a cloud, the first thing that would occur, is gravity will draw this collection closer together. It will create a spin due to conservation of energy. In this collection, it will turn more spherical and gasses will escape first. Once settled into a very moist atmosphere with a mud ball earth below it, the Mud ball will precipitate further and water and matter will separate into Land and sea.

Lets' continue with the Biblical description of Creation.
Remember, we will get into the scientific description at a later stage.
(http://i.imgur.com/Q29tF1u.jpg) (https://imgur.com/Q29tF1u)
This is the big picture.
The Earth was a collection of gasses, matter and Ice.
This collection underwent a stage where it pulled into itself due to gravitational forces, resulting in a huge sphere of Ice, Matter and Gas.
The gasses escaped, resulting in a sphere of water mixed with matter, covered in a thick and moist atmosphere, due to the gravitational field that increased and matter that settled within its interior.
This resulted in an Earth that was very soft and wet.
As the gravitational field increased, Water collected in the lower areas as it precipitated with the Mud Earth.
The Earth was still much rounder and fatter than what we find today, with very shallow oceans and lower mountains. One can not expect to have tall mountains forming out of this coalesce and another factor played a roll in this formation. We will cone to this at a later stage.

Behe? Oh good grief.

Is this speculation predicated on the idea that an ancient biblical day could be interpreted as millions or billions of years, or are we talking about actual 24 hour rotations of the planet?

Quote from: SGOS on July 10, 2018, 08:52:05 AM
Is this speculation predicated on the idea that an ancient biblical day could be interpreted as millions or billions of years, or are we talking about actual 24 hour rotations of the planet?

No problem on the days indeed.
I do think that the shape of the Earth and the size of it might not be equal to 24 hours as we measure, but I agree, the days of Genesis is a day, and not some billions of years.
So, where did you get the idea that I say these days were not a day?
Perhaps you are confusing my description with the descriptions of other Creationists.

You can make up any shit you like.

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 10, 2018, 08:56:52 AM
So, where did you get the idea that I say these days were not a day?

I didn't have that idea.  I asked because I had no idea what you believed about the matter.

Now, lets see what the impact is on the Biblical description of the age of the Universe is.
For instance, many Bible critics say that the age of starlight is an indication that the Bible is wrong.
Well, I dont agree with that statement at all.
First, I agree that light travelling from distant stars and galaxies are actually billions of years old indeed.
And I agree that the Bible gives an age of about 6 000 years for the Earth.

Now, how can this be reconciled?
Well, the Bible never say the Universe is 6 000 years old as you can see from my expression.
It say the Universe is 6000 years old, plus the time before the first day!

Think about this description.
Before the first day, THERE WAS NO MEASUREMENT OF TIME!
why do I say that.
Simple again.
You need a Sun and an Earth with the Earth spinning around its' axis to measure 24 Hours.
Science itself claim that the Solar system is 4.5 Billion years old and the Universe more than 12.5 billion years.
Ok, so how did they measure time in Years when the mechanism to measure time was absent for 8 billion years?
Science name this imaginary time and imagine that there was a Sun and Earth to measure time.

This is exactly what the Author of the Bible does.
He say, before the First day, it was ===ZERO TIME===
NOW IF SCIENTISTS WANTS TO CALL THIS BILLIONS OF YEARS, THEY ARE WELCOME TO DO SO, IT DOES NOT CONTRADICT THE BIBLE AT ALL.
Therefore, the Bible calls the age of the Universe 6000 years, plus 6 days plus before zero days.

But lets come back to the final description of the Biblical description of Creation.

Quote from: SGOS on July 10, 2018, 09:08:38 AM
I didn't have that idea.  I asked because I had no idea what you believed about the matter.

I apologize, thought you were rude, but one makes such incorrect judgments when one reads a post with the idea that one is critisized.
Sorry.

Now, the greatest critisizm about the Light that God made before the first day, and the 4th day's lights, is that the Biblical criticizer asks,
1. the Sun is part of the Universe and is a Star, yet the Bible say the Earth was created on the First day, and the Sun and stars on the 4th day.
now, that is a contradiction with science, because we know that the Universe is billions of years older than the Earth.

But lets see at the imagery I posted.

We can see that the Earth was a collection of Ice, Gas, dust in the form of something that had a very low gravitational field, that changed into a spherical collection of this "Space dust".
However, the Earth is part of the Solar system, and I would actually perceive the Earth as part of the Nebulous cloud from which the Sun and other planets formed.
Therefore, as we saw, the Earth grew bigger and changed into a planet with an atmosphere and Land, therefore we can conclude that the Sun also formed as did the Earth.
With a difference of coarse, that the center of this Nebulous cloud had a different composition than where the Earth formed.
Now, we can logically understand that the Earth collected this space dust due to gravitational points, therefore so did the Sun.
taken into consideration that the Sun contains 99% of all matter in the Solar system, its growth was massive.
At some stage the gravitational field of this collection of matter would have superseded its containment, and fell in upon itself sparking off Nuclear fission. however, this light would not have been very strong, for the Sun would have to start of slowly into fission untill it kicked into a full fledged star like it does today.
therefore, the Sun would have given of a dim red glow for quite some time before it would burn like today, clearing the residue of space dust out of the solar system, or far into it..
Now, the Bible say that there was Light before the first day, but that God made 2 lights in the sky to shine onto the atmosphere. A greater and lesser light, and the stars also.
What this description is about is that for the first time on day 4, the Sun shone on the Earth through a clear space, fully ignited, and for the first time light reflected from the Moon and Planets. Keep in mind that the Planets is also called stars.

Great stuff.
Now we have a description on the origins of the Solar System.

Now what about the rest of the Universe?
Well, whatever happened in our solar system and how it was formed from a Nebulous cloud, the same must have occured throughout the rest of the universe.

We call this the NEBULAR THEORY

I will now just slightly cover the Global flood as described in the Bible.
If we look at the artistic impression I posted (apologies for my lack of artistry) we will see that Gravitational factors played a huge roll to form the Earth, Sun and Planets into what they became.
Just as the Sun would have evolved from a huge collection of matter and fell in upon its' own gravitational field creating Nuclear fusion, (I incorrectly earlier said Fission), the Earth also increased its gravitational field when it settled within its core. But, the mass of the Earth is not so huge as to ignite like the Sun.
But the Earth eventually pulled in upon itself and pushed a great amount of trapped water from beneath it's crust (fountains of the Deep) and also pulled, i would say, an ocean of water from this water logged atmosphere onto the surface of the Earth.
This was the reason that the Earth developed a mountainous surface from a smooth one. Furthermore, great trenches and collapses created the deep oceans we now have.
For a few thousands of years we would have a fruit full wet earth drying out slowly creating deserts, scab lands, earth warming, sea levels rising etc.
(http://i.imgur.com/JwUrMq1.jpg) (https://imgur.com/JwUrMq1)
(http://i.imgur.com/Ov1Co8A.jpg) (https://imgur.com/Ov1Co8A)
(http://i.imgur.com/Lobvvrn.jpg) (https://imgur.com/Lobvvrn)
(http://i.imgur.com/VrendOh.jpg) (https://imgur.com/VrendOh)
(http://i.imgur.com/jwpd0oR.jpg) (https://imgur.com/jwpd0oR)
(http://i.imgur.com/oh7NmBd.jpg) (https://imgur.com/oh7NmBd)

Here we have it all.

Now I showed what the Biblical description of the Origins of the Universe is.
Tomorrow I will look at what science says!
See, I promised I will not twist the Biblical view, nor the Scientific observations.
In a few days everything will be clear on my investigation into this matter.
Good evening.

Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 10, 2018, 08:59:07 AM
You can make up any shit you like.

Much appreciated.

"Science" is just a murky two-syllable word to Mousetrap, I see.  And creating a graphic in MS Paint does not qualify as evidence.

You haven't explained why these semantic gymnastics are appropriate for the Bible, but not for other scriptures.  I mean, you can do it pretty easily.  Hindu myth is even at an advantage over Judeo-Christo-Islamic myth, as it takes in scales of time that are genuinely geological and cosmological, rather than parochial.

Mousetrap, you're also still evading the core problem: you've surrendered any evidentiary value you want to ascribe the Bible because you're engaged in interpretation, you're explicitly admitting that it doesn't say what it actually says.  And once you fall into interpretation, it's useless.

I would have more respect for taking the position that the Big Bang represented the moment of Fiat lux! -- I wouldn't agree with it, but it would be a more respectable interpretation that at least stands back and says the universe is what we observe it to be otherwise.

What you have here is not only wrong, it's wronger than wrong (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wronger_than_wrong).

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 10, 2018, 10:14:41 AM
Much appreciated.

Just don't expect dumb acceptance, this isn't a church.

Mr. "Just Wait, I Will Show All of You the Truth" Mousetrap begins revealing the depth of his curiosity, rational thinking, understanding and knowledge.

He's a funny guy.  This should be entertaining, at least for a while.

I can already foretell the outcome.

"Science has no evidence for what started the big bang, only that an unknown force started it. This can only mean the unknown force was sentient, which must have been GAWD!"

The classic 'filling in the gaps with made up hokum' logic a theist uses. Because when science, which is a broad spectrum that is forever changing and growing, religion is just one set of rules that can't be changed otherwise it would contradict everything its about.

Quote from: Munch on July 10, 2018, 12:31:08 PM
I can already foretell the outcome.

"Science has no evidence for what started the big bang, only that an unknown force started it. This can only mean the unknown force was sentient, which must have been GAWD!"

The classic 'filling in the gaps with made up hokum' logic a theist uses. Because when science, which is a broad spectrum that is forever changing and growing, religion is just one set of rules that can't be changed otherwise it would contradict everything its about.

Not just that, but the Catastrophism ... is right out of Velikovsky ... the Russian solar system crank.  For him, Jupiter is responsible, the planet, not the god.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Velikovsky

Other early geological fads were Neptunism and Vulcanism.  Until Uniformitarianism and Gradualism took hold with James Hutton.  Mousetrap is from the Phlogiston school of physics ;-)

Quote from: SGOS on July 10, 2018, 08:52:05 AM
Is this speculation predicated on the idea that an ancient biblical day could be interpreted as millions or billions of years, or are we talking about actual 24 hour rotations of the planet?

"In the beginning" Earth's days were only about 4 hours (http://www.iea.usp.br/en/news/when-a-day-lasted-only-four-hours), and have been slowing ever since due to the influence of the moon. So the current 24 hour rotation is just an artifact of the time since then. But, of course, 6000 years ago, when the creationist believe God created the Earth, the days would've been about the same as they are now.

Doesn't surprise me that he thinks the universe is 6000 years old. The Cambrian Explosion is seen as far-fetched by these people, but they have no problem with an estimated 8.7 million species evolving within a period of a few thousand years...

Quote from: Blackleaf on July 10, 2018, 02:22:04 PM
Doesn't surprise me that he thinks the universe is 6000 years old. The Cambrian Explosion is seen as far-fetched by these people, but they have no problem with an estimated 8.7 million species evolving within a period of a few thousand years...

I'm always interested in the cognitive dissonance that goes on in there heads, when scientific evidence shows their beliefs has no weight to it, how they block out the facts and tell themselves anything that contradicts it is a lie or trying to lead them astray from the 'truth' the bible or preachers tells them to believe.

Quote from: Munch on July 10, 2018, 02:34:16 PM
I'm always interested in the cognitive dissonance that goes on in there heads, when scientific evidence shows their beliefs has no weight to it, how they block how the fact and tell themselves anything that contradicts it is a lie or trying to lead them astray from the 'truth' the bible or preachers tells them to believe.

I saw it written out once. There were lots of white spaces.

Quote from: Blackleaf on July 10, 2018, 02:22:04 PM
Doesn't surprise me that he thinks the universe is 6000 years old. The Cambrian Explosion is seen as far-fetched by these people, but they have no problem with an estimated 8.7 million species evolving within a period of a few thousand years...

And an even larger multiple of 8.7 that went extinct along the way.

Now, now, now! You WILL follow the script Moustripe has by his computer, and you will fall gracelessly into the stunning logic traps he has set for you. It's what they require of us.

Quote from: Unbeliever on July 10, 2018, 01:37:41 PM
"In the beginning" Earth's days were only about 4 hours (http://www.iea.usp.br/en/news/when-a-day-lasted-only-four-hours), and have been slowing ever since due to the influence of the moon. So the current 24 hour rotation is just an artifact of the time since then. But, of course, 6000 years ago, when the creationist believe God created the Earth, the days would've been about the same as they are now.

Early life forms had no time to waste.  Must evolve now!

Hard to get a good 8 hours of sleep when the night's only 2 hours long...

Quote from: Munch on July 10, 2018, 02:34:16 PM
I'm always interested in the cognitive dissonance that goes on in there heads, when scientific evidence shows their beliefs has no weight to it, how they block out the facts and tell themselves anything that contradicts it is a lie or trying to lead them astray from the 'truth' the bible or preachers tells them to believe.

Do you trigger Robbie too?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GSd92zgqAs

oh boy....cartoons.

Quote from: Baruch on July 10, 2018, 07:03:39 PM
Do you trigger Robbie too?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GSd92zgqAs

Rules which robots must abide by which was introduced by Asimov : )

Quote from: Unbeliever on July 10, 2018, 07:01:50 PM
Hard to get a good 8 hours of sleep when the night's only 2 hours long...

Oh!  So you know about my nights, huh?

Well, I think I've heard that older folks need less sleep. ;-)

Quote from: Unbeliever on July 10, 2018, 07:51:29 PM
Well, I think I've heard that older folks need less sleep. ;-)

This is not true.
But because they have siesta in afternoon, they need less sleep at night.

Quote from: SoldierofFortune on July 10, 2018, 07:22:02 PM
Rules which robots must abide by which was introduced by Asimov : )

Yes, the three Laws of Robotics were introduced in Issac's short stories and early Robot Novels in the late 1940s and early 1950s, although I can't remember his first published listing of the three laws.  Much later, I believe late in the Foundation Series, he introduced the "Zeroeth Law", which superseded the Three Laws of Robotics, in essence making them the Four Laws of Robotics.

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 10, 2018, 10:02:17 AM
Now I showed what the Biblical description of the Origins of the Universe is.
Tomorrow I will look at what science says!

Why wait? I can do that right now, saying what science actually says and the sequence of events.

1. The sun gathers into a protostar, glowing from the Kelvin-Helmholtz process. There are no planets yet. Instead, a multitude of planetesimals form from cosmic dust. These planetesimals would already be spinning, due to conservation of angular momentum.

2. The sun finally ignites into a young star, full-on nuclear fusion. The resulting solar wind blows away the lighter elements from the inner solar system, leaving it a gas- and ice-poor region filled with nothing but rock-like planetesimals. These planetesimals start collecting into larger protoplanets via gravitational attraction. These protoplanets differentiate due to internal  heating, and then collide with each other and break apart again. There are still no planets.

3. The sun has now fully developed as a main sequence star. Meanwhile, the debris of the protoplanets have coalesced again into a smaller number of larger bodies. When they again reach protoplanetary size, they again begin heating. Only, because they are not colliding with similar-sized bodies anymore, they are not smashed apart and continue to grow and heat up further.

4. The outer protoplanets begin collecting light gasses and such to become gas giants (Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune), while the smaller asteroids and Kuiper belt objects just don't have the gravity to hold those volitiles, so they remain relatively small. In the inner system, at least four large rocky bodies have coalesced, the future Earth, Venus, Mercury, and Mars. There is at least two appreciably sized bodies buzzing around. More on those later.

5. All of the inner planets are basically huge rocks. Venus, Earth and Mars are large enough such that their primordial gravitational heat has melted them totally. This causes the heavier elements to sink to their cores, while lighter silicate material forms the crust. Because the planets are now molten, volitiles dissolved and produced from chemical transformation of the initial rocks are now free to migrate towards the planetary surfaces. Basically, their atmospheres came from outgassing of bubbling rocks and later volcanoes.

6. Mars, being smaller, cooled enough first to support a liquid water ocean. Perhaps life began here. But we do know that Mars was smacked early on, blasting away much of its atmosphere and disrupting what little magnetism it had. Eventually, Mars dried up because it lost most of its atmosphere and water to the solar wind. Occasionally, you would get springs of water even today, but they would dry up relatively quickly.

7. Earth, being bigger, did not cool as fast, and while it might have gotten a primordial hot ocean, it would have been destroyed by a similar impactor. This impactor almost certainly intermixed with the pre-Earth crust. The impact also remelted the combined body, the new Earth, and blew a large portion of crust into a debris disk around the planet. This disk was mostly gaseous rock, which through the exchange of matter from the Earth's surface and a forming large moon. This would work to homogenize the chemical and isotopic composition of both bodies.

8. The disk accretes into a large moon about the Earth, mostly silicates but iron poor. The iron from the impactor would mostly go to the center of the Earth, where the abundance of molten iron would start a magnetic dynamo from the large amount of convecting molten iron. Now the Earth can hold on better to any atmosphere that will form. And one is forming, from the molten rock releasing volitiles.

9. Earth's outgassing drops off as the surface solidifies, and the only source of outgassing is via volcanism. The first surface of the earth is completely rock, as it forms from solidified lava. There is no silt for mud yet because there is no weathering yet. The Earth (both atmosphere and land) is still way too hot for liquid water and rain.

10. Finally, the Earth cools enough for rain to fall. The rain fills the rocky ocean basins. Here weathering begins, and thus we have our first mud.

Now, let's imagine what an ancient would write about should he have seen this or have some grasp on this description. He would describe the situation as follows:

1. The sun forms first, and starts shining as bright as anything before any of the planets, including the Earth have formed. Instead we have at best a succession of floating gravel, flying mountains, and small moon-like objects filling the solar system to cause a fusillade of rocky debris in the inner system.
2. The rocky debris would form four very large rocks, bigger even than the moons, that would start glowing incandescently, and start to flow.
3. The smaller of the bodies would cool first, and at least one would form an atmosphere and liquid water ocean. However, Mars and Earth would each suffer an impact that would destroy such an ocean. Mars would be ruined for further life, as its magnetic field would be disrupted, but Earth's would not.
4. The ejecta from Earth's impact would form a cloud of gaseous rock that would glow as brightly as the now re-melted surface of the Earth. This gaseous halo would remain for some time, but then coalesce into an orbiting satellite, the Moon.
5. Due to the fact that the Moon is smaller, and made of rock, it will solidify into a recognizable solid body with distinct phases long before the Earth solidifies itself, let alone have another atmosphere and ocean.
6. The Earth solidifies into a solid rock. There is no mud. There is no rain, either.
7. Finally, it rains, and weathering begins. The first mud forms.

Now let's compare this to Mousetrap's description:

1. Despite MT's claim, the sun did not just glow red and then began shining brightly after the Earth formed, thus making day and night. The sun burning as a full main sequence star (full nuclear fusion) is the reason why the Earth did NOT form as a gas giant. The sun's nuclear ignition therefore preceded the Earth's and the other planets' formation.

2. The existence of time as the playing out of events in the universe is not predicated on the existence of a planet with a particular rotation catching rays from a particular star. There are many physical processes that can be used to judge time. The second, after all, is currently defined as a number of oscillations emitted by a particular atom â€" yes, atoms can be clocks. A feature of good clocks is that they agree. That MT has to make excuses for the fact that his clock disagrees so much with the scientific reckoning of the same period is simply evidence that he's using a bad clock, which should be ignored hereon.

Quote
(http://i.imgur.com/Q29tF1u.jpg) (https://imgur.com/Q29tF1u)
This is the big picture.

3. The rest concerns MT's description above.
   * MT claims that the Earth began as a formless mass mixture of gas, water and matter. It did not. The only recognizable component of the earth's primordial material is a multitude of actually rather differentiated rock. That has form.
   * MT claims that the Earth, once a ball, was a soggy mess at the beginning. It was not. It was rock, owing to the fact that it was made solely out of rock in the beginning.
   * MT claims that when the Earth's atmosphere formed, that the rest of the Earth was a mud ball. This is not the case, for the atmosphere would have to be boiled out of the liquid rock first. Such a process would not allow for liquid water, let alone liquid water mixed in with fine material that would be mud.
   * MT misses the giant impact that would essentially turn the Earth into a body with remelted rock (if it were ever cool enough to be solid) bathed in a vaporous rock halo that would form the moon. I would think this detail rather important in any scientifically accurate account.
   * MT thinks there was a Noechian (worldwide) flood. There was no such flood. Floods leave behind a particular kind of rock statum called a diluvial deposit, with a particular distribution of sediment. This is not what we find. The geological column is not made out of largely diluvium, but rather diluvium is restricted to known flood plains and some valleys subject to glacial floods. Noah's Flood is a fiction.
   * MT thinks that the spherical shape of the Earth was due to its spinning. Actually, that tends to pull an object out of the spherical shape and into a disk. It's obvious that MT has never watched a pizza crust being made.
   * MT thinks that the Earth's gravitational field has been strengthening throughout its history and into geologically recent history, and only in the last 4000 years has been easing off. However, the strength of the gravitational field of the Earth is dependent solely on the mass of the Earth, and the mass of the Earth has not changed significantly since the impactor that made the Moon â€" the Earth's mass has been consistent for the last 4.2 billion years at least. Ergo, the Earth's gravitational field has been consistent for that period, too.

So, no. So far I'm not seeing anything in science consistent with what the Bible describes. I've taken your description and statements of how you interpret your Bible and contrasted it with not only what science teaches, but also what your Bible-writing ancients would have no doubt thought and described should they had born witness to any vision that even remotely resembles what science describes actually happened here.

Quote from: trdsf on July 10, 2018, 10:39:18 AM
"Science" is just a murky two-syllable word to Mousetrap, I see.  And creating a graphic in MS Paint does not qualify as evidence.

but I still haven't given any facts from science yet. all I did is to show what I read from the Biblical description.

Quote from: questionerYou haven't explained why these semantic gymnastics are appropriate for the Bible, but not for other scriptures.  I mean, you can do it pretty easily.  Hindu myth is even at an advantage over Judeo-Christo-Islamic myth, as it takes in scales of time that are genuinely geological and cosmological, rather than parochial.

But did I not say that I will read what the Biblical description say? I never said I am going to investigate what other religions are claiming. We can do that at a later stage. First we are going to look at what science says and compare this with what the Biblical description renders.

Quote from: questionerMousetrap, you're also still evading the core problem: you've surrendered any evidentiary value you want to ascribe the Bible because you're engaged in interpretation, you're explicitly admitting that it doesn't say what it actually says.  And once you fall into interpretation, it's useless.

Agreed, it is my interpretation, but if you have a problem with mine, keep in mind that I have a problem with yours. However, if you think my interpretation is incorrect, show me where I am in error. and wait until we investigate my interpretation as set out in 1755 already. You see, my interpretation will hold water once we investigate my sources. Yours, might not, we will have to wait and see.

Quote from: questionerI would have more respect for taking the position that the Big Bang represented the moment of Fiat lux! -- I wouldn't agree with it, but it would be a more respectable interpretation that at least stands back and says the universe is what we observe it to be otherwise.

And again I agree, but who said I do not agree with the Big Bang? we will also get to that, remember, I only, up untill now rendered the description from the Biblical perspective, nothing about science yet!

Quote from: QuestionerWhat you have here is not only wrong, it's wronger than wrong.

So, you already made up your mind no matter what I will show you by science? Atheist Biblephobia bias perhaps?

Quote from: Munch on July 10, 2018, 12:31:08 PM
I can already foretell the outcome.

"Science has no evidence for what started the big bang, only that an unknown force started it. This can only mean the unknown force was sentient, which must have been GAWD!"

The classic 'filling in the gaps with made up hokum' logic a theist uses. Because when science, which is a broad spectrum that is forever changing and growing, religion is just one set of rules that can't be changed otherwise it would contradict everything its about.

Not at all.
If ever I use such a lame argument, please remind me of this post.

Quote from: Baruch on July 10, 2018, 01:14:53 PM
Not just that, but the Catastrophism ... is right out of Velikovsky ... the Russian solar system crank.  For him, Jupiter is responsible, the planet, not the god.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Velikovsky

Other early geological fads were Neptunism and Vulcanism.  Until Uniformitarianism and Gradualism took hold with James Hutton.  Mousetrap is from the Phlogiston school of physics ;-)

The only thing Velikofsky did right in my book, was to reconcile the Egyptian chronology, and proven standard Greek and Egyptian chronological dating incorrect.
I have huge problems with his other works such as World's in collision, due to the absence of Archaeological evidence.
But when he caught historians out about the dating of Egyptian chronology, and caught them lying about C14 tests on organic samples from Tutankhamen's tomb, he proved the dating of civilizations to no less than 4 000 years ago.
For the rest, If he does not have evidence, I can not support the Venus travelling theory at all.

Quote from: Blackleaf on July 10, 2018, 02:22:04 PM
Doesn't surprise me that he thinks the universe is 6000 years old. The Cambrian Explosion is seen as far-fetched by these people, but they have no problem with an estimated 8.7 million species evolving within a period of a few thousand years...

You missed out on my remarks and claims that I believe the Universe as 6 000 years plus 6 days plus Zero time before time existed by the mechanism of an Earth and Sun.
Therefore, I say the Universe is as old as the Bible say, and that can obviously be billions of years.
If you want to talk about the age of Life, we will obviously have a huge contradiction with your perception, and the Biblical.
The Bible say about 6 000 years for life, but for the Universe, billions of years is no problem.
But we will obviously get to the age of life at a much later stadium.
We are now busy with what science say about the formation of the Earth, solar system and the universe.
Oh, and yes, the cambrian explosion are also correct.

Quote from: Munch on July 10, 2018, 02:34:16 PM
I'm always interested in the cognitive dissonance that goes on in there heads, when scientific evidence shows their beliefs has no weight to it, how they block out the facts and tell themselves anything that contradicts it is a lie or trying to lead them astray from the 'truth' the bible or preachers tells them to believe.

Remember your words.
As soon as we look at what science says, I would like you to say the above again.

Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on July 10, 2018, 11:23:23 PM
Why wait? I can do that right now, saying what science actually says and the sequence of events.

...

So, no. So far I'm not seeing anything in science consistent with what the Bible describes. I've taken your description and statements of how you interpret your Bible and contrasted it with not only what science teaches, but also what your Bible-writing ancients would have no doubt thought and described should they had born witness to any vision that even remotely resembles what science describes actually happened here.

WOW, you are incredibly correct about what science says about the Formation of the Universe.
I gave you a "Like" because you deserve it.

However, you should keep in mind that you have 2 claims that is different with what I postulated about.
Claim 1.
The Earth was not a soggy and wet entity during its' formation, but a solid boiling red rock after coalescing, and eventually turned into a cooler sphere that took millions of years, perhaps a billion or so, to collect moisture from it's core and meteorites to form an ocean. This hard rock then eroded producing mud. Before this happened, there was no way the Earth could have been a ball of MUD.

Claim 2, something bashed the Earth when it was still shapeless, and this material formed the Moon.

Quote from: Hakurei Reimuthe Earth was not wet in its formation, but a molten rock.

We all learn Geology and we are all taught from books that does not keep up with what the latest evidence shows about the formation of the Earth, and Solar system.
Laplace came up with a suggestion that the Earth was one red-hot boiling unit to steer clear of the findings of the Nebular theory. He hated the Nebular theory for reasons that will be clear in a few days.
Swedenborg originally started this theory, but was incorrect in his descriptions too.
Anyhow, what I will show you is that science does not say the Earth was a red hot ball of hellish fire.
This is BUT ONE THEORY!
today no scientist will sign such a theory anymore.
lets see why.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/05/100513143457.htm

And look at this:
https://www.amnh.org/explore/science-bulletins/earth/documentaries/zircons-time-capsules-from-the-early-earth/article-zircons-recast-earth-s-earliest-era/

I will reply to the above later today.

I remember when I saw this in 2009 when I started to investigate whether the Earth was really a Laplace Hadean, or wet composition.
This was the article in Science I found, and continued to look for more such evidence.

Quote from: Sciencehttps://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Zircon/zircon.php

Seems as if the Hadean Epoch of Laplace was in error afterall.
Now, guess why all the scientists hated the Nebular theory dating from 1755?
And why did they want to incorporate a hellish formation of the Earth?
We will get to that soon.

Then we can look at the latest discoveries on how the Earth formed as published by National Geographic.

Quote from: National Geographichttps://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/10/141030-starstruck-earth-water-origin-vesta-science/

The article in Science reported that the Earth was 4.1 billion years old when it was irrigated with water.
However, the article in NG now moved it closer to 4.4 billion years.
So, what we now know is that

Quote from: National geographic Adam Sarafianof the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) in Woods Hole, Massachusetts, found that our seas may have arrived much earlier on our planet than previously thought.
"The study shows that Earth's water most likely accreted at the same time as the rock," said Marschall.

"The planet formed as a wet planet with water on the surface."

While the authors are not ruling out that some of the water that covers 70 percent of Earth today may have arrived later, their findings suggest that there was enough already here for life to have begun earlier than thought.

"Knowing that water came early to the inner solar system also means that the other inner planets could have been wet early and evolved life before they became the harsh environments they are today," explained Nielsen.

Therefore, I will stay with observed and experimental science, rather than with Hakurei Reimu's ancient and untested theory of a Hadean Earth.
As promised, I will not make any assumptions about what science knows, I will not twist any scientific discoveries, and will not use any unproven theories.
Here we have it, The Earth was not a solid rock when it accreted. It was a collection of Gas Liquid and Matter (space dust).
Wonder where I heard this before?

Now that we know the Earth was a wet accretion of material, gasses and liquids, we can go forward.
How did the Sun appear when it formed in the Solar system?
Look here, it actually tells us that the sun is as old as the Earth.
Well in that case, the Biblical description that the Earth was wet and DARK and God said Let there be light, is actually chronologically correct.
https://www.space.com/58-the-sun-formation-facts-and-characteristics.html

https://www.space.com/19321-sun-formation.html
Wow, here we have an explanation that the Sun actualle fell into its gravitational field resulting into Nuclear fusion.
Look at the fact that the Sun took 50 million years to "grow " to "adulthood".
It was slowly increasing in its intensity.
Did the Bible not say it was Light, and 4 days later the Sun shined into the Atmosphere?

Now for the second claim about the formation of the Moon, was there a giant impact with a foreign proto-planet on Earth ejecting matter into space to form the Moon?
https://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/origin98/pdf/4045.pdf
No there was not.

Did he say anything interesting in all those posts?

Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 11, 2018, 07:12:56 AM
Did he say anything interesting in all those posts?

Nope

And the Moon still contains water!
If it was formed from the Giant impact theory, It would be impossible due to it being a burning hot ball of magma.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008Natur.454..192S
Here we have evidence that the Moon can not be a baby of the Earth.
https://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc97/pdf/1070.PDF
and eventually science dont know where the Moon originated from, but believe it is a baby from the Earth, and not of a collision.
https://news.uchicago.edu/story/titanium-paternity-test-fingers-earth-moons-sole-parent

Interestingly, they have 3 scenarios, on how it might have happened, but not one includes the accretion nebulous theory.

Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 11, 2018, 07:12:56 AM
Did he say anything interesting in all those posts?

So to conclude.
It is a fact that the Earth was a wet collection of liquid, gas and matter that accreted from the beginning.
The Earth was not a ball of magma, neither the Moon.
This is what science says after observed science, and not some Theory that was never proven.

Had to peek. The water was blown off the early Earth with everything else, and wasn't destroyed when Thea hit, just turned to steam. Since then there have been a couple of impacts with smaller bodies, you might notice a divot or two in the surface of the Moon?

Here we have the Nebular theory.
Placed in the publication The World around us.
By Michael Henbest.
Guess what, in 1972 he already said that the Hadean theory, or Laplace's theory was incorrect, and believed that the Nebular hypothesis are correct.
(http://i.imgur.com/gjb6RRR.jpg) (https://imgur.com/gjb6RRR)

Oh gracious, I think I can actually place the Atheists' description of the Origins of the Universe, and Solar system in the King James Version!
Now who would have thought?

Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 11, 2018, 07:49:15 AM
Had to peek. The water was blown off the early Earth with everything else, and wasn't destroyed when Thea hit, just turned to steam. Since then there have been a couple of

Thea never existed.
Scientists can not find a trace of it in the composition of the Moon.
As a matter of fact, the Gigantic collision theory still needs to get any observed evidence.
I refuse to embrace any Theory that does not have scientific experimental evidence.
I can only stay with the Nebular Theory where a wet earth developed by accretion and the Moon from the same nebulous cloud.
For that there is ample evidence.
Please note that science says the Sun is 4.5 billion years old, and took 150 million years to become an adult.
Therefore it was not a warm unit until 4.35 billion years ago.
Zircon crystals and Silver ions date the water containing Earth to 4.1 to 4.4 Billion years.
This is what the evidence says, not me!
Therefore, forget that there was ever a Hadean epoch on earth, Laplace was wrong.

You can go.

Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 11, 2018, 08:41:35 AM
You can go.

Quite interesting once you find out some people's pre conceived ideas about science is totally incorrect.
Isnt it?

But, there is another factor I will present for the case on the Biblical description about the origins of our solar system.
This is the nail in the coffin of any atheistic ideas that the Bible can never be reconciled with science.

And talking out of experience, it will be the Atheists that wants to go, not me.

I will however place that factor on this forum only tomorrow, so that my atheist friends can first read what science claims, and to allow time so it sinks in.

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 11, 2018, 03:10:19 AM
WOW, you are incredibly correct about what science says about the Formation of the Universe.
I gave you a "Like" because you deserve it.

Appreciated, but it doesn't seem to disturb you that my discription differs in very significant ways from yours.

Quote
However, you should keep in mind that you have 2 claims that is different with what I postulated about.

There are more than two, if you read carefully.

Quote
Claim 1.
The Earth was not a soggy and wet entity during its' formation, but a solid boiling red rock after coalescing, and eventually turned into a cooler sphere that took millions of years, perhaps a billion or so, to collect moisture from it's core and meteorites to form an ocean. This hard rock then eroded producing mud. Before this happened, there was no way the Earth could have been a ball of MUD.

Yes, I say that because that's what the best science has determined. Without the extreme derth of volitiles in the inner solar system, you have a hard time explaining why the Earth is not a gas giant.

By the way, I was never specific about how much time each step took. Early formation of the solar system might have been surprisingly quick, not even 100 million years.

Quote
Claim 2, something bashed the Earth when it was still shapeless, and this material formed the Moon.

Oh, it had a shape. It was nearly spherical. This is because of gravity. A body is at its lowest gravitational energy when it is in a spherical shape.

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 11, 2018, 03:24:51 AM
This is BUT ONE THEORY!
today no scientist will sign such a theory anymore.
lets see why.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/05/100513143457.htm

The above source says that water was present in the earth's original building blocks. Like in hydrous rocks. It was not bulk liquid water. Or bulk solid water. It would still need to be baked out of the rock. Even if it were in ice, that ice would be surrounded by a shitton of rock, which isn't very porous to water. The rocks would need to melt before the water in the ice could go anywhere, even to the surface. Hence, you still need a remelting event.

Quote
And look at this:
https://www.amnh.org/explore/science-bulletins/earth/documentaries/zircons-time-capsules-from-the-early-earth/article-zircons-recast-earth-s-earliest-era/

I will reply to the above later today.

Your source doesn't quite say what you want it to say, sport. From your article: "Using the uranium-lead decay system, scientists have determined that these zircons are 4.375 billion years old, which means that they formed during the Hadean eon." Our best determination of the Age of the Earth is about 4.49-4.59 billion years old. So, you can't account for that earliest 115+ million years. It would only take about ~100 million years for the Earth to solidify from being completely molten, which means that the accretion of the earth preceded the zircon formation by a good margin. If the impactor hit early enough, it would hardly make a difference in the cooling time, and remelting events do have this tendency to reset all the associated radiological clocks that we use to determinet the age of the earth and so forth.

TL;DR: the melting and remelting I described would already have been over and done with by the time those zircons form. Your references do not support your conclusion. The only thing it suggests is that the Earth cooled off faster than we previously thought, but not faster than is physically possible.

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 11, 2018, 06:25:34 AM
However, the article in NG now moved it closer to 4.4 billion years.

This is still younger than some of the estimates for the molten Earth, with plenty of time for the Earth to solidify. The format of your figure indicates that it could be up to 500 million years in either direction, though in reality this would be less but still significant. Look up "significant figures" sometime.

QuoteTherefore, I will stay with observed and experimental science, rather than with Hakurei Reimu's ancient and untested theory of a Hadean Earth.

The melting and remelting of the Earth's crust is NOT Laplace's Hadean Earth hypothesis. It comes from the protoplanetary hypothesis. The energy from bringing together a cloud of debris into a clump called "Earth" represents a large amount of energy that would heat up the Earth â€" the earth would start melting LONG before it reached its present size, and before it could really be called "Earth."

The remelting from the impactor is when the Earth could really be called "Earth," because that's when the Earth would have all of it's initial chemical and isotopic composition, and the solidification of our crust is where our radiological clocks would finally start in ernest. Remelting would be over and done with before the zircons solidified, and their clocks started. There's plenty of time for it to happen, and there is no other credible source for the volitiles including water except by being boiled out of rock.

QuoteAs promised, I will not make any assumptions about what science knows, I will not twist any scientific discoveries, and will not use any unproven theories.

Sure you won't. Thing is, I'm the only one who has presented any science at all, and it is to first approximation as correct science as it can be.

Quote
Here we have it, The Earth was not a solid rock when it accreted. It was a collection of Gas Liquid and Matter (space dust).
Wonder where I heard this before?

Not in science, which is what you claim that the Bible describes.

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 11, 2018, 06:39:39 AM
Look here, it actually tells us that the sun is as old as the Earth.
Well in that case, the Biblical description that the Earth was wet and DARK and God said Let there be light, is actually chronologically correct.
https://www.space.com/58-the-sun-formation-facts-and-characteristics.html

Your own source says that the sun formed 4.6 billion years ago, and a further source (https://www.space.com/19321-sun-formation.html) states that after coalescing, it only took 10's of millions of years to finally start up nuclear fusion. The times are approximately the same, but there's slop either way, and physical considerations preclude that the sun was a bright object any later than that of the Earth. Again, the fact that Earth is not a gas giant is pretty damning evidence to the contrary. You need a fairly bright young sun in the early solar system to sweep it of excessive volitiles so that the inner solar system isn't dominated by a bunch of gas giants like the outer solar system. The principle mechanism is the fact that the sun was shining, and it is the fact that the sun was shining that stopped it's own growth.

If the sun was dark the time the Earth formed, then the rocky core of Earth would be smothered in thousands of miles of thick reducing atmosphere â€" Earth would be a gas giant. Earth is not a gas giant, ergo the sun had started shining as the Earth was coalescing, sweeping away the volitiles before they could turn the forming Earth into a gas giant's core.

You even later say that it took only 50 million years for the sun to grow to adulthood, yet you don't seem to realize that this is WELL within the margins of errors for the events in question.

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 11, 2018, 07:04:17 AM
Now for the second claim about the formation of the Moon, was there a giant impact with a foreign proto-planet on Earth ejecting matter into space to form the Moon?
https://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/origin98/pdf/4045.pdf
No there was not.

This is a conference paper, not a scientific paper. It's the consensus of one person, not the consensus of the body of science. You still need to explain why the Moon's isotopic composition matches so closely to that of the Earth's crust, and given that the giant impactor would be a protoplanet like the Earth, complete with an iron core, you would need an uneven distribution of elements and remelting to bring the iron from the impactor to the Earth's core. There's still no other way to explain the Moon but a giant impactor. The details would still need to be worked out, but some sort of high energy event would still be needed to give the Moon the characteristics it does.

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 11, 2018, 07:32:21 AM
And the Moon still contains water!
If it was formed from the Giant impact theory, It would be impossible due to it being a burning hot ball of magma.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008Natur.454..192S
Here we have evidence that the Moon can not be a baby of the Earth.
https://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc97/pdf/1070.PDF
and eventually science dont know where the Moon originated from, but believe it is a baby from the Earth, and not of a collision.
https://news.uchicago.edu/story/titanium-paternity-test-fingers-earth-moons-sole-parent

Interestingly, they have 3 scenarios, on how it might have happened, but not one includes the accretion nebulous theory.

I never advanced an accretion nebulous theory. It's been giant impactor all the way down. Now, to the specifics, the third news article does not discount the giant impactor. If you read it carefully, you find that the reason why the article dismisses the giant impactor is because the moon would be as much the impactor as it would be the Earth, but what if the same thing happened to the Earth, making the Earth's crust just as much a half-and-half as the moon? Then that explains the correleation right there. The second paper just means that the Moon is mostly Earth crust. The first article could also easily mean that there was a significant influx of water to the Moon, such as the lighter elements of the impactor (which would have the tendency to hang around more in orbit than fall to the Earth) or even Earth's first ocean.

But what the evidence does point to is that the Earth's Moon and its crust have a common source, which requires some of the Earth's crust to be lifted up from the Earth, at the cost of 7.61 x 10^28 Joules (which is the energy equivalent of 20 billion gigatons of TNT) and doesn't even take into account it's orbital velocity, or an even larger amount of material falling onto the Earth, which would result in even more energy from the infall and thus melting. Either way, the Earth's surface is fucked.

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 11, 2018, 08:28:42 AM
Thea never existed.
Scientists can not find a trace of it in the composition of the Moon.

See above. Even if Thea didn't exist, there still needed to be a high energy event to lift that material from the Earth's surface to the Moon's orbit. The earth's surface would be fucked either way.

Quote
As a matter of fact, the Gigantic collision theory still needs to get any observed evidence.

The fact that we have a large moon that is coplanar to the Earth is a large mark in its favor.

Quote
I refuse to embrace any Theory that does not have scientific experimental evidence.

Just because you are ignorant of what evidence there is to support a theory doesn't mean that the evidence doesn't exist.

Quote
I can only stay with the Nebular Theory where a wet earth developed by accretion and the Moon from the same nebulous cloud.

The nebulous cloud would be mostly gaseous hydrogen and helium, not water, oxygen or nitrogen, or even carbon dioxide. You need to make the inner system hydrogen and helium poor in order for the Earth to remain a rocky world. That's a huge strike against it.

Quote
For that there is ample evidence.

The fact that the Earth is not a gas giant notwithstanding. The nebular theory gets the Earth's composition 90% wrong.

Quote
Please note that science says the Sun is 4.5 billion years old, and took 150 million years to become an adult.
Therefore it was not a warm unit until 4.35 billion years ago.

No, it didn't take that long for the sun to become an adult. Your 150 million years figure is a number that is completely made up by you and not found anywhere in your sources. Your 4.5 billion years for the sun's formation is approximate and may vary by as much as 500 million years in either direction, but physical considerations (like the derth of gas giants in the inner solar system) requires the sun to ignite brightly in time to deplete the inner solar system, because that ignition is the time that the sun itself stops the accretion of its own hydrogen and helium. This places hard constraints on the order of events, even if the exact dating is a bit fuzzy.

Quote
Zircon crystals and Silver ions date the water containing Earth to 4.1 to 4.4 Billion years.

Which leaves plenty of time for the Earth to cool from being completely molten.

Quote
This is what the evidence says, not me!

No, it's not what the evidence "says." That's what you want it to say.

Quote
Therefore, forget that there was ever a Hadean epoch on earth, Laplace was wrong.

The Hadean epoch is not the same theory as planetary melting. It a separate consideration. The Hadean epoch is the assumption of prolonged vulcanism and techtonic upheaval. That is what is not supported, but the differentiation of the Earth with a molten iron core and an iron-poor silicate crust requires a primeval melting event, even if that event was over in a very short order (100 million years â€" yes, that's a short amount of time).

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 11, 2018, 08:56:34 AM
Quite interesting once you find out some people's pre conceived ideas about science is totally incorrect.
Isnt it?

No, that didn't happen. Instead, it became really obvious that you don't have the scientific background to correctly interpret the data you have been presented, and even recognize what you're looking at. The form the Earth now takes requires some very specific events to occur in a constrained order, from the early start of the Sun, to the composition of the Moon. There's no way around either an early start to the sun, or a high energy event that put the moon's material into orbit.

QuoteBut, there is another factor I will present for the case on the Biblical description about the origins of our solar system.
This is the nail in the coffin of any atheistic ideas that the Bible can never be reconciled with science.

No, that didn't happen, either. The only thing that happened is that you proved that you don't know how to read scientific papers and science news articles correctly.

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 11, 2018, 08:56:34 AMI will however place that factor on this forum only tomorrow, so that my atheist friends can first read what science claims, and to allow time so it sinks in.

In your mind, will we be so awestruck and dumbfounded by the sheer brilliance of what you have typed that we'll need to go rest our weary heads to absorb it all?

So to summarise, he took a bunch of scientific factors, and filled in or glossed over areas of it with his religiosity.

Is anyone surprised?

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 10, 2018, 10:02:17 AM
Tomorrow I will look at what science says!

Not that it will do you any good.

I'm going to tell you a creation story now.  It has the advantage of being true, to the best of our species' collective researches.

13.799 billion years ago, give or take twenty-one million years, the Big Bang went bang.  The cause of the Big Bang is an area of active research, but there's no reason to think that it's out of the grasp of researchers to ultimately sort out.  The Big Bang itself is not actually a theory of cosmogony, but an observation of what the origin of the observable universe looks like.  Think of the two-slit experiment in quantum mechanics â€" the interference pattern is an observation, not an explanation.

Not much happened for about 378,000 years, when the universe cooled to the point that neutral atoms could form, rather than being promptly ionized by the heat.  This is what was detected by Penzias and Wilson, confirming the Big Bang model over the Steady State theory.

Not much else happened for another half a billion years or so, what's referred to as the cosmological dark ages.  While the universe continued expanding, clouds of hydrogen with traces of helium and even fainter traces of lithium contracted locally under the pull of their own gravity.  The beginnings of the Milky Way date to this time, although it took another four or five billion years for the spiral arms to develop, probably as the result of a near encounter or even collision with another smaller galaxy.

That's about the time the first stars began to light up, because within the area of gravitational collapse for protogalaxies, smaller areas underwent even more localized gravitational collapse.  On the local level, our own sun ignited about 4.6 billion years ago most likely after the local cloud of interstellar gas was compressed by a relatively nearby supernova which further seeded the area with heavy elements.  When the sun lit, the lighter protoplanetary disk elements were pushed outward by the solar wind, leaving rocky debris towards the center.

Out of rocks and dust, not mud, the Earth coalesced.  For the first several hundred million years, the Earth was a lifeless but growing ball of rock heated by impacts and gravitational compression, including the Theia impact event which appears to have led to the formation of the moon.

The earliest atmosphere, what there was of it, was made of the gases in the protoplanetary disk: hydrogen, ammonia and methane, mainly.  During the Late Heavy Bombardment, outgassing and volcanism added nitrogen and carbon dioxide to the mix.  Contrary to what had been the most widely accepted theory, it's been recently discovered that the isotopic makeup of Earth's water vs. cometary water does not match, so the comet-delivery hypothesis as the main source of water has been modified or abandoned.

This is the great strength of science: it doesn't matter how good or how plausible your theory is, if nature says it's wrong, then it's wrong and you develop a better theory.  This is also the great fault in your system: you have pre-decided what your conclusion is going to be, and you need to twist or ignore observations to fit it.

Anyway, back to the story.  Also about this time, the expansion of the universe began to accelerate again, but that's an effect on vast scales, not the parochial limits of our little planetary system.

Some time around the ten billionth birthday of the universe, in the surface layers and tidal pools of the early oceans on pre-biotic Earth where uncounted quintillions of blind "experiments" were going on, energized by sunlight and ultraviolet radiation and lightning and stirred by the tides and to a lesser extent the winds.

As it turns out, the bits of which life (as we know it) are built are easy to make.  There are vast clouds of aminos and other organics floating freely in space, and even where there aren't any, they can be built with a little patience and a little energy and a few naturally-occurring chemicals.

Over time, a molecule that was able to make rough copies of itself occurred, quite by chance, although given the staggering number of simultaneous chemical reactions going on over staggering periods of time, it was probably more a matter of a statistical near-inevitability.  You have to remember the numbers involved: if a self-replicating molecule has a chance of appearing equivalent to, for example, Powerball odds, then self-replicating molecules would have appeared immediately, billions or even trillions of times.

Now, this little molecule wasn't a fully-formed cell, and we probably wouldn't call it alive by modern definitions, but because it could reproduce even as a purely mechanical/chemical function, it could evolve over time.

And that's exactly what it did.  Probably most copying errors made it a less efficient replicator, but any random change for the better meant, obviously, better replication.  Any improvement accidentally stumbled across would be kept; any dis-improvement would die out, and self-replicating chemicals could grow more complex over time because the base function of replication became more reliable.  Eventually proto-life systems like viruses and phages developed as improvements added up, and eventually bacteria, and eventually photosynthesis came along, which liberated oxygen into the atmosphere.  This allowed more energetic forms of life to arise, and eventually eukaryotic cells and multicellular systems arose out of the blind groping of the twin forces of natural selection and evolution.

And this went on for about three billion years, for 75-80% of the history of life on Earth.  We're all late arrivals -- not just humans, but most life beyond the plant/multicellular stage.  There were a few pre-Cambrian complex animals, but not many.  There appears to have been a combination of effects that led to what's called the Cambrian Explosion half a billion years ago: the oxygenation of the atmosphere reaching a critical level, the completion of the ozone layer to protect near-surface water dwellers from UV radiation, a spike in available calcium in the seas allowing for shells and bones to evolve, a few other factors.

At this point, all life is still in the ocean.  It takes another hundred million years for the first land plants, and another hundred million after that for the first land animals -- nearly 13.5 billion years since the Big Bang, and we *finally* have land life!

Evolution, speciation, and the slow accumulation of positive mutations carry on (along with asteroid impacts, ice ages and massive volcanic eruptions) for the next 350 million years, leading up to the rise of humans and civilization (such that it is).

These are the things that hydrogen atoms do with just time and gravity.

---

And now we murder your "theory", with both malice and intent.

Even if we allow your "before time" time for the necessary 13.8 billion years less the 6,000 you admit to, there's one thing you cannot have, and that's evidence of genetically modern humans before 6,000 years ago.

And we have direct archaeological evidence that Jericho has been continuously occupied by humans since about 10-11,000 BCE and was walled by 6800 BCE -- six to seven thousand years before you want to say humans were "created" and some pretty advanced civil engineering almost 3,000 years before there were humans, according to you.

I have been to a dig site in my home town that is direct evidence of humans living there in 8000 BCE: four thousand years too early for your "theory".

Handwave everything else if you want to, but there is no way that you can assert your "theory" when it explicitly states humans are only 6,000 years old when we have physical, independent, and incontrovertible evidence of our existence as a species long before that date.  For that matter, dogs were domesticated 9,000 years before you would have them created.

The only possible path you have to salvage your "theory" is to assert both that every single science is wrong and that they all unequivocally provide exactly the same wrong answers reliably and in support of each other.

And that means you cannot claim reliance on the scientific method yourself.  You cannot assert a scientific answer and at the same ignore the independently repeatable and verifiable results and observations from science.  You can assert biblical creationism if you like, but you may never, ever call it scientific.

I also like it how MT thinks that a book where the age of the universe can be anywhere from 6000 years to billions of years old is somehow telling us how old the universe is. If you have that wide of a margin, the Bible doesn't say squat about the age of the universe.

Quote from: Munch on July 11, 2018, 01:12:50 PM
So to summarise, he took a bunch of scientific factors, and filled in or glossed over areas of it with his religiosity.

Is anyone surprised?

It's like talking to someone from the 11th Century.

Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 11, 2018, 05:26:39 PM
It's like talking to someone from the 11th Century.

BCE!

Quote from: Unbeliever on July 11, 2018, 06:03:25 PM
BCE!

Well spotted.

We need a "Preachers' Corner" subforum here. So I can ignore it.

Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 11, 2018, 05:26:39 PMIt's like talking to someone from the 11th Century.

In addition, he's cherrypicking and ignoring much.  For example, Genesis claims the earth and waters were created on the first day and stars did not exist until the fourth day.  Water contains oxygen.  The earth contains dozens and dozens of elements heavier than lithium.

Current scientific theory states all elements heavier than lithium are only form in stars or through stellar processes.  Accordingly, there was no oxygen to form water and no heavier elements to form a large portion of the earth during Genesis "days" 1, 2 or 3 and for at least hundreds of millions of years of "day" four.

I suspect our new guest will ignore this critical path contradiction between Genesis and science.  It is one of many fatal flaws in Genesis.  Of course, there are many more similar contradictions.  But I think its best for now to provide just one of them and see if our guest responds with compelling evidence and argument.  I strongly suspect he will ignore it or provide some creationist nonsense.  Perhaps he will grace us with more dogma from the Religion of Mousetrapâ,,¢, a religion of one.

Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 11, 2018, 06:14:14 PM
Well spotted.

We need a "Preachers' Corner" subforum here. So I can ignore it.

How would that work? Would the preachy folks be required to preach only in their own little corner, with penalties if they preach out here to those of us who may not want to see their childish ranting?

That might be nice!

Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 11, 2018, 06:14:14 PM
Well spotted.

We need a "Preachers' Corner" subforum here. So I can ignore it.

There's always the Purgatory subforum.

Quote from: Unbeliever on July 11, 2018, 06:03:25 PM
BCE!

Don't diss the Bronze Age.  It was classy.  It is the Iron Age that is gauche!

Yeah, Doc Savage was all class!

Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on July 11, 2018, 12:05:45 PM
Appreciated, but it doesn't seem to disturb you that my discription differs in very significant ways from yours.
There are more than two, if you read carefully.
Yes, I say that because that's what the best science has determined. Without the extreme derth of volitiles in the inner solar system, you have a hard time explaining why the Earth is not a gas giant.

and you then continue to stay on your point of view, even though it is not what the latest observational science proved. Please note, your scientific explanation is outdated and should rather incorporate what science now discovered, and not reflect what some "Theory" you were taught that has no substance.

Quote from: my Friend the TheoristBy the way, I was never specific about how much time each step took. Early formation of the solar system might have been surprisingly quick, not even 100 million years.

Therefore, your Hadean theory is destroyed, as science now knows. the Earth could not have been a boiling piece of magma, that solidified in a rock, that received water from comets, that eroded the Earth into a muddy entity, all that in 100 million years.
This is what the latest scientists are saying when they found the Zircon and Silver Ion evidence.
Not only in Australia, but these experiments are now done on over 30 areas of the Earth where Zircon and silver Ions are tested. Also evidence from comets and meteorites proves that the nebulous cloud from which the Earth, planets and moon was formed, was Ice and Dust.
Your 'Theory' of an impact on earth with Thea, is a myth and an effort by pseudo scientists that want to publish their theories without any support of physical evidence. I would suggest you question your sources a bit more before accepting what you like.[/quote]

Quote from: my Friend the TheoristOh, it had a shape. It was nearly spherical. This is because of gravity. A body is at its lowest gravitational energy when it is in a spherical shape.

grand, then the Biblical view that the Earth was a sphere turning on an axis on the First day is correct.

Quote from: my friend the investigatorThe above source says that water was present in the earth's original building blocks. Like in hydrous rocks. It was not bulk liquid water. Or bulk solid water. It would still need to be baked out of the rock. Even if it were in ice, that ice would be surrounded by a shitton of rock, which isn't very porous to water. The rocks would need to melt before the water in the ice could go anywhere, even to the surface. Hence, you still need a remelting event.

So, why did you miss out on the last sentence where the scientist made a conclution on his findings?
Or do you only read what you need, and ignore the rest?

Quote from: https://www.amnh.org/explore/science-bulletins/earth/documentaries/zircons-time-capsules-from-the-early-earth/article-zircons-recast-earth-s-earliest-era/"In some sense the physical conditions at the surface of the early Earth, as seen through the eyes of these time capsules from that period, was not that different from today," Watson says. "That is what is revolutionary about this idea."

Mmmmm

Quote from: my friend the MathematicianYour source doesn't quite say what you want it to say, sport. From your article: "Using the uranium-lead decay system, scientists have determined that these zircons are 4.375 billion years old, which means that they formed during the Hadean eon." Our best determination of the Age of the Earth is about 4.49-4.59 billion years old. So, you can't account for that earliest 115+ million years. It would only take about ~100 million years for the Earth to solidify from being completely molten, which means that the accretion of the earth preceded the zircon formation by a good margin. If the impactor hit early enough, it would hardly make a difference in the cooling time, and remelting events do have this tendency to reset all the associated radiological clocks that we use to determinet the age of the earth and so forth.

Again, now the Thea proto plannet hit the Earth when it was still a collection of soft material and water before the Earth solidified. So, it happened between zero years to 100 million years. The Earth was not yet solidified, and Thea hit the Earth and created a magma ocean,( that does not exist), and the moon accreted from the residue of the Earth (which was tested), but Thea disappeared with no evidence, and the Moon only collected matter from the Earth and nothing from this Thea planet (that was tested from Moon rock) that can not be traced, seen, found, tested, etc.
And you have a problem with me believing in a God that can not be seen, tested etc?

I will continue with your criticism later today, but I find you set in a groove where you dont want to roll out of, because there 'might be some thorns on the outside'
Live with it man, your scientific theory is outdated and proven incorrect. even pure logic can see it is only theoretical propositions.

Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on July 11, 2018, 12:05:45 PM
TL;DR: the melting and remelting I described would already have been over and done with by the time those zircons form. Your references do not support your conclusion. The only thing it suggests is that the Earth cooled off faster than we previously thought, but not faster than is physically possible.
This is still younger than some of the estimates for the molten Earth, with plenty of time for the Earth to solidify. The format of your figure indicates that it could be up to 500 million years in either direction, though in reality this would be less but still significant. Look up "significant figures" sometime.
The melting and remelting of the Earth's crust is NOT Laplace's Hadean Earth hypothesis. It comes from the protoplanetary hypothesis. The energy from bringing together a cloud of debris into a clump called "Earth" represents a large amount of energy that would heat up the Earth â€" the earth would start melting LONG before it reached its present size, and before it could really be called "Earth."

True that it is not the Laplace theory, however, it was derived from the Laplace theory where atheists wanted to steer away from the fact that the Earth was a wet entity when it formed. Call it what you want, the Hadean epoch is the theory in question.
Why, because from 1805 to now, the only opposite of the Biblical description of an Earth that was wet when it took form, should be one where there can never be any water. Now, after all this time it is evident that the Hadean epoch is incorrect.
This is not what I say, but what scientists discovered and what I am showing you now.
Why the resistance to accept that the Biblical view of a wet Earth as the Bible speaks about?
Well, no right minded atheist will give an inch to the validity of anything from the Bible.
In this instance, atheists are entering, not into informative facts, but total denial!
But, if you want to remain on your stance, be my guest.

Quote from: my friend in DenialThe remelting from the impactor is when the Earth could really be called "Earth," because that's when the Earth would have all of it's initial chemical and isotopic composition, and the solidification of our crust is where our radiological clocks would finally start in ernest. Remelting would be over and done with before the zircons solidified, and their clocks started. There's plenty of time for it to happen, and there is no other credible source for the volitiles including water except by being boiled out of rock.

And the Impactor Thea is no where to be found, neither are there any Radiological matter to use as a clock to find out where Thea came from, and where it might now be.Theory, after theory does not mean fact.

Quote from: my friend who is the only one that knows science.Sure you won't. Thing is, I'm the only one who has presented any science at all, and it is to first approximation as correct science as it can be.
Not in science, which is what you claim that the Bible describes.

And it seems as if I can present you page after page of evidence, You will not regard the worlds' foremost scientists as scientists.
And atheists have this notion that Christians are narrow minded?

Quote from: my friend the one who split hairsYour own source says that the sun formed 4.6 billion years ago, and a further source (https://www.space.com/19321-sun-formation.html) states that after coalescing, it only took 10's of millions of years to finally start up nuclear fusion. The times are approximately the same, but there's slop either way, and physical considerations preclude that the sun was a bright object any later than that of the Earth. Again, the fact that Earth is not a gas giant is pretty damning evidence to the contrary. You need a fairly bright young sun in the early solar system to sweep it of excessive volitiles so that the inner solar system isn't dominated by a bunch of gas giants like the outer solar system. The principle mechanism is the fact that the sun was shining, and it is the fact that the sun was shining that stopped it's own growth.

So, to conclude, what do you say, the Sun was never just a dim red light glowing until it became mature?
Oh no sorry, you do say the sun was shining very faint in the beginning (like the Bible says).But, you are trying to say that when the Sun did shine flat out, it would have removed all the volatile matter, therefore if it was not so, the Earth would have been a gas giant. Funny that you do not take into account that most of this volatile matter was also grabbed by the Sun. Furthermore, during the formation of the Sun, rocky planets, and Gas Giants, there was a stage where the gravitational field of the Sun and planets were weaker than now, and the further away from the Sun, the more lighter material would have acreted on those planets. Look, there are many scientific reasons to why the inner planets are not huge gas planets, and to claim that the Earth somehow formed later than the Sun from the same nebulous cloud, after the Sun's radiation blew the space of our planetary system away, would also mean there would not have been an proto planet Earth to form from nebulous matter.
A simple reason is this, if the Earth was not a proto planet in the same nebulous cloud with the Moon, other planets, and Sun, it would not have formed at all.

Quote from: my friend the Gas GiantIf the sun was dark the time the Earth formed, then the rocky core of Earth would be smothered in thousands of miles of thick reducing atmosphere â€" Earth would be a gas giant. Earth is not a gas giant, ergo the sun had started shining as the Earth was coalescing, sweeping away the volitiles before they could turn the forming Earth into a gas giant's core.

Please take time and consider what science say, and compare the above statement.
The Sun and planets were all taking shape at the same time. It is called a proto Sun and Proto Planets.
Even using logic, you will see that the Sun did not shine bright when it was a proto sun.
ALL SCIENTISTS AGREE TO THIS FACT THAT THE PLANETS AND SUN DEVELOPED FROM A DARK CLOUD WHEN THE SUN WAS STILL NOT SHINING.
THE ONLY REASON WHY YOU WILL NOT ACCEPT SCIENCE IS BECAUSE OF THESE WORDS:
THE EARTH WAS DARK THROUGHOUT ITS DEEP, AND THE SPIRIT OF GOD HOVERED ABOVE THE WATERS.
AND GOD SAID: LET THERE BE LIGHT!"

WHY IS IT SO PAINFULL?

Quote from: Hakurei Reimu

Quote from: Mousetrap
Therefore, forget that there was ever a Hadean epoch on earth, Laplace was wrong.[/ quote]

Quote from: Hakurei ReimuThe Hadean epoch is not the same theory as planetary melting. It a separate consideration. The Hadean epoch is the assumption of prolonged vulcanism and techtonic upheaval. That is what is not supported, but the differentiation of the Earth with a molten iron core and an iron-poor silicate crust requires a primeval melting event, even if that event was over in a very short order (100 million years â€" yes, that's a short amount of time).

Now we are getting somewhere.
A short period of the Earth melting.
But what was before this Melting epoch you are talking about.
A wet acretion of Ice and space dust perhaps?
Darkness?
Wet?
Familiar?

Quote from: Hakurei Reimu

Quote from: Mousetrap: Mousetrap on July 11, 2018, 08:56:34 AM
Quite interesting once you find out some people's pre conceived ideas about science is totally incorrect.
Isnt it?

No, that didn't happen. Instead, it became really obvious that you don't have the scientific background to correctly interpret the data you have been presented, and even recognize what you're looking at. The form the Earth now takes requires some very specific events to occur in a constrained order, from the early start of the Sun, to the composition of the Moon. There's no way around either an early start to the sun, or a high energy event that put the moon's material into orbit.

I might not have any scientific background, but so far We found from your own words that the Earth must have been a collection of Water, Gas and Matter.
We also found you agree with the fact that the Sun was very faint when it started to produce fusion. You call it 10 million years, enough to fit in with a Biblical description that there was light, and then a Sun.
And obviously you are also welcome to disregard whatever scientific discoveries was found to disprove  Thea impact.
Fact is that we now moved from an accusation that the Biblical explanation of the Bible should be discarded as any scientific relation, to you agreeing to Genesis, but with different timelines.
I love this.
No more ancient sheep herders night fire stories and Mythological accusations.

Quote from: Hakurei Reimu

Quote from: Mousetrap:But, there is another factor I will present for the case on the Biblical description about the origins of our solar system.
This is the nail in the coffin of any atheistic ideas that the Bible can never be reconciled with science.

No, that didn't happen, either. The only thing that happened is that you proved that you don't know how to read scientific papers and science news articles correctly.

Oh but it will!
Wait for it!

Quote from: Hydra009 on July 11, 2018, 12:14:23 PM
In your mind, will we be so awestruck and dumbfounded by the sheer brilliance of what you have typed that we'll need to go rest our weary heads to absorb it all?

No, Wrong again.
In my mind you will only say:
I did not know about this.
Then in my mind I think you will just continue to deny everything about the Nebular theory, wet Earth, dim Sun, etc.

Post solely to keep informed of this thread.

:popcorn:

Quote from: trdsf on July 11, 2018, 02:16:23 PM
Not that it will do you any good.

I'm going to tell you a creation story now.  It has the advantage of being true, to the best of our species' collective researches.

13.799 billion years ago, give or take twenty-one million years, the Big Bang went bang.  The cause of the Big Bang is an area of active research, but there's no reason to think that it's out of the grasp of researchers to ultimately sort out.  The Big Bang itself is not actually a theory of cosmogony, but an observation of what the origin of the observable universe looks like.  Think of the two-slit experiment in quantum mechanics â€" the interference pattern is an observation, not an explanation.

and I agree, and I will show you who was the first person to talk about this, and where he found it.

Quote from: trdsf
Not much happened for about 378,000 years, when the universe cooled to the point that neutral atoms could form, rather than being promptly ionized by the heat.  This is what was detected by Penzias and Wilson, confirming the Big Bang model over the Steady State theory.

Correct!

Quote from: trdsf
Not much else happened for another half a billion years or so, what's referred to as the cosmological dark ages.  While the universe continued expanding, clouds of hydrogen with traces of helium and even fainter traces of lithium contracted locally under the pull of their own gravity.  The beginnings of the Milky Way date to this time, although it took another four or five billion years for the spiral arms to develop, probably as the result of a near encounter or even collision with another smaller galaxy.

Just as was proposed in 1755.

Quote from: trdsf
That's about the time the first stars began to light up, because within the area of gravitational collapse for protogalaxies, smaller areas underwent even more localized gravitational collapse.  On the local level, our own sun ignited about 4.6 billion years ago most likely after the local cloud of interstellar gas was compressed by a relatively nearby supernova which further seeded the area with heavy elements.  When the sun lit, the lighter protoplanetary disk elements were pushed outward by the solar wind, leaving rocky debris towards the center.

Ok, so at that stage the Earth was a collection of Ice and matter!

Quote from: trdsf
Out of rocks and dust, not mud, the Earth coalesced.  For the first several hundred million years, the Earth was a lifeless but growing ball of rock heated by impacts and gravitational compression, including the Theia impact event which appears to have led to the formation of the moon.

Oh, ooo! Now we are back to the Hadean epoch, ignoring that water and Dust was already collected by the proto planet Earth before the Sun ignited?
Now you say there was only "Rocks and Dust", no proto planet Earth anymore? especially one that was, just as the other proto planets and Sun collection matter for millions of years!

Quote from: trdsf
The earliest atmosphere, what there was of it, was made of the gases in the protoplanetary disk: hydrogen, ammonia and methane, mainly.  During the Late Heavy Bombardment, outgassing and volcanism added nitrogen and carbon dioxide to the mix.  Contrary to what had been the most widely accepted theory, it's been recently discovered that the isotopic makeup of Earth's water vs. cometary water does not match, so the comet-delivery hypothesis as the main source of water has been modified or abandoned.

But I thought you said the Earth was made only of rocks, and all the volatile elements was blown far away from the Earth?
Thanks for admitting that Comets did not bring water to the Eath.
Oh Golly, but this means water was present when the Earth formed!
But that was what I said!
Science agrees!

Quote from: trdsf
This is the great strength of science: it doesn't matter how good or how plausible your theory is, if nature says it's wrong, then it's wrong and you develop a better theory.  This is also the great fault in your system: you have pre-decided what your conclusion is going to be, and you need to twist or ignore observations to fit it.

Where did I place anything about science from my own thought?
I never did any such a thing.
All I did was to evaluate what the Biblical description on the creation of the Solar System.
I then went to see what scientists discovered, and compared the results.
so, to conclude, the Biblical description is not my idea, but was already postulated in 1755, and 1666.
The scientific descriptions I found in science books, and I continued to read about the difference between the theories of a burning Earth, and a wet Earth.
Nothing more, nothing less.
What I did find is a mumble jumble atheist approace to scientific observations unacceptable to fit in with their religion.
Denial of anything the Bible says.

Quote from: trdsf
Anyway, back to the story.  Also about this time, the expansion of the universe began to accelerate again, but that's an effect on vast scales, not the parochial limits of our little planetary system.

agree!

Quote from: trdsfSome time around the ten billionth birthday of the universe, in the surface layers and tidal pools of the early oceans on pre-biotic Earth where uncounted quintillions of blind "experiments" were going on, energized by sunlight and ultraviolet radiation and lightning and stirred by the tides and to a lesser extent the winds.

As it turns out, the bits of which life (as we know it) are built are easy to make.  There are vast clouds of aminos and other organics floating freely in space, and even where there aren't any, they can be built with a little patience and a little energy and a few naturally-occurring chemicals.

debatable. Especially if one wants to claim "Organics" is non living in origins.

Quote from: trdsf
Over time, a molecule that was able to make rough copies of itself occurred, quite by chance, although given the staggering number of simultaneous chemical reactions going on over staggering periods of time, it was probably more a matter of a statistical near-inevitability.  You have to remember the numbers involved: if a self-replicating molecule has a chance of appearing equivalent to, for example, Powerball odds, then self-replicating molecules would have appeared immediately, billions or even trillions of times.

and it obviously had DNA, with a few billion genomes, which needed a staggering statistical near inevitability, and only this one survived, with not a single twin, or defective residue of the other staggering near inevitable almost living organisms available as evidence.
but carry on!

Quote from: trdsfNow, this little molecule wasn't a fully-formed cell, and we probably wouldn't call it alive by modern definitions, but because it could reproduce even as a purely mechanical/chemical function, it could evolve over time.

Not alive, but reproducing by cell division without DNA, or due to reproducing it gained DNA, hu?

Quote from: trdsf
And that's exactly what it did.  Probably most copying errors made it a less efficient replicator, but any random change for the better meant, obviously, better replication.  Any improvement accidentally stumbled across would be kept; any dis-improvement would die out, and self-replicating chemicals could grow more complex over time because the base function of replication became more reliable.  Eventually proto-life systems like viruses and phages developed as improvements added up, and eventually bacteria, and eventually photosynthesis came along, which liberated oxygen into the atmosphere.  This allowed more energetic forms of life to arise, and eventually eukaryotic cells and multicellular systems arose out of the blind groping of the twin forces of natural selection and evolution.

What a wonderful story indeed!
Evidence?
or Theory?
It has to be Theory, for there are not any such examples of something that replicated that was not alive, but became alive and then developed DNA without protein, and protein without DNA,...
Oh, take into consideration that I said, I will not accept theories in my description of science.
If you do not have factual scientific observational studies to support life from nothing, leave it for later. we will get to it.

Quote from: trdsfAnd this went on for about three billion years, for 75-80% of the history of life on Earth.  We're all late arrivals -- not just humans, but most life beyond the plant/multicellular stage.  There were a few pre-Cambrian complex animals, but not many.  There appears to have been a combination of effects that led to what's called the Cambrian Explosion half a billion years ago: the oxygenation of the atmosphere reaching a critical level, the completion of the ozone layer to protect near-surface water dwellers from UV radiation, a spike in available calcium in the seas allowing for shells and bones to evolve, a few other factors.

what levels of strata exists for that half a billion years between the Pre Cambrian era, and the Cambrian expansion?
Dont worry to answer, nothing of that kind to show your intermediate missing links in existence.
I like the Global flood much better telling me these fossils were a result of rapid burial. But dont bother about this for now.

Quote from: trdsf
At this point, all life is still in the ocean.  It takes another hundred million years for the first land plants, and another hundred million after that for the first land animals -- nearly 13.5 billion years since the Big Bang, and we *finally* have land life!

Or they were buried first with land animals on top of their strata. Sorry, carry on.

Quote from: trdsfEvolution, speciation, and the slow accumulation of positive mutations carry on (along with asteroid impacts, ice ages and massive volcanic eruptions) for the next 350 million years, leading up to the rise of humans and civilization (such that it is).

These are the things that hydrogen atoms do with just time and gravity.

Cool, so simple.

Quote from: trdsfAnd now we murder your "theory", with both malice and intent.

Even if we allow your "before time" time for the necessary 13.8 billion years less the 6,000 you admit to, there's one thing you cannot have, and that's evidence of genetically modern humans before 6,000 years ago.

I have never said that I believe Humans to be older than 6 000 years. I said the Earth and Universe is older than 6 000 years, and this can be found from the Bible's description that the Universe was created before the first day. Therefore, you murdered only your own strawman argument that I believe life to be older than 6 000 years.

Quote from: trdsf
And we have direct archaeological evidence that Jericho has been continuously occupied by humans since about 10-11,000 BCE and was walled by 6800 BCE -- six to seven thousand years before you want to say humans were "created" and some pretty advanced civil engineering almost 3,000 years before there were humans, according to you.

again, Jericho is not the only so called Archaeological evidence that humans supposedly lived before 10 000 years. Goble Tepe, and more than 15 sites in Turkey also have ancient civilizations. We will get to the dating methods. at a later stage. One thing is for sure, the Chronological sequencing based on Manetho, and the Sirus dating involving Egypt and Greece is totally in error. We will speak about C14 dating, and how science actually attest the Biblical timelines.

Quote from: trdsfI have been to a dig site in my home town that is direct evidence of humans living there in 8000 BCE: four thousand years too early for your "theory".

Damn but you are old!

Quote from: trdsfHandwave everything else if you want to, but there is no way that you can assert your "theory" when it explicitly states humans are only 6,000 years old when we have physical, independent, and incontrovertible evidence of our existence as a species long before that date.  For that matter, dogs were domesticated 9,000 years before you would have them created.

We will remember your reply I get to the age of Life.
I would like you to answer me on many things you now claim as scientific facts.

Quote from: trdsf
The only possible path you have to salvage your "theory" is to assert both that every single science is wrong and that they all unequivocally provide exactly the same wrong answers reliably and in support of each other.

Never. never will I question science to further my claims.
It is too dangerous!
Atheists might show me I am wrong.

Quote from: trdsfAnd that means you cannot claim reliance on the scientific method yourself.  You cannot assert a scientific answer and at the same ignore the independently repeatable and verifiable results and observations from science.  You can assert biblical creationism if you like, but you may never, ever call it scientific.

Now you are generalizing to the greatest possible hypocrisy.
You first of all carry on about how a Theory, (evolution )unproven, is now a scientific fact, after giving me a theory about what science does not say on the formation of the Solar system, then you use the Theory of evolution, claiming that life needs billions of years to develop, showing me some archaeological sites, which the dating methods are actually in evidence of the Biblical date of life, telling me this is why I am wrong.

Look what you did.
You build a straw man!
You then name this Straw man, Mousetraps theory.
You then destroy the Straw man, telling yourself you destroyed my facts, the Bible, and God!
Damn you are good!
Why dont you wait untill I speak about the age of life and dating of organic matter.
And please take note, this organic matter I speak about was once living matter, not like your so called space matter, that somehow is called organic because you need to make your dead cell replicating into life more alive than dead.

Let me get you back to what I said I am doing.
I took teh Biblicak description of the origins of our Solar system, and looke at what it realy say. Not what someone believes it to say, but the Biblical explanation.
I then looked at what science says, and got the Nebular Hypothesis!
I also went to see why there is just one contradictory claim between these 2 descriptions, and I found that the Burning Hot Earth theories are only Theories, but that the Wet, Cool Earth from a nebular cloud is actually a proven fact due to scientific experimentation of Silver Isotopes, Zircon Crystals, Comet testing, and Meteorite tests.
Therefore, I conclude that the Biblical explanation holds much mor than what you guys told me in the beginning that the Bible can never be reconciled with what we know about the Origins of the Universe.
Now lets continue

let me give you a taste of what I will expect you to explain when you tell me about dating techniques on the age of Humans.
https://newatlas.com/ancient-stone-tools-china-human-migration/55425/?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=2018-07-12%20083351%20Other%20Daily%20Basic%202018-07-12%20083912%20Ancient%20stone%20tools%20found%20in%20China%20shake%20up%20human%20ancestor%20timeline%20again&utm_content=2018-07-12%20083351%20Other%20Daily%20Basic%202018-07-12%20083912%20Ancient%20stone%20tools%20found%20in%20China%20shake%20up%20human%20ancestor%20timeline%20again+CID_a1008fad5aa083da301c52ad987a3f75&utm_source=Campaign%20Monitor&utm_term=Read%20more

But before we go there, I want you to see where your science got their Nebulae Theory from.

Gotta give him one bit of credit, he don't quit.

Quote from: Munch on July 12, 2018, 08:08:49 AM
Gotta give him one bit of credit, he don't quit.

Munch appreciated!

Good, to end off the day, I will now reveal my source of where I found the Nebular Theory.

Once I found that the Biblical description of Genesis was the same of what science presented, I thought it can not be a co incidence.
This really made me go on a search on why this is so close to each other. Obviously something crossed wires, and ended up the way it is.

By accident, I one day read an old publication of Readers Digest, where an article actually said that the Origins of the Universe was originally postulated by Immanuel Kant in 1755. The writer also said, that Laplace in 1805 presented a counter proposition to Napoleon, that removed any reference to a Creator. This was the theory where every object in the Solar System popped out of the Solar collection of matter, and became planets. In the early 20th century this theory was proven wrong, due to the speed of the Sun on it's axis, and by conservation of energy calculations, Laplace' theory was discarded.
The Author then continued and said that the only viable theory on the Origins of the Universe, was the Nebular Theory of Emmanuel Kant, due to the discoveries made by Hubble with the Mount Wilson telescope in 1925. It was discovered that everything on Kant's proposition that there are uncountable galaxies, with billions of stars, nebulous clouds where stars and planets are born, a central point in Galaxies, black holes, a original point of origins for all this matter, and hundreds of other proposals proven correct.
When I saw this article, I decided to hunt this theory down, and eventually bought a publication on internet.
You can download a PDF here.
http://users.clas.ufl.edu/burt/spaceshotsairheads/Kantuniversalnaturalhistory.pdf

I did not stop here, but wanted to know who this man was.
It turned out that he was a great philosopher, but also a Biblical Greek and Hebrew student of theology!
As I read what he wrote, I discovered his source of the Nebular Theory.
Genesis!
OK, so now that I established the source of the Nebular theory, the Bible, I wondered how it became science, and how Atheists uses the Nebular Theory as evidence that the Bible is wrong!

What a paradox!!!
Atheists uses the Bible to prove the Bible is wrong with science that came out of the Bible!!
LOL!

Now, this was the ONE THING that made me realize that there is much more to the Bible than just the age old accusation that it is a man made myth.

I think the next thing we must speak about is the dating of Life on earth.
Why, not because I was thrown with this claim as evidence of my theory in jeopardy, but because this was the one thing that followed in my investigation that I had to unravel.
True, If life isolder than 6 000 years, the Bible is incorrect due to the Genealogical chronology it supplies.

But this for tomorrow.

I'll get to a point by point cleanup of your reply this weekend; no time to do it during work and I have tickets for live shows tonight and tomorrow.

But answer me one thing with one straight yes or no: Mousetrap, do you accept the fact that humans and animals have existed for longer than 6,000 years?

Quote from: trdsf on July 12, 2018, 10:09:58 AM
I'll get to a point by point cleanup of your reply this weekend; no time to do it during work and I have tickets for live shows tonight and tomorrow.

But answer me one thing with one straight yes or no: Mousetrap, do you accept the fact that humans and animals have existed for longer than 6,000 years?

A straight No.
But do allow me to elaborate my answer, else it is an incrimination of my person.
This is the only factor, (please note not a fact), that I have a problem with.

after investigating the relation between the Nebular Theory, and Biblical origins of it, I had to rethink the biggest contradiction between accepted scientific claims of human existence of 1.5 Million years, (Laetoli footprints) and life forms dated to hundreds of millions years, and the Biblical description of 6 000 years.

I asked myself how does one find out if life was pre 6 000 years?
If it is true, then I have evidence that the Bible is incorrect.

this was teh methodology I decided to follow.
1. Find out id the Bible really claim the age of humans as 6 000 years, or can it be millions.
2. Does the Bible say Plants and Animals are older than 6 000 years, or can this be placed at hundreds of millions, even a Billion or so?
3. How do we know if a certain artifact is evidence of pre 6 millennia?
4. What scientific testing exists to show the age of Life?
5. How does it work?

I went on the assumption that any experimental test devised by science to test the age of any dead organism must be correct.
I also decided that if I would not find an explanation, I will still continue to evaluate the Bible more authoritative than when I simply discarded it as nonsensical.

Well, what I found was not only interesting, but again had many a Bsc thinking on what they claimed as cast in concrete.
The reason is that I do not allow theories, or change of scientific facts to distort what is visible on the table.

I think you will also like what I found, then you can make up your own mind on speculations made by Atheist scientists on whether they create straw men arguments, or if they really dug into all the information at hand.
See you tomorrow..

"The reason is that I do not allow theories"

We're not speaking the same language.

Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 12, 2018, 11:13:31 AM
"The reason is that I do not allow theories"

We're not speaking the same language.

Oh, don't tell me. He thinks that scientific theories are just unsupported guesses, and those theories turn into laws when they're proven right.

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 12, 2018, 03:24:30 AM
and you then continue to stay on your point of view, even though it is not what the latest observational science proved.

Have you asked any real scientist what the body of scientific evidence supports? Have you read any real peer-review papers? Do you know how to interpret those papers?

No? Then I don't see how you could know what "the latest observational science" has proved. I do actually keep up on the state of what the consensus of science currently says on the matter because this stuff interests me intensely. There is no way that you have the jump on me.

QuotePlease note, your scientific explanation is outdated and should rather incorporate what science now discovered, and not reflect what some "Theory" you were taught that has no substance.

Your nebular hypothesis is older than the planetesimal hypothesis, so don't you dare talk to me about using old outdated explanations. The beginnings of the solar system and the origin of the Earth is complicated, such that no one simple statement of any theory is likely to be wholely correct. It's likely explanation that finally takes form is going to be a nuanced thing that incorporates many aspects.

Quote
Therefore, your Hadean theory is destroyed, as science now knows.

The Hadean theory and the planetesimal theory are not the same. Without a primordial melting event, you can't get the majority of the iron and other heavy elements to the center of the earth, period. They just don't have the motility otherwise, which means that without a primordial melting, you have a hard time explaining why the Earth's crust is so iron-poor.

Quotethe Earth could not have been a boiling piece of magma, that solidified in a rock, that received water from comets, that eroded the Earth into a muddy entity, all that in 100 million years.
This is what the latest scientists are saying when they found the Zircon and Silver Ion evidence.
Not only in Australia, but these experiments are now done on over 30 areas of the Earth where Zircon and silver Ions are tested. Also evidence from comets and meteorites proves that the nebulous cloud from which the Earth, planets and moon was formed, was Ice and Dust.

No, no it does not. The zircons formed more than 100 million years after the Earth is thought to have initially coalesced. The zircons can't tell you if the Earth was a molten sea before that time because its their formation that records the condition on the Earth. You can have a Earth that started completely molten, cooled quickly to ordinary temperatures (100 million years is sufficient for that), and have those zircons form in a relatively cool environment. The zircons are categorically NOT evidence that the Earth was not initially melted; they formed too late to tell you that.

Again, you need a primordial melting event to deplete the crust of its iron. If there was no primordial melting, you have a hard time explaining why the crust is so iron poor. You need a theory of formation that explains BOTH the zircons AND the iron poor crust, and without a primordial heating, you can't explain the later. An Earth that cools quickly from a primordial melting, and zircons forming afterwards, does explain both.

And again, the silver ion data do not say that the Earth began soaking in water; your own reference characterizes only a "small amount" of volitiles were necessary to explain all of the water on Earth. The mass of the ocean is less than a thousanth that of the Earth, so the characterization of the Earth as a bone dry rock is actually still pretty true. The 15% accumulated in the "wet bombardment" your article references was not pure water, let alone liquid water. It was still mostly rock, owing to the fact that the earth is still less than a thousanth by mass of bulk liquid water â€" no matter what, the rest of that 15% of mass accreted in that "wet bombardment" must be something other than water. Further, your own article doesn't claim that the water was in the form of liquid or even solid water; in astrophysical and geological contexts, the word "water" doesn't necessarily mean either unless specified as such. It can mean (and given what is written in the article, likely does means) water bound up in hydrides.

As an example of a hydride, gypsum is 23.6% by weight water, yet looking at it, you wouldn't suspect it. It's basically what commercial blackboard chalk is made out of. (If anyone still remembers blackboard chalk.) Cook 100 g of gypsum above 250°C and you get 23.4 g of water and 75.6 g of anhydrite.

The initial protoplanetary disk was about 99% hydrogen and helium, which are gasses. Every other substence that the solar system is made out of, including water, lives in that remaining 1%. A ton of hydrogen and helium is pulled just as hard by gravity as a ton of any other material â€" in an unaltered protoplanetary disk, most of the accreted material would be hydrogen and helium, the majority components of gas giants. It also happens to be the majority components of stars, like our sun. (Triva: Helium got its name because it was first found in the sun by its Frienhoffer lines.) Thus, if it was present in any great quantity when the Earth formed, Earth would be a gas giant.

It isn't. You need a theory that explains BOTH the silver ions AND the fact that the Earth is not a gas giant. A bright young sun coupled to an inital melting of the Earth does explain both. The silver ion data doesn't say that the water in the "wet bombardment" was liquid. Thus, a primordial melting is not out of the question. The only thing it proves it that the later accretion contained more water (in various forms, including hydrides) than expected, but it was still very little water â€" not even remotely enough to make a mudball.

So, TL;DR, don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining. The zircons and silver ion data DO NOT contradict anything I have said. A primordial melting with quick cooling is compatible with both observations. A primordial melting and a bright young sun, however, explains critical features of the Earth and the solar system that you have yet to explain in any other way.

QuoteYour 'Theory' of an impact on earth with Thea, is a myth and an effort by pseudo scientists that want to publish their theories without any support of physical evidence. I would suggest you question your sources a bit more before accepting what you like.

I have read the current science and do question those sources. Your sources amount to arguing over whether Napoleon ate eggs or toast on the morning of Waterloo. They are details that need explaining, but only imply a modification to the theory of Theia and not a complete refutation.

Without a giant impactor, you have a hard time explaining why the moon is so big, and why its plane of revolution is only five or so degrees off from the eliptic, yet the axis of the earth's rotation is 23° off the eliptic. Crustal fissioning would require the moon's plane of revolution to be nearly parallel with the Earth's plane of rotation, and if the Earth was spinning fast enough to rip that monster off, how come it didn't rip itself apart completely. A capture is unlikely, because it doesn't explain why its plane of revolution bears resemblance to the eliptic, and it would have a different isotopic signature, and why the eccentricity of its orbit is so low. Co-coalescence doesn't work because the moon has too little iron, and would form from a slightly different population of planetessimals than the Earth and so wouldn't match isotopic signature either. Only a giant impactor really fits.

Further, the giant impactor is only the basic theory. It can be modified. You need a theory that can explan ALL of the Moon's observed properties, INCLUDING its unusual wetness (but not excessive; still < 1 ppm water), AND why its composition is so similar to the Earth's crust, AND it's unusual largeness, AND why its plane of revolution is so close to the eliptic but not to the rotation of the Earth. You have no explanation for that constellation of facts, but a modified giant impactor does. Especially if that giant impactor, Theia, was the "wet bombardment" that contributed the remaining upper 15% of the Earth's mass as aluded to in your silver ion paper. That it's a giant impactor theory explains the largeness of the moon and the fact that its orbit is coplanar to the eliptic. That it was the "wet bombardment" that contributed the last, and upper 15% of the Earth's material as well as the moon's material explains both the unusual wetness of the moon, and why it's isotopic signature is so close to the Earth's crust. Also, since this impact is what completes the earth's accretion, it is here our 4.54 billion year Age of the Earth clock starts, with our early zircons forming more than 100 million years later on a cool, water bearing Earth with a large Moon. We need that Supermoon to weather the Late Heavy Bombardment, after all.

TL;DR, don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining. The giant impactor theory beautifully explains a readily observed property of the moon that really can't be explained any other way, and with modification can explain all the little details as well, your crowings to the contrary notwithstanding.

Quotegrand, then the Biblical view that the Earth was a sphere turning on an axis on the First day is correct.

No, you said it was formless. And you said that the sun was dim when it was actually (and must be) shining brightly, and so the spinning earth would have day and night in a conventional sense.

Don't pee on my leg. Stop it. It's unsanitary, and no, it's not raining.

QuoteSo, why did you miss out on the last sentence where the scientist made a conclution on his findings?
Or do you only read what you need, and ignore the rest?
"In some sense the physical conditions at the surface of the early Earth, as seen through the eyes of these time capsules from that period, was not that different from today," Watson says. "That is what is revolutionary about this idea."
Mmmmm

Please note the underlined: "as seen through the eyes of these time capsules from that period." The zircons can make no comment on the conditions of the Earth prior to their formation. Watson's quote MUST be taken in that context, and he obviously didn't expect anyone to take this as proof of conditions that his evidence obviously can't comment on.

So, once more, I ask you to stop peeing on my leg.

QuoteAgain, now the Thea proto plannet hit the Earth when it was still a collection of soft material and water before the Earth solidified. So, it happened between zero years to 100 million years. The Earth was not yet solidified, and Thea hit the Earth and created a magma ocean,( that does not exist), and the moon accreted from the residue of the Earth (which was tested), but Thea disappeared with no evidence, and the Moon only collected matter from the Earth and nothing from this Thea planet (that was tested from Moon rock) that can not be traced, seen, found, tested, etc.

No. You've created this wierd mutant hybrid of my description and yours. But even if Theia collided with a wet earth as you describe, it wouldn't make a difference, because such collisions are best described in untold billions of gigatons of energy released as heat. The entire world nuclear arsenal has a yield of under ten gigatons, so this is a LOT of kaboom. Any water the Earth would have had would be flash vaporized in the event, leaving magma, because rock would absorb that heat too and melt.

The magma ocean didn't exist at the time of the formation of the zircons (and thus would be invisible to it). I know that's a subtle distinction for you, but it's important. The magma ocean must exist at one point in order to explain the fact that the crust is iron-poor (that's the principle evidence of its existence). Also, the physics of planet formation insist on it.

Theia didn't "disappear;" it so thoroughly intermixed with the Earth as to become indistinguishable from it. It's likely (if Theia really contributed 15% of the Earth's mass) that the entire crust was blasted away, got intermixed with Theia's material, only to reaccrete into both the moon and the Earth's crust. And before you squawk again about how the Moon would be part Theia, how could you tell that without a piece of Earth not intermixed with Theia to compare it to? It's fair to say that the Earth was as much formed from Theia (as well as Gaia, to give the body that was 85% of the Earth a name) as the Moon was.

QuoteAnd you have a problem with me believing in a God that can not be seen, tested etc?

I know it sounds hard to believe to you, who is literally making mountains out of molehills. What you are arguing is less than 1 part per million of water in the Moon. What you are arguing about is nagging little details about composition that a few simiple modifications to the prevailing theory explains neatly. You are complaining about me not being able to explain a few parts in a thousand of volitiles on the Earth when you can't explain the almost utter absence of hydrogen and helium that would outmass everything else in the protoplanetary disk by a ratio of 99:1.

You complain about the splinter in my eye, when you have a fuck-off huge log in yours.

QuoteLive with it man, your scientific theory is outdated and proven incorrect. even pure logic can see it is only theoretical propositions.

The Dunning-Kruger effect is strong in this one, folks. But that's no surprise. When you can explain to me why your mudball earth collected water but not the OTHER volitiles that outmassed everything else by 99 times, then you get to talk to me about my "theoretical propositions."

Quote from: Blackleaf on July 12, 2018, 11:24:10 AM
Oh, don't tell me. He thinks that scientific theories are just unsupported guesses, and those theories turn into laws when they're proven right.

Our science teachers have done such a poor job of teaching what that word means--theory--that most people think it is an 'educated' guess.  And for sure, the Mouse does. 

One of my cousins swears he can't "think straight with shoes on". I asked  how that was different from any other time. He growled at me for using "big words". Mousetripe might know him.

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 12, 2018, 03:24:30 AMSo, it happened between zero years to 100 million years.

That's a hell of a range there.  Does this extreme vagueness permeate other areas of your life?

Meet my friend.  She's between 0 and 100 years old.
Yeah, just deliver that package to someplace between San Francisco and Miami.
Let's have a party!  I'm free sometime between now and 100 days from now.

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 12, 2018, 10:47:43 AM
A straight No.

Regardless of your elaboration, the only way you can assert that is to necessarily assert that all of science is wrong.  There is no observation from any of the sciences that supports the notion that animal life (which includes humans) has existed for only 6,000 years.  Not one.  Not a single, solitary observation.  To assert that Animalia have only existed for 6,000 years means you reject science, period.

You cannot both reject science and claim a "scientific" basis for biblical creation.  If you want to accept the scientific method, you need to accept scientific results, including the ones that disagree with what you want them to be.  I mean, I would have loved to not mention the isotopic mismatch between terrestrial water and cometary water because I knew you would try to pounce on that (and eventually waste my time with a digression explaining your failure to make it relevant), but the observation is what it is.

Unlike you, I don't get to cherry-pick my data.  I respect reality and truth.

If you still want to try to do both, then you need to provide explanations for the following:

1. Why radiometric dating techniques are accurate below 6000 years before present but not above -- what mechanism changes radioactivity at that age, and in such a way that all techniques provide consistent answers despite following different decay paths.  If you do not reject radiometric dating techniques, you need to explain why we have been able to date the remains of genetically modern humans to 300,000 years ago, to say nothing of the record of billions of years of evolution for the rest of living entities.

2. Why astronomical observations of protoplanetary disks in other star systems look like the scientific model of planetary formation and not the biblical model.  If your answer is that Earth is special and these other systems aren't, you need to provide a mechanism as to why Earth is special.

The answer to neither of these can be 'because god'.  You're trying to demonstrate divine intervention here, so you may not assume it as part of your proof for it -- all that is, is saying "God did this.  My proof is that I think god did this, therefore god did this."  Divine intervention is your conclusion, so it cannot be used as an explanation for any step prior to its actual demonstration.

Neither can the answer be "I just don't buy it".  You can't handwave away repeatable, testable, verified observations without an explanation why they're wrong and how they're wrong, as well as providing a testable theory (and theory means a scientific theory, not a guess) that not only explains current observations but makes definite testable predictions about where and how future observations may vary from the currently accepted theories.

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 12, 2018, 04:42:16 AM
True that it is not the Laplace theory, however, it was derived from the Laplace theory where atheists wanted to steer away from the fact that the Earth was a wet entity when it formed. Call it what you want, the Hadean epoch is the theory in question.

Bullshit. The Hadean epoch was a whole period of time lasting about 500 million years. That the zicrons put a limit of how long the Earth could remain molten doesn't mean that there was no initial melting.

Again, without an intial melting, how do you get most of the iron out of the earth's crust and into the core? Explain that. Then you get to talk about how there was no magma ocean at any time.

QuoteThis is not what I say, but what scientists discovered and what I am showing you now.

No, that's your interpretation of what they say. The scientists do not claim that there was no initial melting and their evidence doesn't show that, either. You had to ignore a clause from a part of Watson's ending quote in order to get it to imply what you wanted, because it would have been fatal to your interpretation.

QuoteWhy the resistance to accept that the Biblical view of a wet Earth as the Bible speaks about?

Because your wet earth is unsupported, and unlikely, given the Earth's other features, like its iron-poor crust, and the fact that the Earth is even today well approximated by a dry rock?

QuoteWell, no right minded atheist will give an inch to the validity of anything from the Bible.
In this instance, atheists are entering, not into informative facts, but total denial!
But, if you want to remain on your stance, be my guest.

Projection is an ugly thing. The only person here who has been twisting facts and ignoring inconvenient facts is you. Here's a partial list of things you can't explain:

* You can't explain, if the earth intially was so wet as to be a mudball, where the other volitiles went. Particularly the two volitiles that outmassed the rest of the material in the protoplanetary disk by a factor of 99. Ie, you can't explain why the Earth isn't a gas giant, or what mechanism would remove the hydrogen and helium but leave the water alone.

* You can't explain why the moon is so large and orbiting close to the eliptic without a giant impactor, like Theia. You provide no explanation at all for the origin of the moon, other than a shrug.

* You can't explain where all that water went. At present, the mass of the ocean is less than a thousanth of that of the Earth, rather than the maybe >10% we would expect from a mudball earth. Where did it go? It's not in any body beneath the Earth or in the atmosphere. Last time I looked, water doesn't disappear. It changes forms, but it doesn't cease to exist. So, where is it?

* You can't explain why the crust is so iron-poor. In case you haven't noticed, solids don't like to go through each other. Even iron can't go through light silicates. So how did most of the iron get out of the crust and into the core without it melting. Hell, why do we have a molten interior now when we hadn't before?

QuoteAnd the Impactor Thea is no where to be found, neither are there any Radiological matter to use as a clock to find out where Thea came from, and where it might now be.

Wrong. It's EVERYWHERE to be found. You're living on it.

And again, before you squawk otherwise, how do you distinguish Theia from Gaia (pre-impact Earth) without pristine samples of Gaia?

QuoteTheory, after theory does not mean fact.

Misinterpretation of fact aren't fact either. Without pristine samples of Gaia, Earth and the Theia/Gaia amalgam are indistinguishable.

QuoteAnd it seems as if I can present you page after page of evidence, You will not regard the worlds' foremost scientists as scientists.

Wrong. I listen to the scientists. I simply use my own interpretations of their conclusions and not the misinterpretations you are spoonfeeding me. Find me a real scientist that says that the earth began as a mud ball, and reference his peer review paper where this is claimed, and show me that it is a well-referenced and thus regarded as mostly correct. I challenge you to do this.

If you succeed, you might have a point. Until then, my own council, I shall keep.

QuoteAnd atheists have this notion that Christians are narrow minded?

You seem to have trouble grasping my ideas in their full and finding problems with it. That's usually the sign of narrow-mindedness.

QuoteSo, to conclude, what do you say, the Sun was never just a dim red light glowing until it became mature?

No. It's was just over and done with that stage before the Earth could reasonably said to have been formed. For fuck's sake, this is not difficult.

QuoteOh no sorry, you do say the sun was shining very faint in the beginning (like the Bible says).But, you are trying to say that when the Sun did shine flat out, it would have removed all the volatile matter, therefore if it was not so, the Earth would have been a gas giant. Funny that you do not take into account that most of this volatile matter was also grabbed by the Sun.

Because it wouldn't happen to just the volitiles. Gravitational accretion would grab everything, volitiles and non, because gravity doesn't play favorites. If the sun really depleated the 99% of volitiles in the protoplanetary disk, it would deplete everything else by approximately the same margin. It would leave the composition of the disk mostly unchanged. The only difference is that there wouldn't be an Earth at all, because the sun would have vacuumed up EVERYTHING.

QuoteFurthermore, during the formation of the Sun, rocky planets, and Gas Giants, there was a stage where the gravitational field of the Sun and planets were weaker than now, and the further away from the Sun, the more lighter material would have acreted on those planets.

The above assumes that the sun would have sucked down the volitiles preferentially in the inner solar system, but a gravitationally driven process would not discriminate. Every process able to differentiate the protoplanetary disk as you describe is driven by the sun's radiation and/or solar wind. That requires the sun to be shining as a main sequence star.

QuoteLook, there are many scientific reasons to why the inner planets are not huge gas planets, and to claim that the Earth somehow formed later than the Sun from the same nebulous cloud, after the Sun's radiation blew the space of our planetary system away, would also mean there would not have been an proto planet Earth to form from nebulous matter.

Bullshit. There are many scientific reasons, but they are all contingent on the sun shining. Gravitational influences alone are not sufficient, because gravitational forces are not dependent on material. They affect all materials equally. The differential formation of rocky worlds and gas giants boils down to differentiation of material, and that requires the influence of an interaction that differs according to the material.

QuoteA simple reason is this, if the Earth was not a proto planet in the same nebulous cloud with the Moon, other planets, and Sun, it would not have formed at all.

The Earth formed from the same cloud as the rest of the solar system, but the cloud had to differentiate chemically before the Earth and the other inner planets formed proper. Otherwise, they would have followed the same processes as formed the gas giants and become gas giants themselves. This did not happen, so the differentiation occured. But the only thing that could have caused that differentiation is the radiation and solar wind from the young sun.

The sun provides a clear mechanism for why the inner worlds differ from the outer worlds. If you come up with an alternate scientific mechanism that doesn't depend on the sun, I'm all ears. Until then, it's just your empty posturing.

QuotePlease take time and consider what science say, and compare the above statement.
The Sun and planets were all taking shape at the same time. It is called a proto Sun and Proto Planets.
Even using logic, you will see that the Sun did not shine bright when it was a proto sun.

I do not argue that the sun was not at one point a protostar, nor do I argue that the Earth did not form out of the same protoplanetary disk as the other planets. What I do argue is that the sun moved out of the protostar stage and became a full, hydrogen-burning main sequence star before the Earth and other inner worlds formed. There is nothing about the definition of either protoplanets or protostars that says that they MUST form at the same time, or take the same time forming.

QuoteALL SCIENTISTS AGREE TO THIS FACT THAT THE PLANETS AND SUN DEVELOPED FROM A DARK CLOUD WHEN THE SUN WAS STILL NOT SHINING.

No scientist will agree with you that these events need take place at the same time. That's part of your problem right there. You keep insisting that, because they are the first in sequence of their respective processes, that they must begin simultaneously. Why? Why should they do so?

Indeed, I don't think they can start at the same time because if they did, by feeding of the very same nebulae, those "planets" would grow just as fast as the forming star and would ignite as well as hydrogen-burning stars along with the sun. We would be living in a binary (or more) system, not the single star we do now.

QuoteTHE ONLY REASON WHY YOU WILL NOT ACCEPT SCIENCE IS BECAUSE OF THESE WORDS:
THE EARTH WAS DARK THROUGHOUT ITS DEEP, AND THE SPIRIT OF GOD HOVERED ABOVE THE WATERS.
AND GOD SAID: LET THERE BE LIGHT!"

WHY IS IT SO PAINFULL?

I like how you envision me to be in pain and blinded by the light, asswipe. It just goes to show that all of you knobheads are actually sadists and horrible people.

But moving on:

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 12, 2018, 05:11:46 AM
Now we are getting somewhere.
A short period of the Earth melting.
But what was before this Melting epoch you are talking about.
A wet acretion of Ice and space dust perhaps?

No. Planetesimals. By any reasonable description, hunks of rock.

QuoteDarkness?
Wet?
Familiar?

No. The differentiation of the protoplanetary disk requires a shining sun. Ergo, no darkness. The planetesimals and resulting protoplanets were dry as a bone by any conventional description.

QuoteI might not have any scientific background, but so far We found from your own words that the Earth must have been a collection of Water, Gas and Matter.

No, that didn't happen. The inital components of the Earth were by any conventional description dry rocks. This "my own words" malarkey is something you made up, as if you know the vision in my head better than me. You don't get to do that.

QuoteWe also found you agree with the fact that the Sun was very faint when it started to produce fusion. You call it 10 million years, enough to fit in with a Biblical description that there was light, and then a Sun.

Under no circumstance would you call the radiation from a protostar "light." It would be infrared radiation, which you can't see. Significant visible radiation from the sun began when it's nuclear furnace started up. Ergo, Sun, then light.

We know this because the dimmest stars are very very faint, especially in the visible spectrum, and as such would only cast the faintest of shadows, and any substantial object on its way to nuclear fusion must be fainter still. A protostar stops collapsing and becomes a star because it's generating enough power to support itself. Until that point, it just doesn't glow. Furthermore, it takes a minimum of a million years for the energy generated in the core of a star like our own to reach the surface. Ergo, Sun, then light.

But let's say I accept your spurious "light, and then a Sun" order; it still takes a bright star to cause the protoplanetary disk to differentiate enough to produce an inner solar system with predominantly rocky worlds. Ergo, nothing recognizable as the Earth exists yet. So it's light, then sun, then Earth.

Sorry, chum, there is no circumstance where your order works.

QuoteAnd obviously you are also welcome to disregard whatever scientific discoveries was found to disprove  Thea impact.

As I point out in a previous message, those discoveries do not disprove the Theia impact, but only require its modification. Without Theia, you have a hard time explaining why we have such a large moon orbiting on the eliptic. In case you haven't realized, that's a big deal.

QuoteFact is that we now moved from an accusation that the Biblical explanation of the Bible should be discarded as any scientific relation, to you agreeing to Genesis, but with different timelines.

Bullshit. What you have posted is only scientists sorting out the relatively small stuff. Your Biblical "theory" would require huge changes in our understanding of the universe in order to be true. Like I said before, you're calling upon me to remove the sliver in my eye, when there's a huge fuck-off log in yours.

QuoteI love this.

Well, mastochism is a thing. If you want to be clubbed, who am I to argue?

QuoteNo more ancient sheep herders night fire stories and Mythological accusations.

Even a sheep hearder has eyes, and if they saw it, they would have known that their Bible was indeed myth.

QuoteOh but it will!
Wait for it!

Promises, promises.

You are merely grandstanding at this point. You have no conception of what you're reading, and so you reject my explanations even though I've given you proper interpretations of your own goddamned sources.

Seriously, fuck off. You have nothing to teach us.

In a perfect world we could just shoot these guys.

In a perfect world these guys wouldn't be here to need shooting.

Quote from: Unbeliever on July 12, 2018, 02:13:00 PM
In a perfect world these guys wouldn't be here to need shooting.

Shoot enough of them and they won't be here.

If y'all didn't have chew toys, all your teeth could fall out (a lot of us are elderly).

all of this sciencey  stuff to try to prove his god exists....albeit one a little terrified by a woman's menstrual cycle. Hey! What good is a god what knows about that stuff eh? He dropped 2/3rds of the stars to the earth and barely a dent...now THATS a god........oy.

Quote from: Blackleaf on July 12, 2018, 11:24:10 AM
Oh, don't tell me. He thinks that scientific theories are just unsupported guesses, and those theories turn into laws when they're proven right.

And dont tell me you are under the impression that Theories is proven fact, even without any supportive substance or any scientific fact.
Wow, how scientific practices have changed in the Atheistic camp.
And they accuse Christians in believing in fables, when they simply believe a Theory is fact!

Quote from: Hydra009 on July 09, 2018, 07:33:12 PM
That sounds awfully nuanced and complicated.  Goddidit fits better on a bumpersticker.

Bumperstickers are usually inaccurate.  I have none on MY car.

Quote from: trdsf on July 12, 2018, 01:17:48 PM
Regardless of your elaboration, the only way you can assert that is to necessarily assert that all of science is wrong.  There is no observation from any of the sciences that supports the notion that animal life (which includes humans) has existed for only 6,000 years.  Not one.  Not a single, solitary observation.  To assert that Animalia have only existed for 6,000 years means you reject science, period.

I dont agree with your statement. On the contrary, I full hardheartedly agree with any scientific dating techniques to determine the age of organic material.
What I do not agree with is assumptions made by Atheists on the results.
But I will get to that point where you will see what I mean.
Actually, Just as with the Nebular Hypostesis, tests such as C14/C12 are evidence to Bblical descriptions.
I know you will like what I will show you.

Quote from: trdsf
You cannot both reject science and claim a "scientific" basis for biblical creation.  If you want to accept the scientific method, you need to accept scientific results, including the ones that disagree with what you want them to be.  I mean, I would have loved to not mention the isotopic mismatch between terrestrial water and cometary water because I knew you would try to pounce on that (and eventually waste my time with a digression explaining your failure to make it relevant), but the observation is what it is.

I never said I reject scientific facts. I might not listen to Theories, but scientific dating tequniques are verry well established in science, and anyone claiming that, say Carbon 14 testing is incorrect, is a fool.
I will never make such a mistake, because atheists will then use my error to prove me wrong.

Quote from: trdsf
Unlike you, I don't get to cherry-pick my data.  I respect reality and truth.

If you still want to try to do both, then you need to provide explanations for the following:

1. Why radiometric dating techniques are accurate below 6000 years before present but not above -- what mechanism changes radioactivity at that age, and in such a way that all techniques provide consistent answers despite following different decay paths.  If you do not reject radiometric dating techniques, you need to explain why we have been able to date the remains of genetically modern humans to 300,000 years ago, to say nothing of the record of billions of years of evolution for the rest of living entities.

And these tests are 100% correct, I have never claimed otherwize.
But we will get there too.

Quote from: trdsf
2. Why astronomical observations of protoplanetary disks in other star systems look like the scientific model of planetary formation and not the biblical model.  If your answer is that Earth is special and these other systems aren't, you need to provide a mechanism as to why Earth is special.

and what I showed is that the Biblical description and the scientific discoveries are exactly the same. We went through all the informatiion where I showed you that science are using the Nebular Hypothesis postulated by Immanuel Kant in 1755.
With the 'age of enlightenment' many atheists attempted to produce any philosophy to counter the 'Biblical taste' of Kant's claim. They were all proven incorrectly, but atheists still forced this Hadean epoch into the Nebular Hypothesis. Now, as you have seen, one after the other discovery shows that Kant was correct, and his Nebular Theory which he found from Biblical descriptions, are what science now know to be correct.
Do you see the problem with atheists' claims that the Bible is wrong in its description with what science today knows about the origins of the universe?
Atheists are using the Biblical description to disprove the Bible!
It is hilarious!

Quote from: trdsf
The answer to neither of these can be 'because god'.  You're trying to demonstrate divine intervention here, so you may not assume it as part of your proof for it -- all that is, is saying "God did this.  My proof is that I think god did this, therefore god did this."  Divine intervention is your conclusion, so it cannot be used as an explanation for any step prior to its actual demonstration.

Ok, so atheists for over 100 years never knew that the Nebular Hypothesis came smack bang out of Genesis.
They then carried on to discover the real origins of the universe, and never knew about Kant's claim.
Now Atheists have to accept that what they hold so dear as evidence that the Bible can be proven wrong, is actually a Biblical description written up 3 000 years ago by people who in their chronological existence, received this information from their ancestors 4500 years ago!
So, perhaps you can explain how Kant in 1755 used the Bible to formulate the Nebular Hypothesis written 4500 years ago, and science are today using and providing evidence to the accuracy thereof?
I guess this was the one thing that made me realize that somehow this Author of Genesis, are definitely the Divine Creator who told us how HEDIDIT!

Quote from: trdsf
Neither can the answer be "I just don't buy it".  You can't handwave away repeatable, testable, verified observations without an explanation why they're wrong and how they're wrong, as well as providing a testable theory (and theory means a scientific theory, not a guess) that not only explains current observations but makes definite testable predictions about where and how future observations may vary from the currently accepted theories.

And as promised I will obviously come to the age of Life on Earth.
I was very concerned about the Biblical claim, but once I found that science supported the age of life according to Biblical claims, I had to accept that YHWH exists!

Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 12, 2018, 02:09:56 PM
In a perfect world we could just shoot these guys.

And here we have the true mentality of Atheists on a grand display.
The exact words of Stalin, Pot Pol, Mau Tse Dong, Castro, Samorrah Machell, and all the atheists of the world who collecttively murdered over 100 million people.
Atheists are well known to shoot those that proves them wrong!
LOLMAO

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 13, 2018, 03:22:37 AM
And here we have the true mentality of Atheists on a grand display.
The exact words of Stalin, Pot Pol, Mau Tse Dong, Castro, Samorrah Machell, and all the atheists of the world who collecttively murdered over 100 million people.
Atheists are well known to shoot those that proves them wrong!
LOLMAO

The old claim that atheists are ll communists is too false to even worry about.

And "Ok, so atheists for over 100 years never knew that the Nebular Hypothesis came smack bang out of Genesis" is so innacurate.  The biblical account of Genesis is falsifiable, lacking any evidence, and scientifically innaccurate is SO many ways.  Do you think or do you just "believe".  Let's go from there.

Quote from: Cavebear on July 13, 2018, 03:28:28 AM
The old claim that atheists are ll communists is too false to even worry about.

And "Ok, so atheists for over 100 years never knew that the Nebular Hypothesis came smack bang out of Genesis" is so innacurate.  The biblical account of Genesis is falsifiable, lacking any evidence, and scientifically innaccurate is SO many ways.  Do you think or do you just "believe".  Let's go from there.

Have I said Atheists are communists?
Is it a fact that all communists are Atheists?
Is it a fact that an Atheist on this forum said I should be shot?
Is it a fact that Atheists in communist countries are a collection of atheists, that loves to kill christians, intellectuals, and anyone that might ask questions against Atheism.
Do you see how indoctrinated you are when and Atheist threatens someone to be shot?
If I were you I would not attack a person that is expressing you what he believes in, but I expect that you should have defended my right to an opinion, even if you do not agree!
However, you simply express your Atheistic character to join into the utopia of atheism, murdering of anything Christian!
Shame on you!

OK, so far we saw that the claim that the biblical description is incorrect on the Origins of the Universe, and the age of the Universe, is in contradiction with science; is not true at all.
As a matter of fact, a the claim that the Genesis description is incorrect, such as that the Biblical claim that the Universe to be 6 000 years old, is totally incorrect when one read the times as "Before the First day' which is clearly an expression that the age of the Earth is unknown, and definitely older than 6K.
I also showed that the Nebular Hypothesis is the only solid scientific explanation substantiated by scientific experiments and discoveries, that atheists are using as an explanation that the Bible is incorrect. What the Atheist obviously never knew, was that this Nebular Hypothesis, that is constantly proven correct as time passes, was compiled by Emmanuel Kant, which grasped as a Biblical student of Hebrew scriptures!
Now, I do not want any atheist to simply believe me, or to decide that I am either correct or wrong, but I expect one to at least go and find out for yourself!

To conclude on the matter of the Universe and Genesis.
I do not say any of my findings is cast in concrete, but what I do say is:

Dont ever again claim that the description on the Origins of the Universe from the Bible is derived from Mythology, or ancient simple camel herders, or Sumerian creation epochs, or whatever.

What I demonstrated, even though you will never agree, and you have the right too disagree, (I wont wish you to be shot) but that I, a simple man, can take your claim and keep you busy for a week and still show you that your point of opinion is bias.
Now, If we were to hold a court case, such as the Monkey trial, I am sure that a Jury will agree that any claim of non intellectual creation from Genesis based on my description, can not be claimed. Just as I will not be able to claim the existence of Divine creation.

So sue me and lets test my claim.
:police: :laugh:

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 13, 2018, 03:22:37 AM
And here we have the true mentality of Atheists on a grand display.
The exact words of Stalin, Pot Pol, Mau Tse Dong, Castro, Samorrah Machell, and all the atheists of the world who collecttively murdered over 100 million people.
Atheists are well known to shoot those that proves them wrong!
LOLMAO

Using your own logic, every christian is a child abuser, because of what the Sisters of Nazareth did for decades to children

Quote from: Munch on July 13, 2018, 05:16:16 AM
Using your own logic, every christian is child abuser, because of what the Sisters of Nazareth did for decades to children

Still, I never wished any child to be hurt, But you continue to assist your Atheist brothers in their quest to shoot Christians, as did so many atheists did.
Do you think your actions are honorable?

Quote from: Cavebear on July 13, 2018, 02:44:38 AM
Bumperstickers are usually inaccurate.  I have none on MY car.

Mine says "DANGER, I DRIVE LIKE YOU!"

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 13, 2018, 04:34:59 AM
OK, so far we saw that the claim that the biblical description is incorrect on the Origins of the Universe, and the age of the Universe, is in contradiction with science; is not true at all.
As a matter of fact, a the claim that the Genesis description is incorrect, such as that the Biblical claim that the Universe to be 6 000 years old, is totally incorrect when one read the times as "Before the First day' which is clearly an expression that the age of the Earth is unknown, and definitely older than 6K.
I also showed that the Nebular Hypothesis is the only solid scientific explanation substantiated by scientific experiments and discoveries, that atheists are using as an explanation that the Bible is incorrect. What the Atheist obviously never knew, was that this Nebular Hypothesis, that is constantly proven correct as time passes, was compiled by Emmanuel Kant, which grasped as a Biblical student of Hebrew scriptures!
Now, I do not want any atheist to simply believe me, or to decide that I am either correct or wrong, but I expect one to at least go and find out for yourself!

To conclude on the matter of the Universe and Genesis.
I do not say any of my findings is cast in concrete, but what I do say is:

Dont ever again claim that the description on the Origins of the Universe from the Bible is derived from Mythology, or ancient simple camel herders, or Sumerian creation epochs, or whatever.

What I demonstrated, even though you will never agree, and you have the right too disagree, (I wont wish you to be shot) but that I, a simple man, can take your claim and keep you busy for a week and still show you that your point of opinion is bias.
Now, If we were to hold a court case, such as the Monkey trial, I am sure that a Jury will agree that any claim of non intellectual creation from Genesis based on my description, can not be claimed. Just as I will not be able to claim the existence of Divine creation.

So sue me and lets test my claim.
:police: :laugh:

I am pleased that you recognize all or most religious claims are false.  You might want to try going from there.

Herein lies a good example of why creation science is not science, and should never be taught in science classes.

Quote from: Cavebear on July 13, 2018, 06:59:35 AM
I am pleased that you recognize all or most religious claims are false.  You might want to try going from there.

You should 'go from there' and meet me at the following address.
Gen 1:1, and make a u turn at verse 30.
Continue for 6 days, but enter only for a short while in Zero time, and look around you. Set your Garmin and get to the Universal History of the Heavens, go through the 9 stages.
Press HOME.
Come back and tell me what you have learned.

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 13, 2018, 07:53:41 AM
You should 'go from there' and meet me at the following address.
Gen 1:1, and make a u turn at verse 30.
Continue for 6 days, but enter only for a short while in Zero time, and look around you. Set your Garmin and get to the Universal History of the Heavens, go through the 9 stages.
Press HOME.
Come back and tell me what you have learned.

And then settle down in a library to actually study serious science.  Try it, it MIGHT do you some good...

Quote from: Cavebear on July 13, 2018, 07:56:41 AM
And then settle down in a library to actually study serious science.  Try it, it MIGHT do you some good...

Most ranch-style "schools" don't have much of a library.

Quote from: SGOS on July 13, 2018, 07:50:23 AM
Herein lies a good example of why creation science is not science, and should never be taught in science classes.

Perhaps you want to teach your children only Evolution, Atheism, and hope they will be brainwashed into believing you as was done with your mind.
I taught my children both Atheism, and Religion, and my Daughter is today an Geologist with depth in her field unparalleled by her previously Atheist colleagues.
They all are huge admirers of the Bible now, and love to self study the scriptures and to discuss it with their friends.

But, If you want your children to mature braindead and closed minded, it is your problem. Please do not teach them that Atheists are not out there to shoot down Christians.
They might not understand your philosophy.

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 13, 2018, 08:00:05 AM
Perhaps you want to teach your children only Evolution, Atheism, and hope they will be brainwashed into believing you as was done with your mind.
I taught my children both Atheism, and Religion, and my Daughter is today an Geologist with depth in her field unparalleled by her previously Atheist colleagues.
They all are huge admirers of the Bible now, and love to self study the scriptures and to discuss it with their friends.

But, If you want your children to mature braindead and closed minded, it is your problem. Please do not teach them that Atheists are not out there to shoot down Christians.
They might not understand your philosophy.

You are so full of shit.

Quote from: Cavebear on July 13, 2018, 07:56:41 AM
And then settle down in a library to actually study serious science.  Try it, it MIGHT do you some good...

While you are at it, take out Kant's and Stennos' publication, and try to criticize it.
Perhaps you will understand the core of science as discovered today.
Libraries, Philosophy dept.
ASk, there will be someone that can show you where to find these books.

Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 13, 2018, 08:01:13 AM
You are so full of shit.

Biologically, you are in error.
Please refer to some biological books and find out what the human body contains.

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 13, 2018, 08:03:35 AM
Biologically, you are in error.
Please refer to some biological books and find out what the human body contains.

Okay, you're 95% shit.

Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 13, 2018, 08:01:13 AM
You are so full of shit.

A very wize man said 2 000 years ago.
The mouth is full of what the heart runs over with.
Swearing is also a sign of immature intellect.
Personal insults are signs of arguments lost.
And much more.

Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 13, 2018, 08:05:13 AM
Okay, you're 95% shit.

I suggest an attempt at the library to assist you in biology will definitely help.

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 13, 2018, 08:03:35 AM
Biologically, you are in error.
Please refer to some biological books and find out what the human body contains.

Well, technically, you probably are full of shit.  You have a lot of intestines full of it.  About 28 feet of it in various degrees of decomposition.

But I will also agree with Gawdzilla that you are mentally full of it.

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 13, 2018, 08:00:05 AM
I taught my children both Atheism, and Religion, and my Daughter is today an Geologist with depth in her field unparalleled by her previously Atheist colleagues.
They all are huge admirers of the Bible now, and love to self study the scriptures and to discuss it with their friends.

Good for her gaining unparalleled status in her field of geology, but she sure didn't get it from you with your knowledge being as limited as it is.

Quote from: SGOS on July 13, 2018, 08:32:17 AM
Good for her gaining unparalleled status in her field of geology, but she sure didn't get it from you with your knowledge being as limited as it is.

Huzza, Huzza!  LOL...

I hope to one day have children to brainwash to the religion of atheism. Taking them to atheist church to learn from the holy atheist texts, learn atheist doctrine, and practice atheist sacraments such as atheist baptism and atheist confirmation. I can't wait to surround them exclusively with atheist family and friends so they are never exposed to other religious beliefs until they are thoroughly brainwashed, and having them pray to their lack of a god before meals or sleep.

Quote from: Blackleaf on July 13, 2018, 09:22:11 AM
I hope to one day have children to brainwash to the religion of atheism. Taking them to atheist church to learn from the holy atheist texts, learn atheist doctrine, and practice atheist sacraments such as atheist baptism and atheist confirmation. I can't wait to surround them exclusively with atheist family and friends so they are never exposed to other religious beliefs until they are thoroughly brainwashed, and having them pray to their lack of a god before meals or sleep.

I sure love to appreciate good sarcasm!  Outstanding...

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 13, 2018, 03:08:48 AM
I dont agree with your statement. On the contrary, I full hardheartedly agree with any scientific dating techniques to determine the age of organic material.

No, either you accept radiometric dating or you don't.  The principle is identical for both organic and inorganic material.  You don't get to cherry-pick.

Even with your limitation to 'organic', however, radiometric dating demonstrates that modern human beings have been on this planet for three hundred thousand years at a minimum.  And you explicitly admitted you deny that humans have been around for more than 6,000 years.

You can't accept the methods and deny the results.

Your position is internally inconsistent and contradictory, and therefore untenable.

Quote from: trdsf on July 13, 2018, 09:30:41 AM
No, either you accept radiometric dating or you don't.  The principle is identical for both organic and inorganic material.  You don't get to cherry-pick.

Even with your limitation to 'organic', however, radiometric dating demonstrates that modern human beings have been on this planet for three hundred thousand years at a minimum.  And you explicitly admitted you deny that humans have been around for more than 6,000 years.

You can't accept the methods and deny the results.

Your position is internally inconsistent and contradictory, and therefore untenable.

You are completely correct.  And of course that won't slow him down in the least bit.  There is no stopping some people. 

Quote from: trdsf on July 13, 2018, 09:30:41 AM
No, either you accept radiometric dating or you don't.  The principle is identical for both organic and inorganic material.  You don't get to cherry-pick.

Even with your limitation to 'organic', however, radiometric dating demonstrates that modern human beings have been on this planet for three hundred thousand years at a minimum.  And you explicitly admitted you deny that humans have been around for more than 6,000 years.

You can't accept the methods and deny the results.

Your position is internally inconsistent and contradictory, and therefore untenable.

Which makes him a good christian.

Quote from: trdsf on July 13, 2018, 09:30:41 AM
No, either you accept radiometric dating or you don't.  The principle is identical for both organic and inorganic material.  You don't get to cherry-pick.

Even with your limitation to 'organic', however, radiometric dating demonstrates that modern human beings have been on this planet for three hundred thousand years at a minimum.  And you explicitly admitted you deny that humans have been around for more than 6,000 years.

You can't accept the methods and deny the results.

Your position is internally inconsistent and contradictory, and therefore untenable.

Oh yes, it is true what you say. I just did not go to the Uranium Lead tests on Organic material, due to the fact that I wanted to discuss C14 first.
The reason is that C14 can not work on fossils, or other inorganic matter.
On the other thread I placed my claim. Now I only need to go to Fossilized dating to show you that the Bible is correct after all.

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 13, 2018, 08:02:31 AM
While you are at it, take out Kant's and Stennos' publication, and try to criticize it.
Perhaps you will understand the core of science as discovered today.
Libraries, Philosophy dept.
ASk, there will be someone that can show you where to find these books.

Philosophy is no substitute for observation, experiment and analysis.  With philosophy, everything depends on your premises, not on actual observations and data.  I don't care who the philosopher is -- Kant, Wittgenstein, Heidegger, or Aristotle -- observation beats premise every single time.

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 13, 2018, 10:10:02 AM
The reason is that C14 can not work on fossils, or other inorganic matter.

Yeah, you bullshit again.

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 13, 2018, 10:10:02 AM
Oh yes, it is true what you say. I just did not go to the Uranium Lead tests on Organic material, due to the fact that I wanted to discuss C14 first.
The reason is that C14 can not work on fossils, or other inorganic matter.
On the other thread I placed my claim. Now I only need to go to Fossilized dating to show you that the Bible is correct after all.

¹⁴C dating gets us back to no more than 60,000 years before present, and yes, it is meant for organic material, and yes, it has demonstrated the existence of humans long before 6,000 years ago -- the Lake Mungo Remains in Australia, the skeleton of a child found in Taramsa in Egypt, the Omo Remains all date to tens of thousands of years ago.  Notice I said remains, not fossils: remains don't fossilize in a few tens of thousands of years.

Not that I have any realistic expectation of any of this getting through your self-imposed cocoon of delusion, but I will feel better for speaking truth to fiction.

He'd sit through the first three minutes of "Dawn of Humanity" on Nova and say it was all wrong. That would teach Lee Berger a thing or two!

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 13, 2018, 10:10:02 AM
Oh yes, it is true what you say. I just did not go to the Uranium Lead tests on Organic material, due to the fact that I wanted to discuss C14 first.
The reason is that C14 can not work on fossils, or other inorganic matter.
On the other thread I placed my claim. Now I only need to go to Fossilized dating to show you that the Bible is correct after all.

Mousetrap, you understand less about C14 than I do about what my girlfriend from 1968 is doing today.  I'm serious, your lack of knowledge is less than he whole Trump family and that is setting a profoundly low bar.  Would you PLEASE do us smarter folks a real big favor and just go play with your other flat earthers and "eels come from mud types"?

This guy has the makings of a great cult leader.  The first religion to meld science and religion.  Well OK, not the first, but close, and OK, it's more like twisting than melding, but that's all you need for a religion.  Don't laugh; This is how these crazy things get started.  Who ever thought anyone with a brain would believe Joseph Smith?  Mousetrap may have a future that includes his own private jet, and his own TV Channel where he appears with his adoring starry eyed wife, Bim Bim, who also pedals her line of cosmetics on the show.

Quote from: SGOS on July 13, 2018, 11:33:24 AM
This guy has the makings of a great cult leader.  The first religion to meld science and religion.  Well OK, not the first, but close, and OK, it's more like twisting than melding, but that's all you need for a religion.  Don't laugh; This is how these crazy things get started.  Who every thought anyone with a brain would believe Joseph Smith?  Mousetrap may have a future that includes his own private jet, and his own TV Channel where he appears with his adoring starry eyed wife, Bim Bim, who also pedals her line of cosmetics on the show.

OK, yeah but is that what we want?   A Jerry Falwell/Trump/Ingraham?  This person pays no attention to reality and I don't think we need this one here.

Quote from: Cavebear on July 13, 2018, 11:45:00 AM
OK, yeah but is that what we want?   A Jerry Falwell/Trump/Ingraham?  This person pays no attention to reality and I don't think we need this one here.

Hey, don't blame me.  I'm not asking him to stay.

Quote from: aitm on July 12, 2018, 08:55:59 PM
all of this sciencey  stuff to try to prove his god exists....albeit one a little terrified by a woman's menstrual cycle. Hey! What good is a god what knows about that stuff eh? He dropped 2/3rds of the stars to the earth and barely a dent...now THATS a god........oy.

Women are scary, every day of the month ;-)

Quote from: Cavebear on July 13, 2018, 03:28:28 AM
The old claim that atheists are ll communists is too false to even worry about.

And "Ok, so atheists for over 100 years never knew that the Nebular Hypothesis came smack bang out of Genesis" is so innacurate.  The biblical account of Genesis is falsifiable, lacking any evidence, and scientifically innaccurate is SO many ways.  Do you think or do you just "believe".  Let's go from there.

Sociopaths come in many forms, some theist, some atheist.  But all communists are sociopaths, hence the overlap.

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 13, 2018, 08:03:35 AM
Biologically, you are in error.
Please refer to some biological books and find out what the human body contains.

No, it is most Texans have brown eyes, because they are full of shit up to there ... please don't make non-Texans look better than us ...

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 13, 2018, 02:34:54 AM
And dont tell me you are under the impression that Theories is proven fact, even without any supportive substance or any scientific fact.
Wow, how scientific practices have changed in the Atheistic camp.
And they accuse Christians in believing in fables, when they simply believe a Theory is fact!

There is no such thing in science as "proven fact." Even scientific "laws" are just our best understanding so far and may change with new observations.

Quote from: Cavebear on July 13, 2018, 09:25:51 AM
I sure love to appreciate good sarcasm!  Outstanding...

I, too, love a good sarcasm orgasm! :-D

Quote from: Baruch on July 13, 2018, 01:05:44 PM
No, it is most Texans have brown eyes, because they are full of shit up to there ... please don't make non-Texans look better than us ...

Thank you for reminding me why I blocked you previously. No point and all joke. The jester tent is around the back...

Quote from: Cavebear on July 13, 2018, 02:04:56 PM
Thank you for reminding me why I blocked you previously. No point and all joke. The jester tent is around the back...

You have such a "god" complex, for an atheist ;-))  Your ego is so large, that you can't even apologize appropriately ... without kissing your own ass at the same time.  Positively Papal infallibility.

Hey, Mousetrap...

I predicted you would ignore the post below, provide creationist nonsense or grace us with your own invented dogma from the Religion of Mousetrapâ,,¢ -- a religion of one.

So far, you are ignoring the obvious identified fault in Genesis.  In my book, that makes you a coward, a disingenuous creationist and/or a willfully ignorant chump.  Of course, you can be all three at the same time.

Quote from: sdelsolray on July 11, 2018, 06:28:25 PM
In addition, he's cherrypicking and ignoring much.  For example, Genesis claims the earth and waters were created on the first day and stars did not exist until the fourth day.  Water contains oxygen.  The earth contains dozens and dozens of elements heavier than lithium.

Current scientific theory states all elements heavier than lithium are only formed in stars or through stellar processes.  Accordingly, there was no oxygen to form water and no heavier elements to form a large portion of the earth during Genesis "days" 1, 2 or 3 and for at least hundreds of millions of years of "day" four.

I suspect our new guest will ignore this critical path contradiction between Genesis and science.  It is one of many fatal flaws in Genesis.  Of course, there are many more similar contradictions.  But I think its best for now to provide just one of them and see if our guest responds with compelling evidence and argument.  I strongly suspect he will ignore it or provide some creationist nonsense.  Perhaps he will grace us with more dogma from the Religion of Mousetrapâ,,¢, a religion of one.

Actually, one minor nitpick. The first chapter of Genesis makes no mention of God creating the waters. It says he created the "heavens and the earth," but it's implied that the waters were already there. God hovers over the waters and he moves some of it around, but the Bible kinda skims over the creation of water itself. This is probably because the belief at the time was that the earth sat on top of the waters, which were primordial, infinite, and always existed. Some said that the earth sat on the back of a turtle shell or something similar. There was no concept of outer space. They believed that the skies were a physical structure with vaults that would occasionally be opened to allow water to fall onto dry land (rain). So basically the earth was a little air bubble surrounded by water above and below.

Quote from: Blackleaf on July 13, 2018, 09:58:12 PM
Actually, one minor nitpick. The first chapter of Genesis makes no mention of God creating the waters. It says he created the "heavens and the earth," but it's implied that the waters were already there. God hovers over the waters and he moves some of it around, but the Bible kinda skims over the creation of water itself. This is probably because the belief at the time was that the earth sat on top of the waters, which were primordial, infinite, and always existed. Some said that the earth sat on the back of a turtle shell or something similar. There was no concept of outer space. They believed that the skies were a physical structure with vaults that would occasionally be opened to allow water to fall onto dry land (rain). So basically the earth was a little air bubble surrounded by water above and below.

Agreed.  I'm not claiming the text of Genesis is thorough, consistent or accurate.  Still, "the waters" existed on the first day simply because Genesis claims water is there on the first day.  My point is simple.  Water cannot exist without oxygen and hydrogen.  Only stellar activity can form oxygen.  According to Genesis, stars were not "created" until the fourth day.  Thus, oxygen (and water) could not have existed until the forth day, at least according to current scientific theory and the text of Genesis.  Mousetrap avoids this glaring discrepancy, yet he claims science and Genesis are not in contradiction.  Other creationists have put forth a few infantile ad hoc apologetics to address this fatal flaw, such as:

1)  'Well, God created light on the first day and that must mean he created stars on the first day.'

or they get more apologetic with a special frame of reference:

2)  'Well, Genesis events are to be viewed from the surface of the Earth itself and from nowhere else.  Stars were created on the first day but they could not be seen (from Earth) until the fourth day.'

or they go anti-scientific and hypocritical:

3)  'Well, how do you know oxygen has to be formed in stars?  Were your there?"

or they go all magical:

4)  "Well, my God can do anything he wants.'

Of course, Mousedroppings Mousetrap can't use the anti-science apologetic unless he wants to reject standard stellar and atomic element evolution.  Since he seems to reject biological evolution, that is a possibility.

Quote from: Blackleaf on July 13, 2018, 09:58:12 PM
Actually, one minor nitpick. The first chapter of Genesis makes no mention of God creating the waters. It says he created the "heavens and the earth," but it's implied that the waters were already there. God hovers over the waters and he moves some of it around, but the Bible kinda skims over the creation of water itself. This is probably because the belief at the time was that the earth sat on top of the waters, which were primordial, infinite, and always existed. Some said that the earth sat on the back of a turtle shell or something similar. There was no concept of outer space. They believed that the skies were a physical structure with vaults that would occasionally be opened to allow water to fall onto dry land (rain). So basically the earth was a little air bubble surrounded by water above and below.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_(cosmogony) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_(cosmogony))

The "water" in Genesis can be easily interchanged with the formless chaos of greco-roman mythology.  We can set it up right next to the Christmas tree as yet another borrowed tradition.

Quote from: Blackleaf on July 13, 2018, 09:58:12 PM
Actually, one minor nitpick. The first chapter of Genesis makes no mention of God creating the waters. It says he created the "heavens and the earth," but it's implied that the waters were already there. God hovers over the waters and he moves some of it around, but the Bible kinda skims over the creation of water itself. This is probably because the belief at the time was that the earth sat on top of the waters, which were primordial, infinite, and always existed. Some said that the earth sat on the back of a turtle shell or something similar. There was no concept of outer space. They believed that the skies were a physical structure with vaults that would occasionally be opened to allow water to fall onto dry land (rain). So basically the earth was a little air bubble surrounded by water above and below.

Symbology.  The feminine, wet, chaotic.  The masculine, dry, orderly.  Literally those waters are a goddess, and the Spirt is having sex with it.  It was the Spirit who also impregnated the Virgin Mary.

Quote from: Baruch on July 13, 2018, 11:57:53 PM
Symbology.  The feminine, wet, chaotic.  The masculine, dry, orderly.  Literally those waters are a goddess, and the Spirt is having sex with it.  It was the Spirit who also impregnated the Virgin Mary.

What does that make rain then...? On second thought, I don't want to know.

Oh Great and powerful Mods and Admins grant us with your power to send Trap to purgatory!!!

Quote from: Blackleaf on July 14, 2018, 01:36:06 AM
What does that make rain then...? On second thought, I don't want to know.

Zeus is taking a piss .. Zeus aka Ba'al .. the lord of many here ;-)  The Aristophanes version of Socrates was made to say about thunder ... Zeus had a bad meal, developed indigestion ;-))  Jesus stilling the storm on the Sea of Galilee ... that is Jesus being Ba'al a dying, rising Canaanite deity.

Quote from: Draconic Aiur on July 14, 2018, 02:15:43 AM
Oh Great and powerful Mods and Admins grant us with your power to send Trap to purgatory!!!

Alas, he has been a great disappointment.

Reading the first two chapters of the bible is very instructive--especially if one approaches it with an open mind.  Chpt. 1 tells a different story than chpt. 2 about the creation of man.  That, alone, would tell anybody with an open, clear thinking mind that the rest of the bible is suspect, since  it contradicts itself from the very beginning.  Bible believers have tripped all over themselves trying to explain these very important contradictions and have failed totally; until and unless one closes one's mind to any of the facts and simply believe the bible is inerrant.  Thus, mousetrap's mind is totally closed to facts and even his name suggests that he is in a trap.   

Quote from: Mike Cl on July 14, 2018, 09:00:13 AM
Reading the first two chapters of the bible is very instructive--especially if one approaches it with an open mind.  Chpt. 1 tells a different story than chpt. 2 about the creation of man.  That, alone, would tell anybody with an open, clear thinking mind that the rest of the bible is suspect, since  it contradicts itself from the very beginning.  Bible believers have tripped all over themselves trying to explain these very important contradictions and have failed totally; until and unless one closes one's mind to any of the facts and simply believe the bible is inerrant.  Thus, mousetrap's mind is totally closed to facts and even his name suggests that he is in a trap.

Poetry anthologies are like that, even modern poetry.  Yes, interpret poetry as journalism if you must ;-)  In that sense, you and Mousetrap are actually on the same position, just looking opposite ways.

Quote from: Baruch on July 14, 2018, 07:13:13 AM
Alas, he has been a great disappointment.

implying you had high hopes?

Quote from: Mr.Obvious on July 14, 2018, 09:21:50 AM
implying you had high hopes?

Well, with irony.  My dialectic between cynicism and hope is an enigma even to me.  The first few posts I have hopes with any visitor ... but it often doesn't take very long for an agenda to emerge, or full on dementia.  Unlike these kinds of visitors, I can be different from the majority here, yet have reasonable POV for what I support.

Quote from: Baruch on July 14, 2018, 09:17:02 AM
Poetry anthologies are like that, even modern poetry.  Yes, interpret poetry as journalism if you must ;-)  In that sense, you and Mousetrap are actually on the same position, just looking opposite ways.

I agree that poetry can be read with many different meanings; that's the function of poetry.  The bible I do not consider poetry; it is simply prose from very ancient peoples trying to make sense of their world.  The idioticy is trying to make it fit today's world.  The Prophet is poetry; that's why I return to it time for it is poetry that speaks to me.  The bible is mainly trash that is used in destructive ways.

Quote from: Mike Cl on July 14, 2018, 10:28:42 AM
I agree that poetry can be read with many different meanings; that's the function of poetry.  The bible I do not consider poetry; it is simply prose from very ancient peoples trying to make sense of their world.  The idioticy is trying to make it fit today's world.  The Prophet is poetry; that's why I return to it time for it is poetry that speaks to me.  The bible is mainly trash that is used in destructive ways.

Philistine ... conventionally, someone with no sense of art.  I suppose you like the "Piss Christ" better?

Yes, Kahil Gibran is very good.  But you and I would be the minority to appreciate him here.  That and nobody tries to build a theocracy on it.

But then, if anarchism was the rule, you wouldn't have to worry about government tyranny, even secular tyranny.

Quote from: Baruch on July 14, 2018, 12:05:48 PM
Philistine ... conventionally, someone with no sense of art.

I have my own sense of art--don't care if anybody else likes what I think of as art.  Art and beauty are the same--each person has to define them in their own terms.  The same with wine--open that bottle of Thunderbird--if you like it it is sipping wine, if not it is rot-gut, not even suitable for cooking.

Quote from: Baruch on July 14, 2018, 12:05:48 PM
if anarchism was the rule,

Hmmm.................how could anarchism be 'the rule' since anarchism has no rules.

Quote from: Mike Cl on July 14, 2018, 12:39:43 PM
Hmmm.................how could anarchism be 'the rule' since anarchism has no rules.

As a rule, anarchism was the system that was mostly in operation.

Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 14, 2018, 01:53:51 PM
As a rule, anarchism was the system that was mostly in operation.

As 'I' rule would most likely be the 'rule' for anarchism.

Quote from: Mike Cl on July 14, 2018, 02:45:33 PM
As 'I' rule would most likely be the 'rule' for anarchism.

And I would obey your rule.

Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 14, 2018, 04:00:13 PM
And I would obey your rule.

You can't as this is an anarchy.

I sacrifics animals for prayer.

(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSO2xMjzgOhkU083b-5-U0t67gxIsTMibZkArB-jViSXqOzpLIvvQ)

Quote from: Draconic Aiur on July 14, 2018, 05:14:38 PM
I sacrifics animals for prayer.

(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSO2xMjzgOhkU083b-5-U0t67gxIsTMibZkArB-jViSXqOzpLIvvQ)

"it is a sweet savour, an offering made by fire unto the LORD."

The Lord just loves the smell of a good barbeque!

Quote from: Mike Cl on July 14, 2018, 05:05:44 PM
You can't as this is an anarchy.

I forgot the :sarcasm:, Sorry.

I see how Mousetrap ignored me, again. Any fool can claim that the scientific consensus "confirms" the Bible, but it's quite another thing to prove it.

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 13, 2018, 04:34:59 AM
Dont ever again claim that the description on the Origins of the Universe from the Bible is derived from Mythology, or ancient simple camel herders, or Sumerian creation epochs, or whatever.

You're not the boss of me. The Bible is derived from mythology. We've known this for at least a good two centuries, from linguistics, comparative relgion, and textual criticism. We can even name the mythologies it's derived from, and glean some of the source beliefs and traditions that the Bible now masks. The literary pedigree of the Bible has been long established in acedemic circles. As one scholar said, "What physicists in general write about God is, with an adequately educated perspective, simply childish and silly from even a rudimentary historical point of view." I add that this applies to physicist-wannabes like yourself.

So, yeah, we know where the Bible came from, we know for what purpose it was written, and know that any treatment that regards Genesis as any accurate description of the formation of the universe and the solar system completely misses the point of the actual purpose of its scriptures, and that any resemblance to any real science is merely a coincidence and/or the result of trying to make the words fit the science or the science fit the words.

Quote
What I demonstrated, even though you will never agree, and you have the right too disagree, (I wont wish you to be shot) but that I, a simple man, can take your claim and keep you busy for a week and still show you that your point of opinion is bias.

Do I admit you have proven to be some amusement? Well, to be honest, yes. I don't see how you can call this "keeping us busy" for a week. If a post appears to be flippant, rest assured that it was written quickly. We've had lots of practice at it.

My own posts are more carefully considered because these things interest me greatly. I like telling people how we know things, and correcting people's arguments. Even if they don't appreciate it sometimes, I like it still.

Quote
Now, If we were to hold a court case, such as the Monkey trial, I am sure that a Jury will agree that any claim of non intellectual creation from Genesis based on my description, can not be claimed. Just as I will not be able to claim the existence of Divine creation.

No. A historical scholar of the Bible would be brought in and he would make your defense look like the childish prattle it is. The Jury would see that you have utterly ignored the points I point out as severe problems of your theory. They would see that the science is on my side, not yours.

Anyway, cheers and toodles

Well, as promised, that point by point refutation.  I don't expect much, if any, to get through your wall of delusion, but again, it's important to speak truth to fiction.  Gonna have to do it in two posts, since there's a 20,000 character limit per post

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 12, 2018, 06:34:05 AM

Quote from: trdsf on July 11, 2018, 02:16:23 PM
I'm going to tell you a creation story now.  It has the advantage of being true, to the best of our species' collective researches.

13.799 billion years ago, give or take twenty-one million years, the Big Bang went bang.  The cause of the Big Bang is an area of active research, but there's no reason to think that it's out of the grasp of researchers to ultimately sort out.  The Big Bang itself is not actually a theory of cosmogony, but an observation of what the origin of the observable universe looks like.  Think of the two-slit experiment in quantum mechanics â€" the interference pattern is an observation, not an explanation.

and I agree, and I will show you who was the first person to talk about this, and where he found it.

No, you don't agree.  You make it painfully obvious that you don't agree.  You may think you agree, but if you actually did, you could not possibly spout the nonsensical creationist rubbish you do.

The first person to talk about the Big Bang was Abbé Georges Lemaître in 1927 -- yes, a Roman Catholic priest.  In 1927, not 1755.  He found it even before Edwin Hubble's observations were published, and derived what we call Hubble's Law two years before Hubble published.  All he did was take Einstein's General Relativity at face value, something even Einstein himself didn't do.  Einstein was convinced the universe had to be static, and added a cosmological constant, thusly: (https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/6161d2c9306acf2f806d9e4ab6fc2c6f4de5fa42) -- the term Λg_μν is that term.  Current theory involving the accelerating expansion of the universe reintroduces it, but with a different sign than Einstein imagined.

Don't try to teach me the history of cosmogonic theory.  I assure you I know it better than you do.

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 12, 2018, 06:34:05 AM

Quote from: trdsf on July 11, 2018, 02:16:23 PM
Not much happened for about 378,000 years, when the universe cooled to the point that neutral atoms could form, rather than being promptly ionized by the heat.  This is what was detected by Penzias and Wilson, confirming the Big Bang model over the Steady State theory.

Correct!

So you agree that the scientific method works and that your view doesn't.  Excellent.  There may be hope for you yet.

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 12, 2018, 06:34:05 AM

Quote from: trdsf on July 11, 2018, 02:16:23 PM
Not much else happened for another half a billion years or so, what's referred to as the cosmological dark ages.  While the universe continued expanding, clouds of hydrogen with traces of helium and even fainter traces of lithium contracted locally under the pull of their own gravity.  The beginnings of the Milky Way date to this time, although it took another four or five billion years for the spiral arms to develop, probably as the result of a near encounter or even collision with another smaller galaxy.

Just as was proposed in 1755.

In no way, shape or form was the theory of stellar fusion proposed in 1755.  That theory comes from Fred Hoyle in 1946.  The shape of the Milky Way as a spiral galaxy wasn't even suspected until 1846.  Kant proposed nothing more than just that we lived in a cluster of stars, and he based it not on Genesis but on the prior work of Thomas Wright, who considered humanity to be an insignificant accident, not the center of creation.

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 12, 2018, 06:34:05 AM

Quote from: trdsf on July 11, 2018, 02:16:23 PM
That's about the time the first stars began to light up, because within the area of gravitational collapse for protogalaxies, smaller areas underwent even more localized gravitational collapse.  On the local level, our own sun ignited about 4.6 billion years ago most likely after the local cloud of interstellar gas was compressed by a relatively nearby supernova which further seeded the area with heavy elements.  When the sun lit, the lighter protoplanetary disk elements were pushed outward by the solar wind, leaving rocky debris towards the center.

Ok, so at that stage the Earth was a collection of Ice and matter!

No.  There was no ice involved, the Earth was a mostly-molten ball of rock and magma.  What water there was, was either vapor, or locked inside what solid rocks there were.  There was as yet not enough atmosphere to allow liquid surface water to exist.

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 12, 2018, 06:34:05 AM

Quote from: trdsf on July 11, 2018, 02:16:23 PM
Out of rocks and dust, not mud, the Earth coalesced.  For the first several hundred million years, the Earth was a lifeless but growing ball of rock heated by impacts and gravitational compression, including the Theia impact event which appears to have led to the formation of the moon.

Oh, ooo! Now we are back to the Hadean epoch, ignoring that water and Dust was already collected by the proto planet Earth before the Sun ignited?Now you say there was only "Rocks and Dust", no proto planet Earth anymore? especially one that was, just as the other proto planets and Sun collection matter for millions of years!

Actually, we're before the Hadean epoch, while the proto-Earth was still collecting.  I don't know what part of your ass you pulled out that I said the Earth was rocks and dust.  It collected out of rocks and dust.

Remember (if you can) that the coalescence of the Earth out of the protoplanetary disk was a gradual thing, not an instantaneous thing.  As much as you want that moment of "Alakazam!" *poof* to be there, it wasn't.  It was a continuum.

Now, if you ask me to pin a date that I would call the first day of the Earth, it would be after the debris of the Theia collision coalesced into a single satellite, when you have an Earth-Moon system.  But that's just my opinion, not a scientific analysis.  Unlike you, I'm aware of the difference.

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 12, 2018, 06:34:05 AM

Quote from: trdsf on July 11, 2018, 02:16:23 PM
The earliest atmosphere, what there was of it, was made of the gases in the protoplanetary disk: hydrogen, ammonia and methane, mainly.  During the Late Heavy Bombardment, outgassing and volcanism added nitrogen and carbon dioxide to the mix.  Contrary to what had been the most widely accepted theory, it's been recently discovered that the isotopic makeup of Earth's water vs. cometary water does not match, so the comet-delivery hypothesis as the main source of water has been modified or abandoned.

But I thought you said the Earth was made only of rocks, and all the volatile elements was blown far away from the Earth?
Thanks for admitting that Comets did not bring water to the Eath.
Oh Golly, but this means water was present when the Earth formed!
But that was what I said!
Science agrees!

No, I did *not* say that, and you're either an idiot or a liar for claiming that.  Go on, show me where I said "all".  Go on.

I didn't think you could.

Water was not present as a surface liquid, which does NOT agree with you.  Are you really functionally literate, or does your brain turn off when you see a word you think you can twist into what you want it to mean?

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 12, 2018, 06:34:05 AM

Quote from: trdsf on July 11, 2018, 02:16:23 PM
This is the great strength of science: it doesn't matter how good or how plausible your theory is, if nature says it's wrong, then it's wrong and you develop a better theory.  This is also the great fault in your system: you have pre-decided what your conclusion is going to be, and you need to twist or ignore observations to fit it.

Where did I place anything about science from my own thought?
I never did any such a thing.

Oh look!  You accidentally told the truth!  Yes, you're right, you never once placed any science in your thoughts!

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 12, 2018, 06:34:05 AM
All I did was to evaluate what the Biblical description on the creation of the Solar System.
I then went to see what scientists discovered, and compared the results.
so, to conclude, the Biblical description is not my idea, but was already postulated in 1755, and 1666.
The scientific descriptions I found in science books, and I continued to read about the difference between the theories of a burning Earth, and a wet Earth.
Nothing more, nothing less.
What I did find is a mumble jumble atheist approace to scientific observations unacceptable to fit in with their religion.
Denial of anything the Bible says.

You did no such thing.  You lied about Kant's theory (based on someone else's theory, not on Genesis), distorted real science, and otherwise bullshitted.

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 12, 2018, 06:34:05 AM

Quote from: trdsf on July 11, 2018, 02:16:23 PM
Anyway, back to the story.  Also about this time, the expansion of the universe began to accelerate again, but that's an effect on vast scales, not the parochial limits of our little planetary system.

agree!

Oh, good!  There's still some hope for you!  Of course, you'll admit that there's not one single, solitary word about universal expansion -- accelerated or otherwise -- in Genesis.  You'll have to, of course, because there isn't one.

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 12, 2018, 06:34:05 AM

Quote from: trdsf on July 11, 2018, 02:16:23 PM
Some time around the ten billionth birthday of the universe, in the surface layers and tidal pools of the early oceans on pre-biotic Earth where uncounted quintillions of blind "experiments" were going on, energized by sunlight and ultraviolet radiation and lightning and stirred by the tides and to a lesser extent the winds.

As it turns out, the bits of which life (as we know it) are built are easy to make.  There are vast clouds of aminos and other organics floating freely in space, and even where there aren't any, they can be built with a little patience and a little energy and a few naturally-occurring chemicals.

debatable. Especially if one wants to claim "Organics" is non living in origins.

Organics has a very specific meaning.  Organics are in fact not necessarily sourced by organisms.  All it means is carbon-based, or what's called organic chemistry.  That's all that means, and if you really think 'organics' in reference to chemicals means life, you're an imbecile.

And yes, in fact, amino acids have been observed in space.  Those are organic chemicals.  Organics in space.  When did you leave school, fifth grade?  If that?

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 12, 2018, 06:34:05 AM

Quote from: trdsf on July 11, 2018, 02:16:23 PM
Over time, a molecule that was able to make rough copies of itself occurred, quite by chance, although given the staggering number of simultaneous chemical reactions going on over staggering periods of time, it was probably more a matter of a statistical near-inevitability.  You have to remember the numbers involved: if a self-replicating molecule has a chance of appearing equivalent to, for example, Powerball odds, then self-replicating molecules would have appeared immediately, billions or even trillions of times.

and it obviously had DNA, with a few billion genomes, which needed a staggering statistical near inevitability, and only this one survived, with not a single twin, or defective residue of the other staggering near inevitable almost living organisms available as evidence.
but carry on!

Exactly where did I say it was DNA that appeared out of nowhere?  I'll wait while you point out exactly where I said that.

Yeah, I didn't think so.  Liar.

It amazes me that even though you think some impossible deity can point and poof humanity into existence 6,000 years ago, you find it impossible for DNA to be poofed into existence, which NO ONE EVER CLAIMED HAPPENED EXCEPT LYING CREATIONISTS DESPERATE TO MAKE UP BULLSHIT THAT NO ONE EVER SERIOUSLY PROPOSED THAT THEY THINK THEY CAN ARGUE AGAINST.

And even then, your "arguments" are rubbish.

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 12, 2018, 06:34:05 AM

Quote from: trdsf on July 11, 2018, 02:16:23 PM
Now, this little molecule wasn't a fully-formed cell, and we probably wouldn't call it alive by modern definitions, but because it could reproduce even as a purely mechanical/chemical function, it could evolve over time.

Not alive, but reproducing by cell division without DNA, or due to reproducing it gained DNA, hu?

Again, where did I say DNA sprung up out of nowhere?  You genuinely think DNA is the only self-replicating molecule?  Obviously it built up over time from smaller steps.

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 12, 2018, 06:34:05 AM

Quote from: trdsf on July 11, 2018, 02:16:23 PM
And that's exactly what it did.  Probably most copying errors made it a less efficient replicator, but any random change for the better meant, obviously, better replication.  Any improvement accidentally stumbled across would be kept; any dis-improvement would die out, and self-replicating chemicals could grow more complex over time because the base function of replication became more reliable.  Eventually proto-life systems like viruses and phages developed as improvements added up, and eventually bacteria, and eventually photosynthesis came along, which liberated oxygen into the atmosphere.  This allowed more energetic forms of life to arise, and eventually eukaryotic cells and multicellular systems arose out of the blind groping of the twin forces of natural selection and evolution.

What a wonderful story indeed!
Evidence?
or Theory?
It has to be Theory, for there are not any such examples of something that replicated that was not alive, but became alive and then developed DNA without protein, and protein without DNA,...
Oh, take into consideration that I said, I will not accept theories in my description of science.
If you do not have factual scientific observational studies to support life from nothing, leave it for later. we will get to it.

Well, you have to accept theories if you're going to claim to accept science.  A theory is a very specific thing, not a blind guess.  A theory is a model that explains a class of observations, predicts observational results, and is falsifiable.

If you don't accept scientific theories, you don't accept science.  Period.  You don't get to pick your own definition of science.

Every piece of observational evidence supports this view of the universe, the Earth, and life.  EVERY.  SINGLE.  PIECE.

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 12, 2018, 06:34:05 AM

Quote from: trdsf on July 11, 2018, 02:16:23 PM
And this went on for about three billion years, for 75-80% of the history of life on Earth.  We're all late arrivals -- not just humans, but most life beyond the plant/multicellular stage.  There were a few pre-Cambrian complex animals, but not many.  There appears to have been a combination of effects that led to what's called the Cambrian Explosion half a billion years ago: the oxygenation of the atmosphere reaching a critical level, the completion of the ozone layer to protect near-surface water dwellers from UV radiation, a spike in available calcium in the seas allowing for shells and bones to evolve, a few other factors.

what levels of strata exists for that half a billion years between the Pre Cambrian era, and the Cambrian expansion?
Dont worry to answer, nothing of that kind to show your intermediate missing links in existence.
I like the Global flood much better telling me these fossils were a result of rapid burial. But dont bother about this for now.

Oh, I'll bother about your non-existent flood right now.  I know you don't dare because there's absolutely no evidence for a world-wide flood within the last 6,000 years.  I know you don't dare because the creationist flood theory requires all "antediluvian" species to just magically happen to fall into an order that magically appears to be layered in chronological strata.  I know you don't dare because even if there were a flood, and even if animals did automagically fall in order, you still can't explain fossilization happening because fossilization takes something on the order of a million years.

Precambrian strata?  Easy.  Here's a grade-school level explanation (https://sciencestruck.com/the-precambrian-era), since I have my doubts you can handle anything more intense.

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 12, 2018, 06:34:05 AM

Quote from: trdsf on July 11, 2018, 02:16:23 PM
At this point, all life is still in the ocean.  It takes another hundred million years for the first land plants, and another hundred million after that for the first land animals -- nearly 13.5 billion years since the Big Bang, and we *finally* have land life!

Or they were buried first with land animals on top of their strata. Sorry, carry on.

Your point?  If they were buried and fossilized, of course they were buried first.  You may be shocked to learn that that's the way time works.  Earlier things in time happen first.  Why am I having to explain something that stomach-churningly obvious?

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 12, 2018, 06:34:05 AM

Quote from: trdsf on July 11, 2018, 02:16:23 PM
Evolution, speciation, and the slow accumulation of positive mutations carry on (along with asteroid impacts, ice ages and massive volcanic eruptions) for the next 350 million years, leading up to the rise of humans and civilization (such that it is).

These are the things that hydrogen atoms do with just time and gravity.

Cool, so simple.

Yup.  Also so wonderfully supported by observation.

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 12, 2018, 06:34:05 AM

Quote from: trdsf on July 11, 2018, 02:16:23 PM
And now we murder your "theory", with both malice and intent.

Even if we allow your "before time" time for the necessary 13.8 billion years less the 6,000 you admit to, there's one thing you cannot have, and that's evidence of genetically modern humans before 6,000 years ago.

I have never said that I believe Humans to be older than 6 000 years. I said the Earth and Universe is older than 6 000 years, and this can be found from the Bible's description that the Universe was created before the first day. Therefore, you murdered only your own strawman argument that I believe life to be older than 6 000 years.

Ah, so you are functionally illiterate.  I had suspected, thanks for the evidence.  I stated explicitly that your position clearly requires humans to be less than 6,000 years old, not more.  I *never* claimed you though humans were older than that -- and you later explicitly agreed with that point -- and your "theory" dies on that point since we know humans existed more than 6,000 years ago.

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 12, 2018, 06:34:05 AM

Quote from: trdsf on July 11, 2018, 02:16:23 PM
And we have direct archaeological evidence that Jericho has been continuously occupied by humans since about 10-11,000 BCE and was walled by 6800 BCE -- six to seven thousand years before you want to say humans were "created" and some pretty advanced civil engineering almost 3,000 years before there were humans, according to you.

again, Jericho is not the only so called Archaeological evidence that humans supposedly lived before 10 000 years. Goble Tepe, and more than 15 sites in Turkey also have ancient civilizations. We will get to the dating methods. at a later stage. One thing is for sure, the Chronological sequencing based on Manetho, and the Sirus dating involving Egypt and Greece is totally in error. We will speak about C14 dating, and how science actually attest the Biblical timelines.

There's not any "supposedly" about it.  You've said elsewhere that you accept ¹⁴C dating for organic material, therefore you accept the existence of humans before 4000BCE.  Or are you lying again?

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 12, 2018, 06:34:05 AM

Quote from: trdsf on July 11, 2018, 02:16:23 PM
I have been to a dig site in my home town that is direct evidence of humans living there in 8000 BCE: four thousand years too early for your "theory".

Damn but you are old!

Damn, but you are a facetious asshole!  Or are you too stupid to understand what an archaeological dig site is?

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 12, 2018, 06:34:05 AM

Quote from: trdsf on July 11, 2018, 02:16:23 PM
Handwave everything else if you want to, but there is no way that you can assert your "theory" when it explicitly states humans are only 6,000 years old when we have physical, independent, and incontrovertible evidence of our existence as a species long before that date.  For that matter, dogs were domesticated 9,000 years before you would have them created.

We will remember your reply I get to the age of Life.
I would like you to answer me on many things you now claim as scientific facts.

You do that.  I have, as you've admitted, characterized your position that humans are less than 6,000 years old.  And you have admitted that ¹⁴C dating is accurate for organic remains.  And ¹⁴C dating demonstrates conclusively that humans existed much longer than 6,000 years ago.

What I have not done is claim.  What I have done is list.

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 12, 2018, 06:34:05 AM

Quote from: trdsf on July 11, 2018, 02:16:23 PM
The only possible path you have to salvage your "theory" is to assert both that every single science is wrong and that they all unequivocally provide exactly the same wrong answers reliably and in support of each other.

Never. never will I question science to further my claims.
It is too dangerous!
Atheists might show me I am wrong.

No doubt you're terrified of physical reality.  You have to deny science to hold to your position.

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 12, 2018, 06:34:05 AM

Quote from: trdsf on July 11, 2018, 02:16:23 PM
And that means you cannot claim reliance on the scientific method yourself.  You cannot assert a scientific answer and at the same ignore the independently repeatable and verifiable results and observations from science.  You can assert biblical creationism if you like, but you may never, ever call it scientific.

Now you are generalizing to the greatest possible hypocrisy.
You first of all carry on about how a Theory, (evolution )unproven, is now a scientific fact, after giving me a theory about what science does not say on the formation of the Solar system, then you use the Theory of evolution, claiming that life needs billions of years to develop, showing me some archaeological sites, which the dating methods are actually in evidence of the Biblical date of life, telling me this is why I am wrong.

Look what you did.
You build a straw man!
You then name this Straw man, Mousetraps theory.
You then destroy the Straw man, telling yourself you destroyed my facts, the Bible, and God!
Damn you are good!
Why dont you wait untill I speak about the age of life and dating of organic matter.
And please take note, this organic matter I speak about was once living matter, not like your so called space matter, that somehow is called organic because you need to make your dead cell replicating into life more alive than dead.

Let me get you back to what I said I am doing.
I took teh Biblicak description of the origins of our Solar system, and looke at what it realy say. Not what someone believes it to say, but the Biblical explanation.
I then looked at what science says, and got the Nebular Hypothesis!
I also went to see why there is just one contradictory claim between these 2 descriptions, and I found that the Burning Hot Earth theories are only Theories, but that the Wet, Cool Earth from a nebular cloud is actually a proven fact due to scientific experimentation of Silver Isotopes, Zircon Crystals, Comet testing, and Meteorite tests.
Therefore, I conclude that the Biblical explanation holds much mor than what you guys told me in the beginning that the Bible can never be reconciled with what we know about the Origins of the Universe.
Now lets continue

Oh look, more lies about what I did and did not say!  Where exactly did I say I disproved your god?  All I did was dismantle your bullshit position.  You're the one who conflates that with your god, not me.  They're actually completely separate propositions.  Even if you somehow falsified evolution and Big Bang cosmology, that wouldn't get you one nanometer closer to demonstrating your god exists.

And, as soon as you say "only theories", you out yourself as not knowing the first thing about science, scientific theories or the scientific method.

A SCIENTIFIC THEORY IS NOT JUST A GUESS.  When you say "only theories" all you do is demonstrate your profound ignorance as to how science works.

I demolished your above misinterpretations and lies earlier in this post, and I'm not wasting any more time on it.

Quote from: trdsf on July 15, 2018, 12:50:37 AM
In no way, shape or form was the theory of stellar fusion proposed in 1755.  That theory comes from Fred Hoyle in 1946.

I mistyped.  I meant 'stellar nucleosynthesis'.  I was having trouble seeing my keyboard through all of mousetrap's bullshit falling off my computer screen.

Quote from: trdsf on July 15, 2018, 12:53:50 PM
I mistyped.  I meant 'stellar nucleosynthesis'.  I was having trouble seeing my keyboard through all of mousetrap's bullshit falling off my computer screen.

Until Dr Bethe realized that fusion power the Sun, we didn't know anything about nuclei-synthesis (1938).

I think he was confused about the Nebular hypothesis of solar system formation, which is also true.

Quote from: sdelsolray on July 13, 2018, 08:18:38 PM
Hey, Mousetrap...

I predicted you would ignore the post below, provide creationist nonsense or grace us with your own invented dogma from the Religion of Mousetrapâ,,¢ -- a religion of one.

So far, you are ignoring the obvious identified fault in Genesis.  In my book, that makes you a coward, a disingenuous creationist and/or a willfully ignorant chump.  Of course, you can be all three at the same time.

And the Bible does not say the Stars were created on the 4th day.
It says that the Sun and Moon started to shine on the 4th day, and the stars also.

Quote from: Blackleaf on July 13, 2018, 09:58:12 PM
Actually, one minor nitpick. The first chapter of Genesis makes no mention of God creating the waters. It says he created the "heavens and the earth," but it's implied that the waters were already there. God hovers over the waters and he moves some of it around, but the Bible kinda skims over the creation of water itself. This is probably because the belief at the time was that the earth sat on top of the waters, which were primordial, infinite, and always existed. Some said that the earth sat on the back of a turtle shell or something similar. There was no concept of outer space. They believed that the skies were a physical structure with vaults that would occasionally be opened to allow water to fall onto dry land (rain). So basically the earth was a little air bubble surrounded by water above and below.

In the beginning God created the Heavens and earth, and the Earth was dark and deep and the spirit hovered above the Waters.
You are doing your utmost to distort the Chronological sequence of the Bible.
Why?
Oh, sorry.
You want to tell us how God should have written the Bible.
How silly of me to think that you would grasp the original explanation.

Quote from: sdelsolray on July 13, 2018, 10:21:18 PM
Agreed.  I'm not claiming the text of Genesis is thorough, consistent or accurate.  Still, "the waters" existed on the first day simply because Genesis claims water is there on the first day.  My point is simple.  Water cannot exist without oxygen and hydrogen.  Only stellar activity can form oxygen.  According to Genesis, stars were not "created" until the fourth day.  Thus, oxygen (and water) could not have existed until the forth day, at least according to current scientific theory and the text of Genesis.  Mousetrap avoids this glaring discrepancy, yet he claims science and Genesis are not in contradiction.  Other creationists have put forth a few infantile ad hoc apologetics to address this fatal flaw, such as:

1)  'Well, God created light on the first day and that must mean he created stars on the first day.'

or they get more apologetic with a special frame of reference:

2)  'Well, Genesis events are to be viewed from the surface of the Earth itself and from nowhere else.  Stars were created on the first day but they could not be seen (from Earth) until the fourth day.'

or they go anti-scientific and hypocritical:

3)  'Well, how do you know oxygen has to be formed in stars?  Were your there?"

or they go all magical:

4)  "Well, my God can do anything he wants.'

Of course, Mousedroppings Mousetrap can't use the anti-science apologetic unless he wants to reject standard stellar and atomic element evolution.  Since he seems to reject biological evolution, that is a possibility.

I love the way you mastered the Atheist method of creating a straw man and destroys this creatin, thinking you won some argument.
The Bible does not say that the Stars were made on the 4th day, but they started to shine.
Taken into account the chronological explanation from genesis ended up into what we today use as the Nebular theory as the origins of the Universe, you can criticize the Bible till doomsday comes, you are using the Bible as science.
Nice?

Quote from: Hydra009 on July 13, 2018, 10:22:49 PM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_(cosmogony) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_(cosmogony))

The "water" in Genesis can be easily interchanged with the formless chaos of greco-roman mythology.  We can set it up right next to the Christmas tree as yet another borrowed tradition.

Where Oranios surrounded all earth, and fresh water did not mix with salt, where the gods came from.
I do not believe in a God that had its origins from matter.
Now, why would you continue with this straw man method?
Perhaps because you think by comparing the Greek Mythology with the Biblical description of the origins of the Universe, you can destroy the Biblical explanation?

You are missing out in full totality!
Your scientific description was taken from the Bible by Kant, and compiled in the Universal natural History, which scientists confirmed to be correct, which atheists tried to change, and they were proven incorrect, and the Nebular theory still remains as an ancient description that came out of Genesis.

I can compare Greek Mythology with anything, but with the Nebular theory.
Try again!
For almost 200 years atheists tried to change the Nebular theory to fit in with Laplace, but to no avail.
The Bible got it right.
 

Quote from: Baruch on July 14, 2018, 07:12:32 AM
Zeus is taking a piss .. Zeus aka Ba'al .. the lord of many here ;-)  The Aristophanes version of Socrates was made to say about thunder ... Zeus had a bad meal, developed indigestion ;-))  Jesus stilling the storm on the Sea of Galilee ... that is Jesus being Ba'al a dying, rising Canaanite deity.

I studied Mythology and could not find your claim.
Please supply me with a reference where the Canaanite deity was a dying and rising similarity of Jesus.
This to me, is very important.
If ever it exists, I need to know about it.

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 16, 2018, 06:11:38 AM
In the beginning God created the Heavens and earth, and the Earth was dark and deep and the spirit hovered above the Waters.
You are doing your utmost to distort the Chronological sequence of the Bible.
Why?
Oh, sorry.
You want to tell us how God should have written the Bible.
How silly of me to think that you would grasp the original explanation.

×'ְּרֵאשִׁית ×'ָּרָא אֱלֹ×"ִים אֵת ×"ַשָּׁמַיִם וְאֵת ×"ָאָרֶץ‬

Quoting this in a Gentile language, is the Devil's work.  G-d's words are both ineffable and untranslatable.

Quote from: Mike Cl on July 14, 2018, 09:00:13 AM
Reading the first two chapters of the bible is very instructive--especially if one approaches it with an open mind.  Chpt. 1 tells a different story than chpt. 2 about the creation of man.  That, alone, would tell anybody with an open, clear thinking mind that the rest of the bible is suspect, since  it contradicts itself from the very beginning.  Bible believers have tripped all over themselves trying to explain these very important contradictions and have failed totally; until and unless one closes one's mind to any of the facts and simply believe the bible is inerrant.  Thus, mousetrap's mind is totally closed to facts and even his name suggests that he is in a trap.

Mike, how did you miss out on the fact that Gen 1 speaks of the creation of 7 days, but Gen 2 is a detailed description on how God interacted with Adam on the 6th day?
Check again.

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 16, 2018, 06:29:20 AM
I studied Mythology and could not find your claim.
Please supply me with a reference where the Canaanite deity was a dying and rising similarity of Jesus.
This to me, is very important.
If ever it exists, I need to know about it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baal - Osiris as he was known in Egypt

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baal_Cycle - see the Death of Ba'al (Ba'al vs Mot)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beelzebub ... on the reasonable accusation against Jesus (in the light of the resurrection story).

http://atheistforums.com/index.php?topic=12531.0 - for a local string on the true origins of Judaism

Judaism is a Canaanite tribal religion, combined eventually with Midianite henotheism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetragrammaton)  Biblical Hebrew itself is a court language of Canaanite origin.  Most words are of pre-Davidic origin though, from pre-Semitic.  There are only a few that come from other sources ... though many of the ideas of the Tanakh come from the surrounding Babylonian and Egyptian culture.

Midianite henotheism eventually became Islam ... the original Mecca was in Midian, not the current location.  The Muslims are liars in part.

Mandeans are closest to the original followers of John the Baptist (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandaeans) ... who may be historical

Samaritans are closest to the original followers of Moses (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samaritans) ... a made up messiah also

Canaanite religion may have been influenced by Pharaoh Akhenaten's solar monotheism.  Psalm 104 is derivative of the Pharaoh's Hymn to the Aten, though it was ultimately derivative from the Canaanite worship of El.  Read The Hebrew Goddess by Raphael Patai.  The false messiahship of King Josiah, and the Babylonian Exile, forged the Tanakh (OT) as we know it, it didn't exist before 500 BCE, and then only as a partisan document of one sect in Persian Judea.  There were multiple Judaisms until the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and even after that.  There were two Jewish temples in Egypt after the exile of Jeremiah.

In other words, Judaism was a polytheist religion (all those bad kings in Israel and Judah and Solomon too).  It remained polytheist, as did Christianity and Islam (see demonology and angelology) until even today, in many circles.  Until the Enlightenment in Europe, demonology and angelology, Kabbalah, Sufism and Trinitarianism dominated theology.  So called religious fundamentalism (strict monotheism) is a recent phenomena in the West (late 19th century starting in England and expanding to America (California oil magnate funded) in the early 20th).  The religious side of monotheism (as opposed to secular mono-epistemology) was largely driven by puritanism in Islam and later, in Protestantism.  Without the example of the synagogue and the mosque, there would have been no Protestantism or Enlightenment.

Christianity itself is largely Phoenician (See Adonis) and Egyptian (Horus).  That origin is visible in the seams of the NT if you look, and in subsequent Church developments (Desert Fathers/Mothers and St Cyril).  Recommendation ... continue to study, and you may get a more mature view of G-d.  Abrahamic religion has a kernel of truth to it, but the clergy cover it up ... G-d is as close as your jugular vein .. consult that.

Quote from: Mike Cl on July 14, 2018, 10:28:42 AM
I agree that poetry can be read with many different meanings; that's the function of poetry.  The bible I do not consider poetry; it is simply prose from very ancient peoples trying to make sense of their world.  The idioticy is trying to make it fit today's world.  The Prophet is poetry; that's why I return to it time for it is poetry that speaks to me.  The bible is mainly trash that is used in destructive ways.

Idioticy?
Realy.
To get it to make it to fit today's world?
Now how do you explain Kant who wrote exactly what we discovered about the Nebular theory?
Do you know that Oorsted pondered about what Kant said about the Nebular theory, and came up with many discoveries when he investigated the description?
Kant was the first person to describe in detail things such as conservation of energy?
Guys, all you have to do is tell me why Kant took the Bible, and postulated the Nebular theory whivh you as atheists uses today, and claiming the Bible can not describe science.
It was not I that came up with MY theories, but Kant who came up with YOUR theories!

Quote from: Baruch on July 16, 2018, 06:35:20 AM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baal - Osiris as he was known in Egypt

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baal_Cycle - see the Death of Ba'al (Ba'al vs Mot)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beelzebub ... on the reasonable accusation against Jesus (in the light of the resurrection story).

http://atheistforums.com/index.php?topic=12531.0 - for a local string on the true origins of Judaism

Quote from: your source from Wiki
Yam wants to rule over the other gods and be the most powerful of all
Baʿal Hadad opposes Yam and slays him
Baʿal Hadad, with the help of Anath and Athirat, persuades El to allow him a palace
Baʿal Hadad commissions Kothar-wa-Khasis to build him a palace.
King of the gods and ruler of the world seeks to subjugate Mot
Mot kills Baʿal Hadad
Anath brutally kills Mot, grinds him up and scatters his ashes
Baʿal Hadad returns to Mount Saphon
Mot, having recovered from being ground up and scattered, challenges Baʿal Hadad
Baʿal Hadad refuses; Mot submits
Baʿal Hadad rules again

This is very far fetched indeed.
Please show me how can anyone make a correlation between Ba'al and Jesus.

Quote from: Baruch on July 16, 2018, 06:35:20 AM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baal - Osiris as he was known in Egypt

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baal_Cycle - see the Death of Ba'al (Ba'al vs Mot)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beelzebub ... on the reasonable accusation against Jesus (in the light of the resurrection story).

http://atheistforums.com/index.php?topic=12531.0 - for a local string on the true origins of Judaism

Judaism is a Canaanite tribal religion, combined eventually with Midianite henotheism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetragrammaton)  Biblical Hebrew itself is a court language of Canaanite origin.  Most words are of pre-Davidic origin though, from pre-Semitic.  There are only a few that come from other sources ... though many of the ideas of the Tanakh come from the surrounding Babylonian and Egyptian culture.

Midianite henotheism eventually became Islam ... the original Mecca was in Midian, not the current location.  The Muslims are liars in part.

Mandeans are closest to the original followers of John the Baptist (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandaeans) ... who may be historical

Samaritans are closest to the original followers of Moses (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samaritans) ... a made up messiah also

Canaanite religion may have been influenced by Pharaoh Akhenaten's solar monotheism.  Psalm 104 is derivative of the Pharaoh's Hymn to the Aten, though it was ultimately derivative from the Canaanite worship of El.  Read The Hebrew Goddess by Raphael Patai.  The false messiahship of King Josiah, and the Babylonian Exile, forged the Tanakh (OT) as we know it, it didn't exist before 500 BCE, and then only as a partisan document of one sect in Persian Judea.  There were multiple Judaisms until the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and even after that.  There were two Jewish temples in Egypt after the exile of Jeremiah.

In other words, Judaism was a polytheist religion (all those bad kings in Israel and Judah and Solomon too).  It remained polytheist, as did Christianity and Islam (see demonology and angelology) until even today, in many circles.  Until the Enlightenment in Europe, demonology and angelology, Kabbalah, Sufism and Trinitarianism dominated theology.  So called religious fundamentalism (strict monotheism) is a recent phenomena in the West (late 19th century starting in England and expanding to America (California oil magnate funded) in the early 20th).  The religious side of monotheism (as opposed to secular mono-epistemology) was largely driven by puritanism in Islam and later, in Protestantism.  Without the example of the synagogue and the mosque, there would have been no Protestantism or Enlightenment.

Christianity itself is largely Phoenician (See Adonis) and Egyptian (Horus).  That origin is visible in the seams of the NT if you look, and in subsequent Church developments (Desert Fathers/Mothers and St Cyril).  Recommendation ... continue to study, and you may get a more mature view of G-d.  Abrahamic religion has a kernel of truth to it, but the clergy cover it up ... G-d is as close as your jugular vein .. consult that.

Tell you what we can do,
At a later stage I would like to discuss this in detail.
I made a thorough study of Mythology, and Christianity, and could not find any relation between the 2.
This for later, first the creation epoch of the Bible as science's description of the Origins of the Universe from Genesis.

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 16, 2018, 06:53:01 AM
Guys, all you have to do is tell me why Kant took the Bible, and postulated the Nebular theory whivh you as atheists uses today, and claiming the Bible can not describe science.

I corrected you on this: Kant's source was Thomas Wright (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Wright_(astronomer)).  If you continue to assert it, it is a deliberate lie on your part.

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 16, 2018, 06:31:29 AM
Mike, how did you miss out on the fact that Gen 1 speaks of the creation of 7 days, but Gen 2 is a detailed description on how God interacted with Adam on the 6th day?
Check again.

I didn't 'miss out', but simply read the words as printed.  You need to check again.  Well, in your case, never mind.  You are so faithful (willfully blind) you would not see it anyway.

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 16, 2018, 06:53:01 AM
Idioticy?
Realy.
To get it to make it to fit today's world?
Now how do you explain Kant who wrote exactly what we discovered about the Nebular theory?
Do you know that Oorsted pondered about what Kant said about the Nebular theory, and came up with many discoveries when he investigated the description?
Kant was the first person to describe in detail things such as conservation of energy?
Guys, all you have to do is tell me why Kant took the Bible, and postulated the Nebular theory whivh you as atheists uses today, and claiming the Bible can not describe science.
It was not I that came up with MY theories, but Kant who came up with YOUR theories!

You can, apparently, read.  So, yes, 'Idioticy'.  I kant explain Kant, and don't want to try.  And you don't have any 'theories'--not one.  You have a bag full of hypothesis without a shred of facts to back them up.  So, believe what you want.  I still chose to use reason and facts for what I think. 

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 16, 2018, 06:26:20 AM
I do not believe in a God that had its origins from matter.

The most famous fictional character of all time, and the writers never bothered to give him a backstory.  Now that's some seriously lazy writing right there.  If it weren't for a rabid (and uncritical) fandom, this stuff would've fallen by the wayside ages ago.

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 16, 2018, 07:09:51 AM
This is very far fetched indeed.
Please show me how can anyone make a correlation between Ba'al and Jesus.

Easy.  Both are not gods, both are sourced from Middle Eastern nomadic myth and legend...

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 16, 2018, 06:08:06 AM
And the Bible does not say the Stars were created on the 4th day.
It says that the Sun and Moon started to shine on the 4th day, and the stars also.

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 16, 2018, 06:16:17 AM
...
The Bible does not say that the Stars were made on the 4th day, but they started to shine.
...

You lie.

Genesis 1:16-19 (KJV)
"16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day."

In any event, even if the stars "started to shine" (your words) on the fourth day, those stars had yet to form any oxygen, which only occurs late in a star's life and is not ejected from the star into space until the end-life of the star.  Thus, no water on the first day.

And, there would be no elements heavier than lithium in your nebular cloud from which our solar system formed, including the Earth.  Please explain where the heavier elements came from using, of course, relevant science.

Quote from: trdsf on July 16, 2018, 08:39:59 AM
I corrected you on this: Kant's source was Thomas Wright (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Wright_(astronomer)).  If you continue to assert it, it is a deliberate lie on your part.

But why would you say I am a liar and the Nebular theory is ascribed to Wright.
On the contrary, Kant postulated the Nebular Theory, Wright described the Milky Way, and speculated that the distant stars can be clusters of stars.
Kant even mentioned Wright in his works.
Did you read the Universal History?
Did you also read Wrights' Hypothesis?

There is a huge difference between Kant's book and Wright's.

Happy reading.

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 16, 2018, 10:54:21 AM
But why would you say I am a liar and the Nebular theory is ascribed to Wright.
On the contrary, Kant postulated the Nebular Theory, Wright described the Milky Way, and speculated that the distant stars can be clusters of stars.
Kant even mentioned Wright in his works.
Did you read the Universal History?
Did you also read Wrights' Hypothesis?

There is a huge difference between Kant's book and Wright's.

Happy reading.

I say it because it's true -- Kant's inspiration was not Genesis.  Every time you claim it was, as you have after being corrected, you lie.  QED.

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 16, 2018, 07:09:51 AM
This is very far fetched indeed.
Please show me how can anyone make a correlation between Ba'al and Jesus.

One can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.  Is that really you, Mr Ed (TV talking horse)?  I am surprised you escaped the glue factory.

Quote from: trdsf on July 16, 2018, 10:40:13 AM
Easy.  Both are not gods, both are sourced from Middle Eastern nomadic myth and legend...

Egyptians and Babylonians were settled people, so were Canaanites (they gave us the alef-beth).  Don't accuse everyone there of goat fucking.  But yes, almost everyone until very recently was polytheist (monotheism likes to claim an antique origin, but that is a clerical lie).  Most people still believe in the socialist tooth fairy.

Still silent about my posts?
http://atheistforums.com/index.php?topic=12764.msg1222854#msg1222854
http://atheistforums.com/index.php?topic=12764.msg1222868#msg1222868

Is it because you are actually afraid of answering them, and revealing to yourself that what I say is, after all, has greater merit than your words?

Of course not. Your ego won't allow it.

Quote from: sdelsolray on July 13, 2018, 08:18:38 PM
Hey, Mousetrap...

I predicted you would ignore the post below, provide creationist nonsense or grace us with your own invented dogma from the Religion of Mousetrapâ,,¢ -- a religion of one.

So far, you are ignoring the obvious identified fault in Genesis.  In my book, that makes you a coward, a disingenuous creationist and/or a willfully ignorant chump.  Of course, you can be all three at the same time.

Mousetrap thinks he is so smart pushing his ideas of the bible without comprehending science.

Of course, the big elephant in the room is this: the obvious interpretation of our observations of the universe is that everything started in what appears to be a Big Bang, that the Earth coalesced from a cloud of interstellar dust about 4.5 billion years ago, that the earliest forms of life arose about 3.5 billion years ago, and that it slowly evolved over the intervening billions of years, eventually ending up with the current world around us.

Now take into account the tortured gyrations Mousetrap does to try to extract scientific meaning from Genesis, especially since Mousetrap implicitly admits that even if they don't believe in it, that reality at least looks like it's vastly older than a few millennia â€" otherwise their delusional desperation to reconcile Genesis with real world observations is unnecessary.

If, in a charitable mood, you decide to entertain Mousetrap's nonsense just for the sake of argument, you are immediately forced to conclude that any god behind that kind of creation must by definition be not merely dishonest, but sadistically dishonest.  The universe definitely looks like it's 13.8 billion years old.  The Earth definitely looks like it's 4.5 billion years old.  Life definitely looks like it's 3.5 billion years old.  Evolution definitely looks like it's the path that led from early self-replicating molecules to all life forms we know about.

A god who would create a universe that so very definitively and consistently looks like the 13.8 billion year old universe as revealed to us by science and that every conceivable observation would lead us to conclude is as we observe it, but in reality is only a few millennia old?  That's no god, that's a demon.  A despicable, lying fiend who deserves contempt, not worship.  A total fucking asshole with no more moral authority than a six year old burning ants with a magnifying glass.

Quote from: trdsf on July 17, 2018, 02:07:34 AM
Of course, the big elephant in the room is this: the obvious interpretation of our observations of the universe is that everything started in what appears to be a Big Bang, that the Earth coalesced from a cloud of interstellar dust about 4.5 billion years ago, that the earliest forms of life arose about 3.5 billion years ago, and that it slowly evolved over the intervening billions of years, eventually ending up with the current world around us.

Now take into account the tortured gyrations Mousetrap does to try to extract scientific meaning from Genesis, especially since Mousetrap implicitly admits that even if they don't believe in it, that reality at least looks like it's vastly older than a few millennia â€" otherwise their delusional desperation to reconcile Genesis with real world observations is unnecessary.

If, in a charitable mood, you decide to entertain Mousetrap's nonsense just for the sake of argument, you are immediately forced to conclude that any god behind that kind of creation must by definition be not merely dishonest, but sadistically dishonest.  The universe definitely looks like it's 13.8 billion years old.  The Earth definitely looks like it's 4.5 billion years old.  Life definitely looks like it's 3.5 billion years old.  Evolution definitely looks like it's the path that led from early self-replicating molecules to all life forms we know about.

A god who would create a universe that so very definitively and consistently looks like the 13.8 billion year old universe as revealed to us by science and that every conceivable observation would lead us to conclude is as we observe it, but in reality is only a few millennia old?  That's no god, that's a demon.  A despicable, lying fiend who deserves contempt, not worship.  A total fucking asshole with no more moral authority than a six year old burning ants with a magnifying glass.

And that is what creationists and some less thoughtful theists generally think.  I am constantly shocked when people or neighbors I meet at parties or in general conversation suggest that might be a possibility.  There are more of them like that than I would like there to be.

Quote from: Cavebear on July 17, 2018, 02:40:50 AM
And that is what creationists and some less thoughtful theists generally think.  I am constantly shocked when people or neighbors I meet at parties or in general conversation suggest that might be a possibility.  There are more of them like that than I would like there to be.

That is pretty naive at your age.  Are you really only 20 years old?  You should have developed more cynicism and a thicker skin by now.  Also less egotism, since even your own shit stinks too.  The world makes you uncomfortable because of the many monkeys in it?  Hopefully you aren't thinking of a final solution for monkey problem.

(https://i.imgflip.com/2e5ufj.jpg)

Quote from: Mr.Obvious on July 17, 2018, 06:45:03 AM
(http://<ahref="https://imgflip.com/i/2e5ufj"><imgsrc="https://i.imgflip.com/2e5ufj.jpg"title="madeatimgflip.com"/></a>)

You might want to edit that, to get rid of the invisible ink ;-)

Quote from: Mr.Obvious on July 17, 2018, 06:45:03 AM
(https://i.imgflip.com/2e5ufj.jpg)

Before that happens those bones will be dust. :)

Quote from: trdsf on July 17, 2018, 02:07:34 AM
Of course, the big elephant in the room is this: the obvious interpretation of our observations of the universe is that everything started in what appears to be a Big Bang, that the Earth coalesced from a cloud of interstellar dust about 4.5 billion years ago, that the earliest forms of life arose about 3.5 billion years ago, and that it slowly evolved over the intervening billions of years, eventually ending up with the current world around us.

Now take into account the tortured gyrations Mousetrap does to try to extract scientific meaning from Genesis, especially since Mousetrap implicitly admits that even if they don't believe in it, that reality at least looks like it's vastly older than a few millennia â€" otherwise their delusional desperation to reconcile Genesis with real world observations is unnecessary.

If, in a charitable mood, you decide to entertain Mousetrap's nonsense just for the sake of argument, you are immediately forced to conclude that any god behind that kind of creation must by definition be not merely dishonest, but sadistically dishonest.  The universe definitely looks like it's 13.8 billion years old.  The Earth definitely looks like it's 4.5 billion years old.  Life definitely looks like it's 3.5 billion years old.  Evolution definitely looks like it's the path that led from early self-replicating molecules to all life forms we know about.

A god who would create a universe that so very definitively and consistently looks like the 13.8 billion year old universe as revealed to us by science and that every conceivable observation would lead us to conclude is as we observe it, but in reality is only a few millennia old?  That's no god, that's a demon.  A despicable, lying fiend who deserves contempt, not worship.  A total fucking asshole with no more moral authority than a six year old burning ants with a magnifying glass.

Let's see what you are claiming.

Quote from: trdsf1. The universe definitely looks like it's 13.8 billion years old.

I agree.

Quote from: trdsf2.  The Earth definitely looks like it's 4.5 billion years old. 

I agree

Quote from: trdsf3. Life definitely looks like it's 3.5 billion years old. 

Realy? I look as old as I am, and do not know of anything that is 3.5 billion years old. Please supply me with evidence.

Quote from: trdsf4. Evolution definitely looks like it's the path that led from early self-replicating molecules to all life forms we know about.

Evolution looks like it dates from 1865 pal.
It is a Theory with zero evidence.

Quote from: Mike Cl on July 17, 2018, 09:04:07 AM
Before that happens those bones will be dust. :)

Please do not wait for me.
I do not want anyone to be convinced of what I hold as true.
On the contrary, I am in an attempt to see what this incredible evidence is that Atheists has to prove the Bible incorrect.
I was proven wanted when I was an atheist.

If anyone should be convinced it is Me.
But so far I am disappointed with the personal and vulgar attacks by the staunchest opposed to the Bible.
But, I love it when I realize that the small descriptions from an "ancient book composed by camel and sheep herders" can keep the ignorant fighting and swearing in realization that this "Mythological" composition was the very source for Science.
You should actually go and google and find out how science was founded and matured on the writings in the Bible.

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 17, 2018, 09:49:10 AM
Let's see what you are claiming.

Quote from: trdsf on July 17, 2018, 02:07:34 AM
The universe definitely looks like it's 13.8 billion years old.  The Earth definitely looks like it's 4.5 billion years old.

I agree.I agree

Even on those two points alone, that's enough to convict any putative deity who created everything 6,000 years ago of being a liar.

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 17, 2018, 09:49:10 AM
Realy? I look as old as I am, and do not know of anything that is 3.5 billion years old. Please supply me with evidence.

(https://slideplayer.com/slide/7896741/25/images/4/Earliest+Evidence+of+Life.jpg)
Every single science that has anything to say about life and time agrees that life began about 3.5 billion years ago.  Every single one.  If you want to dismiss this, you need to prove physics, chemistry, biology and geology are all wrong, not just handwave at it.  Good luck with that.

Also, I just love the "were you there?" argument.  Were you there six thousand years ago to observe what you claim?

I didn't think so, Captain Hypocrisy.

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 17, 2018, 09:49:10 AM
Evolution looks like it dates from 1865 pal.
It is a Theory with zero evidence.

Are you really that obtuse?  All right, I'll spell it out all the way for you, if you want to play these baby-ass word games.

The theory of evolution dates to 1858, not 1865.  On top of everything else, you obviously don't know how Google and Wikipedia work.  Insert eyeroll and heavy sigh here.  1865 was the year Mendel demonstrated genetics, although the exact biochemical means by which traits were passed down weren't understood until much later.  Proto-evolutionary theory (of varying degrees of sensibility) dates to the ancient Greeks (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_evolutionary_thought).

One wonders where mankind might be by now had Demokritos' scientific ways prevailed over Aristotelian physics and Pythagorean mysticism.

Evolution is and has been an ongoing process, that began and operated long before Darwin and Wallace formulated their theory -- or do you also think there was no gravity until Newton described it in 1686?  That neon and krypton and xenon didn't actually physically exist until Ramsey and Travers isolated them in 1898?

Evolution is one of the best attested, best supported scientific theories there is.  It has been observed in the laboratory (https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab/), and in the field (https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/evolution-watching-speciation-occur-observations/), and is clearly demonstrated by the fossil record (https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/lines_02).

It is the foundation of all modern biological sciences -- or do you go to a faith healer rather than a doctor?  Why do you think the flu shot changes from winter to winter?  That's evolution in action, my poor self-deluding mouse.  If there were no evolution, there would never be a need to change the annual flu shot.

It's not my fault you can't accept reality as it is.

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 17, 2018, 10:43:13 AM
Please do not wait for me.
I do not want anyone to be convinced of what I hold as true.
On the contrary, I am in an attempt to see what this incredible evidence is that Atheists has to prove the Bible incorrect.
I was proven wanted when I was an atheist.

If anyone should be convinced it is Me.
But so far I am disappointed with the personal and vulgar attacks by the staunchest opposed to the Bible.
But, I love it when I realize that the small descriptions from an "ancient book composed by camel and sheep herders" can keep the ignorant fighting and swearing in realization that this "Mythological" composition was the very source for Science.
You should actually go and google and find out how science was founded and matured on the writings in the Bible.

You are aptly named, for you are, indeed, in a trap, even if it is of your own making.  You have convinced yourself into a corner and now pride keeps you there, for you just know you are right.  Don't look at any facts or actual data, no, let's just keep the belief and faith cages working and you can stay in this comfortable trap.  It takes more than just 'to google' to find actual data and facts; one has to learn how to discern (didn't mean to bring up one of your huge failings) between fact and fiction.  But then, fiction for you is much more comfortable and it is really frightening for you out of your trap and cave. 

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 17, 2018, 10:43:13 AM
Please do not wait for me.
I do not want anyone to be convinced of what I hold as true.
On the contrary, I am in an attempt to see what this incredible evidence is that Atheists has to prove the Bible incorrect.
I was proven wanted when I was an atheist.

If anyone should be convinced it is Me.
But so far I am disappointed with the personal and vulgar attacks by the staunchest opposed to the Bible.
But, I love it when I realize that the small descriptions from an "ancient book composed by camel and sheep herders" can keep the ignorant fighting and swearing in realization that this "Mythological" composition was the very source for Science.
You should actually go and google and find out how science was founded and matured on the writings in the Bible.

Since you have demonstrated an inability to read for comprehension, consider the stray vulgarism a way of getting your attention.  Otherwise you tune out after two or three words and never bother actually responding to points made.  Also, you have demonstrated a tendency to lie about facts, even after being corrected.

In short, if you don't want to be fucking cussed at, stop doing stupid fucking shit.

Also, it's not our job to "prove" the bible "incorrect".  It's yours to prove it correct, if that's what you want to assert.  Hint: you're doing it wrong.  If you want it taken seriously as science, then you should be able to get all your data and evidence together and get it into a peer-reviewed science journal.  You know, like real sciences do.

As it stands, there is not a shred of evidence that the Genesis account is anything more than an Iron Age campfire tale, a made-up story to explain the universe before we learned how to actually observe the universe and explain it ever more accurately.  It stands contrary to everything we observe about the human species, about biology, about geology, about astronomy, and flies in the face of common sense.

You need to come in here with more than made-up bullshit about mudballs and magically changing atmospheres.  Hard data convinces skeptics, not special pleading, dishonesty, and a complete lack of consistency, coherence, and repeatable observations.

The only good thing to come out of all this is that I did not previously know that the cometary water hypothesis was no longer favored.  I was still convinced by the old theory and did not know it had been largely superseded.  I looked it up anyway because unlike you, facts matter to me.  You have demonstrated that they do not matter to you.

Reality is what it is, it's not what I think it should be, and it's damn skippy not what you think it should be.

Quote from: Mr.Obvious on July 17, 2018, 06:45:03 AM
(https://i.imgflip.com/2e5ufj.jpg)

So you are Skeletor?  How is He-Man doing these days? ;-)

Quote from: Baruch on July 17, 2018, 05:33:04 PM
So you are Skeletor?  How is He-Man doing these days? ;-)

He still won't return my walkman.

Quote from: Mr.Obvious on July 17, 2018, 05:47:26 PM
He still won't return my walkman.

Another name for Man-At-Arms?

I honestly gave up giving a shit about this guy, I feel you guys are putting to much energy in arguing against someone who can't get out of his bubble and never will.

Quote from: Munch on July 17, 2018, 05:55:51 PM
I honestly gave up giving a shit about this guy, I feel you guys are putting to much energy in arguing against someone who can't get out of his bubble and never will.

We've moved into mental pushups.

Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 17, 2018, 06:27:42 PM
We've moved into mental pushups.

just don't strain or your get a nose bleed, trying to work against someone like this with logic and facts is like trying to fight a zombie with a spray bottle.

Quote from: Munch on July 17, 2018, 05:55:51 PM
I honestly gave up giving a shit about this guy, I feel you guys are putting to much energy in arguing against someone who can't get out of his bubble and never will.

I might chance to look up another fact I didn't know!  For now it's still fun; I know Mousie is hopeless, all I'm aiming for now is coming up with an argument or perspective one of y'all can use with someone less cranially concretized.

He has been trained in the pretzelation of logic. It works for him. He is a born again, one call tell by the devotion of his emotions over logic. This is common among born agains, they get so emotionally involved, they tell everyone about their new found faith, when presented with real evidence it threatens their very story of overcoming drugs or alcohol and simply being another guy what came to their senses. But that would ruin everything and then he would have to admit he was a fucking idiot for believing this nonsense. Hence, the pretzelness of logic....hmmmm I should copyright that.

Quote from: aitm on July 17, 2018, 07:44:56 PM
He has been trained in the pretzelation of logic. It works for him. He is a born again, one call tell by the devotion of his emotions over logic. This is common among born agains, they get so emotionally involved, they tell everyone about their new found faith, when presented with real evidence it threatens their very story of overcoming drugs or alcohol and simply being another guy what came to their senses. But that would ruin everything and then he would have to admit he was a fucking idiot for believing this nonsense. Hence, the pretzelness of logic....hmmmm I should copyright that.

Irony alert.  The standard pretzel shape is from N Italy, where they gave away pretzels in the that shape to children studying the Bible.  The three holes represent the Holy Trinity.  Yes, theology is the pretzelizing of logic.

Quote from: aitm on July 17, 2018, 07:44:56 PM
He has been trained in the pretzelation of logic. It works for him. He is a born again, one call tell by the devotion of his emotions over logic. This is common among born agains, they get so emotionally involved, they tell everyone about their new found faith, when presented with real evidence it threatens their very story of overcoming drugs or alcohol and simply being another guy what came to their senses. But that would ruin everything and then he would have to admit he was a fucking idiot for believing this nonsense. Hence, the pretzelness of logic....hmmmm I should copyright that.

Never did I claim to be a Born again, it is your opinion.
Never did I tell anyone about my new found faith, I simply showed atheists some facts I discovered and reasoning that gives a much different view of the age old arguments from Atheists that the Biblical description are non comparable with science.
I never came out with any sop story about how my life changed etc. This is just another straw man you build, then destroy, thinking you destroyed me.

Then you found yourself without any further reasoning capabilities, and started to call me a F## idiot!
This is the true reflection of Atreist logic.

Build a straw man, destroy the straw man, tell yourself you are great in destroying the Biblical argument, not realising everyone can see you did no such a thing.
Then finish your argument of by denigrating your opponent, even swear at him, call him a idiot, and display to fellow Atheists that you are a strong debator that done take dung from no one.

You are funny!

Quote from: Baruch on July 17, 2018, 08:03:32 PM
Irony alert.  The standard pretzel shape is from N Italy, where they gave away pretzels in the that shape to children studying the Bible.  The three holes represent the Holy Trinity.  Yes, theology is the pretzelizing of logic.

How do you do that?
These answers is the most sarcastic yet funny i have seen from few.
You actually tell someone they are silly, and they laugh at them self reading your posts!

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 18, 2018, 03:08:04 AM
How do you do that?
These answers is the most sarcastic yet funny i have seen from few.
You actually tell someone they are silly, and they laugh at them self reading your posts!

In life, you can laugh or cry.  I prefer to laugh.  People who have a poor sense of humor, maybe they need to cry some more.

The point isn't to evangelize a message ... the point is to put your true self out there, that is witnessing, not advertising.

Quote from: Baruch on July 18, 2018, 06:39:25 AM
In life, you can laugh or cry.  I prefer to laugh.  People who have a poor sense of humor, maybe they need to cry some more.

The point isn't to evangelize a message ... the point is to put your true self out there, that is witnessing, not advertising.

I forgot to put this thought on the table.
Isaac Newton it is said, to have come upon the idea of gravity when an apple fell on his head.
William Stukeley was the first person to claim that Newton told this to him a year before Newton died. It was some decades later that Stukley published this claim.
Anyhow, as we all know, Newton was not only one of the World's greatest scientists, but also one of the Bibles' greatest researchers.
When the Catholic Jesuites declared that white light is pure light, and colored light is contaminated light, Newton thought about the words, and God said, let there be light.
He understood that God made one light, and thought immediately that white light should be a collection of all colors.
This was the start off of his discoveries over 30 years on color, light, optics, gravity, calculus, and much more.

Now, why did Newton tell Stukley that he thought about an apple that fell on his head and it gave him the ideas about Gravity.
Why did he never tell anyone during his lifetime, except of course Stukley.

Now, my thinking is that, because Newton loved metaphors, creating difficult puzzles, and loved to get people into word games to think about many questions, HE USED THE APPLE AS A METAPHOR OF GENESIS AND THE CREATION STORY.
Just as I investigated Genesis to see if it can compare with science, and found the Nebular theory which science today embrace as a fact for the origins of our universe, just so did Immanuel Kant found what I found, and so did Newton.
His grand understanding of Gravity, comes from Genesis-the apple-
Enjoy your weekend

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 20, 2018, 10:08:05 AM
Isaac Newton it is said, to have come upon the idea of gravity when an apple fell on his head.
William Stukeley was the first person to claim that Newton told this to him a year before Newton died. It was some decades later that Stukley published this claim.

(vast tracts of blather removed)

*giggle* *snrk* *cackle*

You really don't know how Google works at all, do you?

Here's Stukeley's actual account:

Quote from: William Stukeley
After dinner, the weather being warm, we went into the garden & drank tea under the shade of some apple tree, only he and myself.

Amid other discourse, he told me, he was just in the same situation, as when formerly the notion of gravitation came into his mind. Why should that apple always descend perpendicularly to the ground, thought he to himself, occasioned by the fall of an apple, as he sat in contemplative mood.

Why should it not go sideways, or upwards? But constantly to the Earth’s center? Assuredly the reason is, that the Earth draws it. There must be a drawing power in matter. And the sum of the drawing power in the matter of the Earth must be in the Earth’s center, not in any side of the Earth.

Therefore, does this apple fall perpendicularly or towards the center? If matter thus draws matter; it must be in proportion of its quantity. Therefore the apple draws the Earth, as well as the Earth draws the apple.

Source is right here (http://professorbuzzkill.com/issac-newton-apple/), because sources matter.

Not only did Newton never tell Stukeley an apple fell on his head, Stukeley never reported it that way.  Also, not one word about Genesis in the account, either admitted by Newton or embellished by Stukeley.

If you're going to be wrong about the little stuff, there's no reason to take you seriously about the big stuff.

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 20, 2018, 10:08:05 AMAnyhow, as we all know, Newton was not only one of the World's greatest scientists, but also one of the Bibles' greatest researchers.

And that matters how?  He could be the world's greatest psychic and it wouldn't give any credibility to ESP.  Genius in one field doesn't rub off in another field.

Btw, this sort of argument is called honor by association (http://www.fact-index.com/h/ho/honor_by_association.html), a type of appeal to authority.

Quote from: Hydra009 on July 20, 2018, 12:04:04 PM
And that matters how?  He could be the world's greatest psychic and it wouldn't give any credibility to ESP.  Genius in one field doesn't rub off in another field.

Btw, this sort of argument is called honor by association (http://www.fact-index.com/h/ho/honor_by_association.html), a type of appeal to authority.

And we all know how very much christians love 'authority'!  We have christians of all stripes pointing to a passage in Romans telling them that all authority is of god and therefore Trump is of and from god--he can do no wrong.  Religion rightly called opiate of the masses.  A christian does not need evidence, only a belief and they will do and say anything---anything!

Quote from: Mike Cl on July 20, 2018, 12:08:45 PM
And we all know how very much christians love 'authority'!  We have christians of all stripes pointing to a passage in Romans telling them that all authority is of god and therefore Trump is of and from god--he can do no wrong.  Religion rightly called opiate of the masses.  A christian does not need evidence, only a belief and they will do and say anything---anything!

Per Calvin, nobody can do anything wrong, if they are Elect.  This was very popular with people who saw themselves as part of the Elect ;-(

Misquoting Marx ... well uneducated Marxists would do that.  Marx said "opiate of the masses" because he was sympathetic to their plight:

"Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people".

He wasn't some law-and-order anti-drug asshole, who would read your misquote, in an entirely different light.  Mothers gave laudanum to babies in the 19th century.

Quote from: Hydra009 on July 20, 2018, 12:04:04 PM
And that matters how?  He could be the world's greatest psychic and it wouldn't give any credibility to ESP.  Genius in one field doesn't rub off in another field.

Btw, this sort of argument is called honor by association (http://www.fact-index.com/h/ho/honor_by_association.html), a type of appeal to authority.

Yeah, it's like saying because Stephen Hawking was a brilliant physicist, that made him a great rapper, or because Ed Witten came up with M theory, he's unbeatable at ping-pong.

Mousie also does a wonderful job of simply gliding past the facts that Newton's religious opinions were -- and still are -- rather heterodox, and despite the revolution in chemistry started by Boyle in Newton's own lifetime, he remained an enthusiastic alchemist, forever on the search for the Philosopher's Stone -- so no, not just mixing things to see what they do as a proto-analytical chemist but full-bore woo.  Books on mathematics, physics and astronomy together made up barely 12% of his personal library, books on alchemy alone made up nearly 10%.  Christian mythology (what's commonly referred to as 'theology') made up over a quarter of his library (http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~gent0113/astrology/newton.htm).

[/quote]

Quote from: Mike Cl on July 20, 2018, 12:08:45 PM
We have christians of all stripes pointing to a passage in Romans telling them that all authority is of god and therefore Trump is of and from god--he can do no wrong.

Funny, that didn't apply when "OhBummer" was in office.

Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 20, 2018, 02:54:34 PM
Funny, that didn't apply when "OhBummer" was in office.

Nope.  They much preferred Psalm 109 - may his days be few, may another take his office.  May his children be fatherless, may his wife be a widow.

Such a display of Christian love... insert heartfelt eyeroll here.

Yeah, they only care what the Bible says when it's convenient to support their prejudices.

Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 20, 2018, 02:54:34 PM
Funny, that didn't apply when "OhBummer" was in office.

They would have--except "OhBummer" is black.  Which is odd, because Jesus was not exactly white.

Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 20, 2018, 02:54:34 PM
Funny, that didn't apply when "OhBummer" was in office.

Yeah, or Clinton either.

Quote from: Unbeliever on July 20, 2018, 05:10:50 PM
Yeah, or Clinton either.

Yeah, now that you mention it, he was male, white and christian.  That almost makes it mandatory he sexually prey (and pray) on women.

Quote from: Mike Cl on July 20, 2018, 05:24:09 PM
Yeah, now that you mention it, he was male, white and christian.  That almost makes it mandatory he sexually prey (and pray) on women.

I guess you are speaking for yourself? (sarc)  Well as a former Christin, maybe as a former predator ...

Quote from: Baruch on July 17, 2018, 05:33:04 PM
So you are Skeletor?  How is He-Man doing these days? ;-)

More idiotic joking...

Quote from: Mike Cl on July 20, 2018, 05:08:03 PM
They would have--except "OhBummer" is black.  Which is odd, because Jesus was not exactly white.

Oh NOW you've done it!  The Klan will get you for that suggestion that Jesus was middle-eastern!  LOL!

The Romans complained that Jesus was an anchor baby.

Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 21, 2018, 06:13:15 AM
The Romans complained that Jesus was an anchor baby.

\

If they had the concept, they would have.  But they didn't have the same idea about immigration.  The loved it when non-Roman people fought for the Republic.  Until the Empire days and that got troublesome.  All those "others" learning the army training...

Is that why some people fear immigrants in the US?  That might succeed?

Quote from: Cavebear on July 21, 2018, 04:56:57 AM
Oh NOW you've done it!  The Klan will get you for that suggestion that Jesus was middle-eastern!  LOL!

You aren't too far from the truth!

Quote from: Mike Cl on July 21, 2018, 09:07:17 AM
You aren't too far from the truth!

Of course.  You look at the Jesus-On-The-Cross in any Large or little Protestant US church and he is definitely A White Guy!

Quote from: Cavebear on July 21, 2018, 06:24:42 AM
Is that why some people fear immigrants in the US?  That might succeed?

No, they fear immigrants because they've been told to fear immigrants. They have no problem with them sweeping the streets, washing the dishes at Applebee's and mowing lawns. I used to help teach English to los nondocumentos in San Diego back in the day. The people in those classes tried very, very hard to learn the language, it was key to getting work and making a living. (I'm no English prof., I helped out in the homework seminars after class.)

Quote from: Cavebear on July 21, 2018, 06:24:42 AM
\

If they had the concept, they would have.  But they didn't have the same idea about immigration.  The loved it when non-Roman people fought for the Republic.  Until the Empire days and that got troublesome.  All those "others" learning the army training...

Is that why some people fear immigrants in the US?  That might succeed?

Wrong again.  Failing at failing, or just tired over a hard night?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FpcDpYBFW8

The refugees in Germany aren't there to fight in the German Army.  Though some (not all) Hispanics do volunteer for the US Army etc.  Mostly 2nd or later generation.  In my unit we have had Panamanians and Phiippinos who are there to earn citizenship.

Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 21, 2018, 09:19:10 AM
No, they fear immigrants because they've been told to fear immigrants. They have no problem with them sweeping the streets, washing the dishes at Applebee's and mowing lawns. I used to help teach English to los nondocumentos in San Diego back in the day. The people in those classes tried very, very hard to learn the language, it was key to getting work and making a living. (I'm no English prof., I helped out in the homework seminars after class.)

Yes, some Hispanic immigrants do flourish in the US.

Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 21, 2018, 09:19:10 AM
No, they fear immigrants because they've been told to fear immigrants. They have no problem with them sweeping the streets, washing the dishes at Applebee's and mowing lawns. I used to help teach English to los nondocumentos in San Diego back in the day. The people in those classes tried very, very hard to learn the language, it was key to getting work and making a living. (I'm no English prof., I helped out in the homework seminars after class.)

I applaud both you and them.  And quite frankly, I won't be able to tell the difference between their children and my siblings'  And yes that is good.

Quote from: Cavebear on July 21, 2018, 09:23:38 AM
I applaud both you and them.  And quite frankly, I won't be able to tell the difference between their children and my siblings'  And yes that is good.

IF 100 million of them moved to New England (won't happen) then your siblings would be displaced.  I welcome all the conservative Catholics to the US ;-)  The liberal Hispanics are Pentecostal or Mormon.

Quote from: trdsf on July 20, 2018, 11:55:33 AM
*giggle* *snrk* *cackle*

You really don't know how Google works at all, do you?

Here's Stukeley's actual account:
Source is right here (http://professorbuzzkill.com/issac-newton-apple/), because sources matter.

Not only did Newton never tell Stukeley an apple fell on his head, Stukeley never reported it that way.  Also, not one word about Genesis in the account, either admitted by Newton or embellished by Stukeley.

If you're going to be wrong about the little stuff, there's no reason to take you seriously about the big stuff.

Shacks pal, you missed out on what I took as my opinion!
I never said it was a fact!
I deducted that this was what Newton could have done in the light of his character.

Quote from: MousetrapNow, my thinking is that, because Newton loved metaphors, creating difficult puzzles, and loved to get people into word games to think about many questions, HE USED THE APPLE AS A METAPHOR OF GENESIS AND THE CREATION STORY.

If you missed out on what I wrote, how can I believe anything else you have read?

Quote from: Mike Cl on July 20, 2018, 12:08:45 PM
And we all know how very much christians love 'authority'!  We have christians of all stripes pointing to a passage in Romans telling them that all authority is of god and therefore Trump is of and from god--he can do no wrong.  Religion rightly called opiate of the masses.  A christian does not need evidence, only a belief and they will

And just so does Atheists when it comes to their religion.

Quote from: Cavebear on July 21, 2018, 06:24:42 AM
\

If they had the concept, they would have.  But they didn't have the same idea about immigration.  The loved it when non-Roman people fought for the Republic.  Until the Empire days and that got troublesome.  All those "others" learning the army training...

Is that why some people fear immigrants in the US?  That might succeed?

No one fears immigrants.
They fear illegal immigrants.
Huge difference

Quote from: Baruch on July 21, 2018, 09:23:00 AM
Yes, some Hispanic immigrants do flourish in the US.

And it seems as if they are legal, hard working people.
Not drug lords, pushers, pimps, human traffickers.....

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 24, 2018, 08:02:37 AM
Shacks pal, you missed out on what I took as my opinion!
I never said it was a fact!
I deducted that this was what Newton could have done in the light of his character.If you missed out on what I wrote, how can I believe anything else you have read?

I already know you don't believe what I say.  I can't say I care; I can but offer enlightenment, I can't force it down your throat.

And, you PRESENTED IT AS A FACT.  In exactly the same way as all the other demonstrably incorrect things you've said.  Are you utterly incapable of going "Wow, yeah, I should've looked that up first"?  I expect not, you haven't looked up anything else yet.

Quote from: trdsf on July 24, 2018, 08:55:48 AM
I already know you don't believe what I say.  I can't say I care; I can but offer enlightenment, I can't force it down your throat.

And, you PRESENTED IT AS A FACT.  In exactly the same way as all the other demonstrably incorrect things you've said.  Are you utterly incapable of going "Wow, yeah, I should've looked that up first"?  I expect not, you haven't looked up anything else yet.

Just as the atheists here presented silly arguments, such as the Bible is incorrect because it can not correspond to the age of the Universe, which I showed with a simple explanation that it can, just in such a manner should you accept that these arguments are very superficial, and the counter arguments can also be presented in a superficial manner.
Any argument as so called evidence that God does not exist, can be countered with the opposite.
I think that my position of the inerrancy of the Bible is one I sorted out a long time ago, and superficial criticism is something I recognize as ignorance to the detail found therein.

In short, atheists think a silly remark sinks the Bible, and I went to investigate these remarks, and found it to be incorrect.

Therefore, thousands of silly attacks, and another 1000 answers does not result in truth.
Truth is what one find after scrutinizing one's own claim and then to test this truth for failure.
So far, silly accusations and misrepresentations on the Bible's statements, can easily be shielded in a simple reading of the verses in question.
I scrutinized my position against the Bible.
therefore my stance.

MT, I can see your mouth moving.

When are you going to answer my points in here:

http://atheistforums.com/index.php?topic=12764.msg1222854#msg1222854
http://atheistforums.com/index.php?topic=12764.msg1222868#msg1222868

QuoteI scrutinized my position against the Bible.

This may be part of your problem. You need to scrutinize your position against science. After all, you claim that science confirms the Bible. Thing is, you obviously don't know very much science. For instance, can you tell me what happens to a 4 mile wide asteroid, starting at rest, when it crashes into the Earth? If it were ice, would it be a solid, liquid or a gas? I'll wait.

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 24, 2018, 08:13:20 AM
And it seems as if they are legal, hard working people.
Not drug lords, pushers, pimps, human traffickers.....

What do you have against "free" enterprise?  The CIA is the biggest drug lord around .... proven years ago.

Quote from: Baruch on July 17, 2018, 08:03:32 PM
Irony alert.  The standard pretzel shape is from N Italy, where they gave away pretzels in the that shape to children studying the Bible.  The three holes represent the Holy Trinity.  Yes, theology is the pretzelizing of logic.

How perfect then. The pretzel of mousetrap.

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 24, 2018, 08:10:58 AM
No one fears immigrants.
They fear illegal immigrants.
Huge difference

Then I'm sure you will be horrified to realize that the Trump Administration has deliberately created a Catch-22 whereby people legally seeking asylum in the US have to illegally cross the border to do so.  And then the Border guards arrest them for committing the crime of crossing the border.

Because, you may be interested to know, it USED to be that asylum-seekers could do that in their own country at US embassies, but the Trump Adminstration stopped that, so (as cruel and unsane as this seems) the only way to seek LEGAL asylum in the US is now  to ILLEGALLY cross the border and get arrested first.

And that means the US takes your children away because, after all, we can put the adults in jail but not the children.  So the children are now disappearing into the foster-child adoption system.  AND, because the system doesn't keep track of the children well (as several courts have recently declared) we have basically stripped children away from their parents in order to frighten new  immigrants from trying to seek asylum for military, drug, and gang violence.

It's not the regular illegal immigrants we are struggling with today those numbers have been dropping since before Trump), it is the previously legal asylum-seekers that Trump has caused to become "illegal" that are the ones being discussed.

Quote from: Cavebear on July 25, 2018, 04:51:28 AM
Then I'm sure you will be horrified to realize that the Trump Administration has deliberately created a Catch-22 whereby people legally seeking asylum in the US have to illegally cross the border to do so.  And then the Border guards arrest them for committing the crime of crossing the border.

Because, you may be interested to know, it USED to be that asylum-seekers could do that in their own country at US embassies, but the Trump Adminstration stopped that, so (as cruel and unsane as this seems) the only way to seek LEGAL asylum in the US is now  to ILLEGALLY cross the border and get arrested first.

And that means the US takes your children away because, after all, we can put the adults in jail but not the children.  So the children are now disappearing into the foster-child adoption system.  AND, because the system doesn't keep track of the children well (as several courts have recently declared) we have basically stripped children away from their parents in order to frighten new  immigrants from trying to seek asylum for military, drug, and gang violence.

It's not the regular illegal immigrants we are struggling with today those numbers have been dropping since before Trump), it is the previously legal asylum-seekers that Trump has caused to become "illegal" that are the ones being discussed.

Copying Austria or Hungary ... savage lands indeed.  Also put the IRS in charge ... then everyone is guilty of pre-crime.

Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on July 24, 2018, 07:17:21 PM
MT, I can see your mouth moving.

When are you going to answer my points in here:

http://atheistforums.com/index.php?topic=12764.msg1222854#msg1222854
http://atheistforums.com/index.php?topic=12764.msg1222868#msg1222868
This may be part of your problem. You need to scrutinize your position against science. After all, you claim that science confirms the Bible. Thing is, you obviously don't know very much science. For instance, can you tell me what happens to a 4 mile wide asteroid, starting at rest, when it crashes into the Earth? If it were ice, would it be a solid, liquid or a gas? I'll wait.

The day you admit that Thea, and the boiling magma eon of the earth, is not a scientific fact, but a theory of which science now disputes with much recent discoveries.

Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on July 24, 2018, 07:17:21 PM

This may be part of your problem. You need to scrutinize your position against science. After all, you claim that science confirms the Bible. Thing is, you obviously don't know very much science. For instance, can you tell me what happens to a 4 mile wide asteroid, starting at rest, when it crashes into the Earth? If it were ice, would it be a solid, liquid or a gas? I'll wait.

Interesting.
Now why would you claim an asteroid as being ice.
Please show me where we discussed asteroids?
I specifically showed what science claimed about "Comets"!
Comets are a collection of Ice, Gas and space Dust.
Comets are a mini lab as a reflection of how the Earth looked when it took shape from the Nebular eon.
Where am I wrong?
Or do you not agree with what science now claims about what Comets teaches about our ancient solar system?

Quote from: Baruch on July 24, 2018, 07:23:53 PM
What do you have against "free" enterprise?  The CIA is the biggest drug lord around .... proven years ago.

:grin:
In South Africa it is the ruling party, the ANC that are the best pimps and pushers on Earth.
Your guys dont have a touch against ours.
One thing about SA is that when it comes to Drugs, prostitution, corruption, theft, hijacking, murder, and rape; no one does it better than the African National Congress.
Proudly South African.
:police: :azn:

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 25, 2018, 07:10:34 AM
The day you admit that Thea, and the boiling magma eon of the earth, is not a scientific fact, but a theory of which science now disputes with much recent discoveries.

Given that there is scientific evidence of Thea hitting the Earth and splashing crustal material what is your evidence against the idea?

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 24, 2018, 08:05:02 AM
And just so does Atheists when it comes to their religion.

I'm always amused when theists refer to atheism as "a religion".  It the lack of one.  Sort of like referring to "bald" as a hair color.

Quote from: Cavebear on July 25, 2018, 04:51:28 AM
Then I'm sure you will be horrified to realize that the Trump Administration has deliberately created a Catch-22 whereby people legally seeking asylum in the US have to illegally cross the border to do so.  And then the Border guards arrest them for committing the crime of crossing the border.

Because, you may be interested to know, it USED to be that asylum-seekers could do that in their own country at US embassies, but the Trump Adminstration stopped that, so (as cruel and unsane as this seems) the only way to seek LEGAL asylum in the US is now  to ILLEGALLY cross the border and get arrested first.

And that means the US takes your children away because, after all, we can put the adults in jail but not the children.  So the children are now disappearing into the foster-child adoption system.  AND, because the system doesn't keep track of the children well (as several courts have recently declared) we have basically stripped children away from their parents in order to frighten new  immigrants from trying to seek asylum for military, drug, and gang violence.

It's not the regular illegal immigrants we are struggling with today those numbers have been dropping since before Trump), it is the previously legal asylum-seekers that Trump has caused to become "illegal" that are the ones being discussed.

I have watched the American politics for 3 years now, and must say that I do not understand the criticism against Trump on his stance of immigration.
If what you say is true, why do we not hear this on ABC, CNN, etc?
I look mainly to CNN, and Fox to deliver a balanced view of what the American politics unfold.

He is very clear, come into the country legally.
Get a passport, permit or whatever.
Apply for amnesty, employee permit, or what is available.
Dont go and break the Laws of the US.

Then I see the accusation of children that's taken from their parents, and most of these people just disappear into America, some not even making an attempt to get them back.
I see Democrats staging protests against ICE and the Government, not knowing it is not even ICE who removes these children.
These people who protest are supporters of the most worst of Human rights violators, such as Linda Sarsour who would like shariah law in the USA.
I see Waters and Whoopi shouting and victimizing people thinking they have this right to carry on as they do?

I find the Democrats are not doing their job, but undermines your democracy on every event possible, whether it be in public, or congress.
They act in defiance and are real traitors to your country.

I also see that Trump will eventually get the wall built, strengthen the American borders, stop illegal immigration, and remove all the gangs from South America.
The reason why I believe he will succeed...the Democrats are making arseholes of them-self in undermining your government, and the American majority are not so stupid as to accept what they are doing.
In other-words, because Democrats do not understand how democracy works, and they want to act like the mobs in 3rd world countries, they are playing into the hand of Trump and the Republicans.

And guess what you dont understand,
Trump knows that the Democrats are helping him with their behavior!
:grin:

Quote from: Cavebear on July 25, 2018, 07:41:05 AM
I'm always amused when theists refer to atheism as "a religion".  It the lack of one.  Sort of like referring to "bald" as a hair color.

or a head without a brain.

Quote from: Cavebear on July 25, 2018, 07:41:05 AM
I'm always amused when theists refer to atheism as "a religion".  It the lack of one.  Sort of like referring to "bald" as a hair color.

Not collecting stamps is not a hobby.
as
Not believing in God is not a religion.

This is a hard one for theists to grasp.  They, including myself years ago, thought atheism was an assertion.  They think, "I don't believe in God," is the same thing as,  "I believe there is no god."  They can't understand that nuance, even though the nuance is as big as the stars.

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 25, 2018, 07:48:14 AM
or a head without a brain.

Even though you meant that as a cut, you are actually getting closer to understanding, although you don't know it. 

Atheism = "nothing there."  When it comes to the existence of God question, you insert a belief.  Atheism does not.  It has nothing to put there.  Any attempt to explain why there is nothing to put there falls on deaf ears.  Most theists who come here don't understand this, but some do get it.

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 25, 2018, 07:47:18 AM
I have watched the American politics for 3 years now, and must say that I do not understand the criticism against Trump on his stance of immigration.
If what you say is true, why do we not hear this on ABC, CNN, etc?
I look mainly to CNN, and Fox to deliver a balanced view of what the American politics unfold.

He is very clear, come into the country legally.
Get a passport, permit or whatever.
Apply for amnesty, employee permit, or what is available.
Dont go and break the Laws of the US.

Then I see the accusation of children that's taken from their parents, and most of these people just disappear into America, some not even making an attempt to get them back.
I see Democrats staging protests against ICE and the Government, not knowing it is not even ICE who removes these children.
These people who protest are supporters of the most worst of Human rights violators, such as Linda Sarsour who would like shariah law in the USA.
I see Waters and Whoopi shouting and victimizing people thinking they have this right to carry on as they do?

I find the Democrats are not doing their job, but undermines your democracy on every event possible, whether it be in public, or congress.
They act in defiance and are real traitors to your country.

I also see that Trump will eventually get the wall built, strengthen the American borders, stop illegal immigration, and remove all the gangs from South America.
The reason why I believe he will succeed...the Democrats are making arseholes of them-self in undermining your government, and the American majority are not so stupid as to accept what they are doing.
In other-words, because Democrats do not understand how democracy works, and they want to act like the mobs in 3rd world countries, they are playing into the hand of Trump and the Republicans.

And guess what you dont understand,
Trump knows that the Democrats are helping him with their behavior!
:grin:

You've been watching American politics 3 whole years now.  Wow, that does make you an expert..

If you are watching Fox News you aren't getting news, but Trump Administration claims.  They repeat him endlessly.  Fox has become a Trump political appendage.

You can't come (with the new rules) into the US legally when stepping foot across the border to ask for entry is now itself, illegal. Do you know what a "Catch-22" is?

Almost no one supports Sharia Law in the US.  The idea is nearly laughable.

The WALL will never be built.  It would be idiotically expensive, politically impossible, and geographically inane.

Immigrants are not the cause of gangs in the US.  Immigrants (legal and illegal) as a general population are more law-abiding than the average US citizen.

Children have been taken from their parents and set aside in chain link fence cages.  There is video evidence.  The government itself admits that many cannot be returned to their parents because they don't even know who the parents are. 

And here is a wicked thought to consider.  The Government is mostly Protestant and the immigrants are mostly Catholic; so they think they are "saving" them.  Chew on THAT for a while...

Quote from: SGOS on July 25, 2018, 07:55:26 AM
Not collecting stamps is not a hobby.
as
Not believing in God is not a religion.

This is a hard one for theists to grasp.  They, including myself years ago, thought atheism was an assertion.  They think, "I don't believe in God," is the same thing as,  "I believe there is no god."  They can't understand that nuance, even though the nuance is as big as the stars.

An important distinction.  I am frequently amazed that "I don't BELIEVE" in any god" is interpreted to mean "I hate God"  and especially "I hate YOUR GOD".  I don't.  I just don't think there are any gods of any sort.

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 25, 2018, 07:10:34 AM
The day you admit that Thea, and the boiling magma eon of the earth, is not a scientific fact, but a theory of which science now disputes with much recent discoveries.

Again, I can see your mouth moving. You're pretending that any of the articles you presented prove your case when they actually don't. Even if they did tend to lean towards what you say, it takes more than one paper to build a scientific consensus. So long as the scientific consensus is that Thea is the best way to explain the moon's mass and orbital properties, and that a primordial melting is the best way to explain the composition of the Earth's crust, you're dead in the water, because THAT is the current scientific consensus that your Bible has to be concordant with.

So, prove that the SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS is that the earth never experienced a primordial melting, or that the moon could exist with all its properties without a giant impactor, and you'll get your admission. And don't just post articles, post impact scores, which tells you how much influence a paper actually has over the scientific consensus â€" a paper may on its own look damning, but it may have rebuttals and disconfirmations that render them moot. Until then, you're stuck.

I find it unlikely, because the primordial melting of protoplanets is the way that science came up with to explain not only the composition of the Earth's crust, but also the fact that asteroids tend to fit into a relatively few isotopic composition "bins" instead of being randomly distributed as expected. The Nebular hypothesis was abandoned because it failed to explain facts like these. Even then, the Nebular hypothesis had a hot young sun before the Earth was fully formed, precisely to explain the difference in composition between the inner and outer solar system. This even has confirmation in the form of T Tauri stars, young stars just getting started, and they are surrounded by nice, full protoplanetary disks â€" disks so optically opaque that the only explanation for them is that they're extremely dusty and therefore haven't gotten around to forming planetessimals yet, let alone planets.

And I notice you still haven't answered my challenge. I'll even get you started: if you release this asteroid from a distance of 1 million kilometers from the Earth's center, then when it impacts, it will be traveling about 11 km/s (neglecting air resistance, because at 4 miles in diameter it's too big for that to make much difference). Now, there's a consequence to hitting at that speed. Just before impact, it's traveling at a pretty good clip; after impact it... isn't. All that kinetic energy has to go somewhere. Again, what happens to the asteroid? If it is made of ice, would it be solid, liquid or gas after impact?

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 25, 2018, 07:21:48 AM
Interesting.
Now why would you claim an asteroid as being ice.
Please show me where we discussed asteroids?
I specifically showed what science claimed about "Comets"!
Comets are a collection of Ice, Gas and space Dust.
Comets are a mini lab as a reflection of how the Earth looked when it took shape from the Nebular eon.
Where am I wrong?
Or do you not agree with what science now claims about what Comets teaches about our ancient solar system?

Comets are not mudballs. They don't have water in a liquid phase, even when they're close to the sun outgassing. One would think that if you describe the Earth as a mudball, that later settles out into the land and the oceans, that the water would have to be in the liquid phase, not solid or gas phases.

Furthermore, comets form in the outer solar system, giving them a different isotopic composition. That's why we're able to tell that our water didn't come from them. That is what was stated right in one of your sources on the subject.

If the Earth formed in a composition resembling a comet rather than from relatively dry planetessimals or even the mudball you say that Genesis supports, then I would say that the early Earth resembled more the Norse creation myth than it does Genesis.

Quote from: Cavebear on July 25, 2018, 08:14:04 AM
You've been watching American politics 3 whole years now.  Wow, that does make you an expert..

If you are watching Fox News you aren't getting news, but Trump Administration claims.  They repeat him endlessly.  Fox has become a Trump political appendage.

You can't come (with the new rules) into the US legally when stepping foot across the border to ask for entry is now itself, illegal. Do you know what a "Catch-22" is?

Almost no one supports Sharia Law in the US.  The idea is nearly laughable.

The WALL will never be built.  It would be idiotically expensive, politically impossible, and geographically inane.

Immigrants are not the cause of gangs in the US.  Immigrants (legal and illegal) as a general population are more law-abiding than the average US citizen.

Children have been taken from their parents and set aside in chain link fence cages.  There is video evidence.  The government itself admits that many cannot be returned to their parents because they don't even know who the parents are. 

And here is a wicked thought to consider.  The Government is mostly Protestant and the immigrants are mostly Catholic; so they think they are "saving" them.  Chew on THAT for a while...

You speak against Fox news, but say nothing about ABC and CNN.
Even a child can see that they are so fake as can be?
As for the video footage you refer to, it is more than 3 years old when Obama was president.
Exactly, the US government dont even know who their parents are, because the shitty parents just dumped the kids to get into the country.
The Obama administration made the laws, and they did what you now experience under the Trump administration because ICE enforces the law.
Did you protest against the Obama Clinton administration?
No.
Why?
Perhaps because you did not know what Obama did, watching CNN and refusing to watch other stations such as Fox.
CNN and ABC are liberal lying fake news propaganda machines to keep you in the dark about how corrupt the Democrats was.
Look at your silly argument on how the government is Christian.
Pal, the Democrats was Christian too!

Oh by the way, I dont have to be a US Citizin to know what the US politics are all about.
I just watch how stupid Whoopi Goldberg and Maxine Waters is to realize you were rescued by Trump.

Those two are not only stupid way past idiotic, they are ugly too.
Luckily Donald knows how a woman should look like.

Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on July 25, 2018, 08:36:05 AM
Again, I can see your mouth moving....

Furthermore, comets form in the outer solar system, giving them a different isotopic composition. That's why we're able to tell that our water didn't come from them. That is what was stated right in one of your sources on the subject.

If the Earth formed in a composition resembling a comet rather than from relatively dry planetessimals or even the mudball you say that Genesis supports, then I would say that the early Earth resembled more the Norse creation myth than it does Genesis.

So, the comets you tested now does have ice?
So, they are not dry entities that evaporated into space?
Why all the complaints.
I never said that the comets we now see and sampled, shaped the earth.
I said, comets are evidence that the Nebulous cloud was ICE, MATTER and GAS.
Just as we know it is. Obviously a comet from the Oort cloud will not have the same isotopes than what the inner solar system had 4.5 billion years ago!

If that is your argument, you are missing the Bus pal!

Now, lets get all this Icy, Gaseous, space-dust collected on a grandeur scale the size of our planets, and what will we have...
A mud ball earth!
Just as the Bible described.
Thanks for your assistance.
Now, you should again post to all your friends on this forum how poorly I understand science, and how great a physicist you are to get out of this predicament you created.
Oh, wait!
You can also post how uneducated a theist is and how they always twist the truth to prove a god!
If this does not work, create a straw-man argument out of something else, then destroy that argument, and step on the winners podium bragging how you destroyed the Bible.
Greetings from Wild 2
comets were once wet! (http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2011/04/stardust-reveals-comets-were-once-wet)

Quote from: Cavebear on July 25, 2018, 08:20:06 AM
An important distinction.  I am frequently amazed that "I don't BELIEVE" in any god" is interpreted to mean "I hate God"  and especially "I hate YOUR GOD".  I don't.  I just don't think there are any gods of any sort.

Given.
I had the idea that your philosophy, lets use this word in the place of religion, are the same as Dawkins', Singer, and all the Atheists of high caliber that places my God equal to a racist, murderous, slave-monger, psychopathic, liar...and....and....and!
But, If you are an atheist that believes that Christians are allowed to have their religion, no problem.
You are the first I have met then.
I was really under the impression that all atheists hates any theist, think they are uneducated believers of a God that can not be proven and as such should be treated as idiots'

What am I saying?
Did you not say the above?

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 25, 2018, 08:37:24 AM
You speak against Fox news, but say nothing about ABC and CNN.
Even a child can see that they are so fake as can be?
As for the video footage you refer to, it is more than 3 years old when Obama was president.
Exactly, the US government dont even know who their parents are, because the shitty parents just dumped the kids to get into the country.
The Obama administration made the laws, and they did what you now experience under the Trump administration because ICE enforces the law.
Did you protest against the Obama Clinton administration?
No.
Why?
Perhaps because you did not know what Obama did, watching CNN and refusing to watch other stations such as Fox.
CNN and ABC are liberal lying fake news propaganda machines to keep you in the dark about how corrupt the Democrats was.
Look at your silly argument on how the government is Christian.
Pal, the Democrats was Christian too!

Oh by the way, I dont have to be a US Citizin to know what the US politics are all about.
I just watch how stupid Whoopi Goldberg and Maxine Waters is to realize you were rescued by Trump.

Those two are not only stupid way past idiotic, they are ugly too.
Luckily Donald knows how a woman should look like.

Wow!  Well, first, Fox News isn't actually "news" anymore.  It has long since fallen into commentary on behalf of Trump.

I don't watch ABC or CNN myself..

I didn't refer to any video footage (I think).

The children were forcibly removed from their parent's presence.  The parent's did not "dump" the kids.

The current rules about separating were created by Executive Orders from Trump and agency policy by Sessions, not Obama.

The chain link fences are current events videotaped recently with date-marks by reputable journalists.  They are not old video.

Professional, objective fact-checkers have investigated Fox claims and shown them wrong giving days, dates and locations.

You need to re-evaluate your opinion of factual news stations. 

The US government has a strong christian influence,because most of the population is christian.  Jews are about 10% atheists are about 15%.  Non judeo-christian religions have a smaller presence.

The appearance of a woman in politics shouldn't have any more importance than the appearance of a man.

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 25, 2018, 08:59:45 AM
Given.
I had the idea that your philosophy, lets use this word in the place of religion, are the same as Dawkins', Singer, and all the Atheists of high caliber that places my God equal to a racist, murderous, slave-monger, psychopathic, liar...and....and....and!
But, If you are an atheist that believes that Christians are allowed to have their religion, no problem.
You are the first I have met then.
I was really under the impression that all atheists hates any theist, think they are uneducated believers of a God that can not be proven and as such should be treated as idiots'

What am I saying?
Did you not say the above?

You still don't "get it" do you?  I have utterly no interest or belief in your god or any god.  The idea barely crosses my mind daily.

But now that you mention it, as your god is expresses in religious texts, it IS rather "racist, murderous, slave-monger, psychopathic, liar", etc, but so are all the others.  I just don't see any reality in ANY of them.  It just so happens I include yours in the area of superstition.  You know, like with zombies, martians, etc...

I'll try to explain again.  As you don't belief in Thor or Mithra, or Osiris, (I assume)  I don't belief in them OR YOURS.  Your deity myth is just another superstition to me.

Does that make sense to you now?

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 25, 2018, 08:37:24 AM
CNN and ABC are liberal lying fake news propaganda machines

Funny how this sentiment almost exclusively comes from people whose own sources are more partisan, less credible, and less honest.  It almost seems like a form of projection.

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 25, 2018, 08:59:45 AM
Given.
I had the idea that your philosophy, lets use this word in the place of religion, are the same as Dawkins', Singer, and all the Atheists of high caliber that places my God equal to a racist, murderous, slave-monger, psychopathic, liar...and....and....and!

Keep in mind that it is your religion who describes your God.  The above named atheists only have that description to go on.  Since the Bible is recognized as the final authority by Christians, atheists tend to ignore Christian twitterings that God is all loving.  Instead, they refer to the description given in the source book to determine his alleged character, and that description does not describe an all loving god.  Loving at times, yes, but more often a barbaric and vindictive being capable of inflicting misery that serial killers could only dream of, and one of his sins is demanding to be worshiped for his barbaric behavior.

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 25, 2018, 08:59:45 AM
But, If you are an atheist that believes that Christians are allowed to have their religion, no problem.
You are the first I have met then.

Well it's good then that you get out more, and find out what you're actually arguing against.

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 25, 2018, 08:59:45 AM
I was really under the impression that all atheists hates any theist, think they are uneducated believers of a God that can not be proven and as such should be treated as idiots'

As unfounded as your much of your belief may be, I don't think anyone here has ever advocated that you should not be allowed your religion.

Quote from: Hydra009 on July 25, 2018, 09:27:40 AM
Funny how this sentiment almost exclusively comes from people whose own sources are more partisan, less credible, and less honest.  It almost seems like a form of projection.

Mousetrap doesn't think his sources are iffy at best and deliberately fake at worst.  And that's the problem!  He (I assume "he") is convinced that his info source is the Only Real One in a world of conspiracies and liars.  I don't know how to get through that. 

I grew up with a Dad who was an Engineer and a Mom who was relentless in pursuit of facts (which I assume is why they got along together so well for almost 70 years) and I "caught it" from them.  So when I meet people like Mousetrap (who seems to really believe what he posts), I don't really know how to argue.  I can only present verifiable information to him. 

What can you do with someone like that?

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 25, 2018, 08:50:58 AM
So, the comets you tested now does have ice?
So, they are not dry entities that evaporated into space?

Comets formed beyond the frost line of the solar system. They didn't form in the inner system where the protoplanetary disk was swept almost clean of its volitiles. The Earth fromed in the inner solar system. The fact that comets are not entities devoid of water has no bearing on whether the Earth was.

Quote
I said, comets are evidence that the Nebulous cloud was ICE, MATTER and GAS.

Actually, ice and gas are also matter. That you separate them betrays your ignorance.

Also, it doesn't show that the protoplanetary disk was of uniform composition at the time that the Earth formed. If the protoplanetary disk was not of uniform composition (reasons why previously stated), then the composition of comets have no bearing on the composition of the Earth.

Quote
Now, lets get all this Icy, Gaseous, space-dust collected on a grandeur scale the size of our planets, and what will we have...
A mud ball earth!

You are making the tacit assumption that the initial nebula did not differentiate chemically. It did. The compostion of the protoplanetary disk was altered by the young sun's light. Which, by the way, all of your sources to date have aluded to in one way or another, including the one you just referenced.

You described in your graphic a while back that the earth initially gatheres as a "soggy mess," basically mud, which requires liquid water, and then gains an atmosphere. It's not as if you omitted the atmosphere for clarity, you thought that the atmosphere formed after the "soggy mess." Again, that's not physically viable, as any phase diagram of water illustrates. Any liquid water has to form under an atmosphere, or in some enclosed space. The atmosphere has to come first, and only when it reaches sufficient density to put enough pressure on the surface of the planet, only then can you get substances and structures that are dependent on the existence of liquid water.

Quote
Just as the Bible described.
Thanks for your assistance.

Don't try to use my own trick against me. You don't do it very well.

Quote
Now, you should again post to all your friends on this forum how poorly I understand science, and how great a physicist you are to get out of this predicament you created.

Oh, I'm no physicist, but I certainly know physics better than you. And you do poorly understand science. When you can't solve even the simplest problems that have been put forward to you, you don't undestand physics.

Quote
You can also post how uneducated a theist is and how they always twist the truth to prove a god!

Well, I still see your lips moving...

Quote
If this does not work, create a straw-man argument out of something else, then destroy that argument, and step on the winners podium bragging how you destroyed the Bible.
Greetings from Wild 2
comets were once wet! (http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2011/04/stardust-reveals-comets-were-once-wet)

...Powered by radiation from the nacent sun:

Quote
Solar heat had melted primordial dust, they presumed, which was then blown out to the cold outer reaches of the solar system and incorporated in the comets forming there.

Your own source, buddy. Comets didn't form in the inner solar system. Now, why would that be, if the protoplanetary disk's composition was uniform? Ah! It's because the disk wasn't.

Also, further:

Quote
The group concludes that the watery alteration most likely occurred in the comet when heat from either an impact or radioactive decay melted pockets of ice, which then quickly refroze.

Pockets of ice, friend. Not exposed to the vacuum of space. This was not water on the surface of the comet, that melted from the sunlight. It was generated by the impact of a similar body. That should tell you one thing in particular that is very important: When things in space hit each other, they heat up.

It's as if you don't understand your own sources are saying. Fancy that.

Now, what's that problem I've been posting the past couple of times involve? Ah, yes. An asteroid colliding with the Earth. With something as small as a comet, it was enough to heat up water to melting point (if it wasn't radioactivity). Now, what might happen on something with a bit more gravity to it?

It's as if you don't know and have no idea how to find out the answer. Fancy that.

Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on July 25, 2018, 10:47:42 AM
Comets formed beyond the frost line of the solar system. They didn't form in the inner system where the protoplanetary disk was swept almost clean of its volitiles. The Earth fromed in the inner solar system. The fact that comets are not entities devoid of water has no bearing on whether the Earth was.
Actually, ice and gas are also matter. That you separate them betrays your ignorance.

Also, it doesn't show that the protoplanetary disk was of uniform composition at the time that the Earth formed. If the protoplanetary disk was not of uniform composition (reasons why previously stated), then the composition of comets have no bearing on the composition of the Earth.
You are making the tacit assumption that the initial nebula did not differentiate chemically. It did. The compostion of the protoplanetary disk was altered by the young sun's light. Which, by the way, all of your sources to date have aluded to in one way or another, including the one you just referenced.

You described in your graphic a while back that the earth initially gatheres as a "soggy mess," basically mud, which requires liquid water, and then gains an atmosphere. It's not as if you omitted the atmosphere for clarity, you thought that the atmosphere formed after the "soggy mess." Again, that's not physically viable, as any phase diagram of water illustrates. Any liquid water has to form under an atmosphere, or in some enclosed space. The atmosphere has to come first, and only when it reaches sufficient density to put enough pressure on the surface of the planet, only then can you get substances and structures that are dependent on the existence of liquid water.
Don't try to use my own trick against me. You don't do it very well.
Oh, I'm no physicist, but I certainly know physics better than you. And you do poorly understand science. When you can't solve even the simplest problems that have been put forward to you, you don't undestand physics.
Well, I still see your lips moving...
...Powered by radiation from the nacent sun:Your own source, buddy. Comets didn't form in the inner solar system. Now, why would that be, if the protoplanetary disk's composition was uniform? Ah! It's because the disk wasn't.

Also, further:Pockets of ice, friend. Not exposed to the vacuum of space. This was not water on the surface of the comet, that melted from the sunlight. It was generated by the impact of a similar body. That should tell you one thing in particular that is very important: When things in space hit each other, they heat up.

It's as if you don't understand your own sources are saying. Fancy that.

Now, what's that problem I've been posting the past couple of times involve? Ah, yes. An asteroid colliding with the Earth. With something as small as a comet, it was enough to heat up water to melting point (if it wasn't radioactivity). Now, what might happen on something with a bit more gravity to it?

It's as if you don't know and have no idea how to find out the answer. Fancy that.

Thank you.  I really needed some serious science.  And no that's not sarcasm.  I didn't have the energy to write so long (and so good) a post...

Quote from: Cavebear on July 25, 2018, 10:09:22 AM
What can you do with someone like that?

A 2 X 4 or a baseball bat?

Alex Jones exists to make Fox "News" seem rational. It didn't work.

Quote from: SGOS on July 25, 2018, 11:07:24 AM
A 2 X 4 or a baseball bat?

Well, both should work.  Though I happened to see the very end of Resident Evil the other day and a fireman's axe seemed a REALLY good choice.  I might be partial to a good crossbow.  Some distance but also good accuracy and hitpower.

Quote from: Cavebear on July 25, 2018, 10:09:22 AM
Mousetrap doesn't think his sources are iffy at best and deliberately fake at worst.  And that's the problem!  He (I assume "he") is convinced that his info source is the Only Real One in a world of conspiracies and liars.  I don't know how to get through that. 

I grew up with a Dad who was an Engineer and a Mom who was relentless in pursuit of facts (which I assume is why they got along together so well for almost 70 years) and I "caught it" from them.  So when I meet people like Mousetrap (who seems to really believe what he posts), I don't really know how to argue.  I can only present verifiable information to him. 

What can you do with someone like that?

Ignore?  That's abut it.  I do marvel at his total embrace of stupidity (remember ignorance can be fixed, stupidity cannot).

Quote from: Mike Cl on July 25, 2018, 11:20:12 AM
Ignore?  That's abut it.  I do marvel at his total embrace of stupidity (remember ignorance can be fixed, stupidity cannot).

Good point about ignorance.  Its curable.

Quote from: SGOS on July 25, 2018, 07:55:26 AM
Not collecting stamps is not a hobby.
as
Not believing in God is not a religion.

This is a hard one for theists to grasp.  They, including myself years ago, thought atheism was an assertion.  They think, "I don't believe in God," is the same thing as,  "I believe there is no god."  They can't understand that nuance, even though the nuance is as big as the stars.

Theists have to believe that atheists are just as bad as they are, otherwise they have to admit that we are more rational than they are. "It takes more faith to be an atheist," they say, yet they consider faith to be a virtue. When they try to drag us down to their level, it shows that they know that blind faith is stupid, but they excel at this kind of doublethink.

Quote from: Mike Cl on July 25, 2018, 11:20:12 AM
Ignore?  That's abut it.  I do marvel at his total embrace of stupidity (remember ignorance can be fixed, stupidity cannot).

Ignorance can be fixed, but willful ignorance cannot. There's a big difference between not knowing something and not being willing to know something. Mouse is the latter.

Ideology is always based on double-think.  Unless one is charitable and honest enough to say ... "we this and we that ..." instead of "them this and them that ...".

Quote from: Cavebear on July 25, 2018, 11:15:36 AM
Well, both should work.  Though I happened to see the very end of Resident Evil the other day and a fireman's axe seemed a REALLY good choice.  I might be partial to a good crossbow.  Some distance but also good accuracy and hitpower.

Just don't forget to double tap!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQe2f8L-Rkc

Quote from: Blackleaf on July 25, 2018, 01:17:04 PM
Theists have to believe that atheists are just as bad as they are, otherwise they have to admit that we are more rational than they are. "It takes more faith to be an atheist," they say, yet they consider faith to be a virtue. When they try to drag us down to their level, it shows that they know that blind faith is stupid, but they excel at this kind of doublethink.

Nice approach!  The doublethink was always there but I hadn't quite thought enough about their claim atheists "believe" on faith vs their own reasons for faith.  It seems obvious in retrospect, but I was always arguing against faith on the theists' parts.

Quote from: Blackleaf on July 25, 2018, 01:18:42 PM
Ignorance can be fixed, but willful ignorance cannot. There's a big difference between not knowing something and not being willing to know something. Mouse is the latter.

Why can't "willful ignorance" be fixed?  All it takes is a thought.

Quote from: Cavebear on July 25, 2018, 01:39:43 PM
Nice approach!  The doublethink was always there but I hadn't quite thought enough about their claim atheists "believe" on faith vs their own reasons for faith.  It seems obvious in retrospect, but I was always arguing against faith on the theists' parts.

I've always been aware of it, but never articulated it to myself.  I just passed it off as ignorant bullshit, and let it go at that.

Quote from: SGOS on July 25, 2018, 02:27:38 PM
I've always been aware of it, but never articulated it to myself.  I just passed it off as ignorant bullshit, and let it go at that.

Well, learn something new every day, right?  It's hard to get into the mind of 'the others', but the attempt is worth it sometimes.

Quote from: Blackleaf on July 25, 2018, 01:18:42 PM
Ignorance can be fixed, but willful ignorance cannot. There's a big difference between not knowing something and not being willing to know something. Mouse is the latter.

Yeah, I hear ya.  But then, I think of willful ignorance as being stupid.  And mousey fits the bill.

Quote from: Mike Cl on July 25, 2018, 02:39:44 PM
Yeah, I hear ya.  But then, I think of willful ignorance as being stupid.  And mousey fits the bill.

Well, I certainly think that Mousetrap is ignorant.  I'm not sure about "willfully" though.  Did he have weird parents?  Did he grow up in a closed community?  Dis he suffer some trauma?  And of course, he just MIGHT be as dumb as a box of rocks in spite of having had sensible kind parents.  It can all happen. 

So maybe we have to guide this idiot along, LOL!  I've seen people change their minds.  Granted, not often. 

Quote from: Cavebear on July 25, 2018, 02:56:34 PM
Well, I certainly think that Mousetrap is ignorant.  I'm not sure about "willfully" though.  Did he have weird parents?  Did he grow up in a closed community?  Dis he suffer some trauma?  And of course, he just MIGHT be as dumb as a box of rocks in spite of having had sensible kind parents.  It can all happen. 

So maybe we have to guide this idiot along, LOL!  I've seen people change their minds.  Granted, not often.

Can you point to a single post that mouse has made where he changed his mind or indicated he would even entertain such a thing?  How about one where he actually answered a specific question rather than just dodge the issue to keep on rambling about his stupid point of view?

Quote from: Mike Cl on July 25, 2018, 02:59:19 PM
Can you point to a single post that mouse has made where he changed his mind or indicated he would even entertain such a thing?  How about one where he actually answered a specific question rather than just dodge the issue to keep on rambling about his stupid point of view?

Of course not.  But when debating, I always try to remember that there are people who read but don't post.  THEY are the ones who can be engaged in what we say and might change their minds.  I'm not here to change Baruch's mind about religion, I'm not here to change PR's mind about almost anything, and (apparently) I'm not going to changes Munch's mind about gender identity.

But there are people reading these posts who are not so certain of their opinions about various subjects.  Who may chime in or not.  How may just think, "OK, right". 

We are more the proposers of ideas than the resolvers of them. 

Quote from: Cavebear on July 25, 2018, 03:58:01 PM
Of course not.  But when debating, I always try to remember that there are people who read but don't post.  THEY are the ones who can be engaged in what we say and might change their minds.  I'm not here to change Baruch's mind about religion, I'm not here to change PR's mind about almost anything, and (apparently) I'm not going to changes Munch's mind about gender identity.

But there are people reading these posts who are not so certain of their opinions about various subjects.  Who may chime in or not.  How may just think, "OK, right". 

We are more the proposers of ideas than the resolvers of them.

Good point(s).  Right on.................

Quote from: Mike Cl on July 25, 2018, 05:30:15 PM
Good point(s).  Right on.................

Wooly Crap, I'm a wholly mammoth.  I mean wooly mammoth.  Actually, I kinna liked be a saber tooth cat, but
I liked 'Ice Age and both those characters are good now.  I'm not sure I'll like what the next one will be.  If you know, don't tell me.

Now aside from that, thanks Mike Cl for the nice agreement.

Quote from: Cavebear on July 25, 2018, 01:39:43 PM
Nice approach!  The doublethink was always there but I hadn't quite thought enough about their claim atheists "believe" on faith vs their own reasons for faith.  It seems obvious in retrospect, but I was always arguing against faith on the theists' parts.

Faith = power of positive thinking + mythology.  Of course one can dispense with the mythology.  In that case ...
Arrogance = power of positive thinking only

Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on July 25, 2018, 10:47:42 AM
Comets formed beyond the frost line of the solar system.
.....    ......


Also, further:Pockets of ice, friend. Not exposed to the vacuum of space. This was not water on the surface of the comet, that melted from the sunlight. It was generated by the impact of a similar body. That should tell you one thing in particular that is very important: When things in space hit each other, they heat up.


It's as if you don't know and have no idea how to find out the answer. Fancy that.

Why do you take off as a rocket on something I explained in very simplistic methods.
I never said that the Earth formed by things that heat up when they hit each other.
My theory as described by Kant is that when the nebulous matter was still without any identifiable planets, moons, and a sun, it was still nothing more than Gas liquid and dust spread over a huge area larger than our solar system.
Following this, certain particles moved to each other and they created gravitational points, and collected more and more matter to end up in thissle balls.
These balls were Icy dust particles, and attracted other particles towards them, becoming proto-planets.
More of this dust and thistle balls were attracted to each other, and not as you think ot huge speeds crashing into each other, but with the ennergy it had in the original swirling mass of this nebulous cloud.
To think that the solar system had these huge rocks flying all over in a chaotic manner is simply not correct.
The planets accreted in a manner similar to a global snowstorm, (if we compare the snow with icy space dust,) and the Earth and planets grew to the size we have now.
True, there might have been large proto planets a few miles wide, that would have crashed into these planets we have today, but it would have had a negligent effect on the Planet itself seeing that the velocities of both Major and Minor planets were almost equal to each other, and can be compared with one baby proto planet landing on the bigger one.

No crashing and bashing as you suggest.
The impact will be negligent, to a factor of surface ice melting resulting in the space dust layering itself in strata.

Oh, yes, there will also be asteroids falling onto this proto planet, but it will not turn the original Ice Mud Earth into a hadean unit.
This is what the Nebular theory say, and if you do not like the recent discoveries I posted to you as evidence, I will accept that you are only argueing due to the fact that what science knows about the origins of the Universe, is too much of a Biblical taste to your liking.

Greetings

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 26, 2018, 07:35:21 AM
Why do you take off as a rocket on something I explained in very simplistic methods.
I never said that the Earth formed by things that heat up when they hit each other.

No, not things that just HAPPEN to heat up when they hit each other, it's that things DO heat up when they hit each other. Conservation of energy. The energy of that motion has to go somewhere, and it mostly goes into heat.

Quote
My theory as described by Kant is that when the nebulous matter was still without any identifiable planets, moons, and a sun, it was still nothing more than Gas liquid and dust spread over a huge area larger than our solar system.

Emphasis mine. There would be no substance in the liquid phase in your nebula, being that nothing with a sufficiently low vapor pressure to be liquid in vacuum is hot enough to be liquid yet. We don't see them in modern nebulae, and liquid water is not possible in the vacuum of space. And, yes, it would be a vacuum. Space is huge. Even the mass of the sun, spread out across the size of the solar system would be a billion times thinner than air â€" a very good vacuum.

Of course, Kant wasn't a physicist, so I can't really blame him. But we know better nowadays. Or should.

Quote
Following this, certain particles moved to each other and they created gravitational points, and collected more and more matter to end up in thissle balls.

Eh, no. Before reaching the planetesimal stage, gravitational attraction would not be the dominant force. Random collisions would dominate until they reach 1 km in diameter, and mostly stick to each other due to electromagnetic forces.

The thing is, Kant didn't have the benefit of modern computing to calculate the gravitational interactions of many many particles at once. Nor did he have the benefit of the slew of astronomical knowledge we have today. This multitude of gravitational points you speak about are not in evidence, not in the computer simulations, nor around the T Tauri stars that are the young stars we think our sun was once â€" they still have the thick dust clouds of thier primordial nebula, except now it's a protoplanetary disk. The center of the cloud is initially the only stable gravitational point. Others would be transitory at best.

So, the central star forms first. It starts shining as brightly as it ever does on the main sequence long before your nebula gets to making planetesimals.

Quote
These balls were Icy dust particles, and attracted other particles towards them, becoming proto-planets.

No, not much ice, at least in the inner solar system, due to that bright young star in the center. There is moisture trapped in the matrices of the various hydrous minerals that are in the dust, but that's about it. In the outer solar system, on the other hand, has an abundance of ices and the planetesimals could be composed of.

Yes, I said ices. Plural. Or did you not realize that the protoplanetary disk and its parent nebula contained more than one kind of ice (and gas)?

Quote
More of this dust and thistle balls were attracted to each other, and not as you think ot huge speeds crashing into each other, but with the ennergy it had in the original swirling mass of this nebulous cloud.
To think that the solar system had these huge rocks flying all over in a chaotic manner is simply not correct.
The planets accreted in a manner similar to a global snowstorm, (if we compare the snow with icy space dust,) and the Earth and planets grew to the size we have now.
True, there might have been large proto planets a few miles wide, that would have crashed into these planets we have today, but it would have had a negligent effect on the Planet itself seeing that the velocities of both Major and Minor planets were almost equal to each other, and can be compared with one baby proto planet landing on the bigger one.

No crashing and bashing as you suggest.
The impact will be negligent, to a factor of surface ice melting resulting in the space dust layering itself in strata.

Ah, so you DO think that the accretion of matter in planetary growth was a sedate, gentle affair. I suspected as much. However, as any space enthusiast would point out, things falling out of the sky land with a lot of kaboom.

Let's take a step back to the planetesimal stage. It's only at this stage when gravitational attraction starts becoming the dominant way these objects coalesce. And, yes, at first, the collisions are as gentle as you say.

At first.

But remember, as these things grow, their getting more and more massive, so their gravity wells are getting deeper and deeper. By the time they reach the protoplanetary stage, about the size and mass of Mercury (2,440 km radius, 3.285e23 kg mass), even beginning at rest at 5 planetary radi away from its center (9760 km above the surface), an object will pick up 3.8 km/s upon reaching the surface and hit with a whopping 7.22 MJ per kilogram of the object's mass. That's the equivalent of 1.7 kg of TNT going off for each kilogram of the object's mass. It only takes 3.342 MJ to vaporize 1 kg of ice starting from -100 °C, and about 3574.4 kJ to melt 1 kg of your typical stone starting from the same temperature. Water ice would instantly vaporize due to work heating, and stone would instantly melt for the same reason.

Yet, even though these things are actually hitting with quite a lot of speed, it would still take over 1 hour and 15 minutes for the object to fall from its starting position to the protoplanet's surface. It might look like a snowstorm from far away, but up close and personal it's a violent affair because of that damned gravitational well.

It only gets worse as the planet grows. The last 15% of the Earth's mass smacked into the growing Earth (Gaia) at 10.5 km/s minimum, a release of 55.78 MJ per kilogram of its mass, which equates to ~13 times its mass in TNT explosive yield. This is enough to melt the entire modern mass of the Earth (assuming rock) more than twice over.

Things as big as planets, even minor ones, cannot "land" on each other. They smash into each other, even if the smashing takes hours to play out. And they will be hot. Oh, boy, will they be hot.

So, no. No icy Earth for you. All you're getting is a molten Earth outgassing the primitive atmosphere.

Now, to be sure, it cools very quickly. One of the contentious periods of geophysics is when Lord Kelvin famously calculated that it would take a mere 20-50 million years for the planet to cool sufficiently to match thermodynamic observations. Of course, he was working from the assumption of no heat input from sources such as radioactivity, but it is a significant result. Earth can cool from this stage in plenty of time for the zircons to form on a cool, wet Earth more than a hundred million years later.

Quote
This is what the Nebular theory say, and if you do not like the recent discoveries I posted to you as evidence, I will accept that you are only argueing due to the fact that what science knows about the origins of the Universe, is too much of a Biblical taste to your liking.

No, it's too much of an UNPHYSICAL taste for my liking. I pointed out the problems with your hypothesis. Kant wasn't a physicist, and probably had no appreciation of orbital mechanics and just how fast things go in the solar system and how energetic things are when they collide. Things travel so fast that even small relative differences in speed translate into huge differences on the human scale. However, space is so big, that even traveling at these incredible speeds, it still takes a while for things to happen. It still takes a good hour for our object to lithobreak on Mercury, even though it hits like a mortar shell.

Quote from: Cavebear on July 25, 2018, 05:42:39 PM
Wooly Crap, I'm a wholly mammoth.  I mean wooly mammoth.  Actually, I kinna liked be a saber tooth cat, but
I liked 'Ice Age and both those characters are good now.  I'm not sure I'll like what the next one will be.  If you know, don't tell me.

Now aside from that, thanks Mike Cl for the nice agreement.

Meet the short-face   bear cat.(Those are 27" diag. monitors.)

(https://i.imgur.com/ttwLwUG.jpg)

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 26, 2018, 07:35:21 AMThis is what the Nebular theory say, and if you do not like the recent discoveries I posted to you as evidence, I will accept that you are only argueing due to the fact that what science knows about the origins of the Universe, is too much of a Biblical taste to your liking.

*looks at latest astronomy magazines with fellow atheists*
*all of us instantly notice how biblical the latest findings are and denounce modern astronomy*

Quote from: Hydra009 on July 26, 2018, 11:55:03 AM
*looks at latest astronomy magazines with fellow atheists*
*all of us instantly notice how biblical the latest findings are and denounce modern astronomy*

I know, right?!

Totally ruined our Atheist Astronomers meetings.

AA will never be the same again.

Quote from: Mr.Obvious on July 26, 2018, 05:35:53 PM
I know, right?!

Totally ruined our Atheist Astronomers meetings.

AA will never be the same again.

Is that like Republican astronomy or Democrat astronomy?

Quote from: Baruch on July 26, 2018, 07:23:37 PM
Is that like Republican astronomy or Democrat astronomy?

Jumping over the mooners, or the Democratic congress of lunatics.

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 27, 2018, 03:09:25 AM
Jumping over the mooners, or the Democratic congress of lunatics.

Never mind, Karl Marx is our lord and savior here in the US ;-(

Quote from: Baruch on July 27, 2018, 06:41:49 AM
Never mind, Karl Marx is our lord and savior here in the US ;-(

Please keep the booger there, he is destroying South Africa.

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 27, 2018, 08:00:32 AM
Please keep the booger there, he is destroying South Africa.

??

He's not going anywhere.  He's been dead for over a century.  And buried in the UK.

His brother Groucho was a lot funnier.

Quote from: Hydra009 on July 27, 2018, 11:08:13 AM
??

He's not going anywhere.  He's been dead for over a century.  And buried in the UK.

That's why London went for the maggots!

Quote from: Unbeliever on July 27, 2018, 01:25:58 PM
His brother Groucho was a lot funnier.

Marx's brother,
Groucho?
He's dead too!
Perhaps another sibling ... Sadiq Kahn?
Now he is funny!
And he single highhandedly destroyed London too.
Not even Hitler could achieve that!
Karel would be proud of Sick-Sadiq!

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 30, 2018, 08:46:18 AM
That's why London went for the maggots!

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/retailandconsumer/11389196/Asda-shopper-showered-with-maggots-as-she-reaches-for-top-shelf.html

QuoteA grandmother and her heavily pregnant daughter were showered with maggots when they reached for an item from the top shelf of a supermarket.  Coleen Coombs was picking up pet food when maggots began raining down on her and her family.  She watched in disgust as the bugs crawled out of the packaging and even into the clothing of her eight months pregnant daughter Jasmin, 21 - who was later taken to the store's first aid area to be cleaned down.  Miss Coombs, 51, a domestic cleaner and accounting student, of Andover, Hants, was at the town's Asda store when she was showered with the disgusting fly larva.  She claims that she witnessed a member of staff pick up a maggot before saying: "This happens a lot."

She was offered 50 per cent off her cat food bill, bringing it down by £4, while the store also waived her daughter's shopping, worth about £15.  But Miss Coombs was disappointed with the offer and later contacted the store to speak to a manager, who informed her that as she had accepted the discount they could not help her any further.  She said: "We needed pet food so my daughter reached the top shelf to grab it and as she did maggots fell out of the package.  "They went all down my daughter's arm and into her clothes and some landed near my one-year-old granddaughter.  "It was horrible. My daughter took off her jacket to shake them off. She was freaking out. Personally I think it's disgusting, absolutely disgusting."

Miss Coombs said after reporting it to a staff member, a cleaner removed the pack and then sprayed the "small area" and wiped it with a cloth.  She added: "I think it would be fair for Asda to pay for mine and my daughter's weekly food shop and give us money for a donation to a charity of my choice which would be the Andover air ambulance."

A spokesman for Asda said: "We're sorry for any upset caused to Miss Coombs and her family.  "We're currently investigating and we'll be in touch with Miss Coombs shortly."

This was all I could find when I googled "London went for the maggots."

 Yeh, but now they are forcing Sick Sadiq to find the magots. (http://www.suttonguardian.co.uk/news/16284501.mayor-of-london-sadiq-khan-urged-to-push-for-dead-cat-scans/)

Quote from: Baruch on July 26, 2018, 07:23:37 PM
Is that like Republican astronomy or Democrat astronomy?

I had a friend that was travelling across the irish border.   He was questioned as to his religion and he replied he was an atheist.

"Yeah", said the Garda,  "But are you a catholic atheist or a protestant atheist?"

“So he brought down the people unto the water: and the LORD said unto Gideon, Every one that lappeth of the water with his tongue, as a dog lappeth, him shalt thou set by himself; likewise every one that boweth down upon his knees to drink.”

Judges 7.....whackadoodle shit..but hey...he made the uni-verse all by hisself with no lapping peoples...

Quote from: aitm on July 31, 2018, 07:33:33 PM
“So he brought down the people unto the water: and the LORD said unto Gideon, Every one that lappeth of the water with his tongue, as a dog lappeth, him shalt thou set by himself; likewise every one that boweth down upon his knees to drink.”

Judges 7.....whackadoodle shit..but hey...he made the uni-verse all by hisself with no lapping peoples...

I thought this would never happen.
Yet here we have an Atheist endorsing the Bible!
Except for the words, ".....whackadoodle shit.." every thing aitm said is Biblical.
Congratulations, Aitm, you get the Mousetrap trophy for your post, but please, next time, try to leave the ".....whackadoodle shit..", out. It still represents a level of character of something we do not want to see.

Quote from: Mousetrap on August 01, 2018, 02:20:08 AM
I thought this would never happen.
Yet here we have an Atheist endorsing the Bible!
Except for the words, ".....whackadoodle shit.." every thing aitm said is Biblical.
Congratulations, Aitm, you get the Mousetrap trophy for your post, but please, next time, try to leave the ".....whackadoodle shit..", out. It still represents a level of character of something we do not want to see.

Apparently, sarcasm goes WAY over your head...

Quote from: Cavebear on August 01, 2018, 02:30:46 AM
Apparently, sarcasm goes WAY over your head...

If I was not a Christian, I would say you are silly.
But I wont do such a thing.

Quote from: Mousetrap on August 01, 2018, 04:35:30 AM
If I was not a Christian, I would say you are silly.
But I wont do such a thing.

So therefore you aren't Christian?

Quote from: Cavebear on August 01, 2018, 02:30:46 AM
Apparently, sarcasm goes WAY over your head...

Maybe he's a pigmy...

Hey despite being the magical and magnificent creator of all...er.....creation...still stymied by a womans period....meh...give me a REAL god.

Quote from: Unbeliever on August 01, 2018, 01:57:19 PM
Maybe he's a pigmy...

Just a Afrikaner ... whose native language isn't English ... but a dialect of Dutch.

Quote from: aitm on August 01, 2018, 07:02:52 PM
Hey despite being the magical and magnificent creator of all...er.....creation...still stymied by a womans period....meh...give me a REAL god.

Calling Ares or Mars ... the joy of blood-letting ...

Quote from: aitm on August 01, 2018, 07:02:52 PM
Hey despite being the magical and magnificent creator of all...er.....creation...still stymied by a womans period....meh...give me a REAL god.

Another straw puppet.
God did not create woman the way you have now.
You dont listen my child.
Eve and Adam had different bodies before they lost their mortality and became mortal as we are now.
Now, how many times must I tell you to go and read the Bible for yourself before you will do so?
Only after she sinned, did she produce menses.
This is the sinful corrupt bodies we now live in, not what God created us with.
Then again, we will receive such a body again, and will be immortal with a light shining out of us in the presence of the Creator.

Now, go and learn!

Still waiting on those calculations, MT.

Quote from: Unbeliever on August 01, 2018, 01:57:19 PM
Maybe he's a pigmy...

Ever seen "Phantasm"?

Quote from: aitm on August 01, 2018, 07:02:52 PM
Hey despite being the magical and magnificent creator of all...er.....creation...still stymied by a womans period....meh...give me a REAL god.

Well the part about a woman's natural menstrual cycle seemed out of place and rather pointless and that was a bit disappointing.

Otherwise, you want a real deity?  Go search some alternate universe.  Maybe there is one there.  There sure doesn't seem to be one here.  Looking at "lack of evidence" of course.

Quote from: Cavebear on August 04, 2018, 03:02:28 AM
Well the part about a woman's natural menstrual cycle seemed out of place and rather pointless and that was a bit disappointing.

Otherwise, you want a real deity?  Go search some alternate universe.  Maybe there is one there.  There sure doesn't seem to be one here.  Looking at "lack of evidence" of course.

in the multiverse, half of the universes are atheist, the other half are theist ;-)

Quote from: sdelsolray on July 16, 2018, 10:45:28 AM

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 16, 2018, 06:08:06 AM
And the Bible does not say the Stars were created on the 4th day.
It says that the Sun and Moon started to shine on the 4th day, and the stars also.

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 16, 2018, 06:16:17 AM
I love the way you mastered the Atheist method of creating a straw man and destroys this creatin, thinking you won some argument.
The Bible does not say that the Stars were made on the 4th day, but they started to shine.
Taken into account the chronological explanation from genesis ended up into what we today use as the Nebular theory as the origins of the Universe, you can criticize the Bible till doomsday comes, you are using the Bible as science.
Nice?

You lie.


Genesis 1:16-19 (KJV)
"16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.


17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,


18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.


19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day."


In any event, even if the stars "started to shine" (your words) on the fourth day, those stars had yet to form any oxygen, which only occurs late in a star's life and is not ejected from the star into space until the end-life of the star.  Thus, no water on the first day.

And, there would be no elements heavier than lithium in your nebular cloud from which our solar system formed, including the Earth.  Please explain where the heavier elements came from using, of course, relevant science.

Hey Mousetrap,

You ran away from our narrow discussion concerning the timing of the origin of oxygen and other elements heavier than lithium.  You lied.  I corrected you and you ran away.  It's been nearly three weeks and you have failed to respond.

Care to respond?  After all, I sure you would not want folks to think you are just another lying and disingenuous creationist chump.

It's best to use one-liners or simplistic shit with Mousetrap. 

Discussions are useless.  Been there, done that.

Quote from: sdelsolray on August 04, 2018, 04:45:07 PM
After all, I sure you would not want folks to think you are just another lying and disingenuous creationist chump.

Is there any other kind?

Quote from: Baruch on August 04, 2018, 07:57:44 AM
in the multiverse, half of the universes are atheist, the other half are theist ;-)

I LOVE THIS!!!!

Quote from: Mousetrap on August 06, 2018, 03:15:19 AM
I LOVE THIS!!!!

It was sarc ... I don't believe in speculative physics.  Multiverse theory is a speculative interpretation of quantum mechanics, that originally was treated as a scandal back in the 50s, but sounded better after the grad students recovered from drugs taken in the 60s.  If there isn't a single reality, then objectivity is futile, and science is futile.  I think there is a single reality, but humans don't have direct access to it (sensorium of G-d aka omniscience).

Quote from: Mousetrap link=topic=12764.msg1226380#msg1226380 date=15332145
Only after she sinned, did she produce menses.
/quote]

But your "great and powerful oz" was stymied by it. How odd that such a all knowing and all powerful would not see this coming....almost like ten thousands of "fortune tellers" that live in poverty. LOL...your god is a useless fuck. Really child, why don't YOU read the babble like it is really written. Go ahead..read it for the FIRST time without your jism stained glasses. Read it for the FIRST time with an educated mind. You won't though, and it is easy to explain why you won't. You are emotionally involved. Too deep. You can't admit you are wrong because it will truly fuck up your life. You don't have what it takes child. But that is okay child. Stay home with momma.

Quote from: Baruch on August 06, 2018, 06:17:19 AMMultiverse theory is a speculative interpretation of quantum mechanics, that originally was treated as a scandal back in the 50s, but sounded better after the grad students recovered from drugs taken in the 60s.

> Implying that people only subscribe to multiverse theory because of drugs.  Classic Baruch.

QuoteIf there isn't a single reality, the objectivity is futile, and science is futile.

(https://i.imgur.com/Ed4LdEW.jpg)

How on Earth does that logically follow?  Like, is there someone trying to build a better solar panel and gives up when he finds out that this is universe B?

QuoteI think there is a single reality, but humans don't have direct access to it (sensorium of G-d aka omniscience).

Your opinion and a buck won't buy me a $1 soda.

Quote from: Hydra009 on August 06, 2018, 09:28:57 PM
> Implying that people only subscribe to multiverse theory because of drugs.  Classic Baruch.

How on Earth does that logically follow? - Objectivity means ... one universe that all can quantitatively agree on thru repeated observation and controlled experiment.  Scientific method.  If we were literally dealing with "Sliders" then any given observation or experiment would come up differently, depending on which universe you are in.  But don't laugh, actual scientists have proposed (but haven't proved) that the constants of nature aren't constant, except in any particular universe, but vary from one universe to the next.  This has caused some scientists to accuse other scientists of being BS artists.  Feynman said that there was only one universe that we live in, which is the average of an infinity of universes we don't live in ... which is almost as bad.

Like, is there someone trying to build a better solar panel and gives up when he finds out that this is universe B? - In "Sliders" maybe.  Rick (& Morty) would simply tunnel over to that other universe and steal their superior technology.

Your opinion and a buck won't buy me a $1 soda. - Yes, theism won't help you like it helps me.  I was quoting Newton who was quoting Plato.  This is called "scientific realism" today ... that what science discovers isn't simply useful numerical pragmatism (how to make better right triangles) but are discovering some transcendent reality.  Really the dividing line between the Egyptians/Babylonians and the Greeks/Romans.

Objectivity is a useful too, but it isn't a Greco-Roman super-power unavailable to others.  It is really quite ordinary (see measure the electrical resistance of something, under the same conditions and .. surprise, the value comes out nearly the same each time) ... smacks forehead.

Quote from: aitm on August 06, 2018, 09:19:10 PM
[quote author=Mousetrap link=topic=12764.msg1226380#msg1226380 date=15332145
Only after she sinned, did she produce menses.


But your "great and powerful oz" was stymied by it. How odd that such a all knowing and all powerful would not see this coming....almost like ten thousands of "fortune tellers" that live in poverty. LOL...your god is a useless fuck. Really child, why don't YOU read the babble like it is really written. Go ahead..read it for the FIRST time without your jism stained glasses. Read it for the FIRST time with an educated mind. You won't though, and it is easy to explain why you won't. You are emotionally involved. Too deep. You can't admit you are wrong because it will truly fuck up your life. You don't have what it takes child. But that is okay child. Stay home with momma.

One eye is king in the land of the Blind.
here we have a "Staff member" of the Atheist community.
And his / hers choice of words, and use of foul language is supposed to be taken seriously by a Christian.
I should be so frightened, and should run, run, run, to mommy because of old one eyed gargoyle who has literal verbal diarrhea.

It is also very nice to see how old one eye could achieve the next step of logic, and asks, ...all knowing and all powerful would not see this coming...
nicely done!

Now I hope you can go to step 3...
Did ...all knowing and all powerful would not see this coming...?
Or did He know?

Did He know you will be such a hardcore hater against Him and His creation, Or did He not?
perhaps He did not know you will be as you are, but, perhaps He does!

Anyhow, if one take your evolutionary mind, created out of unguided, non-intellectual processes, can you trust your perception of some divine presence's plans?
Or do you trust your by-chance thoughts that your carefully dissected future unraveling thinking vision, is one superior to everything else in this universe?

Jeeeeeezzz, I really surpassed my logic here.
My brain is another example of evolutionary unguided processes of chemical development that can fathom thoughts and speech just because, well...
Because there was no plan by any intelligent being who made it happen.
Or, am I wrong?
How do I trust a brain that developed from nothing, into what it is now?
is this logic within it, in any way,...something useless to only ensure that I feed and reproduce?

The Mind, what a wonderful thing if it is an entity not created by evolution!
What a useless thing if it was!

Quote from: Hydra009 on August 06, 2018, 09:28:57 PM
> Implying that people only subscribe to multiverse theory because of drugs.  Classic Baruch.
How on Earth does that logically follow? 

Non sequitur, in my mind, is Baruch's biggest failure in communication, second only to his ever present snide innuendo.  I don't understand why he continually does this.

????
Doesn't understand what people are saying.
Reads into text what is not there.
Wants to change the subject.
Compulsively contrary.
Compulsively disruptive.
Compulsively outrageous.
Unable to remain logical.
Needs to confuse readers.

????

Quote from: SGOS on August 07, 2018, 09:51:32 AM
Non sequitur, in my mind, is Baruch's biggest failure in communication, second only to his ever present snide innuendo.  I don't understand why he continually does this.

????
Doesn't understand what people are saying.
Reads into text what is not there.
Wants to change the subject.
Compulsively contrary.
Compulsively disruptive.
Compulsively outrageous.
Unable to remain logical.
Needs to confuse readers.

????

Which is why I don't bother engaging there anymore.  Which is unfortunate, because he has great potential for engagement, but it's just not worth the effort.

Communicating with him is like watching me play golf -- while I might have fun doing it, it's a waste of time for most everyone else to slog through 120+ shots that are inaccurate, not well thought out, poorly executed, or just plain ugly waiting for the two or three that are actually brilliant.

Quote from: trdsf on August 07, 2018, 10:26:58 AM
Which is why I don't bother engaging there anymore.  Which is unfortunate, because he has great potential for engagement, but it's just not worth the effort.

Communicating with him is like watching me play golf -- while I might have fun doing it, it's a waste of time for most everyone else to slog through 120+ shots that are inaccurate, not well thought out, poorly executed, or just plain ugly waiting for the two or three that are actually brilliant.

You should see me at golf.
Played with my Brother a few months ago for the first time.
He told me that if I hit a wild ball, I must shout Four!

Well guess what was my vocabulary count on that day.
Old people, birds, and dogs were not targeted, but one third was deaf, and 2 thirds did not understand the word "Four".