There are basically 2 types of very old life forms available to test to determine how old life can be.
1. Ancient organic material such as charcoal, bones, wood, seeds, and anything that once was a living organism.
2. Fossils. A fossil does not contain any organic matter anymore, but the cavity where the living organism once were engulfed in sediment, was replaced by crystallization of sediment similar to what one makes a cast with the use of say, Gypsum. this 'cast' is the exact replica of the once living creature we can now study.
Now, the first testable type, the organic material residue of a once living life, form is the one I will discuss first.
I will then follow up on fossils.
I am not going to explain how radio isotope testing work, on the premise that people on this forum should know these details, seeing that they make claims that Life is older than 6 YK.
Let me start this investigation with determining if C14/C12 ratio in old organic matter is correct in dating bones, charcoal etc. as being older than 6 YK.
The best examples is charcoal from ancient sites in Sumeria, Turkey (Goble Tepe etc.) dating in excess of 10YK, or even Coal deposits dating to more than a few hundred thousand years to a few million years.
So how do science determine these ages?
And what does the Bible say about Life in scientific terms, such as people that almost turned 1 000 years old?
Radiocarbon dating is not relevant to your question, it doesn't go back far enough. But do look up stromatolites.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 13, 2018, 06:01:57 AM
Radiocarbon dating is not relevant to your question, it doesn't go back far enough. But do look up stromatolites.
And we will get there. (Stromatolites)
Thanks for telling me that Radio carbon testing can not go further than 6YK!
This will be news to every scientific journal.
The last time I saw developments on C14, was an age of up to 45 000 Years!
Please come beck with proof and tell me that C14 can not surpass 6 000 years, so I can apologize to everyone.
Quote from: Mousetrap on July 13, 2018, 06:07:34 AM
And we will get there. (Stromatolites)
Thanks for telling me that Radio carbon testing can not go further than 6YK!
This will be news to every scientific journal.
The last time I saw developments on C14, was an age of up to 45 000 Years!
Please come beck with proof and tell me that C14 can not surpass 6 000 years, so I can apologize to everyone.
Where did I say "Radio carbon testing can not go further than 6YK", please.
Quote from: Mousetrap on July 13, 2018, 06:07:34 AM
And we will get there. (Stromatolites)
Thanks for telling me that Radio carbon testing can not go further than 6YK!
This will be news to every scientific journal.
The last time I saw developments on C14, was an age of up to 45 000 Years!
Please come beck with proof and tell me that C14 can not surpass 6 000 years, so I can apologize to everyone.
Check this for a basic science course on dating methods, which you obviously need...
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 13, 2018, 06:47:58 AM
Where did I say "Radio carbon testing can not go further than 6YK", please.
Quote from: Gawdzilla SamaRadiocarbon dating is not relevant to your question, it doesn't go back far enough.
Perhaps your claim is undefined in supplication of a date to disprove 6YK.
If anyone say, C14 tests doesn't go back far enough, after I made a claim that Life can not be older than 6YK, obviously this person told me that C14 does not go past 6YK.
Anyhow, do you agree that C14 testing surpasses 6YK with about 30 000 years?
Can I continue?
Quote from: Mousetrap on July 13, 2018, 08:13:39 AM
Perhaps your claim is undefined in supplication of a date to disprove 6YK.
If anyone say, C14 tests doesn't go back far enough, after I made a claim that Life can not be older than 6YK, obviously this person told me that C14 does not go past 6YK.
Anyhow, do you agree that C14 testing surpasses 6YK with about 30 000 years?
Can I continue?
Your claim that that life is only 6YK old is so laughable you should be removed by the admins without even a mention. But apparently, they are wimps.
It may be time for me to find a better discussion site and leave you to them as the site fails.
Quote from: Cavebear on July 13, 2018, 08:19:50 AM
Your claim that that life is only 6YK old is so laughable you should be removed by the admins without even a mention. But apparently, they are wimps.
It may be time for me to find a better discussion site and leave you to them as the site fails.
I think the reason he's not been yet is, lets face it, everything becomes an echo chamber when someone like him doesn't come along with their batshit ramblings and cognitive dissonance. Use it as an opportunity to look into the mind of a theist and see what makes them tick.
Quote from: Mousetrap on July 13, 2018, 08:13:39 AM
Perhaps your claim is undefined in supplication of a date to disprove 6YK.
If anyone say, C14 tests doesn't go back far enough, after I made a claim that Life can not be older than 6YK, obviously this person told me that C14 does not go past 6YK.
Anyhow, do you agree that C14 testing surpasses 6YK with about 30 000 years?
Can I continue?
Dumbass, C14 doesn't go back as far as the first dates for life. You do stupid very well.
Quote from: Munch on July 13, 2018, 08:24:45 AM
I think the reason he's not been yet is, lets face it, everything becomes an echo chamber when someone like him doesn't come along with their batshit ramblings and cognitive dissonance. Use it as an opportunity to look into the mind of a theist and see what makes them tick.
Or a Poe. I've seen his posts somewhere else.
Quote from: Munch on July 13, 2018, 08:24:45 AM
I think the reason he's not been yet is, lets face it, everything becomes an echo chamber when someone like him doesn't come along with their batshit ramblings and cognitive dissonance. Use it as an opportunity to look into the mind of a theist and see what makes them tick.
I have looked into the lunatic and idiotic minds of theists for 50 years and never found the slightest actual concept of knowledge in any of them ever. I haven't been surprised by that for 40 years, gave up hoping to find sense in them 30 years ago, and expected nothing from them since. They are, "in my personal opinion" damn fools and I expect no sense from any of them. ,
This newest moron "Mousetrap" (the handle suggests he can "catch" us in facts of his bizarre theistic imaginings" is just the latest in a long line of hopeful theists thinking their stupid arguments are new to me and may convince someone here to doubt logic and science.
Quote from: Cavebear on July 13, 2018, 08:19:50 AM
Your claim that that life is only 6YK old is so laughable you should be removed by the admins without even a mention. But apparently, they are wimps.
It may be time for me to find a better discussion site and leave you to them as the site fails.
So, you say you refuse to listen to anything else than your own knowledge.
Even if there might be a world of light out ther, you want to remain in the dark.
then you wish some moderator will remove me, is it so painful to hear something in opposition to your accusation that the Bible has no validity?
I never with atheists should disappear, and I want to know why atheists came to the conclusion that there can not be a God. So far I could only find pre conceived Ideas on what the Bible supposedly say, and wishing I would disappear, and one even thought it will be a good idea to shoot me.
Come on guys!
If I were to act in this manner, you would symbolically crucify me!
So far, I am not impressed with most atheists on this forum.
But there are the exceptions
Quote from: Munch on July 13, 2018, 08:24:45 AM
I think the reason he's not been yet is, lets face it, everything becomes an echo chamber when someone like him doesn't come along with their batshit ramblings and cognitive dissonance. Use it as an opportunity to look into the mind of a theist and see what makes them tick.
Oh how wonderful will it be to silence a theist.
Then we can carry on to tell each other we are correct.
LOL
Quote from: Cavebear on July 13, 2018, 08:36:24 AM
I have looked into the lunatic and idiotic minds of theists for 50 years and never found the slightest actual concept of knowledge in any of them ever. I haven't been surprised by that for 40 years, gave up hoping to find sense in them 30 years ago, and expected nothing from them since. They are, "in my personal opinion" damn fools and I expect no sense from any of them. ,
This newest moron "Mousetrap" (the handle suggests he can "catch" us in facts of his bizarre theistic imaginings" is just the latest in a long line of hopeful theists thinking their stupid arguments are new to me and may convince someone here to doubt logic and science.
You are really funny!
Quote from: Mousetrap on July 13, 2018, 08:36:47 AM
So, you say you refuse to listen to anything else than your own knowledge.
Even if there might be a world of light out ther, you want to remain in the dark.
then you wish some moderator will remove me, is it so painful to hear something in opposition to your accusation that the Bible has no validity?
I never with atheists should disappear, and I want to know why atheists came to the conclusion that there can not be a God. So far I could only find pre conceived Ideas on what the Bible supposedly say, and wishing I would disappear, and one even thought it will be a good idea to shoot me.
Come on guys!
If I were to act in this manner, you would symbolically crucify me!
So far, I am not impressed with most atheists on this forum.
But there are the exceptions
No, actually I merely dismiss you from any rational scientific consideration. As you have no actual knowledge, your theistic opinions are meaningless to me.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 13, 2018, 08:27:26 AM
Dumbass, C14 doesn't go back as far as the first dates for life. You do stupid very well.
Why the swearing.
And why the straw-man tactic.
Didnt I agree that C14 does up to about 40YK?
Is it not true that on organic matter, C14 is the test?
What other tests do you know of to see whether some piece of charcoal is say +10Yk?
Do you know that in a fossil there are no organic matter to test, and this render only rock ages with Uranium lead tests?
Therefore, I specifically said I will use C14 to prove that that test is correct and can be reconciled with Biblical descriptions of Life at 6YK!
I also said we will go to inorganic fossil dating with a whole range of dating techniques with everything using Uranium to lead, argon potassium etc.
So why all the swearing?
Dont you like what you hear?
Quote from: Cavebear on July 13, 2018, 08:43:40 AM
No, actually I merely dismiss you from any rational scientific consideration. As you have no actual knowledge, your theistic opinions are meaningless to me.
And this is something I would never accuse Atheists of.
They are educated, open-minded, listen to other points of view, self searching, not pre judgemental and many more Honrable than these close minded uneducated and idiotic Theists that place posts on this forum where they should be banned from.
Ha!
Quote from: Mousetrap on July 13, 2018, 08:48:05 AM
Why the swearing.
And why the straw-man tactic.
Didnt I agree that C14 does up to about 40YK?
Is it not true that on organic matter, C14 is the test?
What other tests do you know of to see whether some piece of charcoal is say +10Yk?
Do you know that in a fossil there are no organic matter to test, and this render only rock ages with Uranium lead tests?
Therefore, I specifically said I will use C14 to prove that that test is correct and can be reconciled with Biblical descriptions of Life at 6YK!
I also said we will go to inorganic fossil dating with a whole range of dating techniques with everything using Uranium to lead, argon potassium etc.
You are fortunate I am bored with fools. I would be a LOT meaner otherwise. So, you are just SO wrong about the age of the Earth and not even worth debating it.
So why all the swearing?
Dont you like what you hear?
OK, now that the Atheists here on this forum decided that I will never reconcile C14 or other testing with a 6YK age of life, I will humbly post my claim and show them what science really says. Not what they were forced to listen too, but we will use their scientific experimentation to show them that the Bible is correct and science supports this factor also.
First of all, when we look at C14 / C12 testing, we know that it is done on a piece of organic mater such as charcoal, bone, skin, wood or sonething similar.
In the test of C14/C12, the ratio of C14 is measured in relation to C12 as C14 decays back into N14.
If I look at this test and the methodology, it is impossible to dismiss it as erroneous, as some creationist sites would claim, whilst others agree.
From what I learned is that some Creationists' sites, especially Creation . org, who has some of the worlds' best scientists believing in a Creator, they produce a case which does carry some merits.
Again, I do net support any Creationist website or organisation, but love the explanations they supply to scientific radio isotope testing.
One of these objections Creation . org placed on the Table is that they believe that the atmosphere was not in equilibrium as claimed by Libby et al.
Allow me to explain. An animal that lived say 4 000 years ago will eat plant-material that contains C14 and this C14 will absorb into the animals body.
When this animal dies, the C14 can not enter into this body anymore, and it will decay into N14 again.
Lets say we find this animals' bones today in a cave, and we do a radio carbon test.
It will not show 4000 Years, but possibly 40 000 years.
Why?
Because of equilibrium if C14 in the atmosphere 4 000 years ago.
The factor to take into consideration is that according to the Biblical description, the atmosphere was completely different 4YK back than what it is now!
First, If the Atmosphere was very high in water containing vapour, as the Bible describes, and as I showed by the use of the Nebular theory, then the N14 would not have had any cosmic radiation at all!
Think about this, If Cosmic radiation did not change N14 into C14, because of a wet atmosphere, then the atmosphere would not have reached equilibrium. If the ration of C14 and C12 was not as we have it today, then the tests will show a very low C14/C12 ratio, because C14 was much less than expected.
This means that C14/C12 testing is 100% accurate, but the interpretation of the Results are in error.
Good, now our Atheists will say I am changing scientific principals by claiming an atmosphere had less C14, but science accepts that the Atmosphere is millions of years old.
the answer to that criticism is as follow, the atmosphere might be millions of years old, but... and this is what I still need any scientist to disprove, ...the Atmosphere was very higher in containing water, and the Biblical description also attests to this theory.
It says 2 things that I realized was something to keep in mind when looking at C14 tests.
There was a global flood, and there was for the first time a rainbow visible after rain.
This is something that I understood as previously explained.
The Atmosphere was wet, and it did not rain before this global flood.
After all this water fell onto the Earth, the atmosphere was clear, and refraction of light is mentioned, the Rainbow!
Great, then something else was mentioned about life on Earth that changed everything I thought I knew when I was still and atheist.
The Bible say people were almost 1 000 years old, but after the flood the ages of humans declined steadily down to 70. I found this very peculiar.
Remembering that what I learned from the Nebular Hypothesis, I now knew not to discard something like this, and went on the investigation again..
Guess what I found.
The evidence that The Bible and Science is 100% in support of each other.
I learned that the Human body ages because of cells that dies.
I learned that the greatest source of this attack on our bodies is Radiation!
I learned that even if one lives on Mars, we will age 10 times faster due to radiation.
I learned that If we can prevent C14 radiation intake, we will age much slower.
I learned that there are already companies that grows crops in tunnels using c14-free atmospheres to produce this products to attain a longer life.
Now, how the heck did the Bible reproduce a story of an atmosphere that was wet, that cleared, that people lived very long, and that the lifespan of humans deteriorated to what we now have.
therefore, I can read in this description, that the atmosphere only reached C14 equilibrium after the Global Flood, after the Atmosphere cleared, at about 3500 years ago!
https://www.delish.com/food/news/a38368/theres-carbon-14-in-in-my-soup/
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5956896.html
And here is the Paper
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10311-007-0100-7
I agree that there are critics that claim that C14 reduction will not have a huge effect on the Human body in ageing, but the question remains,
How old can we get when there is no C14 in our bodies.
I mean,
Quote from: Environmental Chemistry Letters
Such an individual therefore experiences about 3,150 radiocarbon decay events every second, 99 billion per year, and 6.8 trillion over an average 77.9 year lifetime (adjusting for fewer cells during the growing years), due solely to natural background radiocarbon.
6.8 trillion cells in your body would not have died, had there not been C14 in our food.
Enjoy your weekend.
Oh, the above explanation I made is only to show that by testing organic material, one does not prove Charcoal in Goble Tepe, or Summer is older than 6000 years old.
On teh contrary, the reconciliation is 100% in line with science.
Next week we will go over the age tested and determined about Fossils.
Quote from: Mousetrap on July 13, 2018, 08:48:05 AM
Why the swearing.
And why the straw-man tactic.
Didnt I agree that C14 does up to about 40YK?
Is it not true that on organic matter, C14 is the test?
What other tests do you know of to see whether some piece of charcoal is say +10Yk?
Do you know that in a fossil there are no organic matter to test, and this render only rock ages with Uranium lead tests?
Therefore, I specifically said I will use C14 to prove that that test is correct and can be reconciled with Biblical descriptions of Life at 6YK!
I also said we will go to inorganic fossil dating with a whole range of dating techniques with everything using Uranium to lead, argon potassium etc.
So why all the swearing?
Dont you like what you hear?
I radiometrically dated you, you came back as a dumbass. Science wins again.
Quote from: Mousetrap on July 13, 2018, 10:06:00 AMNext week we will go over the age tested and determined about Fossils.
How kind of you to teach us stuff we already know, but in a shoddy and clearly faith-addled way that makes a mockery of actual education.
Quote from: Hydra009 on July 13, 2018, 11:26:13 AM
How kind of you to teach us stuff we already know, but in a shoddy and clearly faith-addled way that makes a mockery of actual education.
(https://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/images/smiley-joel-osteen.gif)
currently he's thinking because of all the shit he wrote out and people responding to them, that he's managed to plant a seed in peoples heads about his beliefs.
reality is, we're laughing at him and he's not been banned yet because its entertaining to watch him try.
Quote from: Mousetrap on July 13, 2018, 09:59:16 AM
..."Creation . org, who has some of the worlds' best scientists believing in a Creator"
That pretty much says it all. There are crazy and stupid people in the world, and any Creation site will collect them like bears to honey. You can't stop them, they are immune to facts that they don't like and I'll bet they might even vote Republican (only because they don't know there are actually other crazier parties "out there").
Quote from: Mousetrap on July 13, 2018, 09:59:16 AM
OK, now that the Atheists here on this forum decided that I will never reconcile C14 or other testing with a 6YK age of life, I will humbly post my claim and show them what science really says. Not what they were forced to listen too, but we will use their scientific experimentation to show them that the Bible is correct and science supports this factor also.
(remainder deleted)
I'm going to put this in the most maximally clear way I can:
WRONG.You clearly haven't got the faintest idea what you're talking about, much less what the scientific method is or how to apply it.
Quote from: trdsf on July 13, 2018, 12:15:56 PM
I'm going to put this in the most maximally clear way I can:
WRONG.
You clearly haven't got the faintest idea what you're talking about, much less what the scientific method is or how to apply it.
See, now if *I* had said it that way. Baruch and all the nuts would be arguing with me.
So thank you. I don't care WHO says the truth, but you did it great! And I think I'm maybe the wingman here...
When did life begin? Well, I got a little bored last Tuesday, so I thought, "Why not?" I also planted some evidence that the world has been around for longer than just last Tuesday because I like to fuck with people. Can you prove me wrong? If you can't, my claim is just as valid as your claim that I did not create life last Tuesday.
As predicted by many in the other thread, Mousetrap is just another hubris-filled creationist spouting quite predictable creationist nonsense.
creationist scientists?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPyKaH09lpc
Quote from: Cavebear on July 13, 2018, 12:32:57 PM
See, now if *I* had said it that way. Baruch and all the nuts would be arguing with me.
So thank you. I don't care WHO says the truth, but you did it great! And I think I'm maybe the wingman here...
Sorry, you aren't any more convincing to me than Mousetrap. Your nickname should be Rattrap.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 13, 2018, 10:39:19 AM
I radiometrically dated you, you came back as a dumbass. Science wins again.
You work at the nuclear power plant with Homer? And you are gay? (Mousetrap seems male to me). Multiculturalism wins again!
Quote from: Blackleaf on July 13, 2018, 12:33:29 PM
When did life begin? Well, I got a little bored last Tuesday, so I thought, "Why not?" I also planted some evidence that the world has been around for longer than just last Tuesday because I like to fuck with people. Can you prove me wrong? If you can't, my claim is just as valid as your claim that I did not create life last Tuesday.
But what if I remember Monday. Did you plant that image in my brain? Or did Monday really happen for me.
I read a creationist claim once that said (in response to light years of light travel) that God was so clever he CREATED the universe with light travelling all over at exactly the right times. to fool us simple humans that the universe indeed WAS 13 billion years old.
And Mousetrap is SO SIMPLE-MINDED he couldn't even come up with THAT nonsense? And didn't even KNOW about that line of argument. LOL!
Buddha says ... you don't exist as a man or as a cave bear ... mostly because time is an illusion of quantum events, without real continuity. Self (pudgala) is based on the false notion of continuity .. and some theoretical physicists agree with this quantum view ...
Quote from: Baruch on July 13, 2018, 12:59:59 PM
You work at the nuclear power plant with Homer? And you are gay? (Mousetrap seems male to me). Multiculturalism wins again!
Retired. And you never know what the cats think. Idjit...
Last Thursdayism (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Last_Thursdayism) is an interesting way to argue, and it's always fun to see creationists try to deal with it.
;-)
Quote from: Unbeliever on July 13, 2018, 01:20:57 PM
Last Thursdayism (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Last_Thursdayism) is an interesting way to argue, and it's always fun to see creationists try to deal with it.
;-)
Yeah, the universe was created by some deity last Thursday and the light from galaxies billions of year old is getting here today well, (ok, it was Thursday some hours ago) because it decided to make that happen. I used to see that moronic argument a lot 20 years ago but not so much these days.
I don't know whether that is because older idiot theists were smarter than more recent idiot theists or that today's idiots can't even grasp THAT simple moronic concept.
Quote from: Cavebear on July 13, 2018, 01:31:51 PM
Yeah, the universe was created by some deity last Thursday and the light from galaxies billions of year old is getting here today well, (ok, it was Thursday some hours ago) because it decided to make that happen. I used to see that moronic argument a lot 20 years ago but not so much these days.
I don't know whether that is because older idiot theists were smarter than more recent idiot theists or that today's idiots can't even grasp THAT simple moronic concept.
It's actually a parody of religion.
Quote from: Cavebear on July 13, 2018, 01:31:51 PM
Yeah, the universe was created by some deity last Thursday and the light from galaxies billions of year old is getting here today well, (ok, it was Thursday some hours ago) because it decided to make that happen. I used to see that moronic argument a lot 20 years ago but not so much these days.
I don't know whether that is because older idiot theists were smarter than more recent idiot theists or that today's idiots can't even grasp THAT simple moronic concept.
Yeah, the idea may be a bit too complex for today's idiots.
Quote from: Unbeliever on July 13, 2018, 01:38:48 PM
Yeah, the idea may be a bit too complex for today's idiots.
But how seriously have you considered the fact that when you look at your shoes they are actually in the past. It is easier to understand relativity when it a far star.. Tricky?
Well of course, a galaxy "far far away" is easier to understand.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 13, 2018, 01:37:53 PM
It's actually a parody of religion.
Buddha isn't a parody. For Buddhism, the universe is recreated moment to moment, because there is no continuity, no conservation between events.
Quote from: Cavebear on July 13, 2018, 01:58:42 PM
But how seriously have you considered the fact that when you look at your shoes they are actually in the past. It is easier to understand relativity when it a far star.. Tricky?
Well of course, a galaxy "far far away" is easier to understand.
It might help to add star decals to your shoes ;-)
What is this obsession with Carbon 14?
He seems to think that's the only dating method available. He might want to try OkCupid...
Quote from: Jason78 on July 13, 2018, 07:14:47 PM
What is this obsession with Carbon 14?
More carbon 14, better weed ;-)
Quote from: Unbeliever on July 13, 2018, 07:18:33 PM
He seems to think that's the only dating method available. He might want to try OkCupid...
If you read him carefully, he wasn't going to bother to deny the other dating methods, because he isn't into us, won't date us ;-)
Quote from: Unbeliever on July 13, 2018, 07:18:33 PM
He seems to think that's the only dating method available. He might want to try OkCupid...
Or ice cores, some of which go back over two million years.
Mousedroppings Mousetrap is demonstrating the standard creationist tactic of ignoring evidence that contradicts or refutes his preconceived conclusions.
Of course, his disingenuous pretense of being all "sciency" along with his
'Just wait, I'll get to that' stall game (in his 'Origin of the Universe' thread) are mere ploys to inject personal need to control the conversation and seek attention.
Quote from: Jason78 on July 13, 2018, 07:14:47 PM
What is this obsession with Carbon 14?
Creationists think that debunking radiometric dating gives them license to say that the Earth is whatever age they want it to be. Also, they seem to think that it'll hurt evolution and thus atheism and give Christianity scientific credibility.
"If only it weren't for radiometric dating, I'd be a Christian!" - today's youth
Quote from: Mousetrap on July 13, 2018, 06:07:34 AM
And we will get there. (Stromatolites)
Thanks for telling me that Radio carbon testing can not go further than 6YK!
This will be news to every scientific journal.
The last time I saw developments on C14, was an age of up to 45 000 Years!
Please come beck with proof and tell me that C14 can not surpass 6 000 years, so I can apologize to everyone.
https://www.environmentalscience.org/chronology
QuoteAs technology advances, so do our methods, accuracy and tools for discovering what we want to learn about the past. All dating methods today can be grouped into one of two categories: absolute dating, and relative dating. The former gives a numeric age (for example, this artefact is 5000 years old); the latter provides a date based on relationships to other elements (for example, this geological layer formed before this other one). Both methods are vital to piecing together events of the past from the recent back to a time before humans and even before complex life and sometimes, researchers will combine both methods to come up with a date.
C14 can surpass 6,000 years old to 62,000
Quote from: Unbeliever on July 13, 2018, 07:18:33 PM
He seems to think that's the only dating method available. He might want to try OkCupid...
I suppose when all you have is a C14 sampling kit, everything looks like it has a half life of about 5,730 years.
Quote from: Mousetrap on July 13, 2018, 05:55:30 AM
There are basically 2 types of very old life forms available to test to determine how old life can be.
1. Ancient organic material such as charcoal, bones, wood, seeds, and anything that once was a living organism.
2. Fossils. A fossil does not contain any organic matter anymore, but the cavity where the living organism once were engulfed in sediment, was replaced by crystallization of sediment similar to what one makes a cast with the use of say, Gypsum. this 'cast' is the exact replica of the once living creature we can now study.
Now, the first testable type, the organic material residue of a once living life, form is the one I will discuss first.
I will then follow up on fossils.
I am not going to explain how radio isotope testing work, on the premise that people on this forum should know these details, seeing that they make claims that Life is older than 6 YK.
Let me start this investigation with determining if C14/C12 ratio in old organic matter is correct in dating bones, charcoal etc. as being older than 6 YK.
The best examples is charcoal from ancient sites in Sumeria, Turkey (Goble Tepe etc.) dating in excess of 10YK, or even Coal deposits dating to more than a few hundred thousand years to a few million years.
So how do science determine these ages?
And what does the Bible say about Life in scientific terms, such as people that almost turned 1 000 years old?
You capitalize the word "Life". It must be an important word to you. Your title to the thread contains the term 'LIFE". Yes, a quite important word.
Perhaps, before going any further, you would take the time to seek consensus as to the definition of "life". Once done, further discourse should be simpler and clearer. Put another way, without an agreed definition to the term "life", it is highly likely that folks have a hard time discussing "When did 'LIFE' begin (the title of your thread - your words).
I realize this will likely make you do some hard work, quite possibly work you have never done before, and for which you have no creationist whore website from which to cut and paste your answer. Nevertheless, a definition of the term "life" is needed before proceeding further.
Quote from: Mousetrap on July 13, 2018, 05:55:30 AM
So how do science determine these ages?
By dating the rocks. The rocks may be dated by a number of methods, including radiological dating of other isotopes. After all, a fossil can be no younger than the rock it's found in.
Quote from: Mousetrap on July 13, 2018, 09:59:16 AM
<snip a bunch>
First, If the Atmosphere was very high in water containing vapour, as the Bible describes, and as I showed by the use of the Nebular theory, then the N14 would not have had any cosmic radiation at all!
Numbers, please? How much water "shielding" would it take to reduce C14 production by any significant amount, and how would this affect the atmosphere and life in it. See, water is actually a rather potent solvent, especially at high temperatures and pressures. It's one of the reasons that life does so well in it: the solubility molecules in water is second to none.
Could humans breathe your supersaturated atmosphere and survive? After all, if you evaporate a lot of water into the atmosphere, it has to come at the expense of something else. Like, oxygen.
And where did it all go, once the event that happened 4000 years ago was over?
No answer? Typical.
Good grief, your water vapor shield isn't even a new idea. It was proposed by Kent Hovind to explain how the ancients could be old, and explain where the water of the Flood came from. He can't provide any numbers either, even though he supposedly taught science. I shudder to think the kind of "science" he was teaching his students. He also couldn't tell you shit about where all that water went when it was done. (Obviously, not into the atmosphere.)
Anyway, your claim of high shielding and thus the invalidity of C14 dating past 4000 y hinges on not only making it physically plausible, but also on establishing this water shield thing was even a thing. There is no historical or geological evidence that any flood ever happened. The Chinese, after all, was civilized right though this period and would have noticed a worldwide flood.
There's also another point. You claim that there was no radiation prior to 4000 years ago. Well, one of the things that would affect was the genetic clocks around the world. By your argument, no genetic clock would be moving until your flood event happened, and then they all started at once. But this is not what we see. We were able to trace the human mitocondrial DNA and Y chromasomes to build up a human family tree since our ancestry in Africa, and we can trace our origins far past 4000 years. And we have historical events to calibrate our clocks.
See, this is the thing you don't seem to understand. Our C14/C12 clocks are
calibrated against other clocks. For instance, it is calibrated against the dendrochonological sequence. Our dendrochonologies for the oak and pine trees in central Europe are fully anchored back to 12,460 years, and our C14/C12 curves up to this point are calibrated against this data.
And guess what! There's no significant event at 4000 years ago when our C14/C12 calibration goes all wierd. Nor, for that matter, was there any point when dendrochronologies go all wierd either. No sudden jumps as you claim. So, your water vapor shield is just so much fiction, as well as the flood where it all came out of the atmosphere.
In the Bible, 4000 years ago was the most stupendous event in the history of the world, second only to the event that created it.
In the real world, 4000 years ago, it was Tuesday.
"When did life began?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuCn8ux2gbs
Okay, I decided to take a stab at figuring out how much water the air would need to be soaked in to have remains that are actually 4,000 years old appear 40,000 years old.
(https://memegenerator.net/img/instances/68003762/lets-science-the-shit-out-of-this.jpg)
The claim is that objects dated older than 4,000 years are giving an anomalous result due to 14C not being produced as much in the time prior to 4,000 years ago. (Never mind the fact that we have calibrated C-14 dating to other clocks not based upon C-14 and found no such anomaly. Let's ignore that for the moment.)
The first thing to note is that the ratio 14C/12C is what controls how C-14 dating give their answers. The amount of 12C in the atmosphere has pretty constant for the last 6,000 years (only really changing drastically recently). Thus, the only knob we have to adjust here is the amount of 14C in the atmosphere.
14C has a half-life of h = 5,730 years. In order to get our anomalous result, we have to get the same result from a 4,000 year old sample as we expect from a 40,000 year old sample. If we let N be the current abundance of 14C in the current atmosphere and M be the past abundance of same, then
N 2-40,000 years/h = M 2-4,000 years/h
A little algebra brings us to M = N/77.85. That is, the amount of 14C in the atmosphere at 4,000 years ago has to be 1/77.85-th the present value. To have a stable level of M abundance, a certain production rate R is required: each decay of 14C must be matched by a production of 14C, so the production of 14C is simply the negative of its activity, A = λM = R (where λ is the decay constant of 14C). If we let P be the current production of 14C, then
R = λM = λN/77.85 = P/77.85
This is a rather straightforward result, and beggars little mathematical argument.
In general in neutron absorption, the rate of reaction is
R = NΦσ
where N is the density of 14N available for reaction, Φ is the neutron flux density, and σ is the neutron-nitrogen cross section of interaction. There's nothing to be done by σ, for that is characteristic of the neutrons' energy and nitrogen-14. We can't do much about N either, because that is pretty constant, too â€" the amount of nitrogen-14 that remains available to react does not change to any appreciable degree, at least not without subtracting out some of the nitrogen.
Thus, the neutron flux density, Φ, seems to be the only point of control in this example, and an attenuation by a factor of 1/77.85. I'll take a shortcut here and say that the water shield must absorb 76.85 times more neutrons than the nitrogen (and nitrogen absorbing the last 1/77.85-th part). Believe me, this will be bad enough without going the full treatment.
The total cross section of absorption of the water vapor shield must be 76.85 times that of the total cross section of 14N in the atmosphere. 1H has an absorption cross section of 0.2 barns, and 16O has a cross section of 0.0001 barns. Since 1H dominates oxygen in absorption cross section, the water molecule as a whole has an absorption cross section of ~0.4 barns. Unfortunately, the 14N cross section with the same neutrons is 1.81 barns. To have 76.85 times the total cross section of the nitrogen, the following equation must be satisfied:
Wσ = (76.85) NÏ,,
where W is the number density of the water vapor, N the number density of nitrogen-14, σ the absorption cross section of water, and Ï,, the absorption cross section of 14N. Putting this all together, we get W/N = 347.75.
Yes, that means that the water vapor must outnumber the nitrogen component of the atmosphere by 347.75 times. That is, each nitrogen atom must have 347.75 water molecules around it to shield it from transmutation. Since the molar mass of 14N is 14 g/mol and the molar mass of water is 18.01528 g/mol, the water would outmass the nitrogen in our atmosphere by 447.48 times. Since the weight of our normal atmosphere is 1.03 kg over each cm² of area, and nitrogen forms 75.52% by mass, the mass of our water vapor shield over each cm² of area is 348.08 kg. This gives us a partial pressure of water vapor of 34.111 MPa.
This is above the critical point of water at 374 °C and 22.1 MPa. You cannot have an atmosphere with this much water vapor in it. It's either a compressible liquid (below 374 °C), or it's a supercritical fluid. There would be no distinct oceans, but a supercritical atmosphere with smooth transitions between low and high density.
It would also be hostile to all known forms of life. Supercritical water is a frighteningly superb solvent.
Yikes!
So, no. I'm afraid this particular idea is DOA.
Quote from: Hydra009 on July 13, 2018, 11:26:13 AM
How kind of you to teach us stuff we already know, but in a shoddy and clearly faith-addled way that makes a mockery of actual education.
Pleasure is mine.
Quote from: Cavebear on July 13, 2018, 12:06:14 PM
That pretty much says it all. There are crazy and stupid people in the world, and any Creation site will collect them like bears to honey. You can't stop them, they are immune to facts that they don't like and I'll bet they might even vote Republican (only because they don't know there are actually other crazier parties "out there").
Sorry, I meant to say Creation.com
But perhaps you could tell me what is wrong with these scientists' credentials?
Do you perhaps have the courage to debate with one of them?
https://creation.com/who-we-are
Or perhaps you would like to look at R.A.T.E?
Atheists would wish to have a collection of scientists such as these to disprove a deity.
There exists not a single atheist scientist that would even attempt to discuss radio isometric testing with them.
http://www.icr.org/research/team
Perhaps you would like to be the first?
LOL!
Quote from: Munch on July 13, 2018, 11:40:03 AM
currently he's thinking because of all the shit he wrote out and people responding to them, that he's managed to plant a seed in peoples heads about his beliefs.
reality is, we're laughing at him and he's not been banned yet because its entertaining to watch him try.
And dont forget I have you thinking like never before.
:grin: :evil: :cool:
Quote from: Blackleaf on July 13, 2018, 12:33:29 PM
When did life begin? Well, I got a little bored last Tuesday, so I thought, "Why not?" I also planted some evidence that the world has been around for longer than just last Tuesday because I like to fuck with people. Can you prove me wrong? If you can't, my claim is just as valid as your claim that I did not create life last Tuesday.
Again, a Straw man which you build and destroy thinking you destroyed the Bible.
Last week Monday you were on this forum, alive and well.
Quote from: Mousetrap on July 16, 2018, 07:27:07 AM
And dont forget I have you thinking like never before.
:grin: :evil: :cool:
not really, your not the first drive by theist that come here. If anything it just proves you guys have nothing really new to offer.
Quote from: Munch on July 16, 2018, 08:01:04 AM
not really, your not the first drive by theist that come here. If anything it just proves you guys have nothing really new to offer.
And that Mousetripe is full of himself.
Quote from: Munch on July 13, 2018, 12:44:01 PM
creationist scientists?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPyKaH09lpc
The most amazing thing about Atheists are that they have this immense capability to sooth their minds when they listen to each other.
Allow me to elaborate.
Just listen to the first 4 minutes of this video.
The narrator claims:
1. Creationist scientists are a minority.
===so? Does this mean that the scientists of the world are having elections to decide if a certain scientific discovery should hold water? Did you guys forget how J Harlan Bretz was almost thrown out of the American Geological society in 1924 when he came with evidence of a "flood of Biblical proportions" after concluding his work on the Scablands in Washington? The Atheists hated such a claim, and told him to go back and find another answer. If it was not for J Pardee who furthered his fieldwork, and discovered Lake Musoula, your Atheists would have lost this explanation forever.Well, the majority was WRONG and one man was correct, and in 1979 he receive the Penrose medal with the words: "All my enemies are dead, so I have no one to gloat over.".
All those foolish Atheist scientists was DEAD!
Long live the minority that are correct!
2. There are Creationist Scientists, and Rational scientists.
This is very bias to say the least.
To think that an Atheist thinks there are 2 types of Physicists is a sorrowful thought to even consider as an intelligent remark.
A Creationist and a Rational Physicist.
Since when did the Universities of the world start to issue these certificates to BSc's?
Can I please know what difference in the studies, and where are the examinations done?
If I came up with such rubbish, everyone will laugh at me! Atheists are really confused about reality!
3. Now, lets look at Laurence Krauss.
I read his book, A Universe from Nothing.
Well, guess what, he did his best to call "Something", "Nothing".
His theory is simply put, stupid and misleading.
To even use Krauss as an explanation that there are Realistic physicist, is the best form of Atheists wishful thinking I ever saw!
When John Lennox debated Krauss, Krauss just knew he was taking a fat chance in his proposal that the Universe came from nothing, by him calling something nothing..
Poor old Krauss thought he could get away with the straw man attack where he tried to tell Lennox about fairies and the Easter bunny.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKt2NPbTHM0
Quote from: http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2013/08/13/3824063.htm
Krauss's latest book claims that advances in science have shown that we can answer the question "why is there something rather than nothing?" without invoking God. His argument can be summarised as follows:
The basic stuff of the universe, as we now understand it, consists of matter and energy, space and time, governed by laws of nature.
Particles of matter correspond to certain configurations of quantum fields. There is a configuration that corresponds to no particles (the "vacuum"). A state with no particles can evolve into a state with particles. Thus, matter can appear from no-matter.
The universe as a whole may have zero net energy.
There are theories that suggest that that space and time themselves are not fundamental, but emerge from a state without space and time.
The laws of nature may be stochastic and random, in which case there may be no ultimate laws of nature.
Since we can imagine the universe coming from a state with no matter, no particles, no space, no time and no laws, something can come from nothing.
But let me conclude.
Guys, if you play the man, and not the game, you are loosing the match.
Go and look at the scientific discoveries, to say this man does this, and is this and that, will never remove your problem about creation.
To put Krauss in perspective for a simplistic model.
He actually say.
Nothing can come out of nothing.
But wait,
Nothing is actually a mathematical ===="0" (Zero)
Now we can deduct that due to Quantim fields and say
=====+1 -1 = 0====
Therefore, if we take everything in the Universe, then there was a nothing with a lot of something splitting from a lot of negative something.
Guys, do you really believe this BS?
Oh, and all the Atheists quote and review his Papers, therefore Krauss must be correct!
He must be a realistic Physicist!
This is Hilarious!
Quote from: Cavebear on July 13, 2018, 01:06:29 PM
But what if I remember Monday. Did you plant that image in my brain? Or did Monday really happen for me.
I read a creationist claim once that said (in response to light years of light travel) that God was so clever he CREATED the universe with light travelling all over at exactly the right times. to fool us simple humans that the universe indeed WAS 13 billion years old.
And Mousetrap is SO SIMPLE-MINDED he couldn't even come up with THAT nonsense? And didn't even KNOW about that line of argument. LOL!
Yes, the simple mindedness about the light from distant stars is that it is 100% in correlation with what the Bible says.
Before the first day, in Zero time, God created the Universe.
Therefore the stars started to shine, and Zero time was before time existed, it could be well beyond 12.5 billion years, but the Bible's description is correct.
Science also know that the Earth was in existence much later than 8 billion years, but they are determined to count the 8 Billion years and forgetting there was no Earth and Solar system to use as a clockwork.
Therefore, do not use a Strawman argument to destroy thinking you made a point.
The Bible is correct in that Starlight is much older than the Solar System.
Quote from: Unbeliever on July 13, 2018, 07:18:33 PM
He seems to think that's the only dating method available. He might want to try OkCupid...
But this is not true at all!
Why do you say that?
I said the only dating method to test Organic materials are C14/c12.
Other dating methods, such as Uranium / Lead, are done to test inorganic matter, such as rock, fossils, etc.
C14/C12 was what Atheists always used, to show the Bible is incorrect in claiming an age of life of 6YK.
Please do not change my words, or tell others what I think.
You can never even fathom my thoughts.
Quote from: sdelsolray on July 13, 2018, 10:52:40 PM
Or ice cores, some of which go back over two million years.
Mousedroppings Mousetrap is demonstrating the standard creationist tactic of ignoring evidence that contradicts or refutes his preconceived conclusions.
Of course, his disingenuous pretense of being all "sciency" along with his 'Just wait, I'll get to that' stall game (in his 'Origin of the Universe' thread) are mere ploys to inject personal need to control the conversation and seek attention.
Oh, But we will get to Ice core and dendrology soon.
We are now busy with C14/C12
Quote from: sdelsolray on July 13, 2018, 10:52:40 PM
Or ice cores, some of which go back over two million years.
Mousedroppings Mousetrap is demonstrating the standard creationist tactic of ignoring evidence that contradicts or refutes his preconceived conclusions.
Of course, his disingenuous pretense of being all "sciency" along with his 'Just wait, I'll get to that' stall game (in his 'Origin of the Universe' thread) are mere ploys to inject personal need to control the conversation and seek attention.
So what is your suggestion?
I have to sit here on the post and type for days on end giving you all the Info so you can read is all at once?
Where is this rule?
Is this your argument against my observation of C14 dating?
Do you see that your claim actually imply a failure to answer me on my claim that the Bible explains C14/C12 dates?
Oh, but you might be under the impression that I will never get to all the other dating techniques?
Dont worry, I like to get you guys warm under the collar.
Actually, I love it!
Quote from: sdelsolray on July 14, 2018, 09:41:13 PM
...
I realize this will likely make you do some hard work, quite possibly work you have never done before, and for which you have no creationist whore website from which to cut and paste your answer. Nevertheless, a definition of the term "life" is needed before proceeding further.
Creationist Whore website?
What the hell is that?
I hope it is a spelling mistake.
So far I can only find Atheist whore websites.
Life.
Any Living organism.
Dont you know when something is alive.
I learned the terminology in primary school.
Fron a one celled organism, to a multi celled organism.
Take your pick.
What about this definition.
If it has functioning DNA, Reproduces, eat, drink, grow, age, it is Life.
If it dies, it is dead, does not reproduce, eat, drink, age.
This is organic matter.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on July 14, 2018, 10:45:13 PM
By dating the rocks. The rocks may be dated by a number of methods, including radiological dating of other isotopes. After all, a fossil can be no younger than the rock it's found in.
I agree
Quote from: ReimuNumbers, please? How much water "shielding" would it take to reduce C14 production by any significant amount, and how would this affect the atmosphere and life in it. See, water is actually a rather potent solvent, especially at high temperatures and pressures. It's one of the reasons that life does so well in it: the solubility molecules in water is second to none.
Nothing More, than say, a mist. (Gen 2:6)
I like to have a misty day and do not drown, or die because of it.
Quote from: ReimuCould humans breathe your supersaturated atmosphere and survive? After all, if you evaporate a lot of water into the atmosphere, it has to come at the expense of something else. Like, oxygen.
You forget that all this water did not change into something else but water.
They filled the ocean.
Quote from: ReimuAnd where did it all go, once the event that happened 4000 years ago was over?
No answer? Typical.
You obviously did not even take time to look at my explanation on the origins of the Universe,typical
Quote from: ReimuGood grief, your water vapor shield isn't even a new idea. It was proposed by Kent Hovind to explain how the ancients could be old, and explain where the water of the Flood came from. He can't provide any numbers either, even though he supposedly taught science. I shudder to think the kind of "science" he was teaching his students. He also couldn't tell you shit about where all that water went when it was done. (Obviously, not into the atmosphere.)
Typical. Swearing, creating a straw man, and thinking my position is in error.
Pal, I dont even like Ken Hovind.
All I did was to show you that C14 tests are correct when one take into an account that the Atmosphere did not reach equilibrium 3500 years ago.
I also then took a small description from Genesis that said that Life would have lasted much longer in such an atmosphere than today.
I showed you that Radiation, especially C14, is the reason for ageing in the Human body, or any living body for that matter.
I even showed you that there are a market to produce C14 free food, with a scientific claim that one will age slower if free from c14.
Now, whats your problem with the facts that I showed to you.
Perhaps total denial?
Show me I am wrong about humans ageing due to Radiation, and C14 equilibrium atmosphere, and then come back to me.
Now you are simply reaching out for straws left right and center, in an attempt that you might build a strawman to destroy.
No, it does not work this way.
The only option for you is to prove the following scientific facts wrong.
1. Does people age because of radiation.
2. do you have evidence that the Atmosphere was in equilibrium earlier than minus 4YK.
Simple.
Do that and I am wrong!
If you cant, accept your defeat against the Biblical descriptions about creation.
Quote from: Mousetrap on July 16, 2018, 09:47:53 AM
Creationist Whore website?
What the hell is that?
I hope it is a spelling mistake.
So far I can only find Atheist whore websites.
Life.
Any Living organism.
Dont you know when something is alive.
I learned the terminology in primary school.
Fron a one celled organism, to a multi celled organism.
Take your pick.
What about this definition.
If it has functioning DNA, Reproduces, eat, drink, grow, age, it is Life.
If it dies, it is dead, does not reproduce, eat, drink, age.
This is organic matter.
With your definition of "life", you will not reach any consensus with any real scientist studying and researching the various abiogenesis hypotheses. Similarly, you will not reach consensus with any evolutionary biologist working in the area of pre-DNA and pre-cell evolution.
These folks, who do the hard scientific research, basically see the emergence of life as processes from pure chemical reactions to the eventual introduction of biological evolutionary processes. Somewhat simplified, they view life as the origin of a self-replicating molecule(s) capable of mutation and becoming subject to natural selection. Only much later did evolutionary processes form cell walls, RNA and DNA and other aspects of life. If you consider the science from this perspective, you will have an easier time learning about the relevant science. If you ignore it you will brand yourself as a creationist chump.
Quote from: Mousetrap on July 16, 2018, 09:30:32 AM
But this is not true at all!
Why do you say that?
I said the only dating method to test Organic materials are C14/c12.
Other dating methods, such as Uranium / Lead, are done to test inorganic matter, such as rock, fossils, etc.
C14/C12 was what Atheists always used, to show the Bible is incorrect in claiming an age of life of 6YK.
Please do not change my words, or tell others what I think.
You can never even fathom my thoughts.
You don't need Carbon 14 to discredit the Genesis account. The bible does that itself in the second book.
And reality is no fan of Genesis.
Defining life is not as easy as most think. A brief snippet from wiki:
The definition of life is controversial. The current definition is that organisms are open systems that maintain homeostasis, are composed of cells, have a life cycle, undergo metabolism, can grow, adapt to their environment, respond to stimuli, reproduce and evolve. However, several other biological definitions have been proposed, and there are some borderline cases of life, such as viruses or viroids. In the past, there have been many attempts to define what is meant by "life" through obsolete concepts such as odic force, hylomorphism, spontaneous generation and vitalism, that have now been disproved by biological discoveries. Abiogenesis describes the natural process of life arising from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds. Properties common to all organisms include the need for certain core chemical elements to sustain biochemical functions.
Is a fire alive? It meets many of the elements of what makes up life.
Plato defined human as ... two legged and without feathers. Diogenes then plucked a chicken and presented it to the Academy ... saying "here is your human". Categorization doesn't occur outside of humans ... we do the naming, the categorizing. That is in Genesis.
If it weren't for Emperor Constantine we'd never have heard of Genesis, or David or Jesus or Paul. Judaism and Christianity would both be just more myths like those of the Greeks and Roman, but only scholars would know about them.
Quote from: Unbeliever on July 16, 2018, 06:17:11 PM
If it weren't for Emperor Constantine we'd never have heard of Genesis, or David or Jesus or Paul. Judaism and Christianity would both be just more myths like those of the Greeks and Roman, but only scholars would know about them.
No, without Christianity, all the Gentiles would have turned on each other and annihilated themselves ... Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
Yes, the sophists, the eggheads, would have had all the girls, been the only males to pass on their genes ... until everyone was a pissant like Socrates.
Quote from: Mousetrap on July 16, 2018, 10:06:56 AM
Nothing More, than say, a mist. (Gen 2:6)
If you mean "mist" a supercritical fluid, then yes. However, I doubt that anyone would describe a supercritical fluid as a mist. More like, a thick, burning, flesh-eating almost-liquid.
In case you don't know what I'm talking about, please reference my post on the matter:
http://atheistforums.com/index.php?topic=12787.msg1223534#msg1223534
Quote
I like to have a misty day and do not drown, or die because of it.
You can't drown in a pure helium atmosphere either, but you
will die in it. This is because what you call "drowning" is your lungs being unable to pull oxygen from liquid water. If they could, you wouldn't die from drowning, because you are getting the oxygen you need. Drowning is a form of apoxia. You put enough other gasses into the atmosphere, you will die from apoxia.
Quote
You forget that all this water did not change into something else but water.
They filled the ocean.
But BEFORE that water filled the ocean, it was in the atmosphere, was it not? Mist doesn't harm you, not because its mist, but because it doesn't interfere with your bodily functions, including your lungs extracting oxygen from the air. That's when the crouding would occur. If your air is ninety-five precent water by weight, everything else, including oxygen can only be in that remaining 5%, and that 5% is not going to sustain you.
Think, McFly! Think!
Quote
You obviously did not even take time to look at my explanation on the origins of the Universe,typical
Bullshit. I was reading your explanation.
That's why I was able to point out problems in them.You seem not to realize that the ideas you propose have discernable effects on what kind of conditions would be necessary to effect that. You claimed that water vapor in the atmosphere would have a shielding effect, preventing C14 from being formed as readily.
We kinda know something about how radiation shielding works! We can put some
numbers to your notions and figure out that the amount of water vapor that would need to be in the atmosphere to create the kind of effect you're talking about, and see that those numbers aren't compatible with life as we know it.
This is why I ask you for NUMBERS connected to your claims. You claimed that water in the atmosphere (which came out in the flood) prevented C14 from being formed as readily as today. You thought that, because it
seemed to work on a qualitative level, that it would also work if you put some realistic numbers to it. But I've shown that this is not the case.
Then you accuse me of "not taking time to look at my explanation." No, dearheart, that's not going to fly. You present this to any scientific conference, and they would have you for breakfast.
Quote
Typical. Swearing,
What does swearing have to do with the damn point? Oh, that's right. Nothing.
Quote
creating a straw man, and thinking my position is in error.
Oh, no, I can't POSSIBLY think that your position is in error. What an egregious sin of me to think that your explanation was in error.
Did you not say that a C14 test would confuse a 4000 year old sample with one 40,000 year old sample due to the shielding of water in the atmosphere? Well, that implies that there has to be a certain amount of water in the atmosphere. Just because that the amount of water required (because I know something about how effective water is at radiation shielding) implies unpleasant things about your atmospheric composition you had not considered doesn't make my characterization a "strawman." A real scientist, when confronted with an obvious oversight like this, responds by answering the damn question or eating it. The fact that you have not done either proves that you are not thinking in any mode deserving the description "scientific."
Show how my explanation was in error or a strawman. Otherwise, this is just jibber jabber on your part.
Quote
Pal, I dont even like Ken Hovind.
So? That doesn't make your position original. It isn't. We have heard something like it before.
Quote
All I did was to show you that C14 tests are correct when one take into an account that the Atmosphere did not reach equilibrium 3500 years ago.
Nonsense. You showed no such thing. See, you need MATH based on SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE to show you this, which is what
I provided in my second message.
You didn't provide diddly-squat. You provided a notion that you didn't do the damn work to show that your notion had any believability.
Quote
I also then took a small description from Genesis that said that Life would have lasted much longer in such an atmosphere than today.
So what if the Bible said it? Did they actually do so, using the methods of science? You're trying to show that the Bible squares away what with what the SCIENCE says. That means you need to use SCIENCE to show that what the Bible says has any truth to it.
The Bible has not been shown by you to be a science textbook: that's what you're here to prove. You don't get to use it as if it
is a science book until you show that it squares away with science. So far, you're not doing a very good job. If the Bible claims that there can be a solar and lunar eclipse on the same day, it's wrong no matter how strongly you appeal to it.
Quote
I showed you that Radiation, especially C14, is the reason for ageing in the Human body, or any living body for that matter.
You showed no such thing. You merely claimed that. You didn't even produce studies showing that it was radiation that was
the principle cause of aging in the general population, or that a pristine, nonradioactive, and unradiated human would live significantly longer than a similar, normally irradiated human.
Radiation was thought to be a principle contributor to aging. But then free radicals were fingered. Now, it's shortening telomeres. It's looking more and more like aging is not a simple phenomenon, but a whole cluster of complex causes. As such, controlling one factor may not have any significant effect.
Quote
I even showed you that there are a market to produce C14 free food, with a scientific claim that one will age slower if free from c14.
So what if some people SAY that it's a scientific claim that one will age slower if you get C14 free food? Believe it or not, there is a lot of food woo in the culture. Your first reference was for a food magazine. The second link was for a patent â€" which only has to do what it says, not that what it does is any use at all. Your third link has rebuttal papers, even in its own journal.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10311-009-0264-4
This is not what I call "showing" anything.
Quote
Now, whats your problem with the facts that I showed to you.
Perhaps total denial?
No, I already told you. Your "facts" are not established as such.
Quote
Show me I am wrong about humans ageing due to Radiation, and C14 equilibrium atmosphere, and then come back to me.
You made the claim that radiation causes aging, as if it is the single determining factor. While I agree that excessive radiation may cause premature aging, but so does sleep deprivation, so you have not shown that if you get all the radiation out of your life, you will live significantly longer. The burden is on you to show that radiation is the dominant cause of aging. Good luck.
I've already shown your figures for C14 shielding to be untenable in my abovelinked message.
Quote
Now you are simply reaching out for straws left right and center, in an attempt that you might build a strawman to destroy.
No, it does not work this way.
The only option for you is to prove the following scientific facts wrong.
1. Does people age because of radiation.
2. do you have evidence that the Atmosphere was in equilibrium earlier than minus 4YK.
You have not supported either "scientific fact" at all. I don't have to prove you wrong because you have yet to show any indication that you are right. Your notions remain just that: notions. I'm the only one of us from us two who has shown any MATH to back up their claims.
Quote
Simple.
Do that and I am wrong!
If you cant, accept your defeat against the Biblical descriptions about creation.
Done. Hell, it was done before you even replied. Now, get to answering.
http://atheistforums.com/index.php?topic=12787.msg1223534#msg1223534
Quote from: Unbeliever on July 16, 2018, 06:17:11 PM
If it weren't for Emperor Constantine we'd never have heard of Genesis, or David or Jesus or Paul. Judaism and Christianity would both be just more myths like those of the Greeks and Roman, but only scholars would know about them.
Yeah, though it's difficult to imagine such a world, it's quite a pleasant scenario. What would fill the vacuum? Mithraism, maybe? Taoism? Buddhism? Deism? And if we want to really flex our imaginations, imagine atheism really taking off centuries before it did in our reality.
Quote from: Hydra009 on July 16, 2018, 10:25:46 PM
Yeah, though it's difficult to imagine such a world, it's quite a pleasant scenario. What would fill the vacuum? Mithraism, maybe? Taoism? Buddhism? Deism? And if we want to really flex our imaginations, imagine atheism really taking off centuries before it did in our reality.
Actually a Brit in a pop level book about Alexander, makes a plausible case for Buddhism replacing both Zorastrianism and Judaism ... so Christianity and Islam would have never happened. Buddhism under Emperor Ashoka of India took of just a few decades after Alexander kicked them into action in the Punjab. Also Alexandria Egypt would have flourished even more, and Rome would have been defeated by the Greeks, with the help of Carthage.
Or people here would have their panties all in a wad over how the common man needs to stop worshiping Zeus ;-)
Atheism is a minority position, for psychological reasons. Humans aren't Vulcans.
Quote from: Hydra009 on July 16, 2018, 10:25:46 PM
Yeah, though it's difficult to imagine such a world, it's quite a pleasant scenario. What would fill the vacuum? Mithraism, maybe? Taoism? Buddhism? Deism? And if we want to really flex our imaginations, imagine atheism really taking off centuries before it did in our reality.
Even just the Roman Empire's generally
laissez-faire attitude -- basically "believe what you want as long as you don't revolt" -- towards other religions rather than Christianity's "CONVERT OR DIE!" would have been an improvement. You'd probably end up with something resembling Jeffersonian Deism hundreds of years earlier. And we just
might still have the Library of Alexandria. Maybe scholarship and free inquiry would have filled the void. Now
there's a blissful thought.
Carbon 14 dating is only representative of many methods. But theists hate them all. Facts get in the way of their beliefs.
Quote from: trdsf on July 17, 2018, 01:45:49 AM
Even just the Roman Empire's generally laissez-faire attitude -- basically "believe what you want as long as you don't revolt" -- towards other religions rather than Christianity's "CONVERT OR DIE!" would have been an improvement. You'd probably end up with something resembling Jeffersonian Deism hundreds of years earlier. And we just might still have the Library of Alexandria. Maybe scholarship and free inquiry would have filled the void. Now there's a blissful thought.
Don't know ... the mix between politics and religion is volatile. In Alexandria both pagans and Jews rioted too. This was traditional in Alexandria. Christianity (endorsed by emperor Theodosius as sole legal religion in 380) gave it much more power. Certainly institutionalized religion plus politics is dangerous. Pure politics is pacifist, right?
Quote from: Cavebear on July 17, 2018, 01:50:02 AM
Carbon 14 dating is only representative of many methods. But theists hate them all. Facts get in the way of their beliefs.
The fact is, regardless of what value it might have, the Bible exists. That is a fact. And atheists hate that fact. They only want Das Kapital.
Quote from: sdelsolray on July 16, 2018, 12:04:17 PM
With your definition of "life", you will not reach any consensus with any real scientist studying and researching the various abiogenesis hypotheses. Similarly, you will not reach consensus with any evolutionary biologist working in the area of pre-DNA and pre-cell evolution.
do you realize you did not answer me on what a "WHORE Creationist website" is?
Or is this a slight slip about the reflective thoughts your mind is composed off?
Quote from: sdelsolray
These folks, who do the hard scientific research, basically see the emergence of life as processes from pure chemical reactions to the eventual introduction of biological evolutionary processes. Somewhat simplified, they view life as the origin of a self-replicating molecule(s) capable of mutation and becoming subject to natural selection. Only much later did evolutionary processes form cell walls, RNA and DNA and other aspects of life. If you consider the science from this perspective, you will have an easier time learning about the relevant science. If you ignore it you will brand yourself as a creationist chump.
Do you hear yourself?
You are saying that there are "self-replicating molecule(s) capable of mutation"
This is BS at its best.
Please supply me with a scientific discovery of this molecules.
You then tell me that
this molecules are already self replicating without any DNA etc. and you continue with this fairy tale of evolution and claim this molecules are already replicating becoming subject to natural selection.Beertiful!
Where can I get this compounded matter, and can it also replicate Gold atoms with Platinum?
.
If I consider the science from this perspective,I will be the laughing stock of ...the World of Logic in general.
Oh, And if you believe in this silly science, you are an Atheist chump.Pal, any living thing has working DNA, it breaths, eats, ages, replicates.
your alien life form is non existent.
Quote from: Mike Cl on July 16, 2018, 02:52:17 PM
Defining life is not as easy as most think. A brief snippet from wiki:
The definition of life is controversial. The current definition is that organisms are open systems that maintain homeostasis, are composed of cells, have a life cycle, undergo metabolism, can grow, adapt to their environment, respond to stimuli, reproduce and evolve. However, several other biological definitions have been proposed, and there are some borderline cases of life, such as viruses or viroids. In the past, there have been many attempts to define what is meant by "life" through obsolete concepts such as odic force, hylomorphism, spontaneous generation and vitalism, that have now been disproved by biological discoveries. Abiogenesis describes the natural process of life arising from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds. Properties common to all organisms include the need for certain core chemical elements to sustain biochemical functions.
I thought I would just see if you can read about what you claim.
https://www.britannica.com/science/abiogenesis
Unproven theories left right and center!
Quote from: E.Britanica
There remain many unanswered questions concerning abiogenesis. Experiments have yet to demonstrate the complete transition of inorganic materials to structures like protobionts and protocells and, in the case of the proposed RNA world, have yet to reconcile important differences in mechanisms in the synthesis of purine and pyrimidine bases necessary to form complete RNA nucleotides. In addition, some scientists contend that abiogenesis was unnecessary, suggesting instead that life was introduced on Earth via collision with an extraterrestrial object harbouring living organisms, such as a meteorite carrying single-celled organisms; the hypothetical migration of life to Earth is known as panspermia.
Guys, there exists not a single thread of evidence that life can erupt spontaneously.
Let me tell you why!
At least 2 hour per week I go through atheists websites, and Richard Dawkins is my source of information.
IF THERE WAS ANY EVIDENCE FOR SPONTANEOUS LIFE FORMING FROM INORGANIC MATTER, HE WILL POST IT ON EVERY WEBSITE ON THE WWW!
WELL, EVEN HE CLAIMS ALIAN LIFE SEEDED ON EARTH!
Quote from: Mike ClIs a fire alive? It meets many of the elements of what makes up life.
You are welcome to believe in fairies also, can you fly?
Ahh, there it is at last. The grand centerpiece of his whole argument is "You haven't proved it isn't god!"
Mousie, I have something to tell you that you might find shocking, but you really deserve to know: when you don't have a definitive answer to something, the correct answer ranges from "I don't know" to "The evidence indicates this, but it's not conclusive". And "I don't know" does not mean god. If you want to claim god you have to demonstrate it independently, not paste it onto an area of active research.
So, not only no concept of science, but no concept of the burden of proof. What a complete waste of time this was.
Quote from: Mike Cl on July 16, 2018, 02:52:17 PM
Defining life is not as easy as most think. A brief snippet from wiki:
The definition of life is controversial. The current definition is that organisms are open systems that maintain homeostasis, are composed of cells, have a life cycle, undergo metabolism, can grow, adapt to their environment, respond to stimuli, reproduce and evolve. However, several other biological definitions have been proposed, and there are some borderline cases of life, such as viruses or viroids. In the past, there have been many attempts to define what is meant by "life" through obsolete concepts such as odic force, hylomorphism, spontaneous generation and vitalism, that have now been disproved by biological discoveries. Abiogenesis describes the natural process of life arising from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds. Properties common to all organisms include the need for certain core chemical elements to sustain biochemical functions.
Is a fire alive? It meets many of the elements of what makes up life.
I remember being exposed to "how to identify life" in grade school. Pretty much the same as Wiki says. Something like 7 characteristics that all have to be present for a thing to be "life." Some non living things may also have some of the characteristics, but if they don't have all 7 (or whatever), they aren't alive.
I remember being unsatisfied learning the characteristics, because there really wasn't anything new or extraordinary. I could have listed these with my own observations, so I guess it sort of validated what I already observed on my own. But I wanted more. Where is that dividing line where bags of chemical compounds emerge from the non living? Is it a line that requires just a baby step to make the transition? Is it much wider than the step of a baby?
Today, I don't think about it much. It doesn't seem like the semi miracle that it once did. As chemicals and atoms join to form compounds and compounds join with other compounds, chemistry allows for some complicated and interesting results. I don't see life as that much different than other complex combinations that grow out of chemical reactions. It's just another rather interesting combination, which is interesting to a large degree only because it leads to us.
Quote from: Mousetrap on July 17, 2018, 06:50:54 AM
Do you hear yourself?
You are saying that there are "self-replicating molecule(s) capable of mutation"
This is BS at its best.
Please supply me with a scientific discovery of this molecules.
You then tell me that this molecules are already self replicating without any DNA etc. and you continue with this fairy tale of evolution and claim this molecules are already replicating becoming subject to natural selection.
Beertiful!
Where can I get this compounded matter, and can it also replicate Gold atoms with Platinum?
.
If I consider the science from this perspective,I will be the laughing stock of ...the World of Logic in general.
That's because you have a simplistic understanding of both. Logic dictates that that an organic self-replicator would not be able to replicate gold or platinum, given that neither gold nor platinum are organic, and the organic self-replicator can only produce more organic self-replicators, because it's a...
self-replicator. It can only replicate itself, not other things.
Quote
Oh, And if you believe in this silly science, you are an Atheist chump.
Okay, be better than us "atheist chumps" and show us using science and logic that your Biblical tale is scientifically plausible, and even true. Guide us, step by step, with ample evidence that the Bible is indeed correct. For instance, your flood. Don't just wax poetically that water would be able to shield us from radiation and therefore C-14 dating is giving us wonky results, and also explain the Bible, because that's not the goal. To us, the Bible is something that doesn't need explaining, the same way that The Lord of the Rings doesn't need explaining. Estimate how much water would need to be in the atmosphere to produce the effect (the prediction), show that it is compatable with human life (basic sanity check), and then show evidence that the Earth ever had this much water in the atmosphere at the time you claim (the test).
I remind you of something I said to you over a week ago, repeated here:
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on July 08, 2018, 06:52:44 PM
You don't get to call it "bias" just because I've seen a lot of theist arguments before and rejected them. You don't seem to be open to the possibility that, no matter how attractive or correct these arguments or beliefs of yours seem on the surface, that there might be some flaw in them that destroys their validity. That's not being open minded, dearheart.
Being open minded requires you to be open to the possibility that you are wrong. That realization in itself drives one to be reflective on one's own beliefs and drives them to examine why they hold those beliefs in the first place, and when that happens, investigation and curiosity take over and you find evidence and reasoning to place those beliefs on firmer ground, or find reason to drop them because they are ill-supported. I've been at this a while, so I've pretty much constructed a Fortress of Knowledge that has passed every test I could come up with to destroy it.
I have yet to find a non-skeptic who has ever seriously challenged that fortress because such people are in the habit of stopping at a very shallow level of reasoning. As such, none of their attacks have ever found purchase because my fortress is stronger than it appears, and I have already come up with answers to similar challenges. Also, their own world views are comparatively hastily erected and rickety; my own challenges to their ideas receive no satisfactory answer, because they don't know what a proper answer would look like. There have been serious challenges to my fortress, but not by non-skeptics. They're always from people who have spent at least as much time thinking deeply about their subject matter as I have.
I suggest you try to get into the habit of trying to prove yourself wrong, because that is the key to true open mindedness.
So far, you are acting to type. You are clearly a non-skeptic who has a rickety, hastily erected worldview held together with bailing wire and spit. You
think otherwise, but reality is not required to conform to the way you think.
I ask you, seriously. Who should we believe?
(1) A guy on the internet who is unable to answer our objections except by ranting, raving, and making baseless accusations of trying to distort his idea, yet is curiously silent about actual calculations and discussions of what kind of hypotheses constitute a proper explanation of the evidence.
or,
(2) Our own calculations and understanding of science, which tells us that if any of what you say is true, then there was no need for God to wipe out human kind on Earth except for Noah and company, due to the fact that every living thing on earth would be dead already from the Steam+ shielding the earth from nasty radiation.
I would only be a chump if I were to trust someone who is telling something that is manifestly not true, and is unable to answer why rebuttals to his point are unfounded, but can only scream invective at us.
And the breakdown begins for another one.
Quote from: Mousetrap link=topic=12787.msg1223781#msg1223781 date=1531825653
You are welcome to believe in fairies also, can you fly?
/quote]
Can you? I do realize fairies don't exist; apparently you don't.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on July 16, 2018, 10:10:40 PM
If you mean "mist" a supercritical fluid, then yes. However, I doubt that anyone would describe a supercritical fluid as a mist. More like, a thick, burning, flesh-eating almost-liquid.
No simply a mist like one you will experience in an early winter morning.
I backpack a lot, and so far I was not bitten by this phenomena.
Quote from: Hakurei ReimuIn case you don't know what I'm talking about, please reference my post on the matter:
http://atheistforums.com/index.php?topic=12787.msg1223534#msg1223534
You can't drown in a pure helium atmosphere either, but you will die in it. This is because what you call "drowning" is your lungs being unable to pull oxygen from liquid water. If they could, you wouldn't die from drowning, because you are getting the oxygen you need. Drowning is a form of apoxia. You put enough other gasses into the atmosphere, you will die from apoxia.
But BEFORE that water filled the ocean, it was in the atmosphere, was it not? Mist doesn't harm you, not because its mist, but because it doesn't interfere with your bodily functions, including your lungs extracting oxygen from the air. That's when the crouding would occur. If your air is ninety-five precent water by weight, everything else, including oxygen can only be in that remaining 5%, and that 5% is not going to sustain you.
I love it how you go and tell me what I explained, but you dont even understand what I say.
No, I am incorrect with this statement.
You know halfheartedly what I explained, yet you have to keep on hammering that the Atmosphere was this thick poisonous thing. Look at your maths.
You are telling me if the Atmosphere was a simple and inocent water mist, there will not be any Oxygen in it.
Funny that I can survive my trail paths when I do some distance walking in nature.
Where do you stay?
Venus?
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu
Think, McFly! Think!
Bullshit. I was reading your explanation. That's why I was able to point out problems in them.
And you still get it wrong?
Quote from: Hakurei ReimuYou seem not to realize that the ideas you propose have discernable effects on what kind of conditions would be necessary to effect that. You claimed that water vapor in the atmosphere would have a shielding effect, preventing C14 from being formed as readily. We kinda know something about how radiation shielding works! We can put some numbers to your notions and figure out that the amount of water vapor that would need to be in the atmosphere to create the kind of effect you're talking about, and see that those numbers aren't compatible with life as we know it.
This is why I ask you for NUMBERS connected to your claims. You claimed that water in the atmosphere (which came out in the flood) prevented C14 from being formed as readily as today. You thought that, because it seemed to work on a qualitative level, that it would also work if you put some realistic numbers to it. But I've shown that this is not the case.
Ok, now you are really shooting bacon.(or the whole pig)
No one has ever calculated how many water there would be needed in the atmosphere to shield the Earth from Cosmic Radiation.
You got it all wrong. First of all, C14 is produced on the perimeter of the Atmosphere, not therein. We are protected by most of the cosmic radiation due to our atmosphere. A very slight amount of water will have a huge decline on N14 to c14 transmission.
I made 2 points which science attests.
1. It is more probable for the Atmosphere to NOT HAVE HAD EQUILIBRIUM 4 YK AGO, THAN BILLIONS OF YEARS.
2. It the atmosphere would only reached equilibrium 4Yk ago, then science say one will live much longer in this c14 free atmosphere.
I then made an observation and concluded that if this is the case, then the Bible is 100% correct that people could have lived to almost a 1 000 years, and I also say a description in the Bible that the atmosphere did change dramatically.
The Bible says, the atmosphere was a mist of water, and there was no refraction of light, until a flood where this water was pulled out of the sky, resulting in a visible rainbow.
Now, if we take these facts into consideration, scientific and Biblical observation, there is no discrepancy on dating techniques as done by science.
And remember the "C14 fee food discovery" made by scientists to prolong life.
Quote from: some more threatsThen you accuse me of "not taking time to look at my explanation." No, dearheart, that's not going to fly. You present this to any scientific conference, and they would have you for breakfast.
What does swearing have to do with the damn point? Oh, that's right. Nothing.
You are correct.
Swearing has nothing to do with MY point, but it reflects YOUR poorly allocated position where you think swearing will change the facts.
and I think I am wasteing my time with someone that neeeeeeds to disprove the Bible with arguments Other than those I produced.
The Straw Man offence.
Love it
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on July 17, 2018, 08:40:36 AM
(1) A guy on the internet who is unable to answer our objections except by ranting, raving, and making baseless accusations of trying to distort his idea, yet is curiously silent about actual calculations and discussions of what kind of hypotheses constitute a proper explanation of the evidence.
or,
(2) Our own calculations and understanding of science, which tells us that if any of what you say is true, then there was no need for God to wipe out human kind on Earth except for Noah and company, due to the fact that every living thing on earth would be dead already from the Steam+ shielding the earth from nasty radiation.
I would only be a chump if I were to trust someone who is telling something that is manifestly not true, and is unable to answer why rebuttals to his point are unfounded, but can only scream invective at us.
Wow. You are truly a mathematical wizard in this argument of yours.
I would like you to show a guy like John Lenox incorrect with your mathematics.
Dawkins, Hawking, Singer and Krauss ran away in a fight with John with their tails between their legs.
Now, take special note on my claim.
I saw that science proved that if the atmosphere was not in equilibrium 4YK ago, there will be much less C14/C12 and the speciment will test very old!,
I saw that science said that if there was less C14 humans will grow very old due to less radiation on our cellular level.
I saw that scientists are now growing C14 crops to sell for this reason.
I saw the Bible spoke about a different atmosphere, and humans not ageing so fast when this atmosphere was quite different from the one we now live in.
I saw the Bible also said the Atmosphere was very moist and a mist rose from the Earth, but after the waters of the Heaven fell upon the Earth, the atmosphere was clear, and refraction of light was observed for the first time.
The above is what I claim. Nothing more, nothing less.
Why did I make this claim, so that Atheists now knows that there is an answer to the accusation that C14 proves the Bible incorrect, and at the same time I showed 3 nice scientific observations made in the Bible 4 000 years ago, that I can use against your arguments.
Thats all!
I will tomorrow continue with Uranium Lead decay, rock dating etc.
In Mouseworld, "straw man" means "Yes, there is an obvious flaw in my argument, error in the way I interpreted data, grotesque misuse of logic, or clearly impossible conclusion that is immediately implied by everything I've said, but I'm not going to admit to it, refute it, nor even acknowledge it".
Useful information going forward. Or, to paraphrase Inigo Montoya, "You keep using those words. I do not think they mean what you think they mean."
Quote from: Mousetrap on July 17, 2018, 06:50:54 AM
...
Do you hear yourself?
You are saying that there are "self-replicating molecule(s) capable of mutation"
This is BS at its best.
Please supply me with a scientific discovery of this molecules.
You then tell me that this molecules are already self replicating without any DNA etc. and you continue with this fairy tale of evolution and claim this molecules are already replicating becoming subject to natural selection.
Beertiful!
Where can I get this compounded matter, and can it also replicate Gold atoms with Platinum?
.
If I consider the science from this perspective,I will be the laughing stock of ...the World of Logic in general.
Oh, And if you believe in this silly science, you are an Atheist chump.
...
I simply provided you with what the real scientists who study and research the various abiogenesis hypotheses are currently studying and researching and what the real scientists who study and research early evolution (i.e., pre-DNA, prebiotic, etc.) study and research.
I did this and suggested you study these areas so that you have an awareness of what these areas of scientific research entail, and what they do not entail.
You obviously refuse to do so. You also appear quite deficient in any understanding of organic chemistry. You've already demonstrated, in your Origin of the Universe thread, that you understanding of physics is similarly deficient. I conclude, therefore, that you are willfully ignorant of current science in these areas, which makes you a dime-a-dozen creationist chump.
Quote from: Mousetrap on July 17, 2018, 06:50:54 AM
...
Pal, any living thing has working DNA, it breaths, eats, ages, replicates.
your alien life form is non existent.
We are discussing the origin of carbon based life on Earth, not the current biology of life on Earth. Try to stay on topic.
Quote from: Mousetrap on July 17, 2018, 06:50:54 AM
do you realize you did not answer me on what a "WHORE Creationist website" is?
Or is this a slight slip about the reflective thoughts your mind is composed off?
...
A creationist whore website typically contains lies, misrepresentations and duplicity generated by its authors (or simply repeated from other creationist whore sources) along with heavy reliance on informal logical fallacies, mere assertions and a variety of cognitive biases, all overshadowed by psychological and emotional dysfunctions due to an addiction to certain religious dogma. These websites abound. They tend to infect certain persons with all this garbage. You are a perfect example of one so infected. I'm sure you have many of them bookmarked and rely on them.
Quote from: SGOS on July 17, 2018, 08:26:16 AM
I remember being exposed to "how to identify life" in grade school. Pretty much the same as Wiki says. Something like 7 characteristics that all have to be present for a thing to be "life." Some non living things may also have some of the characteristics, but if they don't have all 7 (or whatever), they aren't alive.
I remember being unsatisfied learning the characteristics, because there really wasn't anything new or extraordinary. I could have listed these with my own observations, so I guess it sort of validated what I already observed on my own. But I wanted more. Where is that dividing line where bags of chemical compounds emerge from the non living? Is it a line that requires just a baby step to make the transition? Is it much wider than the step of a baby?
Today, I don't think about it much. It doesn't seem like the semi miracle that it once did. As chemicals and atoms join to form compounds and compounds join with other compounds, chemistry allows for some complicated and interesting results. I don't see life as that much different than other complex combinations that grow out of chemical reactions. It's just another rather interesting combination, which is interesting to a large degree only because it leads to us.
I dunno, I think the question of what is and isn't alive is
more interesting now that we have more potential habitats to explore than just the Earth. It's a question that we could very well end up facing when we explore the waters of Enceladus, Europa and Ganymede, the permafrost of Mars, and conceivably even the methane lakes of Titan. Could we even identify a virus or phage (or bacterium) if it's based on an information-carrying molecule other than DNA? Or life adapted to operate very slowly because of the deep chill of Titanian liquid methane?
I'm of the opinion that we need a more catholic definition of life than we did twenty, twenty-five years ago. And I don't think there's a hard and fast line between 'alive' and 'not alive'. We can't even say with any certainty that viruses are alive, or just complex chemical reactions -- a virion doesn't really engage in any of the activities we use to define life, but when it comes in contact with a cell, it does.
Quote from: Mousetrap on July 17, 2018, 09:31:28 AM
No simply a mist like one you will experience in an early winter morning.
I backpack a lot, and so far I was not bitten by this phenomena.
Then, no, it's not a mist. It was a supercritical fluid. At least, that is what your water shielding 'theory' requires. I guarantee you, you have never encountered a bank of supercritical fluid water on your backpack trips.
That said, mists produced in atmosphere are formed from ambient water vapor and does not exceed a few percent by weight in concentration. Given that a human's lung capacity is maybe 3 litres (0.003 m³) and air ~1.225 kg/m³ (International Standard Atmosphere), that means that you would only aspirate 0.1 g of water with each breath even in the thickest of mists. Aspirating 878 g (almost a kilogram!) of water may be more of a problem, especially if it's a supercritical fluid and not a mere wimpy mist.
Quote
I love it how you go and tell me what I explained, but you dont even understand what I say.
No, I am incorrect with this statement.
You know halfheartedly what I explained, yet you have to keep on hammering that the Atmosphere was this thick poisonous thing. Look at your maths.
You are telling me if the Atmosphere was a simple and inocent water mist, there will not be any Oxygen in it.
No, I
said that if if the water content of your atmosphere was sufficient to give the shielding required to make 4000 yo remains look like it's 40,000 yo, it would have to be a supercritical fluid, and would be worse than steam. It's taking two of your premises and carrying them to their logical, scientific conclusion.
You are accusing me of "knowing halfheartedly what you explian," yet you do not seem to understand what I explained in no uncertain terms. I
know you didn't explain the pre-flood atmosphere as a supercritical fluid. I did.
And, no, that's not a strawman. It may be an improper conclusion based on what you provided (though you have yet to show that), but it's not a strawman. I fully claim that calculation as MY work. It simply has dire implications for YOUR 'theory.' It's just like the work of Lise Meitner had severe implications based on Otto Hahn's work. (Hint: Meitner deduced that Hahn had produced nuclear fission in his experiments.)
Quote
Funny that I can survive my trail paths when I do some distance walking in nature.
Where do you stay?
Venus?
You really aren't able to understand sarcasm, are you? When I said, "If you mean "mist" a supercritical fluid, then yes," I didn't mean that ordinary mist was
actually a supercritical fluid.
How old are you, seriously?
Quote
And you still get it wrong?
The only person here who seems to not understand is you, cupcake.
Quote
Ok, now you are really shooting bacon.(or the whole pig)
No one has ever calculated how many water there would be needed in the atmosphere to shield the Earth from Cosmic Radiation.
No one has ever calculated how much water is needed? What's this then?
http://atheistforums.com/index.php?topic=12787.msg1223534#msg1223534
Anyway, you act like nobody has ever used water as radiation shielding before:
(https://static.wixstatic.com/media/f7815f_21a18322c3a548e59f40ed6c6dd07d8b~mv2.png/v1/fill/w_600,h_406,al_c,usm_0.66_1.00_0.01/f7815f_21a18322c3a548e59f40ed6c6dd07d8b~mv2.png)
Better let the nuclear engineers at San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station know that their shielding is unproven!
Quote
You got it all wrong. First of all, C14 is produced on the perimeter of the Atmosphere, not therein.
No, that's you who has gotten it all wrong. C14 is produced principly in the troposphere and stratosphere. Those are the
two lowest layers of the atmosphere. The reason is that's where the atmosphere is densest in N14.
Quote
We are protected by most of the cosmic radiation due to our atmosphere.
No, we're protected mostly by our magnetic field. That's why it likes to hang out in the Van Allen belts. Also, the atmosphere is a huge fuck-off mass of material. Radiation shielding does it's job by putting a lot of matter between you and the source, so the radiation hits and deposits its energy in
that instead of you. Even then, cosmic rays are a good chunk of your personal background, to the tune of 0.39 mSv/yr.
Quote
A very slight amount of water will have a huge decline on N14 to c14 transmission.
You mean "transmutation." Also, show the absorption coefficient of radiation through water vapor as a function of energy and vapor density. If it's high enough, it will prove your point.
Quote
I made 2 points which science attests.
1. It is more probable for the Atmosphere to NOT HAVE HAD EQUILIBRIUM 4 YK AGO, THAN BILLIONS OF YEARS.
Assuming equilibrium is being
generous to you, cupcake. It is unlikely that the neutron flux has varied significantly over billions of years, because the production of C14 is being caused by cosmic rays. When we look to more and more distant objects (and therefore seeing them younger and younger), we see that galaxies and such as remarkably stable over those billions of years. There is no cause to think that the neutron flux has changed by any significant degree over those billions of years. The only significant factor that could be at work is the amount of water shielding.
Also, remember that you
did say that a 4000 yo object could appear 40,000 yo by radiocarbon dating. It would appear such
precisely because it would be deficient in C14 when first formed compared to modern remains. If it is not in equilibrium, then 4000 y ago, the concentration would be increasing (due to the destruction of the vapor shield and the equilibrium level being above this amount), ergo, in the past, there would be less C14 in the air, which would need to be explained by
even more water in your water shield.
Quote
2. It the atmosphere would only reached equilibrium 4Yk ago, then science say one will live much longer in this c14 free atmosphere.
No, "the science" does not say that we would live much longer in a C14 free atmosphere,
one paper does. One preliminary paper does not established science make. Single papers that definitively establish a solid scientific consensus are extremely rare, and your cited paper is not that kind â€" because they usually come at the END of a protracted discussion, and detail a well-controlled and performed study or experiment that settles the matter once and for all. A result like in your paper would at least need independent replication, especially as it pertains to human health.
The other thing is that C14 is hardly the only source of radiation in the ancient world, even under a water shield. Radon-222 and potassium-40 come to mind. K40 contributes 10 times the radiation exposure as does C14. So, even if you remove all the C14 from a person, you only reduce their radiation exposure by at most ~9%. There are also many cosmogenic nuclides (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmogenic_nuclide) that may be produced and cause havock, and some of then are produced from components of water.
I know that TV portrays scientific discovery as this "Eureka!" moment, but as someone who practices science, it's very much fiction. It takes years, sometimes decades, for a genuine discovery to make its way through the literature, and most of your 'discoveries' will be proven wrong. Using preliminary and unsettled frontier science does not make for a firm foundation.
Quote
I then made an observation and concluded that if this is the case, then the Bible is 100% correct that people could have lived to almost a 1 000 years,
This would be an unsupported conclusion without a radiation dosage-response curve of survival times. Please produce this data. Then you would have a leg to stand on saying that "the Bible is 100% correct" that people
could live this long, and is even further away from proving that some
did.Quote
and I also say a description in the Bible that the atmosphere did change dramatically.
Yes, by my calculations, it changes from inside a pressure cooker to actually livable by the current biospehre.
Quote
The Bible says, the atmosphere was a mist of water, and there was no refraction of light, until a flood where this water was pulled out of the sky, resulting in a visible rainbow.
Now, if we take these facts into consideration, scientific and Biblical observation, there is no discrepancy on dating techniques as done by science.
And remember the "C14 fee food discovery" made by scientists to prolong life.You are correct.
That's a cool story, bro, but until you support it with empirical, observational evidence, that's all it is. I already pointed out that "C14 fee food discovery" is not a discovery by any stretch of the imagination, but even if it were, that doesn't mean that anyone in history, or the Bible, was able to take advantage of it. No, just because the Bible said it doesn't mean anyone actually did. Find me human remains that shows definite signs of having actually lived 969 years, and you might have a case. Until then, it's just something you and the Bible say.
Quote
Swearing has nothing to do with MY point, but it reflects YOUR poorly allocated position where you think swearing will change the facts.
It was ONE WORD and it wasn't even directed at you. I used it as an emphetic, and its meaning was clear to everyone. Swearing does not advance my position, but it doesn't diminish it, either.
Quoteand I think I am wasteing my time with someone that neeeeeeds to disprove the Bible with arguments Other than those I produced.
The Straw Man offence.
Love it
Empty posturing, you unsinkable rubber duck. If you had a leg to stand on, you would go through my calculation and evicerate it point by point. But you can't, so you have to resort to falsely trumpeting fallacies and lies.
The only points of my calculation and therefore my conclusion that intersects with your argument is your characterization of an object with a true age of 4000 years has an apparent age of 40,000 years by C14 dating, and that the reason why the Earth would have a derth of C14 compared to modern times is because of a water shielding. That's it. That's the totallity of your argument's involvement in my calculation. Everything else is mine, using the well-established science of radiation, and a few, reasonable, and generous (to you) assumptions.
If you don't agree with the 4000/40,000 year figures, then find me a pair of
real numbers from a
real object and we can try this again. If I've misused one of the points in your argument, fine. Show me how it's misused with a reference and we can continue from there.
Otherwise, it's just a bunch of impotent mewlings from you.
Quote from: trdsf on July 17, 2018, 08:11:43 PM
I dunno, I think the question of what is and isn't alive is more interesting now that we have more potential habitats to explore than just the Earth. It's a question that we could very well end up facing when we explore the waters of Enceladus, Europa and Ganymede, the permafrost of Mars, and conceivably even the methane lakes of Titan. Could we even identify a virus or phage (or bacterium) if it's based on an information-carrying molecule other than DNA? Or life adapted to operate very slowly because of the deep chill of Titanian liquid methane?
I don't think there is a hard fast line between life and non-life either. Life is just an extension of natural chemical processes. Life is interesting especially to us because we are alive, and the mystery of it makes it seem more special than it is. Natural processes are remarkable because of the complexity involved and the billions of years required to fashion interesting things, some which are not even living. But understanding as much (or as little) of it as we do, is more awesome to me than the simplicity of the Biblical miracles used to explain it.
Quote from: SGOS on July 17, 2018, 09:41:50 PM
I don't think there is a hard fast line between life and non-life either. Life is just an extension of natural chemical processes. Life is interesting especially to us because we are alive, and the mystery of it makes it seem more special than it is. Natural processes are remarkable because of the complexity involved and the billions of years required to fashion interesting things, some which are not even living. But understanding as much (or as little) of it as we do, is more awesome to me than the simplicity of the Biblical miracles used to explain it.
When one looks at things abstractly, and reductionist, it does look simple. But that is just a side effect of the POV taken. Of course we have to abstract and reduce, when we can, otherwise we can do nothing. We can only be successful with than history and complexity can be dismissed as irrelevant ... as it is sometimes. For example, in basic physics there is nothing that says that time must move forward, but in actual lived experience, it is critical. For those physics situations where the direction of time doesn't matter, then simplistic models suffice. But eventually things get too complex or to dependent on prior events ... and are no longer amenable to scientific method.
Quote from: SGOS on July 17, 2018, 09:41:50 PM
I don't think there is a hard fast line between life and non-life either. Life is just an extension of natural chemical processes. Life is interesting especially to us because we are alive, and the mystery of it makes it seem more special than it is. Natural processes are remarkable because of the complexity involved and the billions of years required to fashion interesting things, some which are not even living. But understanding as much (or as little) of it as we do, is more awesome to me than the simplicity of the Biblical miracles used to explain it.
The most fascinating question that we'll
never have an answer to is: how many times did self-replicating molecules arise independently on Earth, and how many different forms did they take before they were all out-replicated and out-evolved by the one we descend from?
The might-have-beens are absolutely staggering.
So, I went and followed all these links I was supplied by Atheists that claim Evolution is a proved scientific fact due to elaborate laboratory experiments.
This is one example which I think reflects the foundation of all evolutionists to hold on to a theory that just fails when investigated.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab/
I wondered how much money this scientist receives for his research.
I could have saved him a lot of time.
When I was about 15 years old, I bread a black budgie from a line of blue and yellow.
Wow, I am an atheist scientist who proved Evolution.
When I began working in Poultry Abattoirs, I learned how difficult it is to keep Bacteria at bay. Once you use an acidic based soap, after less than 2 weeks they are resistant to it. Change to Alkalinity based soap, and 2 weeks later they are resistant to it.
Sanitize with Methanol, they get resistant to it. Change to Ethanol, guess what....
I also bread Boxer Dogs, and was able to breed a heaver line than normal, but they were prone to cancer.
Guys, what do you think will happen when you take some bacteria or viruses out of their environment, and feed them something they usually fight for?
I would suggest from my observation of nature in my workareas and back yard, that there will be changes.
Now, why dont I accept these observations as evidence for Evolution?
Ecoli remained Ecoli, a Budgie remains a budgie, salmonella remains salmonella, and a boxer dog remains a boxed dog.
Where is there any evidence that we have Humans with pelt proving they evolved from wolfs, Humans with ostrich feet, Humans with 8 limbs showing they evolved from spiders, humans with skin proving they developed from alligators.
Oh no!
They do exist!
This is evidence of evolution!!!!
LOL
Quote from: trdsf on July 17, 2018, 11:56:10 PM
The most fascinating question that we'll never have an answer to is: how many times did self-replicating molecules arise independently on Earth, and how many different forms did they take before they were all out-replicated and out-evolved by the one we descend from?
The might-have-beens are absolutely staggering.
Yes!
Now we are getting to the core of it all.
How many times on earth, in the solar system, in the galaxy, in the universe, in the multiverses, perhaps, maybe, it could be, scientists believe, it is highly probable, it might be, ..........
People evolves into wolfs (http://xfiledisease.blogspot.com/2010/11/werewolf-syndrome-wolf-people.html)
people evolves into Ostriches (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rH-04nmekWA)
People evolves into alligators! (https://youtu.be/FEVjh4FvOf8)
People evolving into multiple eyed humans, perhaps they will end up with spider eyes! (http://sideshows.wikia.com/wiki/File:Bill_durks2.jpg)
people evolves into spiders (https://imgix.ranker.com/user_node_img/50062/1001236275/original/s-photo-u1?w=650&q=50&fm=jpg&fit=crop&crop=faces)
Quote from: trdsf on July 17, 2018, 11:56:10 PM
The most fascinating question that we'll never have an answer to is: how many times did self-replicating molecules arise independently on Earth, and how many different forms did they take before they were all out-replicated and out-evolved by the one we descend from?
The might-have-beens are absolutely staggering.
I've wondered about that too. Bill Bryson is a journalist and author known for his travel books, although he branched off into science with a Brief History of Nearly Everything where he reports scientific findings. According to Bryson, the first life that we all spring from happened after a billion years or so, and it only happened once. I'm skeptical about that, and I'm not sure what he even meant. He added no clarification or mention of how he came by such information, which was highly uncharacteristic of his writing. I'm guessing there was some reasoning behind the statement, but he offered only a proclamation and quickly moved on as if it was of no importance.
To me, life of some type seems bound to happen given enough time and necessary conditions. Not to say it is destined to happen, but my guess is that it is much more abundant in the universe than we think, not on every planet in every solar system, but abundant.
Quote from: SGOS on July 18, 2018, 06:27:35 AM
I've wondered about that too. Bill Bryson is a journalist and author known for his travel books, although he branched off into science with a Brief History of Nearly Everything where he reports scientific findings. According to Bryson, the first life that we all spring from happened after a billion years or so, and it only happened once. I'm skeptical about that, and I'm not sure what he even meant. He added no clarification or mention of how he came by such information, which was highly uncharacteristic of his writing. I'm guessing there was some reasoning behind the statement, but he offered only a proclamation and quickly moved on as if it was of no importance.
To me, life of some type seems bound to happen given enough time and necessary conditions. Not to say it is destined to happen, but my guess is that it is much more abundant in the universe than we think, not on every planet in every solar system, but abundant.
We don't have new proto-life forming here, today, because conditions are very different (namely lots of oxygen). Conditions in the early earth were hostile to advanced life forms ... the biosphere is a long term terraforming side effect of cooling proto-planets. In fact 10 degrees C higher or lower, and most life today would die. Wimps! So is a 4 degree C rise a problem? Duh!
Quote from: Mousetrap on July 18, 2018, 02:49:48 AM
Now, why dont I accept these observations as evidence for Evolution?
Ecoli remained Ecoli, a Budgie remains a budgie, salmonella remains salmonella, and a boxer dog remains a boxed dog.
Yep, and you're still an ape, a monkey, a mammal, a synapsid, an amniote, a vertibrate, a chordate, a deuterostome, a bilateral, a unicont, and a eukaryote. You belong to all of those taxonomic classes. Not one of your ancestors evolved out of those taxonomic classes once they evolved into them. And not one of your descendents will ever not be part of any one of those taxa, just as evolution predicts.
Quote
Where is there any evidence that we have Humans with pelt proving they evolved from wolfs, Humans with ostrich feet, Humans with 8 limbs showing they evolved from spiders, humans with skin proving they developed from alligators.
No, that's hybridization. New species are not produced by blending them with other. New species evolve by two similar populations diverging and developing their own traits. The last time there was a creature that was the closest thing to a crockoduck, was millions of years ago when the archosaurs diverged into Avemetatarsalia (which are birds and their extinct relatives) and Pseudosuchia (crocs and their extinct relatives), and when they were just splitting, those two groups could hardly be distinguished from each other.
There might be humans that have a mutation that makes them grow hair all over their bodies, but it's not in a pattern resembling a wolf to any taxonomic detail, and it will not make them a lupid. People may have feet resembling ostrich, but anyone with a background in taxonomy will be able to tell the difference. Your picture of an "eight-legged girl" is not an arachnid. She and your "multiple-eyed man" are actually forms of siamese twinning. It's not even clear these traits are heritable, which would be required for them to be evolutions. And your "alligator girl" does not have alligator skin â€" she has overkeritinized patches of skin with only the most superficial resemblance to an alligator's skin, and does not make her a eusuchid.
If anyone is advancing these as proof of evolution, they are idiots. Anyone who thinks that such specimins are examples of evolution toted by scientists, they are idiots. No scientist worth his salt would claim these are evidences of evolution.
I'm glad you don't take those freaks as evidence of evolution, because they aren't, not by any competent individual. Evidence of evolution lies elsewhere.
Quote from: SGOS on July 18, 2018, 06:27:35 AM
I've wondered about that too. Bill Bryson is a journalist and author known for his travel books, although he branched off into science with a Brief History of Nearly Everything where he reports scientific findings. According to Bryson, the first life that we all spring from happened after a billion years or so, and it only happened once. I'm skeptical about that, and I'm not sure what he even meant. He added no clarification or mention of how he came by such information, which was highly uncharacteristic of his writing. I'm guessing there was some reasoning behind the statement, but he offered only a proclamation and quickly moved on as if it was of no importance.
To me, life of some type seems bound to happen given enough time and necessary conditions. Not to say it is destined to happen, but my guess is that it is much more abundant in the universe than we think, not on every planet in every solar system, but abundant.
I think stating "it only happened once" goes a step too far; it happened at *least* once, and so far as we've been able to tell, only one line survived.
I'm not sure that it's possible for more than one line to survive even just to simple forms like stromatolites unless they're
completely separated over geological timescales â€" and once they ultimately meet, one
will be better adapted than the other, and it only takes the tiniest advantage for one to overwhelm the other.
And I agree. I'd be shocked to learn there aren't some sort of very simple forms elsewhere even in our own solar system. Especially around Enceladus' hydrothermal vents. Complex thinking beasties like us are probably rare, but I strongly doubt we're unique.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on July 18, 2018, 07:06:38 AM
If anyone is advancing these as proof of evolution, they are idiots. Anyone who thinks that such specimins are examples of evolution toted by scientists, they are idiots. No scientist worth his salt would claim these are evidences of evolution.
I'm glad you don't take those freaks as evidence of evolution, because they aren't, not by any competent individual. Evidence of evolution lies elsewhere.
Great, so EColi Bacteria that received a new trait, is still Ecoli.
bacteria make major shift in lab (https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab/)
Thanks for clearing up that this laboratory evidence does not prove evolution.
Quote from: Mousetrap on July 18, 2018, 08:34:59 AM
Great, so EColi Bacteria that received a new trait, is still Ecoli.
bacteria make major shift in lab (https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab/)
Thanks for clearing up that this laboratory evidence does not prove evolution.
Let's see, where's that font setting again? Oh, yes.
WRONG.You have this completely incorrect idea about how evolution works. It isn't an all-or-nothing event where a monkey gives birth to a human, bang, new species. Although eventually they will probably identify this new strain as a subspecies at a minimum.
You also completely ignored the last paragraph, probably so you could draw the exact opposite conclusion from what the research showed:
Quote from: New Scientist
Lenski’s experiment is also yet another poke in the eye for anti-evolutionists, notes Jerry Coyne, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Chicago. “The thing I like most is it says you can get these complex traits evolving by a combination of unlikely events,†he says. “That’s just what creationists say can’t happen.â€
You can't cherry-pick science, Mousie. You have to explain ALL data, not just the bits you think you can desperately and fraudulently try to twist to support your delusion.
Quote from: Mousetrap on July 18, 2018, 02:49:48 AM
Now, why dont I accept these observations as evidence for Evolution?
Ecoli remained Ecoli, a Budgie remains a budgie, salmonella remains salmonella, and a boxer dog remains a boxed dog.
Where is there any evidence that we have Humans with pelt proving they evolved from wolfs, Humans with ostrich feet, Humans with 8 limbs showing they evolved from spiders, humans with skin proving they developed from alligators.
Years ago, I said something along the lines of "creationists are so stupid they'd expect Goro as evidence of evolution". Apparently, I was overestimating their intelligence.
Quote from: Mousetrap on July 18, 2018, 04:10:49 AM
People evolves into alligators! (https://youtu.be/FEVjh4FvOf8)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Az8k0uzQ6sA
Quote from: Mousetrap on July 18, 2018, 08:34:59 AM
Great, so EColi Bacteria that received a new trait, is still Ecoli.
bacteria make major shift in lab (https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab/)
Thanks for clearing up that this laboratory evidence does not prove evolution.
You are an idiot. The bacteria
is proof of evolution, because we see what evolution predicts: a gene-based change in response to an environmental change.
The real theory of evolution does not predict what happens in Pokemon, despite the misnomer.
So far, you are acting to type, MT. Please change.
Quote from: Baruch on July 18, 2018, 06:35:38 AM
We don't have new porto-life forming here, today, because conditions are very different (namely lots of oxygen). Conditions in the early earth were hostile to advanced life forms ... the biosphere is a long term terraforming side effect of cooling porto-planets. In fact 10 degrees C higher or lower, and most life today would die. Wimps! So is a 4 degree C rise a problem? Duh!
I don't see why abiogenesis could not happen today. It would NOT be the same type of life that formed when the conditions were hostile to modern life of course. There were probably many forms of early life besides the stromatolites that spawned in what we would consider toxic environments. None of them survived the deadly oxygen pollution they created except for the stomatolites that must have adapted to the pollution. I doubt that any environment other than the one that spawned the first life on earth is necessarily wrong for other life to be created in. I haven't read anything to suggest otherwise. Our only knowledge is of what happened on Earth 4 billion years ago, and what happened here doesn't mean that's the only way it can happen.
We have a type of bacteria that lives EXCLUSIVELY on nylon. That's evolution in action.
Quote from: SGOS on July 18, 2018, 11:33:19 AM
I don't see why abiogenesis could not happen today. It would NOT be the same type of life that formed when the conditions were hostile to modern life of course. There were probably many forms of early life besides the stromatolites that spawned in what we would consider toxic environments. None of them survived the deadly oxygen pollution they created except for the stomatolites that must have adapted to the pollution. I doubt that any environment other than the one that spawned the first life on earth is necessarily wrong for other life to be created in. I haven't read anything to suggest otherwise. Our only knowledge is of what happened on Earth 4 billion years ago, and what happened here doesn't mean that's the only way it can happen.
It certainly could happen on other proto-planets. If it occurring today, out in the open, we would know it. Unless of course it is life we are incapable of recognizing as life. In which case not-a-true-microbe fallacy.
Quote from: SGOS on July 18, 2018, 11:33:19 AM
I don't see why abiogenesis could not happen today. It would NOT be the same type of life that formed when the conditions were hostile to modern life of course. There were probably many forms of early life besides the stromatolites that spawned in what we would consider toxic environments. None of them survived the deadly oxygen pollution they created except for the stomatolites that must have adapted to the pollution. I doubt that any environment other than the one that spawned the first life on earth is necessarily wrong for other life to be created in. I haven't read anything to suggest otherwise. Our only knowledge is of what happened on Earth 4 billion years ago, and what happened here doesn't mean that's the only way it can happen.
It could, but there are actually very good reasons why it either won't, or can't take hold.
Unless it's in a really extreme environment, there's probably already something living there, and that will be taking up the most easily utilized resources,
and that will already be evolved to fit that niche well. A first generation self-replicator would be up against insurmountable odds â€" highly evolved replicators already using the available local resources efficiently â€" unless it happened to take advantage of an energy source that wasn't already in use in that environment.
The other problem is: even if we happened to spot a first-generation replicator, could we recognize it for what it is that early in its development? It might look like a peculiar natural chemistry cycle that we wouldn't be able to recognize as a new form of life for another couple hundred million years yet, and I don't think any university is going to fund a research project for that long.
Quote from: Baruch on July 17, 2018, 09:51:16 PM
in basic physics there is nothing that says that time must move forward,
Well, that isn't
quite correct:
QuoteA time-asymmetric law is one that distinguishes between the past and future. Some time asymmetric laws are large and obvious: we always age in the one direction in time, London real estate always go up in one direction in time, etc.
But when it comes to describing the most fundamental physical systems, like quarks and electrons, one normally presumes (in both physics and philosophy textbooks) that the laws of nature are time-symmetric. That’s a curious convention, because they actually aren’t. There is a small but pervasive arrow of time that comes out of the fundamental decay processes known as weak interactions. This talk aims to correct that convention. It is about the curious little arrow of time that arises out of the weak interactions.
Weak interactions and the curious little arrow of time (http://www.lse.ac.uk/philosophy/blog/2015/12/21/weak-interactions-and-the-curious-little-arrow-of-time/)
Quote from: trdsf on July 18, 2018, 01:21:18 PM
It could, but there are actually very good reasons why it either won't, or can't take hold.
Unless it's in a really extreme environment, there's probably already something living there, and that will be taking up the most easily utilized resources, and that will already be evolved to fit that niche well. A first generation self-replicator would be up against insurmountable odds â€" highly evolved replicators already using the available local resources efficiently â€" unless it happened to take advantage of an energy source that wasn't already in use in that environment.
The other problem is: even if we happened to spot a first-generation replicator, could we recognize it for what it is that early in its development? It might look like a peculiar natural chemistry cycle that we wouldn't be able to recognize as a new form of life for another couple hundred million years yet, and I don't think any university is going to fund a research project for that long.
Yes, I've already considered both of those problems, and they are heavy odds against survival that didn't exist the first time around.
This has got to be a wind up.
He's got to be coming to the punchline soon.
Quote from: SGOS on July 18, 2018, 02:30:35 PM
Yes, I've already considered both of those problems, and they are heavy odds against survival that didn't exist the first time around.
I think if we find another form of life on this planet, it's going to be somewhere completely hostile to or isolated from life as we currently understand it... but then, some bacteria have already evolved resistance to radiation. I shouldn't be surprised to learn of bacteria thriving in some toxic waste sites by now.
We might be limited to places isolated from the biosphere... but I don't know that there are any, since they'd also need to have been isolated since before life as we know it arose.
The other alternative is something that takes advantage of materials not used by current life forms. There's a lot of aluminium and silicon in the environment, although what biological role either of those could play is completely speculative.
(http://www.jesusandmo.net/wp-content/uploads/errors.png)
Quote from: Jason78 on July 18, 2018, 02:41:07 PM
This has got to be a wind up.
He's got to be coming to the punchline soon.
Already been done ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86IpU3g-S8Q
I was kind of amazed that Mousetrap lasted as long as he did, being so close-minded theist and literal and all. But that seems to happen here, They come and they go. Never able to maintain any arguement. It is the experience of my daily life too. Some people hide that they are are theists and finally reveal themselves. Its always the same. Most people I meet either start theists (so I talk to them in curiosity) or they tend to hide it and comes out at the end.
Quote from: Cavebear on July 21, 2018, 07:07:59 AM
I was kind of amazed that Mousetrap lasted as long as he did, being so close-minded theist and literal and all. But that seems to happen here, They come and they go. Never able to maintain any arguement. It is the experience of my daily life too. Some people hide that they are are theists and finally reveal themselves. Its always the same. Most people I meet either start theists (so I talk to them in curiosity) or they tend to hide it and comes out at the end.
Ya'll people need to follow the damn script!
Quote from: Cavebear on July 21, 2018, 07:07:59 AM
I was kind of amazed that Mousetrap lasted as long as he did.
I'm not sure he's gone yet. Has it even been 24 hours since his last post? And he hasn't done the final, "I'm leaving because you guys are a bunch of fuckers," farewell salute.
Quote from: SGOS on July 21, 2018, 07:30:42 AM
I'm not sure he's gone yet. Has it even been 24 hours since his last post? And he hasn't done the final, "I'm leaving because you guys are a bunch of fuckers," farewell salute.
Oh I really don't care if he returns or not. Some idiots are persistent. But he hasn't exactly changed anyone's mind here, has he?
Quote from: Cavebear on July 21, 2018, 08:33:15 AM
Oh I really don't care if he returns or not. Some idiots are persistent. But he hasn't exactly changed anyone's mind here, has he?
No, at least not in a positive direction toward theism.
Quote from: SGOS on July 21, 2018, 09:08:48 AM
No, at least not in a positive direction toward theism.
But that IS the only reason for him to bother us, right? He and all those "of his ilk"always think that, with a few biblical quotes or explanations, they will convince us of our errors. Sad, so sad...
But you know I thought what is "ilk". So I researched it. Here's the best explanation I found...
Word History: When one uses ilk, as in the phrase men of his ilk, one is using a word with an ancient pedigree even though the sense of ilk, "kind or sort," is actually quite recent, having been first recorded at the end of the 18th century. This sense grew out of an older use of ilk in the phrase of that ilk, meaning "of the same place, territorial designation, or name." This phrase was used chiefly in names of landed families, Guthrie of that ilk meaning "Guthrie of Guthrie." "Same" is the fundamental meaning of the word. The ancestors of ilk, Old English ilca and Middle English ilke, were common words, usually appearing with such words as the or that, but the word hardly survived the Middle Ages in those uses.
Quote from: Cavebear on July 21, 2018, 09:18:28 AM
But you know I thought what is "ilk". So I researched it. Here's the best explanation I found...
That's interesting. It makes sense.
Quote from: SGOS on July 21, 2018, 09:38:59 AM
That's interesting. It makes sense.
Today mostly heard in Scotland.
Got ilk?
;-)
Quote from: Unbeliever on July 21, 2018, 02:20:44 PM
Got ilk?
;-)
The resulting mustache wouldn't be white in that case, but rather clear and smokey.
(http://i.imgur.com/CqC60Fi.jpg) (https://imgur.com/CqC60Fi)
Quote from: SGOS on July 21, 2018, 07:30:42 AM
I'm not sure he's gone yet. Has it even been 24 hours since his last post? And he hasn't done the final, "I'm leaving because you guys are a bunch of fuckers," farewell salute.
I have a life, and dont sit on this forum 24/7.
Anyhow, why will I leave?
You guys are better than Whoopy Goldberg.
Tantrums, accusations, Trump dysfunction disorder, hate, blame, straw man arguments, and so many more nice stuff.
:cool:
Quote from: Mousetrap on July 23, 2018, 08:00:50 AM
I have a life, and dont sit on this forum 24/7.
Anyhow, why will I leave?
Well, it could be that it may eventually enter your mind that you have nothing to contribute to this place. The real question is why would you stay?
Quote from: SGOS on July 23, 2018, 08:41:15 AM
Well, it could be that it may eventually enter your mind that you have nothing to contribute to this place. The real question is why would you stay?
One reason only!
To see if any Atheist's arguments can hold water against the Bible.
I have been testing my information on 3 Christian forums, and 2 Atheist forums, and up untill now met uninformed people who thought the Bible was a worthless writing. All they do is to collectively speak to each other, praising their 'open mindedness', and ignorantly claim they have the evidence to prove the Bible incorrect.
Facts!
Not a single one.
Quote from: SGOS on July 21, 2018, 09:08:48 AM
No, at least not in a positive direction toward theism.
And why do I have 12 uncertain atheists who sent me personal E Mail communicae on what they learned here?
I posted a lot of info for their own research.
:smiley:
:cool:
Quote from: Mousetrap on July 23, 2018, 10:05:09 AM
And why do I have 12 uncertain atheists who sent me personal E Mail communicae on what they learned here?
I posted a lot of info for their own research.
:smiley:
:cool:
Because we all secretly harbor the knowledge that a god exists, and are desperately seeking the one who can lead us to the light.
Quote from: Mousetrap on July 23, 2018, 10:00:38 AM
One reason only!
To see if any Atheist's arguments can hold water against the Bible.
I have been testing my information on 3 Christian forums, and 2 Atheist forums, and up untill now met uninformed people who thought the Bible was a worthless writing. All they do is to collectively speak to each other, praising their 'open mindedness', and ignorantly claim they have the evidence to prove the Bible incorrect.
Try testing it on actual archaeologists, biologists, geologists, and other specialists in the appropriate fields. I know that you don't dare, and if you claim you have, I want to see the paper you've submitted to the appropriate peer-reviewed journal.
All you've demonstrated to us is that you are a dishonest debater, you have no concept of evidence or the scientific method, and have a take on reality that it would be charitable to call delusional.
Quote from: Mousetrap on July 23, 2018, 10:00:38 AM
Facts!
Not a single one.
Precisely what you have provided.
Quote from: SGOS on July 23, 2018, 10:34:53 AM
Because we all secretly harbor the knowledge that a god exists, and are desperately seeking the one who can lead us to the light.
And why is he lying about those emails?
Quote from: Mousetrap on July 23, 2018, 07:58:35 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/CqC60Fi.jpg) (https://imgur.com/CqC60Fi)
Did...did you just get so butthurt from a comic poking fun at your beliefs that you edited it to contain your rambling, barely-coherent comeback?
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 23, 2018, 12:18:03 PM
And why is he lying about those emails?
Lying is a sin, unless you are lying for Jesus.
Quote from: Mousetrap on July 23, 2018, 10:00:38 AM
One reason only!
To see if any Atheist's arguments can hold water against the Bible.
I have been testing my information on 3 Christian forums, and 2 Atheist forums, and up untill now met uninformed people who thought the Bible was a worthless writing. All they do is to collectively speak to each other, praising their 'open mindedness', and ignorantly claim they have the evidence to prove the Bible incorrect.
Facts!
Not a single one.
This one is demonstrating one of his delusions. Quire predictable. Fancy that.
Quote from: Mousetrap on July 23, 2018, 10:00:38 AM
One reason only!
To see if any Atheist's arguments can hold water against the Bible.
I have been testing my information on 3 Christian forums, and 2 Atheist forums, and up untill now met uninformed people who thought the Bible was a worthless writing. All they do is to collectively speak to each other, praising their 'open mindedness', and ignorantly claim they have the evidence to prove the Bible incorrect.
Facts!
Not a single one.
Argumentation isn't worth the trouble.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 23, 2018, 12:18:03 PM
And why is he lying about those emails?
If he's not, we need the names of those traitorous rebels, so we can gave them all a sound thrashing.
Yeah, we can beat them about the head and shoulders - or just give them some dandruff shampoo...;-)
Quote from: Unbeliever on July 23, 2018, 01:15:49 PM
Yeah, we can beat them about the head and shoulders - or just give them some dandruff shampoo...;-)
I've had it with these atheist wannabes that switch sides at the first sign of an intellectual titan in their presence.
Many atheists don't really know why they don't believe, haven't studied the arguments, and so may be susceptible to "persuasion" when accosted by theists who know how to do verbal gymnastics and use sophistry to convince those who don't know how to evaluate their claims.
Quote from: Unbeliever on July 23, 2018, 01:44:24 PM
Many atheists don't really know why they don't believe, haven't studied the arguments, and so may be susceptible to "persuasion" when accosted by theists who know how to do verbal gymnastics and use sophistry to convince those who don't know how to evaluate their claims.
Actually, I have a few atheist friends like that, although none of them are about to jump ship. They just don't believe it, and for them, it's not worth arguing about. In fact, it's not worth thinking about. They just reject theist claims out of hand. At most, if pushed to explain their position, they would say something like burning bushes, talking serpents, and all that sort of nonsense is silly, and they might think you were daffy for even asking them. It's like it's just not worth their time.
I actually envy them. I spent a hell of a lot of my life in theist apologetics trying to find a reason to believe in the absurd, looking at the problems from all different angles, passing it off as useful metaphor, or trying to invent a god type being that didn't self contradict. My friends, didn't waste their time. We both ended up in the same place, but I spent way too much energy on a totally useless enterprise of theist rationalization.
On the other hand, I don't envy theists who come to belief without thinking so hard, just like some of my atheist friends don't. It's actually a lazy way to go through life. I tend to make a big deal about it, but there isn't much need to do that. Just stop and ask, "Could a burning bush or a donkey talk?" You don't have to try and turn it into rocket science. It's not that complicated... except when you are brainwashed.
Quote from: Unbeliever on July 23, 2018, 01:44:24 PM
Many atheists don't really know why they don't believe, haven't studied the arguments, and so may be susceptible to "persuasion" when accosted by theists who know how to do verbal gymnastics and use sophistry to convince those who don't know how to evaluate their claims.
Yeah, that is always possible, I guess. But Mouse doesn't fit into that category.
I'm unsure of just what category he does fit into. Maybe none at all.
Quote from: Unbeliever on July 23, 2018, 02:49:09 PM
I'm unsure of just what category he does fit into. Maybe none at all.
We have had a handful of verbose theists come through here, who were glib, and full of long posts. They believed they had invented the theist view of the universe and just knew they had all the answers. most claimed they were recovering atheists and so just had to be right. And they kept saying it over and over. Blowhard is a good descriptor for them.
I think the word "verbose" is an understatement! Many of them have been so loquacious as to be suspected of having logorrhea.
Quote from: Unbeliever on July 23, 2018, 01:44:24 PM
Many atheists don't really know why they don't believe, haven't studied the arguments, and so may be susceptible to "persuasion" when accosted by theists who know how to do verbal gymnastics and use sophistry to convince those who don't know how to evaluate their claims.
"Many" is not a number, it's an assertion.
Well, I don't know what the actual number is.
Quote from: Unbeliever on July 23, 2018, 05:59:15 PM
Well, I don't know what the actual number is.
Yeah. The reason I ask is because atheists, especially converts, are, as I understand it, usually better informed about their positions than believers.
Those that care enough to inform themselves do so, others don't care enough to put the effort into it.
Quote from: Unbeliever on July 23, 2018, 06:17:53 PM
Those that care enough to inform themselves do so, others don't care enough to put the effort into it.
But you can't draw a line between them. I knew I was an atheist long before I start studying the matter. Born in 1951, not interested in all the "reading" until 2008. You don't know if I'm unusual or typical. Neither do I.
You're right, I don't know.
Quote from: Mousetrap on July 23, 2018, 08:00:50 AM
Tantrums, accusations, Trump dysfunction disorder, hate, blame, straw man arguments,
Delusions and projections of an uppity piece of wood and wire...
Quote from: Mousetrap on July 23, 2018, 10:00:38 AM
One reason only!
To see if any Atheist's arguments can hold water against the Bible.
I have been testing my information on 3 Christian forums, and 2 Atheist forums, and up untill now met uninformed people who thought the Bible was a worthless writing.
As literature, and as a book of man, it's fascinating. I say this as an avid listener of the Bible Geek podcast. It's a book with a sordid tale of how it came to be, and an endlessly convoluted and interesting pedigree.
As a science book, on the other hand, the Bible is indeed worthless. On any level the bible would be interesting, it's not true; on any level it would be true, it's not interesting. I find in no plain reading of the Bible anything resembling how the universe, the solar system, the Earth, life, and humanity came to be in its present form.
All I've seen out of you is you using the Bible as a ventriloquist dummy to make it say what you want it to say, only it's clear that you haven't been keeping up with the latest science says on these topics either because even your ventriloquist performance doesn't intersect very well with the latest in scientific findings either.
Or, well, even basic science, either.
For instance, I didn't need anything other than basic science to tell you that it is impossible for the Earth to form as a mudball. This is because you have the Earth, made of mud, in the vacuum of space.
Read that again:
Mudball. In a vacuum.
If you need help, you will find a relevant diagram in the spoiler.
[spoiler]
Phase Diagram of Water(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/08/Phase_diagram_of_water.svg)
Please note which phase is absent in vacuum (very low pressure).
[/spoiler]
Sorry, MT, I can see your mouth moving.
Quote
Facts!
Not a single one.
Projection. You don't have facts. All you have are misconceptions about science, and I know my science well enough to see that your interpretation of the Bible doesn't match up with it to any recognizable degree.
Quote from: Unbeliever on July 23, 2018, 01:44:24 PM
Many atheists don't really know why they don't believe, haven't studied the arguments, and so may be susceptible to "persuasion" when accosted by theists who know how to do verbal gymnastics and use sophistry to convince those who don't know how to evaluate their claims.
Sophistry was invented by libertine Greeks, who were irreligious at best. But the theist quickly leaned from them ;-) Originally the idea in polytheism, that you had apologetics or polemics was unthinkable. It simply was how your tribe was.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 23, 2018, 06:10:52 PM
Yeah. The reason I ask is because atheists, especially converts, are, as I understand it, usually better informed about their positions than believers.
There are casual theists just as there are casual atheists. But for those who are more serious about their faith or lack thereof, atheists definitely tend to know the Bible better than the Christians.
Quote from: Blackleaf on July 23, 2018, 11:26:29 PM
There are casual theists just as there are casual atheists. But for those who are more serious about their faith or lack thereof, atheists definitely tend to know the Bible better than the Christians.
It depends on the region. More devout Christian countries (like the US) tend to have more serious atheists, while countries that are only nominally Christian tend to have more casual atheists. I've gotta say, I find myself somewhat envious of atheists who have never personally encountered a street preacher or creationist or theocrat. Their lives may be more mundane, but far more comfortable.
Quote from: Hydra009 on July 24, 2018, 01:05:46 AM
It depends on the region. More devout Christian countries (like the US) tend to have more serious atheists, while countries that are only nominally Christian tend to have more casual atheists. I've gotta say, I find myself somewhat envious of atheists who have never personally encountered a street preacher or creationist or theocrat. There lives may be more mundane, but far more comfortable.
As you may remember, I live in Southern Texas, so... Yeah. I don't have the luxury of ignoring Christian fundamentalists. Their stupid is everywhere. Can't drive three blocks without passing a church.
Quote from: SGOS on July 23, 2018, 02:42:05 PM
Actually, I have a few atheist friends like that, although none of them are about to jump ship. They just don't believe it, and for them, it's not worth arguing about. In fact, it's not worth thinking about. They just reject theist claims out of hand. At most, if pushed to explain their position, they would say something like burning bushes, talking serpents, and all that sort of nonsense is silly, and they might think you were daffy for even asking them. It's like it's just not worth their time.
I actually envy them. I spent a hell of a lot of my life in theist apologetics trying to find a reason to believe in the absurd, looking at the problems from all different angles, passing it off as useful metaphor, or trying to invent a god type being that didn't self contradict. My friends, didn't waste their time. We both ended up in the same place, but I spent way too much energy on a totally useless enterprise of theist rationalization.
On the other hand, I don't envy theists who come to belief without thinking so hard, just like some of my atheist friends don't. It's actually a lazy way to go through life. I tend to make a big deal about it, but there isn't much need to do that. Just stop and ask, "Could a burning bush or a donkey talk?" You don't have to try and turn it into rocket science. It's not that complicated... except when you are brainwashed.
You had a great run in your explanation.....
until....
Quote from: SGOS"Could a burning bush or a donkey talk?"
You do not even know it was not the donkey not the bush that spoke!
:cool: :silly:
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on July 23, 2018, 07:18:45 PM
Delusions and projections of an uppity piece of wood and wire...
As literature, and as a book of man, it's fascinating. I say this as an avid listener of the Bible Geek podcast. It's a book with a sordid tale of how it came to be, and an endlessly convoluted and interesting pedigree.
As a science book, on the other hand, the Bible is indeed worthless. On any level the bible would be interesting, it's not true; on any level it would be true, it's not interesting. I find in no plain reading of the Bible anything resembling how the universe, the solar system, the Earth, life, and humanity came to be in its present form.
All I've seen out of you is you using the Bible as a ventriloquist dummy to make it say what you want it to say, only it's clear that you haven't been keeping up with the latest science says on these topics either because even your ventriloquist performance doesn't intersect very well with the latest in scientific findings either.
Or, well, even basic science, either.
For instance, I didn't need anything other than basic science to tell you that it is impossible for the Earth to form as a mudball. This is because you have the Earth, made of mud, in the vacuum of space.
Read that again:
Mudball. In a vacuum.
If you need help, you will find a relevant diagram in the spoiler.
[spoiler]Phase Diagram of Water
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/08/Phase_diagram_of_water.svg)
Please note which phase is absent in vacuum (very low pressure).
[/spoiler]
Sorry, MT, I can see your mouth moving.
Projection. You don't have facts. All you have are misconceptions about science, and I know my science well enough to see that your interpretation of the Bible doesn't match up with it to any recognizable degree.
mud balls in space? (https://www.space.com/53-comets-formation-discovery-and-exploration.html)
And perhaps uou just dont want to accept such a theory which is backed up by science.
why can the Earth not have been a huge dust ball of gas and Ice that melted, if comets are existing in a colder form even today?
Only because you dont like the Biblical connection.
Quote from: Blackleaf on July 24, 2018, 01:42:15 AM
As you may remember, I live in Southern Texas, so... Yeah. I don't have the luxury of ignoring Christian fundamentalists. Their stupid is everywhere. Can't drive three blocks without passing a church.
You do? where?
Quote from: Blackleaf on July 23, 2018, 11:26:29 PM
There are casual theists just as there are casual atheists. But for those who are more serious about their faith or lack thereof, atheists definitely tend to know the Bible better than the Christians.
I think it's a matter of being willing to look.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 24, 2018, 06:27:31 AM
I think it's a matter of being willing to look.
I will challenge any Atheist to prove to me he knows the Bible better than Me.
not only did I summarize it, I read it intensely more than 11 times.
I also summarized and studied the Quran, Hadith and life of Mohammad.
the Upanishad, Bagivad Ghita, and Book of Mormon the same.
Then I tried to study Atheism and read everything Richard Dawkins, Bertrand Russel, Christipher Hichens, Sam Harris, Dan Barker and....more.
The reality is as follow.
I rate the validity to these religions as follow.
on a scale of 1 to 5 = 1 being the best record when compared with science and History and 5 a total failure with zero support to science and History.
5. The Quran and Bagivad Gita.
4. Book of Mormon.
3. Atheism.
2. Upanishad
1. Bible
As you can see, Atheists does know some science, but are close minded to the Biblical descriptions.
for this they get an average.
This is obviously my opinion, (as someone that took the time to study it all)
Quote from: Mousetrap on July 24, 2018, 03:16:30 AM
You had a great run in your explanation.....
until....You do not even know it was not the donkey not the bush that spoke!
:cool: :silly:
It's true, and it may have been a ventriloquist standing behind a wall or some other explanation, but the Bible is claimed to be the word of a perfect god.
From Numbers 22:21-39:
30 The donkey said to Balaam, “Am I not your own donkey, which you have always ridden, to this day?â€
I'm not making a claim for or against a talking donkey. The Bible makes the claim. It may be hard for you to grasp, but look at the words, "The donkey said...." "Said" introduces the words of the speaker, and "donkey" identifies the speaker. Not only is this type of nonsense found in the Bible, but it is better suited to a children's book of make believe. In addition, such writing supposedly inspired by an all knowing God wrecks the Bible's credibility as a source of truth.
If you're going to go around preaching or defending nonsense like this to atheist forums, you have to expect people not to take you seriously.
Quote from: Mousetrap on July 24, 2018, 03:26:05 AM
mud balls in space? (https://www.space.com/53-comets-formation-discovery-and-exploration.html)
Comets are
iceballs in space, you moron. You often see them described as "dirty snowballs." Snow as in ice crystals. Solid phase, if that means anything to you.
Quote
And perhaps uou just dont want to accept such a theory which is backed up by science.
why can the Earth not have been a huge dust ball of gas and Ice that melted, if comets are existing in a colder form even today?
Only because you dont like the Biblical connection.
An aggregate of ice and silt ain't mud â€" silt in liquid water. You claimed mud. The ice has to melt before it would separate like that, and you have yet to prove that the physics at the time permits that.
You are using science as a ventriloquist dummy just as much as you use the bible as one. I can still see your lips moving.
Quote from: Draconic Aiur on July 24, 2018, 04:53:20 AM
You do? where?
I'm in the Greater Houston area. Why? You live somewhere nearby?
Quote from: Blackleaf on July 24, 2018, 11:08:58 AM
I'm in the Greater Houston area. Why? You live somewhere nearby?
Eww ... my sympathy ...
BTW - Mousetrap ... scripture, any scripture, is irrelevant ... Zen baby.
Quote
When did 'LIFE" begin?
I'm going to say Tuesday.
Quote from: Blackleaf on July 24, 2018, 11:08:58 AM
I'm in the Greater Houston area. Why? You live somewhere nearby?
That's not South Texas. South Texas is Rio grand valley.
Quote from: Draconic Aiur on July 24, 2018, 04:56:52 PM
That's not South Texas. South Texas is Rio grand valley.
It's pretty far South. The gulf is within driving distance. But yes, Texas is a lot bigger than people tend to think. I once drove twelve hours on vacation and was still in Texas.
Quote from: Baruch on July 21, 2018, 02:21:41 PM
The resulting mustache wouldn't be white in that case, but rather clear and smokey.
Just out of curiosity, how could hair be both clear and smoky at the same time?
Quote from: Cavebear on July 25, 2018, 01:54:13 AM
Just out of curiosity, how could hair be both clear and smoky at the same time?
Ever see smokey quartz? At least that is what scotch brought to mind.
Quote from: Baruch on July 25, 2018, 05:50:41 AM
Ever see smokey quartz? At least that is what scotch brought to mind.
Well, enough scotch and any thought is possible.
Quote from: Cavebear on July 25, 2018, 01:54:13 AM
Just out of curiosity, how could hair be both clear and smoky at the same time?
Sunshade on your windshield.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 25, 2018, 08:27:09 AM
Sunshade on your windshield.
I don't quite get that, either.
Quote from: Cavebear on July 25, 2018, 08:30:26 AM
I don't quite get that, either.
I think he meant in-glass tinting.
Quote from: Cavebear on July 25, 2018, 08:30:26 AM
I don't quite get that, either.
You can get "smokey" film to shield your eyes from the sun, goes across the top of the windshield. The film is smokey and clear.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 25, 2018, 01:18:25 PM
You can get "smokey" film to shield your eyes from the sun, goes across the top of the windshield. The film is smokey and clear.
OOHHH! Sorry, I missed that entirely. And thanks to Baruch too. I just never used that, so it went RIGHT (or Left) over my head...
Quote from: Blackleaf on July 25, 2018, 01:45:29 AM
It's pretty far South. The gulf is within driving distance. But yes, Texas is a lot bigger than people tend to think. I once drove twelve hours on vacation and was still in Texas.
I hitched rides across Texas, so I know just how big it is! I like East Texas a lot, but the west is so dry it gets boring really quickly. When I was a kid we went on a canoe trip 600 miles down the Sabine river. That was a lot easier (and more fun) than cadging rides.
Quote from: Unbeliever on July 25, 2018, 05:28:44 PM
I hitched rides across Texas, so I know just how big it is! I like East Texas a lot, but the west is so dry it gets boring really quickly. When I was a kid we went on a canoe trip 600 miles down the Sabine river. That was a lot easier (and more fun) than cadging rides.
I vited Ft Worth on business once and asked where the cactus were. Oh man I was so embarrassed to learn they were 200 miles away. That was like mistaking Washington DC for NYC. My hosts were kind...
My longest hitchhike is Indianapolis/San Francisco/Indianapolis without stopping anywhere for the night.
I like the way threads like this just devolve into general chit chat :)
That just goes to show how interesting the OP was to us.
Quote from: Jason78 on July 27, 2018, 03:38:30 PM
I like the way threads like this just devolve into general chit chat :)
At least we're not talking about the MCU.
Quote from: Unbeliever on July 27, 2018, 03:53:15 PM
That just goes to show how interesting the OP was to us.
Whatever happened to him?
Oh, I think he/she still pops in here and there. Like anyone cares.
He's busy planning strategy.
Tactics is what you do when there is something to do. Strategy is what you do when there is nothing to do.
panty liner adds scare me.
Quote from: aitm on July 27, 2018, 06:46:28 PM
panty liner adds scare me.
My father and I knew the end of civilization was near, back in 1980, when we first saw a TV advertisement for a douche.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 27, 2018, 05:12:17 PM
At least we're not talking about the MCU.
(https://i.giphy.com/media/l3vR2mv6bOy0Vk1LG/giphy.gif)
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on July 27, 2018, 05:12:40 PM
Whatever happened to him?
Mousetrap is still around trying to find some way to convince himself atheists are all secret theists hiding behind a Satan or something, LOL!
Quote from: Cavebear on August 01, 2018, 05:15:13 AM
Mousetrap is still around trying to find some way to convince himself atheists are all secret theists hiding behind a Satan or something, LOL!
Nope!
I am setting traps all over the site to catch cheezy smelly ones only.
Quote from: Mousetrap on August 01, 2018, 05:18:39 AM
Nope!
I am setting traps all over the site to catch cheezy smelly ones only.
Give it a rest MT.
A few questions...
1. How old is the Earth?
2. How long ago did life start?
3. About how long have humans existed?
4. Did dinosaurs and humans ever live at the same time?
Quote from: Cavebear on August 01, 2018, 05:23:24 AM
Give it a rest MT.
A few questions...
1. How old is the Earth?
2. How long ago did life start?
3. About how long have humans existed?
4. Did dinosaurs and humans ever live at the same time?
1. I think about 4 to 5 Billion years. The universe can also be 12.5 billion years old. But again, If the Sun and Moon did not exist as shining entities, we would not be able to claim that there was measurable time as days and years. (but lets rest that argument.)
2. Life started about 6 000 years ago.
3. Obviously humans are "life" and I said about 6YK.
4. Yes, they did. There are also references to dinos in the Bible.
Quote from: Mousetrap on August 01, 2018, 05:34:06 AM
1. I think about 4 to 5 Billion years. The universe can also be 12.5 billion years old. But again, If the Sun and Moon did not exist as shining entities, we would not be able to claim that there was measurable time as days and years. (but lets rest that argument.)
2. Life started about 6 000 years ago.
3. Obviously humans are "life" and I said about 6YK.
4. Yes, they did. There are also references to dinos in the Bible.
OK...
1.
"If the Sun and Moon did not exist as shining entities, we would not be able to claim that there was measurable time as days and years Time is not measured by the existence of the Sun and the Moon.
2. Life on Earth started about 4.2 Billion years ago. There is scientific evidence.
3. Humans did not exist at the beginning of life on Earth. We are only about 200,000 years old.
4. Dinosaurs existed about 235 million to 66 million years ago. There were no humans around at the time.
Your answers prove you to be a complete fucking idiot. Please go away and leave us sensible people in peace...
Quote from: Cavebear on August 01, 2018, 05:51:44 AM
OK...
1. "If the Sun and Moon did not exist as shining entities, we would not be able to claim that there was measurable time as days and years Time is not measured by the existence of the Sun and the Moon.
Ok, so how long is a day, and a year?
Quote from: Cavebear2. Life on Earth started about 4.2 Billion years ago. There is scientific evidence.
Please supply me with the evidence. My stance is as follow. I know radio Isotope decay tests mineral composition. And I am happy to admit that the chemical formation of the once dead creatures captured in mud, left a cavity filled with old matter. No problem, the fossil will test old. However, radio decay tests will not be the determination on the age of a fossil, but the Strata in whih it was found. So, the age of the rock will be used to determine the date.
Then again, the rocks are dated by index fossils. I will, if you are interested, supply you with evidence where radio decay tests was done on numerous samples on Magma from a volcano eruption 40 years ago, that tests 50 000 years. What about discarding 95 % of rocksamples, and using 3 to determine a certain rock to be 20 000 times older than all the rest of the samples.
Then, Coal contains C14 which places them in less than 30 000 ago, which lies under magma dated to half a million years!
Anyhow, all I demand is that you supply me with evidence that life is older than 6YK.
Quote from: cavebear3. Humans did not exist at the beginning of life on Earth. We are only about 200,000 years old.
and do you know how 200YK was deternined?
C14? Please supply me with the evidence. C14 only proved the Bible true due to it telling us that the atmosphere was not yet in equilibrium in C14 as we have now'
And I love C14 radio isotope discussions. It actually proved to the world that the Egyption and Greek civilisation only came into existance 4 to 4.5 YK ago.
Quote from: Cavebear4. Dinosaurs existed about 235 million to 66 million years ago. There were no humans around at the time.
This is very interesting. Again, how did you date the Fossils?
How is it possible that from the Bone fragments of a Tricepterops, DNA was harvested. DNA lasting for 100 Million years?
I live with dinosaurs. Caelocanths are but just one example.
Archeopterix is described in the Bible as a foul with 4 legs. huge dinosaurs such as stegosaurus in Job, the levatian, or Plesiosaurus, What about the Centrocaurus, or as previous known, Unicorn!
Quote from: CavebearYour answers prove you to be a complete fucking idiot. Please go away and leave us sensible people in peace...
And here rises the true spirit of the atheist again.
Please dont speak to anyone this way.
You were the one who claimed that the Bible was true and atheists mass murderers, not me.
If you perceive that as sensible, I urge you to seek mental help.
This I say as a friend who cares for your mental stability.
I care for you.
Quote from: Mousetrap on August 01, 2018, 06:22:14 AM
Ok, so how long is a day, and a year?
Please supply me with the evidence. My stance is as follow. I know radio Isotope decay tests mineral composition. And I am happy to admit that the chemical formation of the once dead creatures captured in mud, left a cavity filled with old matter. No problem, the fossil will test old. However, radio decay tests will not be the determination on the age of a fossil, but the Strata in whih it was found. So, the age of the rock will be used to determine the date.
Then again, the rocks are dated by index fossils. I will, if you are interested, supply you with evidence where radio decay tests was done on numerous samples on Magma from a volcano eruption 40 years ago, that tests 50 000 years. What about discarding 95 % of rocksamples, and using 3 to determine a certain rock to be 20 000 times older than all the rest of the samples.
Then, Coal contains C14 which places them in less than 30 000 ago, which lies under magma dated to half a million years!
Anyhow, all I demand is that you supply me with evidence that life is older than 6YK.
and do you know how 200YK was deternined?
C14? Please supply me with the evidence. C14 only proved the Bible true due to it telling us that the atmosphere was not yet in equilibrium in C14 as we have now'
And I love C14 radio isotope discussions. It actually proved to the world that the Egyption and Greek civilisation only came into existance 4 to 4.5 YK ago.
4. Dinosaurs existed about 235 million to 66 million years ago. There were no humans around at the time.
This is very interesting. Again, how did you date the Fossils?
How is it possible that from the Bone fragments of a Tricepterops, DNA was harvested. DNA lasting for 100 Million years?
I live with dinosaurs. Caelocanths are but just one example.
Archeopterix is described in the Bible as a foul with 4 legs. huge dinosaurs such as stegosaurus in Job, the levatian, or Plesiosaurus, What about the Centrocaurus, or as previous known, Unicorn!
And here rises the true spirit of the atheist again.
Please dont speak to anyone this way.
You were the one who claimed that the Bible was true and atheists mass murderers, not me.
If you perceive that as sensible, I urge you to seek mental help.
This I say as a friend who cares for your mental stability.
I care for you.
1. On Earth a day is a rotation of the planet and a year is the orbit around the sun.
The rest of your post makes no sense.
Quote from: Cavebear on August 01, 2018, 05:51:44 AM
OK...
I wonder if you realise that the Father of Geology was a guy with the name
Nicola Steno.
He laid down the laws of Stratigraphy and Geology.
This is what he discovered:
1. The law of superposition: "... at the time when any given stratum was being formed, all the matter resting upon it was fluid, and, therefore, at the time when the lower stratum was being formed, none of the upper strata existed";
2. The principle of original horizontality: "Strata either perpendicular to the horizon or inclined to the horizon were at one time parallel to the horizon";
the principle of lateral continuity: "Material forming any stratum were continuous over the surface of the Earth unless some other solid bodies stood in the way"; and
3. The principle of cross-cutting relationships: "If a body or discontinuity cuts across a stratum, it must have formed after that stratum."
Guess what he said was the origins of this Geology we see on the Earth today?
A global flood!
And guess what else?
He was a Christian!
I love the Christian intellect that is able to unravel the work of God in the composition and origins of everything.
Why did the West acieve so much on science in all fields?
Guess what, the fathers of our current science, was all Christian!
They read the Bible.
Come on Atheists, get intellectual...
Read the Bible and become wise!
Quote from: Cavebear on August 01, 2018, 06:29:04 AM
1. On Earth a day is a rotation of the planet and a year is the orbit around the sun.
The rest of your post makes no sense.
Now why did you say science does not measure time with the use of the Sun, Moon and Earth?
Do you see what the Bible says about time?
In the beginning God created the Heavens and Earth, and later on God said, let there be light, and it was evening and morning, the first day!
Therefore, I said, before the first day, we are in an era where Time did not exist as we measure it today, due to the absence of the Sun and Earth that did not exist 12.5 billion years ago at the Big Bang.
So, how does science determine 12.5 Billion years minus 4.5 billion years of absence of the Sun and Earth?
They imagine time.
Well, the Bible is correct again, before the first day, there was zero time, or as the Bible calls it...In the beginning.
If scientists wants to call it imaginary 8 billion years, they are welcome to do just that, it does not contradict the Bible!
Quote from: Mousetrap on August 01, 2018, 07:13:45 AM
Now why do you say science does not measure time with the use of the Sun, Moon and Earth?
Do you see what the Bible says about time?
In the beginning God created the Heavens and Earth, and later on God said, let there be light, and it was evening and morning, the first day!
Therefore, I said, before the first day, we are in an era where Time did not exist as we measure it today, due to the absence of the Sun and Earth that did not exist 12.5 billion years ago at the Big Bang.
So, how does science determine 12.5 Billion years minus 4.5 billion years of absence of the Sun and Earth?
They imagine time.
Well, the Bible is correct again, before the first day, there were zero time, or as the Bible calls it...In the beginning.
If scientists wants to call it imaginary 12 billion years, they are welcome to do just that, it does not contradict the Bible!
Semantic bullshit by all posters. Atomic time doesn't depend on the Sun or the Earth. It is objective, human impressions of day/night are subjective.
Quote from: Mousetrap on August 01, 2018, 07:05:27 AM
I wonder if you realise that the Father of Geology was a guy with the name Nicola Steno.
He laid down the laws of Stratigraphy and Geology.
This is what he discovered:
1. The law of superposition: "... at the time when any given stratum was being formed, all the matter resting upon it was fluid, and, therefore, at the time when the lower stratum was being formed, none of the upper strata existed";
2. The principle of original horizontality: "Strata either perpendicular to the horizon or inclined to the horizon were at one time parallel to the horizon";
the principle of lateral continuity: "Material forming any stratum were continuous over the surface of the Earth unless some other solid bodies stood in the way"; and
3. The principle of cross-cutting relationships: "If a body or discontinuity cuts across a stratum, it must have formed after that stratum."
Guess what he said was the origins of this Geology we see on the Earth today?
A global flood!
And guess what else?
He was a Christian!
I love the Christian intellect that is able to unravel the work of God in the composition and origins of everything.
Why did the West acieve so much on science in all fields?
Guess what, the fathers of our current science, was all Christian!
They read the Bible.
Come on Atheists, get intellectual...
Read the Bible and become wise!
"Born to a Lutheran family, Steno converted to Catholicism in 1667. After his conversion, his interest for natural sciences rapidly waned giving way to his interest in theology." I didn't see anything there about "a global flood" I might have missed it.
As for the rest, how nice, you just quoted Wikipedia at us. But added stuff in your mind about religion.
Science does not measure time by the Earth Moon or Sun. We on Earth do because it is convenient, but that isn't science.
Quote
Guess what he said was the origins of this Geology we see on the Earth today?
A global flood!
So what if he did? He's wrong. Where are the worldwide deluvial deposits we expect to see in a global flood?
Quote
Come on Atheists, get intellectual...
Read the Bible and become wise!
Lots of us have already read the bible. It contains very little wisdom.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on August 01, 2018, 07:56:44 PM
So what if he did? He's wrong. Where are the worldwide deluvial deposits we expect to see in a global flood?
Lots of us have already read the bible. It contains very little wisdom.
Fiction, not fact. Wisdom is knowing the difference. Fact isn't wisdom.
Quote from: Baruch on August 01, 2018, 07:58:13 PM
Fiction, not fact. Wisdom is knowing the difference. Fact isn't wisdom.
Understanding that a fact is really a fact and not rejecting it because it does not fit one's 'beliefs' is wisdom.
Quote from: Mike Cl on August 01, 2018, 08:16:35 PM
Understanding that a fact is really a fact and not rejecting it because it does not fit one's 'beliefs' is wisdom.
You didn't pass English did you? The color red is the same as the color green, Big Brother says so. What you are describing is "smart" ... all synonyms don't equal each other. Smart is good, but it is nowhere near wisdom. Smart is knowing how to determine the caloric value of a bowl of cereal. Wisdom is knowing not to eat Count Chocula.
Quote from: Baruch on August 01, 2018, 08:28:09 PM
You didn't pass English did you? The color red is the same as the color green, Big Brother says so. What you are describing is "smart" ... all synonyms don't equal each other. Smart is good, but it is nowhere near wisdom. Smart is knowing how to determine the caloric value of a bowl of cereal. Wisdom is knowing not to eat Count Chocula.
Well, for me, all too often, red and green are alike--red/green color blind. Only 2nd grader to flunk coloring, I think. And the wisdom of knowing not to each Count Chocula is based on all the facts about that cereal that we are aware of.
Quote from: Mousetrap on August 01, 2018, 05:34:06 AM
1. I think about 4 to 5 Billion years. The universe can also be 12.5 billion years old. But again, If the Sun and Moon did not exist as shining entities, we would not be able to claim that there was measurable time as days and years. (but lets rest that argument.)
2. Life started about 6 000 years ago.
3. Obviously humans are "life" and I said about 6YK.
~4.5 billion years ago: Earth formed
~4.5 billion years ago to ~6000 years ago: barren planet devoid of life
~6000 years ago: strolomites, anomalocaris. Also, people.
Sounds legit.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on August 01, 2018, 07:56:44 PM
Lots of us have already read the bible.
And that is probably the main reason we have atheists in this world.
Quote from: Mike Cl on August 01, 2018, 10:45:51 PM
Well, for me, all too often, red and green are alike--red/green color blind. Only 2nd grader to flunk coloring, I think. And the wisdom of knowing not to each Count Chocula is based on all the facts about that cereal that we are aware of.
Claiming to be smart? Demonstrated it? And you do with NT history. But your handicap (we all have them) has a tremendous influence over the whole of your life directly and indirectly. Known facts? Did you take a calorimeter and do the measurement, or just trust some damned authority? No wisdom in that.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on August 02, 2018, 06:13:46 AM
And that is probably the main reason we have atheists in this world.
Bible reading sometimes produces ex-Christians ... not the same as X-something else, or never religious. Most Christians never read the Bible.
For me the Bible is literature, i wasn't expecting Santa Claus from it. So no disappointment to over-compensate for.
Quote from: Baruch on August 01, 2018, 07:15:01 AM
Semantic bullshit by all posters. Atomic time doesn't depend on the Sun or the Earth. It is objective, human impressions of day/night are subjective.
Realy, after all those nice posts you come and ruin the relationship.
Now lets see how determining time works.
What is a day?
Uhmmm, this is from sundown to sundown the next day, roughly where the sun shines on the earth, and as the Earth moves on its' axis, to when the sun shines on that spot again.
OK, so what is an Hour?
Uhmmm, lets divide the day up into 24 hours.
Uhmmm, what is a minute.
Ok, lets divide the hour in 60.
But, what is a second?
Lets divide the Minute in 60.
Well done, but what is a year?
Well, it is when the position of the Earth when reaches the point as it traveled around the sun to its starting point, plus the extra distance as it has to gain to catch up on the advance of the Sun.
Lets measure it about 365 and one quorter of a day.
OK, but this means the Day is shorter than 24 Hours.
No problem, we will accept it as 24 Hours, but will add an additional day every 4 years.
Ok, so how do we measure Time.
Well, we started to build water clocks, sun dials, but this was cumbersome, and we built mechanical clocks, then watches then chronographs, then electronic watches and so on.
Wow, so does this mean we can use it to measure very long periods of Time accurately, say one, five, or even 10 years?
Nope, it was not that accurate, but what we did do was to built atomic clocks, and it can measure billionths of a part of seconds accurately over millions of years!
Nice, so how does it work?
Well, they built a clock using cesium and microwaves and vibrate it with certain frequencies, and use that as a second. Some huge numbers are involved.
Something like 10 thousand million vibrations makes up a second.
Wait, wait...how did they determine the length of a second?
Uh.....?
I think it comes from the age old measurement where we measured the position of the Earth and Sun...
Quote from: Baruch on August 02, 2018, 06:23:18 AM
Bible reading sometimes produces ex-Christians ... not the same as X-something else, or never religious. Most Christians never read the Bible.
For me the Bible is literature, i wasn't expecting Santa Claus from it. So no disappointment to over-compensate for.
The Bible was never intended to be literature. The Bible was and is sold as a divine truth and taken as fact in the circular reasoning used to prove something about the divine. It doesn't make any difference what your expectations are before you read it. When you understand that most of it is flat out wrong, fabricated lying, and unadulterated bullshit, it points the way to atheism. But in my mind, we're not really there yet.
Some might stop right there and say they are atheists, but I don't think forum members here do that. Atheism is only partly about the Bible being a myth. If you apply the same skepticism to all other religions, supernatural beliefs, conspiracy theories, etc., as I believe people here do, you come to having no belief in any god. That's hardly an over-compensation.
I think you allowed yourself to take some liberty with the term "over-compensation", because you were having fun using it to elevate your own beliefs, not because it was appropriate.
Quote from: SGOS on August 02, 2018, 07:35:14 AM
The Bible was never intended to be literature. The Bible was and is sold as a divine truth and taken as fact in the circular reasoning used to prove something about the divine. It doesn't make any difference what your expectations are before you read it. When you understand that most of it is flat out wrong, fabricated lying, and unadulterated bullshit, it points the way to atheism. But in my mind, we're not really there yet.
Some might stop right there and say they are atheists, but I don't think forum members here do that. Atheism is only partly about the Bible being a myth. If you apply the same skepticism to all other religions, supernatural beliefs, conspiracy theories, etc., as I believe people here do, you come to having no belief in any god. That's hardly an over-compensation.
I think you allowed yourself to take some liberty with the term "over-compensation", because you were having fun using it to elevate your own beliefs, not because it was appropriate.
The Science was never intended to be literature. Atheism was and is sold as a divine truth and taken as fact in the circular reasoning used to prove absence of the divine. It doesn't make any difference what your expectations are before you claim it. When you understand that most of it is flat out wrong, fabricated lying, and unadulterated bullshit, it points the way to Theism. But in my mind, we are really there.
Some might stop right there and say they are theists, but I don't think forum members here do that. Atheism is only everything about the Bible being a myth. If you apply the same skepticism to Atheism, supernatural beliefs, conspiracy theories, etc., as I believe people here do, you come to having no belief in any atheist. That's hardly an over-compensation.
I think you allowed yourself to take some liberty with the term "under-compensation", because you were having fun using it to elevate your own beliefs, not because it was appropriate, but because atheism is a religion atheists want to deny.
How's this for trolling the troll.
Quote from: Baruch on August 02, 2018, 06:20:30 AM
Did you take a calorimeter and do the measurement, or just trust some damned authority? No wisdom in that.
Ah, but that is a full demonstration of wisdom. I cannot be an expert in everything. But there are people who are expert at virtually everything. So, do I strive to know everything? Not possible and would drive me and all around me crazy. What to do? Find an expert in whatever I need an expert in. Find out what that expert thinks about said subject. Then find out what his peers say. Do they agree or mostly agree? If so, then good to go for testing it for myself. If they disagree, where and why. Being smart means I know what most of the books of a library say and mean. Having wisdom is knowing how to use a library so I can learn what I need when I need it.
Quote from: Mousetrap on August 02, 2018, 08:46:23 AM
The Science was never intended to be literature. Atheism was and is sold as a divine truth and taken as fact in the circular reasoning used to prove absence of the divine. It doesn't make any difference what your expectations are before you claim it. When you understand that most of it is flat out wrong, fabricated lying, and unadulterated bullshit, it points the way to Theism. But in my mind, we are really there.
Some might stop right there and say they are theists, but I don't think forum members here do that. Atheism is only everything about the Bible being a myth. If you apply the same skepticism to Atheism, supernatural beliefs, conspiracy theories, etc., as I believe people here do, you come to having no belief in any atheist. That's hardly an over-compensation.
I think you allowed yourself to take some liberty with the term "under-compensation", because you were having fun using it to elevate your own beliefs, not because it was appropriate, but because atheism is a religion atheists want to deny.
How's this for trolling the troll.
You misunderstand:
Quote from: Mousetrap on August 02, 2018, 08:46:23 AM
Atheism was and is sold as a divine truth.
False. Atheism only ignores religion's central premise.
Quote from: Mousetrap on August 02, 2018, 08:46:23 AM
and taken as fact.
False. Atheism is not a fact. It is a lack of belief.
Quote from: SGOS on August 02, 2018, 07:35:14 AM
The Bible was never intended to be literature. The Bible was and is sold as a divine truth and taken as fact in the circular reasoning used to prove something about the divine. It doesn't make any difference what your expectations are before you read it. When you understand that most of it is flat out wrong, fabricated lying, and unadulterated bullshit, it points the way to atheism. But in my mind, we're not really there yet.
Some might stop right there and say they are atheists, but I don't think forum members here do that. Atheism is only partly about the Bible being a myth. If you apply the same skepticism to all other religions, supernatural beliefs, conspiracy theories, etc., as I believe people here do, you come to having no belief in any god. That's hardly an over-compensation.
I think you allowed yourself to take some liberty with the term "over-compensation", because you were having fun using it to elevate your own beliefs, not because it was appropriate.
For which, being irreligious, you should be stoned or burned. Clearly antisocial behavior should be punished (if you accept this premise).
Pagan Gentiles read Jewish writings, as literature ... because they weren't Jews. What you said only applied to Jews. For Jews it is the Law. Gentiles are not under the Law (see Paul). It only became Gentile law because of Constantine. If you don't like it, don't support Western Civilization, which is based on Greco-Roman paganism and Jewish-Christian monotheism. Sophists and other disruptors of society get hemlock.
I would be under Jewish law, as a Jew, if I wasn't a heretic. Gentiles don't have to follow any religious law at all.
Quote from: Mike Cl on August 02, 2018, 08:54:52 AM
Ah, but that is a full demonstration of wisdom. I cannot be an expert in everything. But there are people who are expert at virtually everything. So, do I strive to know everything? Not possible and would drive me and all around me crazy. What to do? Find an expert in whatever I need an expert in. Find out what that expert thinks about said subject. Then find out what his peers say. Do they agree or mostly agree? If so, then good to go for testing it for myself. If they disagree, where and why. Being smart means I know what most of the books of a library say and mean. Having wisdom is knowing how to use a library so I can learn what I need when I need it.
Expertise isn't wisdom either. See, just semantic poo tossing. And wisdom isn't burning down the library because you don't like books.
Quote from: Baruch on August 02, 2018, 01:04:57 PM
Expertise isn't wisdom either. See, just semantic poo tossing. And wisdom isn't burning down the library because you don't like books.
I see. You like your wisdom served with a twist of theism. Not a problem. :cool:
Quote from: Mike Cl on August 02, 2018, 02:00:33 PM
I see. You like your wisdom served with a twist of theism. Not a problem. :cool:
Some ancestors were limeys ;-) That kind of twist?
All measurement units are things of man. Yes, even years and days. Even deciding where a day or year begins and ends is an arbitrary decision. That either is decided the way they are makes them convenient, not absolute.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on August 02, 2018, 07:46:43 PM
All measurement units are things of man. Yes, even years and days. Even deciding where a day or year begins and ends is an arbitrary decision. That either is decided the way they are makes them convenient, not absolute.
Took a lot of technology to get a good clock. But the Anti-Kythera mechanism was a good start (sidereal time calculator).
Quote from: Mousetrap on August 01, 2018, 07:05:27 AM
Read the Bible and become wise!
Read without prejudice the babble is a book that presents a complete bumbling, incompetent, petty, jealous, angry and mostly useless god. Maybe you should try to find one that, you know.....actually does god stuff.
Quote from: aitm on August 02, 2018, 07:59:02 PM
Read without prejudice the babble is a book that presents a complete bumbling, incompetent, petty, jealous, angry and mostly useless god. Maybe you should try to find one that, you know.....actually does god stuff.
At least Zeus got some good sex in.
That is exactly the point GIA was making months ago.
Quote from: aitm on August 02, 2018, 07:59:02 PM
Maybe you should try to find one that, you know.....actually does god stuff.
One that actually does anything.
Quote from: SGOS on August 02, 2018, 08:42:42 PM
One that actually does anything.
That is the problem with passive-aggressive deities ;-) You don't want to see the aggressive side.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on August 01, 2018, 07:56:44 PM
Lots of us have already read the bible. It contains very little wisdom.
And it contains a lot of reasons to not merely set it aside but to hurl it away with great force (with all due respect to Dorothy Parker).
Quote from: trdsf on August 03, 2018, 10:32:19 AM
And it contains a lot of reasons to not merely set it aside but to hurl it away with great force (with all due respect to Dorothy Parker).
What about Being & Nothingness by Sartre? Are you or aren't you, that is the question?
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on August 02, 2018, 07:46:43 PM
All measurement units are things of man. Yes, even years and days. Even deciding where a day or year begins and ends is an arbitrary decision. That either is decided the way they are makes them convenient, not absolute.
Mmmm, partly. There are good reasons to use a particular astronomical observation to mark a point to use as a start or end of a period, although there are multiple observations to choose from. But it's more sensible for a proto-civilization to settle on starting a year at a solstice or equinox rather than any arbitrary day, simply because it's an observation that's easy to make and recognize, and as we know from Stonehenge and the Stone Dagger (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fajada_Butte#Sun_Dagger_site) and other archaeoastronomical sites they're easy to keep track of without much investment in even primitive technology.
So why doesn't the Western calendar start on a solstice or equinox? Well, it kind of does. The Julian calendar replaced an earlier ten month lunar calendar, which is why the last four months of the year are named Septem(7)ber, Octo(8)ber, Novem(9)ber and Decem(10)ber rather than November, December, Undecember and Dodecember. A ten mo(o)nth lunar calendar is 295 days or thereabouts, so they added days between the end of December and the beginning of the year (the spring equinox).
Now, the equinox remained the start of the year, and the day that new politicians took office... until a later Roman ruler decided that if the start of the year was the Calends of January (Jan 1), his cronies could take office sooner. However, not everyone signed on to that, and in various Western cultures the new year was variously celebrated also on December 25, March 1 and March 25.
When the Gregorian calendar was put into place, it set Jan 1 as the beginning of the year and that settled it.
Why is January 1
almost the solstice, then? It was decided the first new moon following the winter solstice would be the first of the new days added in the switchover from lunar to solar calendars. So, a combination of astronomical observation and practical politics. Arbitrary, but with a hidden basis in simple observations.
The Roman calendar was particularly incompetent, even with the Julian reform. And March 1 was the start of the year, not January 1.
Quote from: Baruch on August 01, 2018, 07:58:13 PM
Fiction, not fact. Wisdom is knowing the difference. Fact isn't wisdom.
Data to fact to knowledge to wisdom... It's progression.
Quote from: Cavebear on August 04, 2018, 02:56:59 AM
Data to fact to knowledge to wisdom... It's progression.
Correct, you, MikeCL and I agree. But they aren't the same. Like my toe bone is ultimately connected to my head bone, but my brain isn't in my toe.
For some people facts are enough. Knowledge, understanding and wisdom are too much work. They are like Egyptian mathematicians, they had useful examples of right triangles, but no universal formula. In Egypt they had the facts (workers) and the written knowledge (priests). Giving credit, Pythagoras was the first one to understand it. But his wisdom was that all things are number, whole numbers (no zero). He failed at that point. We still haven't gotten more wisdom than Pythagoras' failure, nore that of Democritus (atomism). Meanwhile Homer is there laughing at you rationalists and materialists.
You know, it occurs to me that the half-life of a neutron (about ten minutes) would make a convenient unit of measurement of time for humans, and is completely divorced from the Earth's day and year; it would be practical if we didn't already have a fine unit for measuring time already. Plus, it's hard to get to a civilization capable of discovering that there are neutrons to have half-lives to begin with, as well as having any clue about what a half-life is, without having a convenient unit for time.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on August 05, 2018, 07:52:01 PM
You know, it occurs to me that the half-life of a neutron (about ten minutes) would make a convenient unit of measurement of time for humans, and is completely divorced from the Earth's day and year; it would be practical if we didn't already have a fine unit for measuring time already. Plus, it's hard to get to a civilization capable of discovering that there are neutrons to have half-lives to begin with, as well as having any clue about what a half-life is, without having a convenient unit for time.
I've always been partial to redefining distances in terms of the light-nanosecond, which is very nearly a foot (11.803"), or 29.98cm. So, a decimalized light-foot separated into ten light-decifeet (1
5/
32"), further separated into ten light-centifeet. And of course you have a light-microsecond, which is about a fifth of a mile or a third of a kilometer.
EDIT: I forgot to mention that since it was Admiral Grace Hopper who popularized the light-nanosecond as a unit of measure, that unit should of course be called a 'hopper'. So, decihoppers, centihoppers, kilohoppers, megahoppers, gigahoppers (which would be one second/one lightyear)...
Quote from: trdsf on August 06, 2018, 01:34:51 AM
EDIT: I forgot to mention that since it was Admiral Grace Hopper who popularized the light-nanosecond as a unit of measure, that unit should of course be called a 'hopper'. So, decihoppers, centihoppers, kilohoppers, megahoppers, gigahoppers (which would be one second/one lightyear)...
It's good his name wasn't Peter, or we could be measuring things in centipeters. That could be confusing.
Quote from: trdsf on August 06, 2018, 01:34:51 AM
EDIT: I forgot to mention that since it was Admiral Grace Hopper who popularized the light-nanosecond as a unit of measure, that unit should of course be called a 'hopper'. So, decihoppers, centihoppers, kilohoppers, megahoppers, gigahoppers (which would be one second/one lightyear)...
She used to pass out nanoseconds at lectures.
And to David Letterman:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-vcErOPofQ
(https://scientistsforjesus.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/evolution.jpg)
Quote from: trdsf on August 07, 2018, 01:13:03 AM
And to David Letterman:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-vcErOPofQ
What a delightful old lady!
Quote from: SGOS on August 07, 2018, 09:19:01 AM
What a delightful old lady!
She's definitely on the list of people I would have loved to have sat down and had a beer/scotch/wine/iced tea (as appropriate) with.
Quote from: Mousetrap on August 07, 2018, 08:58:00 AM
(https://scientistsforjesus.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/evolution.jpg)
I love how creationists vacillate between "abiogenesis would disprove creation; abiogenesis is impossible" and "abiogenesis is possible, but it's proof of
a creator god". Heads, I win. Tails, I win.
(https://78.media.tumblr.com/86fd8dc88e211be58de008ddcd7eefc0/tumblr_n9yg3dRBGG1r7qpeho1_500.jpg)
Quote from: Cavebear on August 04, 2018, 02:56:59 AM
Data to fact to knowledge to wisdom... It's progression.
On the other hand, no. There is no progress, no wisdom. And you skipped ... understanding. That was a feature, not a bug.
Quote from: Hydra009 on August 07, 2018, 12:24:40 PM
I love how creationists vacillate between "abiogenesis would disprove creation; abiogenesis is impossible" and "abiogenesis is possible, but it's proof of a creator god". Heads, I win. Tails, I win.
Same with fine tuning. They want both prongs of the argument when they can only have one. Greedy bastards.
Quote from: Hydra009 on August 07, 2018, 12:24:40 PM
I love how creationists vacillate between "abiogenesis would disprove creation; abiogenesis is impossible" and "abiogenesis is possible, but it's proof of a creator god". Heads, I win. Tails, I win.
(https://78.media.tumblr.com/86fd8dc88e211be58de008ddcd7eefc0/tumblr_n9yg3dRBGG1r7qpeho1_500.jpg)
Dont do that!
I sat down here looking for some indication that there are2 types of Genesis' and I could not get what you were talking about, until I understood that you say that the cartoon character will say that the origins of life does not need intelligence to kick off, so to say.
But that Creationists butter their bread on both sides, with a claim that even if life can be created spontaneous, or it it needs intelligence, they are busy with trickery, heads, or tails, they win.
This is deeeeep!!!!
I never even thought if it in this way.
All I saw was a funny joke where the cartoon character was actually claiming that HE WAS NOT INTELLIGENT.
Come on man, laugh a little bit.
What do you think of my meme on the human mind?
Quote from: Mousetrap on August 08, 2018, 09:20:00 AM
All I saw was a funny joke where the cartoon character was actually claiming that HE WAS NOT INTELLIGENT.
Come on man, laugh a little bit.
If that was the intent, it was poorly communicated. This may be a part of your problem.
All humor has to have an element of truth to it. As such, your cartoon only has humor if you take it as ironic creationist stupidity.
Scientists, you see, aren't stupid and realize that they are intelligent. Their experiments in abiogenesis is not to create life and therefore prove life was uncreated, but to investigate the pathways that may have lead to life arising spontaneously and assess the plausibility of such pathways being taken without intelligent intervention.
Quote from: Mousetrap on August 08, 2018, 09:20:00 AM
This is deeeeep!!!!
I never even thought if it in this way.
All I saw was a funny joke where the cartoon character was actually claiming that HE WAS NOT INTELLIGENT.
Come on man, laugh a little bit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTwzOlWDVMw
Quote from: Hydra009 on August 08, 2018, 12:06:14 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTwzOlWDVMw
That is from "Dr. Horrible's Sing Along Blog," a fun escapade but somewhat of a head scratcher. I only posted this so I might gain a reputation as a connoisseur of the obscure. I would recommend watching this film two hours after taking a hit of LSD.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on August 08, 2018, 09:02:15 AM
Same with fine tuning. They want both prongs of the argument when they can only have one. Greedy bastards.
Yeah, and an Omni-max God would not need to fine tune the universal parameters, he'd just magic everything to work just right, without any need for natural laws.
Also, the universe is fine-tuned in the same way that if a branch falls and makes a dime-sized hole in the screen in your window, you'll find insects inside that measure less than 18mm in at least two dimensions. It's a miracle! That hole was meant to be there so those bugs could get in, all praise the almighty branch!
Now, if you had a raccoon in there, that might indicate something special. Or it might just indicate a larger hole that wasn't noticed before. Or that the screen can be swung open from the bottom.
Fine-tuning claims are nothing more than a cosmological post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. All we can infer from the state of the universe is that it permits regions in which we are possible, no more. Certainly not necessary.
Quote from: Mousetrap on August 08, 2018, 09:22:46 AM
What do you think of my meme on the human mind?
About like thinking a butterfly caterpillar becomes a frog.
Quote from: Cavebear on August 09, 2018, 05:04:31 AM
About like thinking a butterfly caterpillar becomes a frog.
What, more parallel universe theory?
It's funny to read a thread where Baruch sounds like the sane voice of reason! :D
Quote from: Jason78 on August 09, 2018, 12:42:22 PM
It's funny to read a thread where Baruch sounds like the sane voice of reason! :D
But I am ;-)
Quote from: trdsf on August 08, 2018, 04:12:27 PM
Also, the universe is fine-tuned in the same way that if a branch falls and makes a dime-sized hole in the screen in your window, you'll find insects inside that measure less than 18mm in at least two dimensions. It's a miracle! That hole was meant to be there so those bugs could get in, all praise the almighty branch!
Now, if you had a raccoon in there, that might indicate something special. Or it might just indicate a larger hole that wasn't noticed before. Or that the screen can be swung open from the bottom.
Fine-tuning claims are nothing more than a cosmological post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. All we can infer from the state of the universe is that it permits regions in which we are possible, no more. Certainly not necessary.
Nice description of the difference between intent and happenstance
Quote from: Cavebear on August 12, 2018, 05:46:05 AM
Nice description of the difference between intent and happenstance
That is the boundary, explored in Twilight Zone, between materialism and personalism.