Creationists, please explain: Noah and the Moa!

reply to post by Agree2Disagree


Please, provide evidence that these are actual issues. Please show me evidence in peer-reviewed scientific literature that radiometric techniques are unreliable.


You're saying these are issues, but I'm not going to take you at your word. I could say that the biggest issue with the Bible is the homosexual orgy that takes place in the book of Matthew, but I'd actually have to cite chapter and verse to prove that such a passage actually exists (which it clearly doesn't). I'd like to see evidence that these are really issues before I search through the literature myself.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
All Im saying is that I believe it took an intelligence to create the universe and everything in it.

Well, you can believe that all you want but you have no evidence to support that belief, and it's a silly belief in the first place.

Im not trying to use science to prove God exists.... I mean does one need to be a scientist to be able to look at a complex machine and say it took pre-existing intelligence to produce it.

*facepalm* No, but we also don't need to be scientists to realize that a bush wasn't created by a pre-existing intelligence. Why? Because you can differentiate a bush from a pocket watch for a reason.

Our computers, for example, is a complex machine which has different parts working together, all controlled by a non-material information code...

Non-material? I'm sorry, but since when does a computer have a supernatural component? Digital information is still material.

Apply the same logic to a living being (again different parts working together with an underlying "code", the DNA.) and its obvious that complexity on such a scale would have required a pre-existing intelligence to create it.

You're using the logical fallacy of false analogy. There is no good reason to treat the natural world as analogous to man-made objects.

Unless someone can show me a real time example of something creating itself from scratch I wont be letting go of this view.

So your idea of an argument is to present a straw man and then say that unless that straw man is proven true you won't change your mind? I'm sorry, but the logical fallacy sensors are going off all up in this thread.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


Nope, evolution of the gaps isn't allowed. Evolution is a science and has to undergo scientific rigor. You can't explain the wave/particle duality with evolution because people would laugh you out of the scientific community.

How do you expect anyone to know this ?

Mankind dosn't remember where he comes from. Absolutly knows nothing of why he is here and damn sure dosn't know where he's even going. All because of the flood. Our species has amnesia. That amnesia is evidence. You're going to be waiting for your answer, but it will come.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


Are you serious?

How can human beings understand everything there is to know, if were inherently finite creatures?

How can we know, or understand, a paradoxical idea like a wave and a particle, both being at the same time?

Thats impossible. There is a point where man has to understand, that he doesnt understand. That science can help us understand the physical world, but not everything about the physical world.

Gravity for instance is the great mystery of physics. Who knows, maybe one day we will understand. Maybe we have the tools needed to understand, but nonentheless, there is a qualitative aspect to life which cant be understood through science.

Science will thus take a back seat to philosophy/religion, where it deserves to be..

reply to post by randyvs


What? How does your circular argument prove a damn thing? Yes, it's a circle.

Humans don't know where they came from -> the flood caused people to have amnesia -> humans don't know where they came from...

You do realize that we have hard, empirical evidence that contradicts every single possible account of a global deluge, right?

reply to post by dontreally

Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by sk0rpi0n

 

Are you serious?

How can human beings understand everything there is to know, if were inherently finite creatures?

Well, there are nearly 7 billion of us and there aren't too many things worth knowing. There is also a finite amount of knowledge in the universe...but some of the things (like F=ma) are a lot more valuable than knowing something akin to the position of a specific iron atom on Mars.

How can we know, or understand, a paradoxical idea like a wave and a particle, both being at the same time?

We're actually working on that one...but I'm not a theoretical physicist...

Thats impossible. There is a point where man has to understand, that he doesnt understand. That science can help us understand the physical world, but not everything about the physical world.

If you want to be defeatist about it. Everyone who says that we have to accept not knowing something has been proven wrong. Even Newton put forth the idea that we wouldn't be able to sort out the gravitational interactions between a planet, its moon, and the sun...yet he should have been able to figure that one out himself. Hell, I can do the math on that one and I'm not half the mathematician he was.

Gravity for instance is the great mystery of physics.

Great mystery? I thought that would have been the Higgs-Boson. And we know quite a bit about gravity and we have some plausible theories about its cause.

Who knows, maybe one day we will understand. Maybe we have the tools needed to understand, but nonentheless, there is a qualitative aspect to life which cant be understood through science.

Or there isn't...I mean, sure there are subjective things that don't really have a point, but science as a guide is useful there. Just apply reason to forehead.

Science will thus take a back seat to philosophy/religion, where it deserves to be..

Do not equate the grand project of the use of reason to something as profane as religion. Religion is in no way equivalent to philosophy.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

We're actually working on that one...but I'm not a theoretical physicist...

So, were working on understanding paradoxes? This can be mathematically resolved? I believe it Georg Cantor who went completely insane trying to understand transinfinite numbers. I dont think the human mind is capable of knowing all of G-ds secrets; as the Torah says regarding Adam "He made him a little less than G-d". Meaning, we can never be the ininite. Right now, we conjecture the age of the universe as 15 billions years, by measuring background radiation. Do you have any clue how ridiculously small we are relative to the universe? You think it is possible for us to know anything, outside the little pin tip of a pintip to the power a million million, where live? Have some freaking humility man. I dont doubt that man can understand a great deal about G-d. But i do not subscribe to the arrogant gnostic notion that we inform G-d, and therefore are destined to know it all.

Great mystery? I thought that would have been the Higgs-Boson. And we know quite a bit about gravity and we have some plausible theories about its cause.

Here you go again, pretending to be an authority on every single subject you talk about.

Im actually quoting Gerald Schroeder - a physicist, on this one. Also, Aryeh Kaplan (an accomplished physicist himself) makes a similar assertion in his Sefer Yetzirah (which discusses the relationship between kabbalah and science). There are 4 fundamental forces. We have developed theories, which have become laws for electro-magnetism, weak nuclear force, and strong nuclear force.

We may have a basic understanding that gravity causes things to fall, but we do not know why. The LHC is apparently designed to help figure this out.

Just apply reason to forehead.

Dont know what that expression means.

In anycase, quality and quantity are two separate subjects. Science, being a study of quantities, cannot help 'inform' us on quality. Its actually the other way around.

There are those who can twist any scientific idea and give it meaning in any philosophical context they want.

I agree that science can supplement religion, but science can never be, unless we want a brave-new-world future, a new religion.

Religion is in no way equivalent to philosophy.

Religion actually means "a reverence for that which is sacred". Philosophy, is the process of understanding that which is sacred.

You cannot honestly believe, although in your ignorance you actually do, that any religion is separate from a philosophy.

The Bible has its philosophy.

The Bhagavad Gita has its philosophy. How come you are willing to accept, the Bhagavad Gita as being allegory, but not the bible?

It doesnt make sense.

For instance, the great epics of Greek literature, Hesiods theogony and homers Illiad, is ALSO allegory, as crazy as that may sound. Many of platos stories, are allegory.

The myths of the ancients (rightly called philosophers) are aswell philosophy couched in metaphorical language.

What do you think a centaur means? and why Machiavelli suggests that a prince imitate one?

The problem with this discussion, which is so 'esoteric' is that people like you lie, and therefore prevent open discussion about these things, although they certainly deserve being discussed.

reply to post by dontreally

Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

We're actually working on that one...but I'm not a theoretical physicist...

So, were working on understanding paradoxes?

It's not necessarily a paradox, it appears to be one.

This can be mathematically resolved?

Possibly. I don't know, not my field of study. I do know that people are working on resolving wave/particle duality as well as a whole host of incredibly complex problems.

I believe it Georg Cantor who went completely insane trying to understand transinfinite numbers.

And the red herring...what does that have to do with anything? So the guy went insane abstracting, so what? We're talking about the flood myth.

I dont think the human mind is capable of knowing all of G-ds secrets; as the Torah says regarding Adam "He made him a little less than G-d".

Citation needed on that one...

Meaning, we can never be the ininite.

Why are you claiming that a being that lost a wrestling match to a guy named Jacob (after cheating no less) is infinite?

Right now, we conjecture the age of the universe as 15 billions years, by measuring background radiation.

13.7....

Do you have any clue how ridiculously small we are relative to the universe?

Why yes, I do. Hell, I'm aware how ridiculously small I am in comparison to a sky scraper, let alone to the sun or something as massive as a galaxy. Nikon even put out this handy dandy tool that helps people wrap their heads around this sort of thing.

You think it is possible for us to know anything, outside the little pin tip of a pintip to the power a million million, where live? Have some freaking humility man.

Um... F=ma
Didn't I already bring that one up? It's a universally applicable piece of information. E=mc^2 (or E=mcc). There are all sorts of pieces of information that are more useful than other pieces of information. Knowing anything about the laws of physics is more valuable than knowing the position of every single grain of material on Mars.

I dont doubt that man can understand a great deal about G-d. But i do not subscribe to the arrogant gnostic notion that we inform G-d, and therefore are destined to know it all.

I doubt the existence of such a posited being as there has been no proof of aforementioned beings existence.

Great mystery? I thought that would have been the Higgs-Boson. And we know quite a bit about gravity and we have some plausible theories about its cause.

Here you go again, pretending to be an authority on every single subject you talk about.

Here you go again, throwing words into my mouth...
I'm not an authority. Hell, the first thing you quoted me on was me stating that it's not my field. I'm not an authority, but I do know enough from casual interest in science to know that gravity is far from the great mystery of physics.

Im actually quoting Gerald Schroeder - a physicist, on this one.

Hey look, an argument from authority. Logical fallacy.

Also, Aryeh Kaplan (an accomplished physicist himself) makes a similar assertion in his Sefer Yetzirah (which discusses the relationship between kabbalah and science).

You mean the relationship where kabbalah is meaningless tripe and science is useful to humanity? Oh, and argument from authority again. You know, my dad is an accomplished physicist, can I make him say whatever I want to shut you up?

There are 4 fundamental forces. We have developed theories, which have become laws for electro-magnetism, weak nuclear force, and strong nuclear force.

Wow, you're aware of introductory physics.

We may have a basic understanding that gravity causes things to fall, but we do not know why. The LHC is apparently designed to help figure this out.

Says the person skipping over the entirety of the works of Einstein. Einsteinian physics did a lot to help us understand gravity and resolve the problems of Newtonian physics in the realms of the incredibly massive and the incredibly fast.

Just apply reason to forehead.

Dont know what that expression means.

It was a piece of advice.

In anycase, quality and quantity are two separate subjects. Science, being a study of quantities, cannot help 'inform' us on quality. Its actually the other way around.

Science doesn't deal with quality? I'm sorry, but you can do qualitative scientific research...or did you fall asleep during middle school science?

There are those who can twist any scientific idea and give it meaning in any philosophical context they want.

Yes, which is what you do with kabbalah. It's good to admit you have a problem.

I agree that science can supplement religion, but science can never be, unless we want a brave-new-world future, a new religion.

Science can only supplement religion when science is distorted and robbed of meaning. Religion has no purpose for our lives...

oh, and slippery slope fallacy.

Religion is in no way equivalent to philosophy.

Religion actually means "a reverence for that which is sacred". Philosophy, is the process of understanding that which is sacred.

...now you're entering an area of my expertise. I actually study philosophy, and I can inform you now that it is in no way a process of understanding the sacred. Philosophy is a system for determining truth via reason.

You cannot honestly believe, although in your ignorance you actually do, that any religion is separate from a philosophy.

Wow, you're putting more words in my mouth. Being separate and being equivalent are entirely different things. Philosophy doesn't necessarily have religious implication and religion doesn't necessarily have philosophical implications. In fact, the only place where religion is necessarily tied to philosophy is metaphysics.

The Bible has its philosophy.

Philosophies, it's plural there.

The Bhagavad Gita has its philosophy. How come you are willing to accept, the Bhagavad Gita as being allegory, but not the bible?

I never said the Bible isn't allegory. And where did I say that the Bhagavad Gita isn't allegory? Why do you keep shoving words into my mouth? Isn't asking a question easier? I mean, didn't I just ask five of them?

The Bible is (poor) allegory in places, poor history in others, lies in other places, a few good things here and there though.

For instance, the great epics of Greek literature, Hesiods theogony and homers Illiad, is ALSO allegory, as crazy as that may sound. Many of platos stories, are allegory.

...you mean like Plato's allegory of the cave? Plato was an out and out philosophy, of course his stories are allegorical.

The myths of the ancients (rightly called philosophers) are aswell philosophy couched in metaphorical language.

I'm sorry, but Homer isn't a philosopher. Anyone who has done a base study of Greek philosopher will realize that philosophy sprung up as a reaction to the mythologies of those like Homer.

What do you think a centaur means? and why Machiavelli suggests that a prince imitate one?

...um...Machiavelli added political meaning to the idea of a centaur...just like Hobbes added meaning to the idea of a leviathan.

The problem with this discussion, which is so 'esoteric' is that people like you lie,

Projection, also a lie. I'm sorry, but you've repeatedly shoved words into my mouth, how is that not lying? Misrepresenting the position of another person is a definitive lie.

and therefore prevent open discussion about these things, although they certainly deserve being discussed.

Well, you're poisoning the well and setting up an escape all in one swoop. I'm not lying, though you most certainly have.

Last thing, what does this have to do with the definitively false flood narrative found in the Bible?

reply to post by Kailassa


If you've followed along, you'd understand that we're not really discussing the biblical flood any longer. It has already been discussed and the flaws in the OP have been pointed out.

A2D

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


Here's only one discussing negative dating...If you can explain it then I'll let you have a go at the others.

From: G.B. Dalrymple, “40Ar/36Ar Analyses of Historic Lava Flows,” Earth and Planetary Science Letters,6 (1969): pp. 47-55.

Glass mountain, real date AD 1579-1839, dated -130,000 - -30,000 years

Oh let me guess...thats an anomaly and shouldnt' be considered...

What about...

Mt Mihara, real date AD 1961, dated -70,000 years

2 anomalies? okay...

Sakurajima, real date AD 1964, dated -200,000 years

Good luck....

A2D

let me just add that Dalrymple, if you don't know, is very outspoken against YEC's and I used his work for a reason. Dalrymple took 26 samples I believe and about a third of them were erroneous dates

reply to post by Agree2Disagree


Um...people have been aware of the fact that anomalies arise from dating lava flows for quite a while. Hell, I learned about that it high school chemistry. Just like you can't accurately carbon date fish. Hell, why don't I let the person whom you cited speak for himself? Everything you need is provided there. Granted, if you had gone anywhere other than a creationist site and looked at that information you'd have understood that.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


Why don't you actually point out where exactly he states why the samples were wrong.

And btw, I didn't go to a creation site, thanks for the assumption though.

to add: I do see this

No technique, of course, is ever completely perfected and refinement continues to this day

which completely 100% validates my point. No technique is ever completely perfected and hence, HAS FLAWS. Thank you kind sir.

A2D

reply to post by Agree2Disagree

Originally posted by Agree2Disagree
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

Why don't you actually point out where exactly he states why the samples were wrong.

...hey, look, it's someone sticking words in my mouth again. I didn't say he said the samples were wrong. Just read the whole damn thing, it's informative. It mentions a lot about the

And btw, I didn't go to a creation site, thanks for the assumption though.

And yet the only place I can find what you referenced is on creationist websites. Not just the same argument, but the exact same reference as presented by you.

to add: I do see this

No technique, of course, is ever completely perfected and refinement continues to this day

which completely 100% validates my point. No technique is ever completely perfected and hence, HAS FLAWS. Thank you kind sir.

Hey look, it's stark idiocy. There's never ever a completely perfected technique in any field of study. We don't even have perfect thermometers for copulation's sake! This is all within the margin of error. It has flaws, but they're not enough to discredit anything.

Why all the anti-science ignorance all up in this forum?

sorry posted too early!

reply to post by randyvs

Mankind dosn't remember where he comes from. Absolutly knows nothing of why he is here and damn sure dosn't know where he's even going. All because of the flood. Our species has amnesia. That amnesia is evidence. You're going to be waiting for your answer, but it will come.

Well, we know how humans came to be...so I'm not sure what your'e talking about. Secondly, what flood are you talking about? We know for a fact there was no global flood, so I take it you're talking about a local flood. Floods don't cause amnesia either, but if they did, given that the flood must have been local, wouldn't our mates not affected by the flood be able to clue us poor amnesia suffering flood victims in?

1) Floods don't cause amnesia.
2) There was no global flood.

What the hell's your point? You can't be serious about what you typed, because it's complete and utter nonsense.

Also, to the guy quoting issues with radiometric dating, you might wanna use an article that's newer than from 1969...tons of stuff happened since then

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

There's never ever a completely perfected technique in any field of study. We don't even have perfect thermometers for copulation's sake! This is all within the margin of error. It has flaws, but they're not enough to discredit anything.

My point: FACT has no MARGIN OF ERROR. (Mathematics for example...)
Radiometric dating, even from what you've stated, has a margin of error and therefore cannot be considered fact.

Thank you kind sir.

reply to post by Agree2Disagree


Sure it can...as long as you mention that margin of error. You can say the world is 4.5bil years old +/- 200mil years. If you do that, and back it up with objective evidence, you can state that it's a FACT that the earth is 4.5bil +/- 200mil years old.

Either way, the young earth creationists' 10k claim is beyond hogwash for obvious reasons

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by Agree2Disagree

 

Sure it can...as long as you mention that margin of error. You can say the world is 4.5bil years old +/- 200mil years. If you do that, and back it up with objective evidence, you can state that it's a FACT that the earth is 4.5bil +/- 200mil years old.

Either way, the young earth creationists' 10k claim is beyond hogwash for obvious reasons

Alternatively, you have no idea how old you are because you only know the day you were born and not the hour.

Or you only know the hour you were born and not the second ...

It's no good trying to tell me your age. You'll never get it accurate enough for me to accept as FACT!!!!

So who are you to say you "know" you're more than a week old?

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

Philosophies, it's plural there.

Oh. Right. The bible to you is a combination of different pagan viewpoints.

Isnt true though. To someone who actually knows the meanings of these allegories!

I never said the Bible isn't allegory.

You said in a earlier discussion of ours that the Bible isnt allegory, or elements of it isnt allegory, like Leviticus, Numbers and parts of Deuteronomy. Which im sorry to say isnt true.

I'm sorry, but Homer isn't a philosopher.

Youre playing with words now. Earlier you said metaphysics constituted a philosophy. Therefore, Homer is philosophy, as is Hesiod. It is a much deeper philosophy than the later philosophy of Greece was. In point, the later philosophy was an EXTENSION of the earlier Homeric/Hesiodic/Oprhic metaphysics in external matters. The former deals more with psychology than with how to live, which the later philosophers deal more with. Im not saying there werent divergent schools of thought. Obviously there were. But the Hellenistic spirit was expressed through the metaphysical epics of Hesiod/Homer. A very disgusting example being Aphrodites creation from the foam of the blood from Uranous severed penis. I doubt you even understand what this means.

...um...Machiavelli added political meaning to the idea of a centaur...just like Hobbes added meaning to the idea of a leviathan.

Nice. That i guess is easy to say. So, in other words, there is no signifiance, or meaning from your perspective in the myths and fables of the ancients. It was pure nonsense, then?

Aye. The truth is what Machiavelli percieved in the Centaur. Centaurs obviously did not exist. And the ancient Tuscans or Greeks didnt believe they existed. Nor unicorns, or dragons. They are symbols. Metaphorical creations of the human imagination.

A centaur combines the motifs of a Human, and an animal. That is the combined idea here. Thus, the archetypal reality Machiavelli expects a prince to assume is one who is conscienceless when necessity demands him to be.. To act like a centaur, is to be completely deviant from the traditional case for morality - which is a biblical admonition. Machiavelli than was the first in a line that called for ancient methods. (of course, we cant obviously be led to believe that the governments of christian times didnt conduct themselves in a similar fashion - since they preserved the languages and memory of the ancient pagans)

So, elsewhere he mentions in his discourses on Livy Romulus and Remus. Strauss on his analysis of this rightly understands that Machiavellis understands that Romulus and Remus are symbols for how a nation is forged, and maintained. The fatricide is a necessity, according to Roman exegesis, in CREATING new orders and forms. The brotherly feeling is what maintains the order. Thus, the brothers both suckle from the tit of a wolf - a ruthless creature. The Romans in other words had an altogether different morality.

I know it helps your arument to make the ancients stupid, and retarded, despite their masterful political genius which todays elite still follow, but the truth is the truth, whether you understand it or not.