Posted on 09/03/2007 5:31:19 PM PDT by Creationist
In the opening of any book today that involves origins, dinosaurs, ECT. you can always expect to see the term billions of years as they know for a fact. Like some one was there to record this event.
Well here is another fine example of the evolutionist religious belief.
From the book Natural Wonders of the World, by P.J. Banyard, Page 6
Once there was nothing. There was no space and there was no time. (Now you will have to understand this if there is nothing the laws of conservation of energy state you can not create or destroy matter, in short nothing can not make something. This is a religious belief on the evolutionist part that this can happen.)(Here is the exciting part)Then,between 13 and 18 billion years ago, all the primeval matter which makes up the universe (here it comes)burst out from another dimension and exploded.
So no one was there to record when the event happend thats why they can not narrow down the time line, but hey the other dimension thing is cool.
They try to say my religious belief hinders my ability to discern science. Well you have a bigger faith based religion then I do. I have a God who told man how he did it (not all of the finer details) but that he did it. And you on the other hand have a belief system based upon interpretation of visible evidence today, with the assumed backward winding of the process to nothing exploding out of another dimension wow. All praise the mighty nothing.
The book is full of evolutionary statements that start off with the unsure words like; might have, could have, we think, seems to, and then finish as though they have the facts to prove their statements.
No one can prove 100% that the Bible is how the universe and all living things got here or that The Big Nothing From Another Dimension created the universe and all living beings.
But you can rest assured that science proves the Bible with out the use of smoke and mirrors more that the ever changing theory of evolution does.
It does they just do not want it to sound like the Bible they are trying to discredit.
You think highly of yourself there Coyoteman.
Years of study does not come easily. Its hard work. I am proud of my education.
I do not get my information from AiG.
I read hard copy, if you do not know what that is, it is a books or magazines.
I am aware of what "hard copy" is. But I would suggest you read some of the technical journals as well. That is where the science really is. Most books and magazines are syntheses by non-experts, and, especially magazines and newspapers, are of little use in understanding what is really happening in science. Try burrowing through the several floors of libraries where the evolutionary sciences are found. (It may take longer than a stay at a Holiday Inn Express.)
I would like you to know as I have stated before creationist believe in science. That is the real stuff with the ability to test and study. Not the stuff of evolution which is not testable. Also radiometric dating is not an accurate science. It is a field based upon assumption. Those who do the testing assume that a rock found in a layer should be this old because of the fossils found in that layer. The fossils are this old because of the rock layer they were found in. The funny thing is these layers which are still held as fact were decided hundreds of years before radiometric dating. So you see the science you presuppose as correct is only validating what they want is not a true test. Do you have a 4 billion year old rock with a date stamp as proof if not they assume correctness of the test, any thing else is denial.
They assume leaching never takes place in any of your presupposed correct tests.
They assume the daughter element is the product of decay and could not be anything else, mixing leaching, environmental force, decay rate change as time goes on.
Your point here seems to be that "radiometric dating is not an accurate science" because it relies on assumptions. That is not logic, that is apologetics. Assumptions are often extremely well supported (e.g., the sun will rise tomorrow, in the east). It is a typical creationist tactic to point to all assumptions as if they were just wild guesses, with no support at all. That tactic is fueled by religious belief; creationists don't want radiometric dating to be accurate, and many will say, and believe, anything to avoid having to accept that the opposite has been shown to be the case.
Many other religious people have no problem with radiometric dating. Here is a good link: Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective by Dr. Roger C. Wiens.
Your comments greatly expected.
I also have placer mined and hard rock mined and am run an excavator, I see more dirt every day and it does not have the long and slow exhibits you believe. I see large scale catastrophe
I haven't run an excavator, but I have watched that type of equipment for probably 1,000+ hours, and I am pretty good on a backhoe. I have been on excavations in quite a few western states, and have seen a lot of dirt myself.
Large scale catastrophe is fun. I spent some time in the Channeled Scablands of Washington, and have flown over that area examining the formations from the air. But those formations are pretty well understood, and they are evidence against a global flood at the time the Bible experts specify (about 4350 years ago). You see, the Channeled Scablands are way too old, being formed by glacial floods at the end of the last ice age. A global flood about 4350 years ago would have wiped out all evidence of that earlier, smaller, flood. Yet, that evidence is still there.
In summary, you claim to love science, but you sure are willing to believe junk science and creation "science" when real science comes up with answers which don't support your religious belief.
As I thought about it more you are really to educated for your own good. You claim that most things written if not done by a person of a college degree is useless.
Would have you know most of the thing that are in your life were thought up designed discovered experimented upon without a coveted piece of parchment.
Sorry, your post has demonstrated your lack of knowledge about the Channeled Scablands in particular and archaeology in general.
The scablands are not dated by index fossils. They are dated by direct radiocarbon dating of a lot of different things, including geological and sedimentary formations, archaeological sites like Marmes Rockshelter (45FR50) for example, and by various sediments and the materials that are trapped in them. Those can include a variety of rodents and other critters, as well as carbonized plant materials and pollen.
And you have no clue how those of us who use radiocarbon dating work. You have only the creationist websites to rely on. And they are lying to you! They are doing creation "science" rather than real science--and it is entirely agenda driven.
I have studied the fields of archaeology and radiocarbon dating for several decades, and have personally submitted nearly 600 radiocarbon samples.
When you have studied the field as I have then you can feel free to lecture me on how I do my work.
Your religious belief has blinded you to the world around you.
If you have ever read a Bible, that is really read it, then read it again and compare that man to the character in it and the Course of the Jews. IF that is true then............
Sorry, I stick to science.
Do you have any rebuttal to the information I posted on radiocarbon dating above, or do you want to change the subject?
Who created the other dimension? ;-)
nothing did.
Matter does not make up the universe. Matter plus form make substance. Also, there was no time before the BB, nor was there space since those concepts did not exist before reason.
Is this another case of where ‘evolution’ becomes “science I do not agree with”?
Hehe, I’m not sure what you think I tried to start, but I guess I should be proud of it. Sounds good.
There’s a story of an old jurist, teaching young law students the finer points of practicing law. He said, “If you are weak on the facts, argue the law. If you are weak on the law, argue the facts. If you are weak on both, attack your opponent.”
Hehe, I suppose that tells me where your strong points are.-Glenn
Let me suggest that your "by faith alone" debating technique is not adequate for this environment.
Perhaps you are correct, and I made a false assumption, and if so, I apologize. I assumed, from you comment, to another, that you were saying, if he (the guy you were addressing) couldn’t give dimensions of Heaven, it’s not factual enough to have faith in some (any?) religion or faith. I don’t recall anybody asking for the dimensions of the universe, and as far as I know, there is no argument about that, other than whether the universe is actually bounded (has any ends) or not. In any case, perhaps you could make your position clear, and I won’t make false assumptions about your beliefs. You seem to have an angst against faith in any religion, and all I was pointing out was that it seems to me, as other are pointing out, much of what passes for science, now, is actually another religion, requiring equal or greater faith, just in different propositions.
“Let me suggest that your “by faith alone” debating technique is not adequate for this environment.”(muawiyah)
I’m not sure what you mean by this. Do I need college degrees to debate in this environment, and of what type and how many?-Glenn
You need “evidence” before you spout off about what someone else “believes”.
That’s a valid comparison and thought. I would like to see those points validly debated though, and they seemingly never are debated. You know, Coyoteman, I’m open to facts, but I also want to test assumptions, when there’s doubt or question about the facts. From my reading, it usually goes like this:
-”The earth was created in 6 days.”
-”That’s stupid. It’s not worth discussion.”
-”You just hate God.”
-”You’re granddaddy was a monkey, and I’ve got 3 degrees and have been studying this for 40 years.”
-”You’re going to Hell.”
Not too much productive discussion. Some of it’s going on in this thread. I have no problem with you saying some article of faith in a religious belief is not scientific fact. I already know that, sometimes. But other times, some of those articles are valid, logical propositions that actually need argumentation to disprove (or prove, for that matter). It’s when we refuse to consider those propositions, meaning the assumptions that make the belief, whether “scientific” or “religious” that the discussion breaks down.
From my view, (and you know I don’t believe in evolution...and it’s not forbidden by my faith), the first assumptions are questionable enough to not provide a base to build a solid foundation for all the following assumptions that the theory is built upon. On the last thread I posted with you, we ended up getting back to the “big bang,” just where this one started. Since that last thread, I’ve been reading books and looking around at all sorts of literature about the bb, and I have to say, most of it makes as much sense (to me) as the quote from the book in that started this thread.
Somebody in the last thread told me, if I thought the bb was false, I didn’t know enough about it (I didn’t, really. I did sort of accepted it as science). I don’t think it was you, but anyway, I figured, if I am discussing it, I’ll try to know what I’m saying, so I read. There’s a lot of minute detail to read about, and if you get into it, a lot of mathematical models and matrices, etc. But what always keeps me from actually believing in it, is that all the models and ideas always come back to something like what opened this thread. It always requires you to believe something that is beyond my capacity to swallow. I could say a lot of nasty things about a lot of the scientists who propose all the various details, but that doesn’t get anywhere. It always comes to a belief that something took place, with absolutely no foundation, in some ultimate cause, and what the difference is, is whether the word “cause” has a capital “C” or not.
You and I both know, when this thread peters out, nobody is going to change his mind, and in the meantime, a bunch of folks have insulted each other. There are a bunch of folks who will never believe that peptide (or whatever) washed up on the beach and came alive, and another bunch who will never believe that a loving God created all the universe in 6 days, and actually maintains everything at every moment. My only interest in these things is to point out that either group has to accept things to start, which have absolutely no basis in what we call “facts.” It’s a little grating to folks on your side of the isle, sometimes, but those on my side accept that as where we start, because it is an unknowable beginning. There are a lot of “questionable” assumptions along the way to get to 2007, too, both in religion and science, but all of those are based upon what precedes it.
I’ve rambled enough, and am going to sign off and get a brew.-Glenn
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.