quote:

Originally posted by torontotrance Science has to prove to me that radio dating works, why should the proof be on Christians to prove why it does not work. We are not the ones touting it as proof of an older age. Radio dating has major issues and even the people who believe in it tell you that.

Sigh, there's no proof that radiometric dating DOES NOT work. Criticism against it is derived from improper dating use, not the dating methodology itself. Imagine I told you to drive a car for 10 miles. You try shifting without depressing the clutch and your transmission falls off the car. Does this mean that the car does not work? No it means that you're an idiot for not using the clutch.

quote:

They simply can't prove to me that they know how much of the original substance was in something and they can't prove to me, they know how much lives an organism after death over the years.

Well it's slightly more complicated than that. And until you actually detail the specificity of your claims, I can't really argue against you.

quote:

The way I look at it, the evolutionists are constantly changing their theories to fit their most recent discovery, always changing the theory. The Bible's account has not changed, it is not changing on the most recent discovery.

So creationists refute radiometric dating due to the fact that it utilizes empirical evidence yet cling to a factual belief in the bible because empirically it has never been wrong? Circular reasoning in its finest.

quote:

Futhermore, no anti creationist has ever given me a valid argument to why what I believe is wrong .......

That was a lot of words to say "someone prove to me the bible contains no errors." Well we went through this discussion in depth wtih Seventil and even he concluded that the bible at the very least retains transcription errors. Well you can find them here:

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...s&pagenumber=26

___________________
Retro ...

Here's one thing I would like to know, how do you consider the famous "Thou shall not kill" command is compatible with the following verses which I posted a while ago in another thread? And don't tell me that the old testament is made obsolete by Jesus's coming and the creation of the new one, because you explicitely said that you believe in every single word the bible says, and both the command and the verses are from the old testament.

Numbers 25:6-13

Then an Israelite man brought to his family a Midianite woman right before the eyes of Moses and the whole assembly of Israel while they were weeping at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting. When Phinehas, son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron, the priest, saw this, he left the assembly, took a spear in his hand and followed the Israelite into the tent. He drove the spear through both of them - through the Israelite and into the woman's body. Then the plague against Israelites was stopped; but those who died in the plague numbered 24,000.

The Lord said to Moses, Phinehas son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron, the priest has turned my anger away from the Israelites; for he was as zealous as I am for my honor among them, so that in my zeal I did not put an end to them. Therefore tell him I am making my covenant of peace with him. He and his descendants will have a covenant of a lasting priesthood, because he was zealous for the honor of his God and made atonement for the Israelits.

Numbers 31:17-18

Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

Edit: Hehe, I just saw the link Igottaknow posted. Please, torontotrance, feel free to explain how all those verses don't contradict each other.

___________________
1+1=10

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0

Heh what's interesting is that if you read Dante's Inferno, he takes a strict literal interpretation of the old and new testament. Therefore, according to the new testament's claim that salvation can only be acheived through Jesus, there is/was no salvation prior to the coming of Jesus. Therefore in Dante's discussion with Virgil (the spirit who guides him through the layers of hell) they describe how Noah, Moses, and all the major religious figures from the old testament resided in purgatory until Jesus came to take them up to heaven with his coming. Haha sucks for the people in the old testament

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 Edit: Hehe, I just saw the link Igottaknow posted. Please, torontotrance, feel free to explain how all those verses don't contradict each other.

actually oc posted the link and dont hold your breath waiting for a creationist to give you a logical explaination.

I can't understand why these religious ppl insist on refuting science with a faith based document. You stay in your sand box and we will stay in ours.

___________________
GIGANTIC CUNT

quote:

Originally posted by igottaknow As far as the bible being equivalent to science that's pretty funny. Using a story written by a bunch of people as a reference point to draw scientific conclusions? What ever makes you happy.

I haven't read any replies to this, so excuse me if what I will say has already been stated.

I respect your opinion that the Bible is not true. However, I find that "using a story written by a bunch of people as a reference point to draw scientific conclusions" - is quite relevant since the majority of our country is Christian-based.

My logic is simple:

Evolutionary theory uses certain assumptions. This is common sense and I don't see why evolutionists avoid just saying plain "yes."

Evolutionary theory does not have an "eye witness" account for any of these assumptions.

Christianity provides an "eye witness" account to make different assumptions - like invoking a worldwide flood in 2000 or so B.C. and giving an approximate age of the earth around 6,000 years. I'm not saying take the Biblical account for factual science - I'm saying use Biblical assumptions instead of evolutionary ones.

It's that simple. Evolutionary theory should be two theories - one with evolutionary assumptions and one with Biblical assumptions. It's as easy as that.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Sigh, there's no proof that radiometric dating DOES NOT work. Criticism against it is derived from improper dating use, not the dating methodology itself. Imagine I told you to drive a car for 10 miles. You try shifting without depressing the clutch and your transmission falls off the car. Does this mean that the car does not work? No it means that you're an idiot for not using the clutch.

Or you can get yourself a Wartburg, you can pretty much drive it for like 10000km without pressing the clutch before it breaks down. It has some sort of weird differential which allows you to gearshift pretty well without a clutch, it just makes bad noises but doesn't fall apart for quite a while

Anyway, about Dante, I also like it how all those people from ancient Greece and Rome reside in the first layer of hell because they never had the chance to be introduced to biblical teachings...

___________________
1+1=10

Bah. These are weak. Opus, where are you?

I'll just post plaguerized replies to all of your "anti-Bible" assertions. If you want me to expound personally on them, I will.

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 Well, my pretty long reply just got erased, so I'll post it in short. For the Earth to be 6500 years old you would have to assume: 1) That the speed of light in vacuum has been millions of times greater in the past few thousand years than it is now, and that it hasn't changed one bit since we started measuring it. (otherwise we couldn't explain how any object that's more than 6500 light years away can shine on us)

Here are four explanations:

(a) How are star distances estimated and how far away actually are the furthest stars ? :

On what scientific or mathematical basis do evolutionists claim that certain galaxies and quasars are distances of up to “10 billion light years away” from the earth ? It is a proven fact of astronomy that distances in space beyond 300 current light years cannot be scientifically measured, estimated or even known. The idea that quasars and some galaxies are distances of up to 10 billion light years away from us is only an evolutionist assumption based on the flawed evolutionist interpretation of the redshift of starlight and not a fact of astronomy or science. But redshift of starlight is not an indicator of distance, speed or recessional velocity (see astronomer Halton Arp’s book Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies).

Further, since light currently travels a distance of 9.46 trillion kilometres through space in one year, this would still give an immensely vast diameter of the universe of 114 million billion kilometres (i.e. 2 x 9.46 trillion km x 6,000 years) even if the other four scientific explanations are ignored. The universe is probably smaller in diameter than is popularly believed. It is unknown (and scientifically unknowable) whether stars, galaxies and quasars are all located within a distance of 6,000 current light years from the earth.

(b) Riemannian or curved space :

Space could be curved allowing distant starlight to reach us quickly by taking a “short-cut” through space on a curved path. In other words, space may be curved or Riemannian instead of being straight-line or Euclidean. Evolutionist Albert Einstein used this theoretical mathematical concept of Riemannian or curved space in his relativity theories.

(c) An instantly mature creation :

The entire universe was certainly and very logically created as partly or fully mature and therefore was created with some appearance of age. However, this fact does not by itself explain how we can see supernova explosions that are at a supposed distance of more than 6,000 current light-years from the earth. The question to be asked is how does an evolutionist scientifically know a supernova’s distance from the earth ? As metioned above, it is scientifically impossible to estimate the distance of any object in space that is more than 300 light years away from the earth.

(d) The speed of light has decreased enormously over the past 6,000 years :

Observations in astronomy over the past 325 years have shown a definite measured statistical decrease in the speed of light. Contrary to popular false belief, there is no scientific law that requires the speed of light to be constant. Even Einstein did not claim that the speed of light itself is constant but that the speed of light is independent of the speed of the light source, or that the speed of light is constant with regard to all observers. And evolutionists themselves are now claiming that the speed of light was billions of times faster at their “time zero” to try to resuscitate their big bang theory. The observed historic decrease in the speed of light has been graphed mathematically and forms a logarithmic curve. Extrapolating this mathematical logarithmic curve back 6,000 years results in an almost infinite speed of light during the creation week 6,000 years ago. An initial almost infinite speed of light would easily allow all starlight, even in an almost infinitely large universe, to reach us within 6,000 years. If the speed of light has decreased substantially, this would make all radiometric dating methods produce artificially old billion-year “dates” for objects that are in reality only no more than a few thousand years old.

(e) A rapid initial stretching out of space itself :

The Bible indicates at least twelve different times that God rapidly stretched out or spread out the heavens, which probably refers to the very fabric of space itself, most likely during the creation week of 6,000 years ago. This would also account for the observed redshift of most starlight. The question is therefore not how far away are the very distant stars, but how close to us were they when their starlight that we currently see first started out on its journey to us.

quote:

2) That the radioactive decay time which has no connection whatsoever with the speed of light has also followed exactly the same path.

What? What path? How is C related to radioactive decay time?

quote:

3) That the continent movement speed has also been several billion times faster in the past than it is now (otherwise we couldn't explain animal life fossils on Antarctica or glacial rocks in Africa)

This is assuming your flawed "Pangaea" model is correct. Take into the account a Biblical Flood, and your argument is completely invalid.

quote:

4) That all the archeological evidence older than 6500 years is fake

That's one of the stupidest things I've heard. No creationist or creation scientist has ever said this to my knowledge. Give me some references.

quote:

5) That dinosaur and early hominid bones are just random calcium formations

You've topped the absurdity of your last post. Who said this, what planet are they from, and who let them out of their cage? Once again, no creationist or creation scientist has ever said this to my knowledge. Post some references. Actually, don't even bother, because I think we can all agree that saying every fossile and early hominid bones are calcium formations is just plan stupid.

quote:

Furthermore, to accept the biblical story, we would have to assume that: 1) There is a solid firmament seperating waters in the sky from oceans down below (meaning that spaceships would either hit a solid barrier or puncture it and end up in one huge ocean

Umm, why? Are you talking about the pre-flood world? Explain.

quote:

2) A 400 meter long ship managed to get inside it a mass several million times greater than a normal weight allowance for such a ship would be

I'm assuming you're using some wacked Noah's Ark refuting. Explain this, and I'll be sure to set the record straight.

quote:

3) Noah travelled to Australia, America and Antarctica prior to the flood and then redistributed all those animals and plants back to where they were originally situated.

Try lowering global water levels a little bit and see how the landmasses connect.

quote:

4) The bible is true, and every single other self-proclaimed religious truth is false, although the reasons to believe what the bible says are exactly the same as those posted by all the other religious scriptures. It is the holy truth written by god, and if you don't believe it you will burn in some sort of a hell.

You're reading a bit too in to it. I trust the judgement of God to not send good people to hell for simply calling him by a different name. While it is true the Bible says you must accept Jesus to get to heaven, I leave this matter up to the divine Judge, not myself.

quote:

Have you ever considered that if you were born somewhere else, like Egypt for example, that you would have been introduced to kuran like you have been to the bible, and that you would believe that kuran is the flawless truth presented by god, while the bible and all the other religious scriptures are merely pagan nonsenses?

Yep. However, every man will have a chance to accept Jesus, either in life or after life. Read the New Testament.

quote:

Originally posted by Seventil I haven't read any replies to this, so excuse me if what I will say has already been stated. I respect your opinion that the Bible is not true. However, I find that "using a story written by a bunch of people as a reference point to draw scientific conclusions" - is quite relevant since the majority of our country is Christian-based. My logic is simple: Evolutionary theory uses certain assumptions. This is common sense and I don't see why evolutionists avoid just saying plain "yes." Evolutionary theory does not have an "eye witness" account for any of these assumptions. Christianity provides an "eye witness" account to make different assumptions - like invoking a worldwide flood in 2000 or so B.C. and giving an approximate age of the earth around 6,000 years. I'm not saying take the Biblical account for factual science - I'm saying use Biblical assumptions instead of evolutionary ones. It's that simple. Evolutionary theory should be two theories - one with evolutionary assumptions and one with Biblical assumptions. It's as easy as that.

If you want to classify "assumptions" as uncertainty in the sense that inductive arguments derived from empirical evidence can never be classified as an absolute truth than you would be correct. However, in that event there really are no deductive arguments with the possible exception of logic or mathematics. As such, since all of science is derived from inductive arguments in one form or another, one would have to similarly look upon every other discovery, such as atomic theory, gravitational theory, the Earth being round, etc., as being derived from "assumptions" in a similar fashion as say radiometric dating. Therefore if one were to maintain consistency with that outlook on the world, you should regard every other scientific observation and, in fact, EVERY observation in itself with a measure of doubt.

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Sigh, there's no proof that radiometric dating DOES NOT work. Criticism against it is derived from improper dating use, not the dating methodology itself. Imagine I told you to drive a car for 10 miles. You try shifting without depressing the clutch and your transmission falls off the car. Does this mean that the car does not work? No it means that you're an idiot for not using the clutch.

I agree with you occrider. *gasp*. But can you deny that dating relies on assumptions? At least some? *grin*

quote:

So creationists refute radiometric dating due to the fact that it utilizes empirical evidence yet cling to a factual belief in the bible because empirically it has never been wrong? Circular reasoning in its finest.

No, we refute it based on my refuting above. (in my reply to Opus) It's all about the assumptions made, baby.

quote:

That was a lot of words to say "someone prove to me the bible contains no errors." Well we went through this discussion in depth wtih Seventil and even he concluded that the bible at the very least retains transcription errors. Well you can find them here: http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...s&pagenumber=26

I said it's a possibility, yes. While I personally don't believe there are any major transcription errors... most of the "errors" in the Bible are in the form of a moral or ethical question, hypocricy, etc. We can look at more of them if you wish, but I believe we covered most of them in the link occrider posted.

I conceded the possibility of transcription errors because to err is human. While I trust that God has kept his Word intact throughout history, I can at least accept the idea of small translation/transcription errors from ancient texts. However, I find the logical refutes to the "errors in the Bible" acceptable.

quote:

Originally posted by igottaknow actually oc posted the link and dont hold your breath waiting for a creationist to give you a logical explaination. I can't understand why these religious ppl insist on refuting science with a faith based document. You stay in your sand box and we will stay in ours.

I refuted every one of occriders "errors". Even occrider said this. Try to keep reading.

quote:

Originally posted by Seventil I agree with you occrider. *gasp*. But can you deny that dating relies on assumptions? At least some? *grin*

Well actually my philosophy is that we cannot know anything with absolute certainty due to the fact that humans are incapable of knowing absolute truths ... with a few minor exceptions.

I've discussed my philosophy in detail in this thread:

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...th&pagenumber=5

(scroll down to arbiter's post and read from there)

This does not mean that I do not believe in probable truths. Science, logic, reasoning, and probability all serve to help me derive probable truths. So to answer your question, if you want to reject the scientific model for everything than sure dating can rely on assumptions. But than, as I said before, everything relies on assumptions including something as simple as direct observation.

quote:

No, we refute it based on my refuting above. (in my reply to Opus) It's all about the assumptions made, baby.

I was actually referring to TorontoTrance's methadology.

quote:

I said it's a possibility, yes. While I personally don't believe there are any major transcription errors... most of the "errors" in the Bible are in the form of a moral or ethical question, hypocricy, etc. We can look at more of them if you wish, but I believe we covered most of them in the link occrider posted. I conceded the possibility of transcription errors because to err is human. While I trust that God has kept his Word intact throughout history, I can at least accept the idea of small translation/transcription errors from ancient texts. However, I find the logical refutes to the "errors in the Bible" acceptable.

I have a philosophical question for you . Why would God, an omnipotent being, not care or choose discrepancies in his word? And please don't say humans cannot possibly fathom the mysteriious ways of teh lord ... that can be a cop out to every philosophical discussion about God. If you don't know just say you don't know .

___________________
Retro ...

Last edited by occrider on Sep-03-2004 at 17:22