How Many Christians Will Lose Their Faith After Bill Nye Trounces Ken Ham?

[Rob Osborn]

How the Grand Canyon was formed.

I don't want to know how the "canyon" formed, I want someone to explain in their own  words how all the layers we see exposed in the Grand Canyon got there. No one on this planet using uniformatarian methodology can explain this. I call oit the great enigma for geologists!

[Rob Osborn]

SEE http://ncse.com/cej/3/2/answers-to-creationist-attacks-carbon-14-dating

I don't recognize the NCSE as being a reputable unbiased scientific organization. Next.

[Rob Osborn]

We been through this before Creationism/Intelligent Design is a religion.

See Wedge Document

 

It is based on the premise of Irreducible Complexity. EVERY TIME a Irreducible Complexity claim is made it is examined, and it falls apart.

 

The Mouse Trap is not Irreducibly Complex

 

 

 

The Human Eye is not Irreducibly Complex.

 

The Bacteria Flagellum is not Irreducibly complex.

 

A living cell is not Irreducibly Complex

 

Theistic Evolutionists are not welcome. Even Pat Robertson agrees.

Well, thats evolutionists opinions. They also have the opinion that their theory is fact of which it is not.

[thesometimesaint]

Theories are not opinions, and theories are more useful than facts.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/evangelical-scientists-refute-gravity-with-new-int,1778/

[cinepro]

I don't want to know how the "canyon" formed, I want someone to explain in their own  words how all the layers we see exposed in the Grand Canyon got there. No one on this planet using uniformatarian methodology can explain this. I call oit the great enigma for geologists!

 

Someone should tell the NPS this.  They've been spoiling the great enigma for years.

 

http://www.nps.gov/grca/forteachers/upload/GeoArticle-11-1-11-2.pdf

[Rob Osborn]

Someone should tell the NPS this.  They've been spoiling the great enigma for years.

 

http://www.nps.gov/grca/forteachers/upload/GeoArticle-11-1-11-2.pdf

It pretty much says nothing about where all the material came from. Weak attempt.

[Brian 2.0]

I don't want to know how the "canyon" formed, I want someone to explain in their own  words how all the layers we see exposed in the Grand Canyon got there. No one on this planet using uniformatarian methodology can explain this. I call oit the great enigma for geologists!

 

Here's my attempt...

 

When the layers were initially formed, most of the Grand Canyon was underwater.  Sediments that flowed into this ancient sea sunk, forming layers on the bottom of the sea.  These layers trapped plenty of things in them at the bottom of the sea which is why we find fish and coral fossils in the layers currently visible in the grand canyon.  As the surface of the earth changed over time due to plate tecntonics, the sea bed rose up and and the grand canyon was carved via erosion from the river running over it.

[Rob Osborn]

Here's my attempt...

 

When the layers were initially formed, most of the Grand Canyon was underwater.  Sediments that flowed into this ancient sea sunk, forming layers on the bottom of the sea.  These layers trapped plenty of things in them at the bottom of the sea which is why we find fish and coral fossils in the layers currently visible in the grand canyon.  As the surface of the earth changed over time due to plate tecntonics, the sea bed rose up and and the grand canyon was carved via erosion from the river running over it.

Oh yes, this is definately what happened. The majority of the layers were laid at the same time in a catastrophic event. But this is not what modern geology sees. They see this coming and retreating ocean over and over again over the course of millions of years all the while having some enormous gigantic mountain uplifting and eroding and depositing its sediments in these shallow seas over and over again. The size of this mountain though would have to be  like half the size of the United States to deposit such vast material over hundreds of thousands of square miles! Oh yeah- and somehow it would have to be changing in the type of sediment all along to get the different layers so perhaps it was just different mountain chains made of different material that kept being uplifted and recycled. Consequently, no action like this, anywhere in the world, is happening today. We have these "varve" layers in the bottom of rivers and lakes, even oceans, but they are fine layers, seldomly very thick at all and most of all they are completely not parallel layers like we see exposed in the GC. There is no sediment event currently being laid anywhere on earth where we see large thick uniform layers being laid underwater- nowhere!

 

I am right there with you on this. I remember doing geology experiments back in school and we would take these large glass cases and put all different kinds of dirt, clay, gravel, etc in and then put water in so that it covered the whole material and then stir it all up with a stick and then let it settle and finally drain the water off. In the end you had these relatively parallel layers just like one sees exposed all over the earth only on a much smaller scale. Kind of ironic that we all can agree with how sediments deposit themselves in uniform layers in this experiment but yet when applied in the real world on a global scale- forget it, throw all that out the window! Heaven forbid that Noah was a real historical person and the flood was real! The truth is that when we finally show the flood was real then all the evidence for evolution disappears. Too much at stake for evolutionists to be made to look stupid though so the dogma continues...sigh...

[Brian 2.0]

Oh yes, this is definately what happened. The majority of the layers were laid at the same time in a catastrophic event. But this is not what modern geology sees. They see this coming and retreating ocean over and over again over the course of millions of years all the while having some enormous gigantic mountain uplifting and eroding and depositing its sediments in these shallow seas over and over again. The size of this mountain though would have to be  like half the size of the United States to deposit such vast material over hundreds of thousands of square miles! Oh yeah- and somehow it would have to be changing in the type of sediment all along to get the different layers so perhaps it was just different mountain chains made of different material that kept being uplifted and recycled. Consequently, no action like this, anywhere in the world, is happening today. We have these "varve" layers in the bottom of rivers and lakes, even oceans, but they are fine layers, seldomly very thick at all and most of all they are completely not parallel layers like we see exposed in the GC. There is no sediment event currently being laid anywhere on earth where we see large thick uniform layers being laid underwater- nowhere!

 

I am right there with you on this. I remember doing geology experiments back in school and we would take these large glass cases and put all different kinds of dirt, clay, gravel, etc in and then put water in so that it covered the whole material and then stir it all up with a stick and then let it settle and finally drain the water off. In the end you had these relatively parallel layers just like one sees exposed all over the earth only on a much smaller scale. Kind of ironic that we all can agree with how sediments deposit themselves in uniform layers in this experiment but yet when applied in the real world on a global scale- forget it, throw all that out the window! Heaven forbid that Noah was a real historical person and the flood was real! The truth is that when we finally show the flood was real then all the evidence for evolution disappears. Too much at stake for evolutionists to be made to look stupid though so the dogma continues...sigh...

 

wow.  That's quite the snarky response to someone that simply answered your question.

 

This Christian resource outlines a number of reasons why the strata forming at the same time in one catastrophic event is highly problematic:

http://www.gci.org/science/burky1

 

There's just too much going on in each strata that requires lengthly time to form.  And the fossils records being segregated and not interspersed throughout the layers as well.  Those things make it difficult for me to buy a giant mix-up-and-settle scenario like the experiment you mention.

[Rob Osborn]

wow.  That's quite the snarky response to someone that simply answered your question.

 

This Christian resource outlines a number of reasons why the strata forming at the same time in one catastrophic event is highly problematic:

http://www.gci.org/science/burky1

 

There's just too much going on in each strata that requires lengthly time to form.  And the fossils records being segregated and not interspersed throughout the layers as well.  Those things make it difficult for me to buy a giant mix-up-and-settle scenario like the experiment you mention.

Wasnt being snarky

[Brian 2.0]

Wasnt being snarky

 

Sorry.  tone is hard to read sometimes.  I took your "Oh yes, this is definitely what happened" as a sarcastic reply to what I said.

 

I actually just realized what you said.  You're saying my comment is true, but that the layers happened in one event, not over millions of years.  I wasn't being specific in my explanation, but I do think the events that occured in my explanation occured over millions of years.

Edited February 7, 2014 by Brian 2.0

[Rob Osborn]

Sorry.  tone is hard to read sometimes.  I took your "Oh yes, this is definitely what happened" as a sarcastic reply to what I said.

Heh heh. I was actually excited that someone else was questioning mainstream science.

[Brian 2.0]

Heh heh. I was actually excited that someone else was questioning mainstream science.

 

adding this here because I see you replied before I could edit my comment above:

 

I actually just realized what you said.  You're saying my comment is true, but that the layers happened in one event, not over millions of years.  I wasn't being specific in my explanation, but I do think the events that occured in my explanation occured over millions of years.

 

Funny how a few words I didn't mention can change the interpretation of what I said... sorry to disappoint but I'm not really questioning mainstream science.

Edited February 7, 2014 by Brian 2.0

[Robert F. Smith]

Thanks for expounding upon my point. Its like saying this- Dr. John Doe did some work in the lab and came up with some interesting results. Thus it is a scientific finding. But, if we say- God did some work in the lab and came up with some interesting results. But because it is God it automatically gets thrown into the "not science" bin. As if God himself works outside of science is a slap in the face to people like myself. God is the very author of law, of nature, of science. Were gonna kick God out of his own work? Is that what science is doing?

I see no reason to make God the author of the physical laws which He obeys.  He is the ultimate scientist and engineer because He knows the system so thoroughly and has power to exploit it.  The nature of universal physical law exists apart from God, and no god can fail to obey such law -- else He would cease to be God.

 

As you also brought up Intelligent Design, I wish more LDS would understand just what this theory is because in truth it embraces in full measure every doctrine the church teaches. Perhaps I would go so far as to say that the LDS religion has more in line with Intelligent design than any other Christian religion on the planet!

Agreed.

[Robert F. Smith]

God is not a scientist. Science is the quest for understanding about the Universe. God already understands. God is an engineer.

God is a scientist because he understands how everything works (the underlying laws or theorems).  An engineer is a mere technician.  God is both scientist and engineer.

[Robert F. Smith]

And how does taking a class on them telling us the theory in class form make it any different? I am pretty sure the people who write the books didn't have a time machine to observe just what was happening 200 million years ago. The reality of it is that pretty much all forms of dating things before historical records have been shown to be inconsistant not by just a little bit but in the magnitudes of millions and millions of years.

The reason for taking the geology course is to see how you have completely misconceived what geology is and how geologists go about doing research.  It is very field oriented, going out to sites, taking samples, and bringing them back to the lab for close examination.  Theory is nothing without practical application.

 

A supplementary class on archeometrics or dating techniques (UCLA has such a class) would be helpful as well, since you clearly also misunderstand that subject.

[Robert F. Smith]

Being a scientist does tend to make me anthropomorphize myself.

 

ALL Theists are suoernaturalists. I don't put any pejorative valuation on that. Supernatural just means pertaining to God.

False.  The God of normative Muslim-Jewish-Christian dogma is indeed supernatural.  He is the uncaused Cause and Prime Mover.  He is outside time and the universe.  He creates all from nothing.  Humans are merely contingent. Supernature is not subject to scientific inquiry.

You have erroneously placed all theists in this camp.  LDS theology posits a God who is part of time and the universe, who is subject to universal natural law, and who is coeternal with humans (we are of His genus and species) and all of matter.  As Confucius said:  "Ex nihilo, nhil fit."  "From nothing, nothing is made."

 

We all at some point reach the extent of our knowledge. Newton as great a mathematician as he was couldn't account for gravity's effect on the planets interacting on each other. That took another 130 years for a French mathematician to invent Perturbation theory.

................................................

I knew he was an alchemist(Arguably sorcery). His experiments in alchemy don't seem to have produced much of value.

 

Newton was a great experimental scientist.  In his day, alchemy was in that same category.  However, so many magi had been burned at the stake so recently, that he clearly thought that his work as a sorcerer should be kept secret.

Edited February 7, 2014 by Robert F. Smith

[Alan]

 

LDS theology posits a God who is part of time and the universe, who is subject to universal natural law, and who is coeternal with humans (we are of His genus and species) and all of matter.

 

This isn't orthodox LDS theology in my view. It's speculative LDS theology and contradicts scripture - particularly the Book of Mormon.

I certainly don't worship a God who is subject to natural law, or who exists within time and space.

[ERayR]

The reason for taking the geology course is to see how you have completely misconceived what geology is and how geologists go about doing research.  It is very field oriented, going out to sites, taking samples, and bringing them back to the lab for close examination.  Theory is nothing without practical application.

 

A supplementary class on archeometrics or dating techniques (UCLA has such a class) would be helpful as well, since you clearly also misunderstand that subject.

 

And whose results are very much influenced by assumptions based on preconceived biases.  That in itself is OK as long as one recognizes it colors their conclusions and it is alright for others to disagree and be heard.

[thesometimesaint]

False.  The God of normative Muslim-Jewish-Christian dogma is indeed supernatural.  He is the uncaused Cause and Prime Mover.  He is outside time and the universe.  He creates all from nothing.  Humans are merely contingent. Supernature is not subject to scientific inquiry.

You have erroneously placed all theists in this camp.  LDS theology posits a God who is part of time and the universe, who is subject to universal natural law, and who is coeternal with humans (we are of His genus and species) and all of matter.  As Confucius said:  "Ex nihilo, nhil fit."  "From nothing, nothing is made."

 

 

Newton was a great experimental scientist.  In his day, alchemy was in that same category.  However, so many magi had been burned at the stake so recently, that he clearly thought that his work as a sorcerer should be kept secret.

 

A Theist is simply someone whom believes in one or more Gods. Supernatural by definition means "pertaining to God". Whatever attributes a particular religion puts to their one or more Gods it is irrelevant to being a Theist or a Atheist. Confucius probably would have had a hard time with the big Bang origin of the universe. But he was essentially correct. Even if the something was extremely small. Science by definition can not posit any God or Godlike force. It is Agnostic on the subject.

 

True it did take a while to abandon Alchemy in favor of Chemistry. It wasn't that long ago that if you tried to explain a television they'd burn you at the stake for witchcraft.

[JDave]

God is a scientist because he understands how everything works (the underlying laws or theorems).  An engineer is a mere technician.  God is both scientist and engineer.

 

Not so.  Technicians work on what engineers create.  Engineers need to understand the underlying laws in order to design things that won't fall apart or act inappropriately.  Basically, engineers study all the scientific knowledge that has been discovered.  Scientists are left to discover more, but whenever they do discover more the engineers need to learn about it so that they can make use of it.  As science advances in our world, engineers are better able to design things based on that science.  Engineering is "the practical application of the knowledge of pure sciences".  If you don't have the knowledge, you can't apply it.

[Rob Osborn]

A Theist is simply someone whom believes in one or more Gods. Supernatural by definition means "pertaining to God". Whatever attributes a particular religion puts to their one or more Gods it is irrelevant to being a Theist or a Atheist. Confucius probably would have had a hard time with the big Bang origin of the universe. But he was essentially correct. Even if the something was extremely small. Science by definition can not posit any God or Godlike force. It is Agnostic on the subject.

 

True it did take a while to abandon Alchemy in favor of Chemistry. It wasn't that long ago that if you tried to explain a television they'd burn you at the stake for witchcraft.

But this is not how science likes to use the word "supernatural". Here is how science properly defines it-

"of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal."

God cannot be considered outside of harmony with nature or natural law. True it is that he employs a perfect understanding of all the laws in nature of which we have not yet come to understand but God is definately within all natural law. So why is it that God gets chalked up as using "magic" like you guys seem to assume? True science incorporates all facets of its existence including everything in the universe that actually did happen of the which God is definately a part of. So to say God is outside of this is entirely ridiculous and nearsighted.

[Robert F. Smith]

 

Dan,

re your post #408,

Was your first Master's degree in geology, archeology, or the like?  You certainly understand dating techniques.

[Rivers]

A Theist is simply someone whom believes in one or more Gods.

I think there's a little more to theism than the belief in a god or gods. It also includes belief in an ultimate purpose of life.

[Rivers]

Ken Ham's statement "there is a book" is very telling. It is a classic example of the God of the Gaps argument.