thesometimesaint Posted July 19, 2016 Posted July 19, 2016 3 hours ago, danielwoods said: Like I said if we can't acknowledge or even understand that we have untestable extrapolations (faith) on both sides, the discussion is pointless. Your CFR or question is a glaring example. In other words Dating methods that are in the "millions of years" can't be calibrated, because there is no one that lives that long to test it against. It's simply a guess or extrapolation. It simply can't be proven one way or another. By the way it would be nice if you addressed my CFR above. That is breathtaking. You weren't there when your mother was born. So your mother's birth is an untestable extrapolation?
thesometimesaint Posted July 19, 2016 Posted July 19, 2016 3 hours ago, danielwoods said: Like I said if we can't acknowledge or even understand that we have untestable extrapolations (faith) on both sides, the discussion is pointless. Your CFR or question is a glaring example. In other words Dating methods that are in the "millions of years" can't be calibrated, because there is no one that lives that long to test it against. It's simply a guess or extrapolation. It simply can't be proven one way or another. By the way it would be nice if you addressed my CFR above. SEE http://www.joemygod.com/2016/04/27/kentucky-state-awards-18-million-in-tax-breaks-to-ken-hams-creationist-ark-encounter-theme-park/
danielwoods Posted July 20, 2016 Posted July 20, 2016 12 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said: Mt.St. Helens? You're kidding, right? You obviously have never read a single biology textbook of even the most elementary level. Or, at least, never read with comprehension. I'm going to assume you get your information from the Institute for Creation Research site or Answers in Genesis site, because you won't find a single qualified, credited geology text that states such crap. So, according to you...or your sites...the volcanic dust or sandstones and sand layers of the Grand Canyon were cut when all that dust and sand were soft. And then the layers of sandstone and shale have solidified since the global flood. I ask you again to read about limestone. It has to be at least 50% shell and corals to be even called limestone. Take any beach in the world, any beach at all. Do simple measurements of the layers of shells. The top layer of Limestone, the Kaibab limestone is between 300 to 500 feet thick. Using any modern beach, anywhere in the world, bring back a measurement of more than 50 feet of sheels formed over the last 4000 years since the great flood. Check out the Cliffs of Dover. The cliffs are composed mainly of soft, white chalk with a very fine-grained texture, composed primarily of coccoliths, plates of calcium carbonate formed by coccolithophores, single-celled planktonic algae whose skeletal remains sank to the bottom of the ocean during the Cretaceous. We know the cliffs are made from crushed coccolith shells because anyone with a microscope can see the shells. Did these cliffs form after , during or before the flood? The cliffs are 350 feet thick. That's 350 feet deep of tiny, tiny shells. The oceans prior to the flood would have been a thick mushy soup of living algae. Too thick for anything else to be moving around, like fish. Mt. Everest's peak, at 27,000 feet is made of metamorphosed limestone, full of seashell fossils. Explain, in 100 words or less, how seashells got to the top of such a mountain. Getting back to your Mt. St.Helens. Take a look at aerial photos of the creeks that run through the volcanic ash left from the eruption. See if you can find the wide, curving (at least 1000 feet long..if you want to compare to the Grand Canyon) slow S and U curves that are cut by water through the volcanic ash. You won't find any. The river cut relatively straight paths through the ash, where the sides of the gulley collapsed into the water flow. You will find no details that compare to the Grand Canyon, in any way. If you want to travel to Mt. St. Helens you can see for yourself that the water that flooded down from the lakes around the cone of Mt. St. Helens have not cut an inch into the rock beneath the volcanic ash. Climb down the gulf that is the Grand Canyon. It is a long, long way down from the rim of the canyon to where the Colorado River flows. Take a hammer with you and knock off chips of the metamorphosed rock at the bottom of the canyon. The rock at the bottom of the Grand Canyon is hard. Not light volcanic ash like at Mt. St. Helens. You need to do your homework. Read some actual books about Geology. Take a hose out into the garden and aim a full blast of water at any piece of granite stone or other metamorphosed stone. Measure it carefully, down to the slightest millimeter (one millimeter equals 0.0393700787 inches. That's 4/100ths of an inch) Leave the blast of water, at full force, for ten years and then measure how much the water has eroded your stone. Get back to us here at this site if the rock is one single millimeter eroded. Did I say that the water of Noah's flood cut through harden rock? Or did I say that mud flows down mt. St. Helens cut through harden rock? IS that what I said? My point was that we both make untestable assumptions. We both use the same set of facts. Yet, we both come to different conclusions. Why do you think that is?
danielwoods Posted July 20, 2016 Posted July 20, 2016 10 hours ago, thesometimesaint said: That is breathtaking. You weren't there when your mother was born. So your mother's birth is an untestable extrapolation? Not at all what I said is it? Of course we observe birth everyday. So, said extrapolation is reasonable. No one has seen even 100K years, so extrapolation beyond what we (as mankind) have observed isn't reasonable. Nor is it testable. Which is why it's called "extrapolation" or "faith."
danielwoods Posted July 20, 2016 Posted July 20, 2016 10 hours ago, thesometimesaint said: SEE http://www.joemygod.com/2016/04/27/kentucky-state-awards-18-million-in-tax-breaks-to-ken-hams-creationist-ark-encounter-theme-park/ Thank you. So you admit that you made a false statement, when you said, "Ken Ham needed taxpayer dollars to build his amusement park. So he is wasting my money." He didn't use tax dollars to build his park. https://answersingenesis.org/ministry-news/ark-encounter/lie-keeps-coming-washington-post/
VideoGameJunkie Posted July 20, 2016 Posted July 20, 2016 After watching the movie Noah, three questions came into my mind. If the biblical flood really took place: 1) Where did the water go to after the flood? If water covered the mountains and then drained away, where did so much water go to? 2) Was Noah's ark the only ship in the world? When the flood was starting, wouldn't some people (who are not from Noah's family) have managed to get onto boats and ships? They could then ride out the flood and survive. 3) Where are the cities / buildings from the time before the flood? Have any been found?
thesometimesaint Posted July 20, 2016 Posted July 20, 2016 1 hour ago, danielwoods said: Not at all what I said is it? Of course we observe birth everyday. So, said extrapolation is reasonable. No one has seen even 100K years, so extrapolation beyond what we (as mankind) have observed isn't reasonable. Nor is it testable. Which is why it's called "extrapolation" or "faith." You weren't there for your mother's birthday. What do you mean by no one? The human genome is between 250,000 and 500,000 years old, and out of Africa. SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution
thesometimesaint Posted July 20, 2016 Posted July 20, 2016 1 hour ago, danielwoods said: Thank you. So you admit that you made a false statement, when you said, "Ken Ham needed taxpayer dollars to build his amusement park. So he is wasting my money." He didn't use tax dollars to build his park. https://answersingenesis.org/ministry-news/ark-encounter/lie-keeps-coming-washington-post/ Who the heck do you think pays for those tax breaks. The money has to come from someone, and Kentucky is a moocher state. Meaning my tax dollars paid for his silly amusement park.
strappinglad Posted July 20, 2016 Posted July 20, 2016 I wonder if Disneyland used any tax breaks/incentives in producing its silly amusement park. Dancing bears.... can it get any sillier ? Danielwoods point is there is no recorded history older than, let's say , 10,000 years. Even then, scholars will say that most recorded history is myth /legend and not 'real' . If we had written records from the humanoids who lived 100,000 years ago, how would they be viewed ? With much skepticism I think. Science says that a particular rock has a particular age because of the types of fossils found therein. Science says that a particular fossil has a particular age because of the type of rock it is found in. Science says that a particular rock dates to a particular age range because of the radiometric measurements found. And how does one know what age a particular radiometric level means? Assumptions were made. I'm sure those assumptions were rational and logical and not influenced by any worldview.
thesometimesaint Posted July 20, 2016 Posted July 20, 2016 18 minutes ago, strappinglad said: I wonder if Disneyland used any tax breaks/incentives in producing its silly amusement park. Dancing bears.... can it get any sillier ? Danielwoods point is there is no recorded history older than, let's say , 10,000 years. Even then, scholars will say that most recorded history is myth /legend and not 'real' . If we had written records from the humanoids who lived 100,000 years ago, how would they be viewed ? With much skepticism I think. Science says that a particular rock has a particular age because of the types of fossils found therein. Science says that a particular fossil has a particular age because of the type of rock it is found in. Science says that a particular rock dates to a particular age range because of the radiometric measurements found. And how does one know what age a particular radiometric level means? Assumptions were made. I'm sure those assumptions were rational and logical and not influenced by any worldview. Do you even know what half life of a radionuclide means? 1
bcuzbcuz Posted July 20, 2016 Author Posted July 20, 2016 2 hours ago, strappinglad said: I wonder if Disneyland used any tax breaks/incentives in producing its silly amusement park. Dancing bears.... can it get any sillier ? Danielwoods point is there is no recorded history older than, let's say , 10,000 years. Even then, scholars will say that most recorded history is myth /legend and not 'real' . If we had written records from the humanoids who lived 100,000 years ago, how would they be viewed ? With much skepticism I think. Science says that a particular rock has a particular age because of the types of fossils found therein. Science says that a particular fossil has a particular age because of the type of rock it is found in. Science says that a particular rock dates to a particular age range because of the radiometric measurements found. And how does one know what age a particular radiometric level means? Assumptions were made. I'm sure those assumptions were rational and logical and not influenced by any worldview. So you are saying that time isn't relative, just that different people perceive or assume that time is dependent upon who they are and what they have as a worldview? Do you know that GPS satellites run 49,000 nanoseconds faster than your clock? Do you know why? Can you explain why? Radiometric measurements are not dependent upon opinion, or due to someone's "worldview". "Some elements have forms (called isotopes) with unstable atomic nuclei that have a tendency to change, or decay. For example, U-235 is an unstable isotope of uranium that has 92 protons and 143 neutrons in the nucl eus of each atom. Through a series of changes within the nucleus, it emits several particles, ending up with 82 protons and 125 neutrons. This is a stable condition, and there are no more changes in the atomic nucleus. A nucleus with that number of protons is called lead (chemical symbol Pb). The protons (82) and neutrons (125) total 207. This particular form (isotope) of lead is called Pb-207. U-235 is the parent isotope of Pb-207, which is the daughter isotope." "Atomic nuclei are held together by an attraction between the large nuclear particles (protons and neutrons) that is known as the "strong nuclear force", which must exceed the electrostatic repulsion between the protons within the nucleus. In general, with the exception of the single proton that constitutes the nucleus of the most abundant isotope of hydrogen, the number of neutrons must at least equal the number of protons in an atomic nucleus, because electrostatic repulsion prohibits denser packing of protons. But if there are too many neutrons, the nucleus is potentially unstable and decay may be triggered. This happens at any time when addition of the fleeting "weak nuclear force" to the ever-present electrostatic repulsion exceeds the binding energy required to hold the nucleus together." "Very careful measurements in laboratories, made on VERY LARGE numbers of U-235 atoms, have shown that each of the atoms has a 50:50 chance of decaying during about 704,000,000 years. In other words, during 704 million years, half the U-235 atoms that existed at the beginning of that time will decay to Pb-207. This is known as the half life of U- 235. Many elements have some isotopes that are unstable, essentially because they have too many neutrons to be balanced by the number of protons in the nucleus. Each of these unstable isotopes has its own characteristic half life. Some half lives are several billion years long, and others are as short as a ten-thousandth of a second." http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/fosrec/McKinney.html You're saying these studies are just a matter of opinion? Please counter with any argument that shows that these studies are not accepted. 1
danielwoods Posted July 20, 2016 Posted July 20, 2016 6 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said: After watching the movie Noah, three questions came into my mind. If the biblical flood really took place: 1) Where did the water go to after the flood? If water covered the mountains and then drained away, where did so much water go to? 2) Was Noah's ark the only ship in the world? When the flood was starting, wouldn't some people (who are not from Noah's family) have managed to get onto boats and ships? They could then ride out the flood and survive. 3) Where are the cities / buildings from the time before the flood? Have any been found? My answers, or guesses to your queries. 1) Where did the water go? I believe that most of the movement of the land mass and uplift that created the mountains as we see them today occurred during the flood. In other words, before the flood most of the land had a lower elevation. 2) The flood was a judgement, so the purpose was to kill. With that in mind, it's similar to what we see when a tsunami hits a region. Even the boats are destroyed by the moving mass of debris. The Ark would be better described as a covered Barge designed to withstand the debris and violent wave action. 3) I don't know. Considering the amount of upheaval and turbulence contained in the event, unlike ever before seen or seen again, I'm not sure we'll find anything but bones which are now fossils.
danielwoods Posted July 20, 2016 Posted July 20, 2016 5 hours ago, thesometimesaint said: Who the heck do you think pays for those tax breaks. The money has to come from someone, and Kentucky is a moocher state. Meaning my tax dollars paid for his silly amusement park. Sorry that's a false statement. Your tax money didn't pay to have it built. He built it first with any tax help, then like any amusement park he's allowed tax breaks like everyone else.
bcuzbcuz Posted July 20, 2016 Author Posted July 20, 2016 9 hours ago, danielwoods said: Did I say that the water of Noah's flood cut through harden rock? Or did I say that mud flows down mt. St. Helens cut through harden rock? IS that what I said? My point was that we both make untestable assumptions. We both use the same set of facts. Yet, we both come to different conclusions. Why do you think that is? Ok, you've succeeded. I write you long, complicated, accurate reference material....you answer each time to my ending sentence. With other words, you aren't bothering to read the core of the material I send. I'm wasting my time to try to conduct an reasoned argument. And you're wrong. We aren't using the same facts that we simply interpret differently. We aren't using the same facts. There are no facts that compare Mt.St. Helens to channel cutting through hard rock. Your statement that the Grand Canyon was cut by the Colorado river, through soft ash, dust, pliable material is pure nonsense, without a single piece of evidence that can be shown. You talk about others extrapolating to reach conclusions but blindly follow a nonsense argument of rock being fluffly piles of ash, etc. My assumptions are not untestable. I merely do not belief in magical solutions that ignore facts. I live in a world where the constancy of physical laws, physical rules of erosion, geological observable, repeatable actions, occur the same way, time after time. Your world requires magical, untestable, unrepeatable actions. You believe in mountains being pushed up from increased water pressure from beneath, completely ignoring that mountains are not merely physical features of the surface of the earth. Mountains are as equally deep as they are high. They result from enormous platonic pressures that fold both the surface but also the depths of the crust. You really need to study basic geology. Your world believes in a 500-600 year old man building an enormous ark. That he fathered three sons at the age of 500 and that he lived to be 900 years old. Show even one tiniest scrap of evidence anywhere in the world where a human reaches the age of 200. 2
Atheist Mormon Posted July 20, 2016 Posted July 20, 2016 (edited) On 7/13/2016 at 10:34 AM, HappyJackWagon said: But on the upside, it must be a fun spectacle to experience. I'd be willing to hit it on a road trip. Sure beats the worlds biggest ball of yarn. Do it at your own risk.....This endeavor has been a huge "blow in your face" (Ken Ham) experience for him; you can listen here, (granted it is an atheist podcast) but not far from the reality; http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/ . Ken ham has been so blatantly ignorant of the science, human evolution, created havoc among unlearned Christians, now it is time to reap fruits of his labor....It is not very pretty..... Edited July 20, 2016 by Atheist Mormon comma
strappinglad Posted July 20, 2016 Posted July 20, 2016 (edited) Yes I know about half-life. I can even do the calculations to determine age given the proper facts. Yes I know a bit about relativity and why GPS satellites run as they do. I know about the geologic column and know that it was established well before radiometric dating was available. I also know that actual rock layers are found out of the established order all over the world. Yes , there are reasons given as to why this is so, but the problem is that observations from current geologic activity are limited when inferring what happened a billion years ago. That is why an event like the Mt St Helens eruption gave some insight . I have mentioned before the Scablands flood situation in which the proposed flood was denied for decades , mostly because any mention of the idea of a widespread flood spread fear and anger among the established geological society . Turns out the theory about the scablands flood was eventually shown to be correct . Thank goodness science is self correcting , right? In order to date anything one must have a starting point. Assumptions must be made about the conditions existing at that starting point. Document forgers know this and manipulate the conditions accordingly. I am NOT implying that someone(God) manipulated the conditions just to mess with our minds. I'm saying science has made assumptions about starting conditions. It is said that the moon was formed because of a collision between earth and some now invisible cosmic body. Did that collision have any effect on the starting conditions? My whole life I was informed that the makeup of the earth's interior was well known. Now it seems there are problems with that absolute. Actual observation of the other celestial bodies show geysers throwing massive amounts of material .If the solar system is as old as believed then based on the amounts spewed out currently, such activity should have removed a large chunk of the moon/planet by now. Obviously the thing is still here so, why? Either the solar system is not as old as assumed( absolutely impossible) or we are observing relatively new activity. In other words, we are unsure of the starting conditions. Photos of Pluto show areas that indicate recent geologic activity, such thing we had never supposed. And why had we never supposed? First, we had little close up knowledge, and second, we made assumptions based on a worldview. Edited July 20, 2016 by strappinglad 3
thesometimesaint Posted July 20, 2016 Posted July 20, 2016 (edited) 5 hours ago, danielwoods said: Sorry that's a false statement. Your tax money didn't pay to have it built. He built it first with any tax help, then like any amusement park he's allowed tax breaks like everyone else. You know almost as much about tax policy as you do science. Edited July 20, 2016 by thesometimesaint 1
danielwoods Posted July 21, 2016 Posted July 21, 2016 14 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said: Ok, you've succeeded. I write you long, complicated, accurate reference material....you answer each time to my ending sentence. With other words, you aren't bothering to read the core of the material I send. I'm wasting my time to try to conduct an reasoned argument. And you're wrong. We aren't using the same facts that we simply interpret differently. We aren't using the same facts. There are no facts that compare Mt.St. Helens to channel cutting through hard rock. Your statement that the Grand Canyon was cut by the Colorado river, through soft ash, dust, pliable material is pure nonsense, without a single piece of evidence that can be shown. You talk about others extrapolating to reach conclusions but blindly follow a nonsense argument of rock being fluffly piles of ash, etc. My assumptions are not untestable. I merely do not belief in magical solutions that ignore facts. I live in a world where the constancy of physical laws, physical rules of erosion, geological observable, repeatable actions, occur the same way, time after time. Your world requires magical, untestable, unrepeatable actions. You believe in mountains being pushed up from increased water pressure from beneath, completely ignoring that mountains are not merely physical features of the surface of the earth. Mountains are as equally deep as they are high. They result from enormous platonic pressures that fold both the surface but also the depths of the crust. You really need to study basic geology. Your world believes in a 500-600 year old man building an enormous ark. That he fathered three sons at the age of 500 and that he lived to be 900 years old. Show even one tiniest scrap of evidence anywhere in the world where a human reaches the age of 200. Your long winded "arguments" don't actually get to the crux of the issue, even though I've tried to point out the issue. Rather, you think that since some scientists have simply declared "this" or "That" to be correct, therefore it simply is. What is interesting is that these scientists are now acting more like preachers than they are scientists. Simply declaring "truth" is what preachers do. Further, you make a lot of assumptions about what you think I know or understand or have studied. All of which is irrelevant. Unless I'm the one at issue, which I'm not. What I know or don't know is irrelevant to the issue of untestable assumptions at the very core of "scientific declarations." You think that I'm arguing for magical solutions that ignore the facts, nothing could be further from the truth. I'm no more arguing for magical solutions than secular scientists do with their belief in a singularity that started the universe as we know it. OR the fact that life doesn't come from non-living tissue ever! But these beliefs are so prevalent among secular scientists that they will spend millions of dollars to send a rover to Mars to look for life. So, no I'm merely looking at the same facts that you are, even though you "Declare" that I'm not. In fact, I grew up believing and studying evolution as an Atheist. And have changed my mind and viewpoint after looking at all the facts, not just the ones that secular scientists want you to see. Further, your "argument" if you want to call it that. That Noah couldn't have lived that long, and couldn't have done what is written about him. Is your belief. Just so you know, your faith is showing. And you don't think that influences one's view of the data? And I'm the one who is blind?
danielwoods Posted July 21, 2016 Posted July 21, 2016 11 hours ago, thesometimesaint said: You know almost as much about tax policy as you do science. Ridicule is what you resort to.
Johnnie Cake Posted July 21, 2016 Posted July 21, 2016 48 minutes ago, danielwoods said: Your long winded "arguments" don't actually get to the crux of the issue, even though I've tried to point out the issue. Rather, you think that since some scientists have simply declared "this" or "That" to be correct, therefore it simply is. What is interesting is that these scientists are now acting more like preachers than they are scientists. Simply declaring "truth" is what preachers do. Further, you make a lot of assumptions about what you think I know or understand or have studied. All of which is irrelevant. Unless I'm the one at issue, which I'm not. What I know or don't know is irrelevant to the issue of untestable assumptions at the very core of "scientific declarations." You think that I'm arguing for magical solutions that ignore the facts, nothing could be further from the truth. I'm no more arguing for magical solutions than secular scientists do with their belief in a singularity that started the universe as we know it. OR the fact that life doesn't come from non-living tissue ever! But these beliefs are so prevalent among secular scientists that they will spend millions of dollars to send a rover to Mars to look for life. So, no I'm merely looking at the same facts that you are, even though you "Declare" that I'm not. In fact, I grew up believing and studying evolution as an Atheist. And have changed my mind and viewpoint after looking at all the facts, not just the ones that secular scientists want you to see. Further, your "argument" if you want to call it that. That Noah couldn't have lived that long, and couldn't have done what is written about him. Is your belief. Just so you know, your faith is showing. And you don't think that influences one's view of the data? And I'm the one who is blind? Daniel stop while you're behind...you're embarrassing yourself
bcuzbcuz Posted July 21, 2016 Author Posted July 21, 2016 6 hours ago, danielwoods said: Your long winded "arguments" don't actually get to the crux of the issue, even though I've tried to point out the issue. Rather, you think that since some scientists have simply declared "this" or "That" to be correct, therefore it simply is. What is interesting is that these scientists are now acting more like preachers than they are scientists. Simply declaring "truth" is what preachers do. Further, you make a lot of assumptions about what you think I know or understand or have studied. All of which is irrelevant. Unless I'm the one at issue, which I'm not. What I know or don't know is irrelevant to the issue of untestable assumptions at the very core of "scientific declarations." You think that I'm arguing for magical solutions that ignore the facts, nothing could be further from the truth. I'm no more arguing for magical solutions than secular scientists do with their belief in a singularity that started the universe as we know it. OR the fact that life doesn't come from non-living tissue ever! But these beliefs are so prevalent among secular scientists that they will spend millions of dollars to send a rover to Mars to look for life. So, no I'm merely looking at the same facts that you are, even though you "Declare" that I'm not. In fact, I grew up believing and studying evolution as an Atheist. And have changed my mind and viewpoint after looking at all the facts, not just the ones that secular scientists want you to see. Further, your "argument" if you want to call it that. That Noah couldn't have lived that long, and couldn't have done what is written about him. Is your belief. Just so you know, your faith is showing. And you don't think that influences one's view of the data? And I'm the one who is blind? Long winded. Well, Thank you. I deserve that. I assumed you were listening. That makes an *** out of me.
thesometimesaint Posted July 21, 2016 Posted July 21, 2016 12 hours ago, danielwoods said: Ridicule is what you resort to. A long well used art-form in rhetoric when confronted with ridiculous claims.
danielwoods Posted July 22, 2016 Posted July 22, 2016 (edited) Went to the Ark yesterday. It was awe inspiring to walk through. Edited July 22, 2016 by danielwoods
thesometimesaint Posted July 22, 2016 Posted July 22, 2016 2 hours ago, danielwoods said: Went to the Ark yesterday. It was awe inspiring to walk through. Why am I not surprised?
bcuzbcuz Posted July 23, 2016 Author Posted July 23, 2016 23 hours ago, danielwoods said: Went to the Ark yesterday. It was awe inspiring to walk through. Please share. What exactly was "awe inspiring"? Would a person who does not believe Ken Ham's interpretation of Noah's flood be awed? Did you see evidence of animals "two by two"? (Genesis 6:17-19) or "Of every clean beast...by sevens"(KJB)? (Genesis 7:2) or " seven pairs of every clean animal" (New International Version)? (Genesis 7:2) Did Ken Ham include dinosaurs in the animals on board the ark?
Recommended Posts