Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[DarthCloakedDwarf]

1: If you want a citation, I cited my source in a previous post. Try to keep up. Also, if you really want scientific analysis, then you don't want carbon dating, which uses concentric logic to arrive at the preconceived notion that the tested object belongs wherever the scientists want it to belong in the timeline.

So again your dismissing anything that disproves your belief

No, just dismissing inconsistant pseudoscientific methods that yield unreliable results.

They fine-tune carbon-dating by fossil layers, and define the age of fossil layers by carbon dating. Still-living snail shells have been carbon-dated at being over 200 years old, and 200-year-old Kilauean (no idea how that's spelled) rocks have been potassium-argon-dated at being billions of years old.

This is why creationists don't get taken seriously. Radio dating is used extensively by the mining and oil industry and works on the same principal as atomic clocks used in gps satellites. If its false so is most of human civilization.

Erm, carbon dating isn't used by creationists. I don't see why you attribute its flaws to why creationists aren't taken seriously.

2: Have you ever considered that, say, the Volkswagon Van and the Volkswagon Bug have similar design elements? They are similar because of a common designer, just as living things can be seen as being similar for the same reason.

What about organs or features that serve no purpose?

For years, we thought the appendix served no purpose, before discovering it was part of the lymphatic system that produces white blood cells and cleans out waste from the bloodstream. For years, people were advised to get their tonsils removed regardless of whether they were infected or not because it wasn't believed they served any purpose in the human body before they, too, were discovered to promote human health. Just because we don't know what purpose they serve doesn't mean we know they serve no purpose.

[lumin]

I don't need faith, I see IT all around me.  I don't see "God" all around me.

You can't prove it has always been here.  That's your theory, or in other words, your Faith.  Again, I call it "God", you call it "It".  "faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore if ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen".

Bring me your proof that it has always existed, or call it Faith and theory.  You can't have it both ways.

I said that's a possibility.  As nobody can go back in time to find out, we have to look around us and compare what's happening to things and relate that to the world we know.  It doesn't take "Faith" in any way.  There's a law of conservation that pretty much lends itself to the understanding that our universe could have always existed and never had a "creation point."  That's observable.  "God" isn't.  If you relate your god to my explanation of "it" then you should be praying to your pencil for it is made of "God."  And we all know most religion wouldn't have that from their creator.

What I'm saying is on a molecular level, matter and energy could have always existed.  They combined in patterns that formed mass and elements that make up you, me, your pencil, and the monitor you are looking at.  If some "God" did all this, they likely don't care about the insignificant being that evolved from that mass called Humans because they are concentrating on the finite laws that bind it all together and you are merely a Planet in the eyes of an Earthworm.  You are out of that god's scope... unless you are truly as arrogant as previous generations and you think that the universe was created and revolves around you.

Again you just don't get it.  Everything that you see as "not God", I see "as God".  Everything you were taught came from a professor or a book or from a lab experiment.  You have faith in those people that those ideas are correct, just as I have faith from what I have read and learned.

Bring me the proof that everything has always existed and then talk to me again, words with no proof means nothing.  If anyone has an ego, it's you believing you know everything with a perfect knowledge, having no faith.

[Bauglir]

2: Have you ever considered that, say, the Volkswagon Van and the Volkswagon Bug have similar design elements? They are similar because of a common designer, just as living things can be seen as being similar for the same reason.

What about organs or features that serve no purpose?

For years, we thought the appendix served no purpose, before discovering it was part of the lymphatic system that produces white blood cells and cleans out waste from the bloodstream. For years, people were advised to get their tonsils removed regardless of whether they were infected or not because it wasn't believed they served any purpose in the human body before they, too, were discovered to promote human health. Just because we don't know what purpose they serve doesn't mean we know they serve no purpose.

Once more. MEN HAVE NIPPLES.

[DarthCloakedDwarf]

2: Have you ever considered that, say, the Volkswagon Van and the Volkswagon Bug have similar design elements? They are similar because of a common designer, just as living things can be seen as being similar for the same reason.

What about organs or features that serve no purpose?

For years, we thought the appendix served no purpose, before discovering it was part of the lymphatic system that produces white blood cells and cleans out waste from the bloodstream. For years, people were advised to get their tonsils removed regardless of whether they were infected or not because it wasn't believed they served any purpose in the human body before they, too, were discovered to promote human health. Just because we don't know what purpose they serve doesn't mean we know they serve no purpose.

Once more. MEN HAVE NIPPLES.

You say that as if you have some sort of point to make. Or did you not know that all fetuses start out, for all intents and purposes, the same gender?

[Phmcw]

Darth What can I say??? It's sad, but you were tricked. 
It's sad but true, carbon dating rely on the same theory that allow us to build atomic bomb and atomic power plant.
Evolutionary adaptation is achevied everyday by micro organism, and we are beginning to see new plant able to survive round up becaause of natural selection. I'm studying these therory, and I can say they work. You can say it too, else we wouldn't be discussing on computer that require a great deal of quanum mechanic to work.

Think about it: your theory need a god that want to fool us. A all powerful being that have nothing else to do then to make light, other electromagnetic wave and neutino, just to fool my friend that is working on detecting cosmological neutrino in the entartic?
And If this god exist and fool us, why not you, why aren't you a brain in a jar strugling agaisnt an arbitrary reprsentaion of our universe. Why am I not god speaking to you?

Lumin same thing. Or rather if everything is god congratulation, you invented a new world for "the universe" and proclamated he is sentient. Now Just tell us why he care about america, abortion or homosexual.

[Huesoo]

or a hoax (such as the one combining a human jawbone with an ape's skull, or the one that was found to have been derived from a single fragment of a pig's tooth)) evidence cannot be interpreted as evidence of intelligent design.

[Citation needed]

Okay, I'll go get my book. Be back in a moment.

Unlocking the Mysteries of Creation, by Dennis R Petersen.

Im waiting for it.



This thread has taken a turn for the stupid, I love how someone posted a post full of citations and these guys ignored him. Also you call him God,  call him Allah.

[lumin]

Lumin same thing. Or rather if everything is god congratulation, you invented a new world for "the universe" and proclamated he is sentient. Now Just tell us why he care about america, abortion or homosexual.

I didn't understand a word you just said, good sir.  I invented a universe?  Wow I didn't know that (unless you count Faery Tale Online)!  Who is this "he" that you refer to???

[kuro_suna]

They fine-tune carbon-dating by fossil layers, and define the age of fossil layers by carbon dating. Still-living snail shells have been carbon-dated at being over 200 years old, and 200-year-old Kilauean (no idea how that's spelled) rocks have been potassium-argon-dated at being billions of years old.

This is why creationists don't get taken seriously. Radio dating is used extensively by the mining and oil industry and works on the same principal as atomic clocks used in gps satellites. If its false so is most of human civilization.

Erm, carbon dating isn't used by creationists. I don't see why you attribute its flaws to why creationists aren't taken seriously.

You misread me,

Creationists don't get taken seriously for trying to disprove science that's already reached the practical application stage. Saying that carbon dating is false is like saying that the internal combustion engine is a lie.

[Bauglir]

2: Have you ever considered that, say, the Volkswagon Van and the Volkswagon Bug have similar design elements? They are similar because of a common designer, just as living things can be seen as being similar for the same reason.

What about organs or features that serve no purpose?

For years, we thought the appendix served no purpose, before discovering it was part of the lymphatic system that produces white blood cells and cleans out waste from the bloodstream. For years, people were advised to get their tonsils removed regardless of whether they were infected or not because it wasn't believed they served any purpose in the human body before they, too, were discovered to promote human health. Just because we don't know what purpose they serve doesn't mean we know they serve no purpose.

Once more. MEN HAVE NIPPLES.

You say that as if you have some sort of point to make. Or did you not know that all fetuses start out, for all intents and purposes, the same gender?

That all fetuses start out the same gender, physically, is rather the point actually. Why should nipple formation not be part of female development, since nipples serve a purpose only in females? Hint: because evolution doesn't think, while a designer would. You can wave it away as "God's will" or somesuch, but all that tells me is that you like your theories unfalsifiable and therefore not scientific (EDIT: and, therefore, only theories in the lay sense of the word, and not even hypotheses in any scientific sense). And have you any evidence against this? Or are you ignoring it because you prefer debating facts on the basis of opinions?

[DarthCloakedDwarf]

Darth What can I say??? It's sad, but you were tricked. 

Prove it. ^.^

It's sad but true, carbon dating rely on the same theory that allow us to build atomic bomb and atomic power plant.
Evolutionary adaptation is achevied everyday by micro organism, and we are beginning to see new plant able to survive round up becaause of natural selection. I'm studying these therory, and I can say they work. You can say it too, else we wouldn't be discussing on computer that require a great deal of quanum mechanic to work.

I don't recall stating that the theories were flawed. However, if you're assuming something started out with 100% of an unstable isotope, but instead started off with 10% and 90% of the stable isotope, well, you're off by a bit, aren't you? Similarly, just because I don't believe bacteria can't evolve into humans doesn't mean I don't believe in natural selection. In artificial environments, radioactive decay can be a reliable timer. If a creature can mutate, the rare beneficial mutation will aid its survival and the non-beneficial ones are less likely to survive. But believing that goo can be struck by lightning and gain the ability to respirate and reproduce is simply too incredible for me to believe without proof.

Think about it: your theory need a god that want to fool us. A all powerful being that have nothing else to do then to make light, other electromagnetic wave and neutino, just to fool my friend that is working on detecting cosmological neutrino in the entartic?
And If this god exist and fool us, why not you, why aren't you a brain in a jar strugling agaisnt an arbitrary reprsentaion of our universe. Why am I not god speaking to you?

Perhaps He doesn't want to fool us, but to learn about the natural laws of the universe. If an omniscient being knows all the rules of the universe, can He not create a universe with a semblance of age? Otherwise, it would be millions of years before we began to truly learn about astronomy.

[DarthCloakedDwarf]

2: Have you ever considered that, say, the Volkswagon Van and the Volkswagon Bug have similar design elements? They are similar because of a common designer, just as living things can be seen as being similar for the same reason.

What about organs or features that serve no purpose?

For years, we thought the appendix served no purpose, before discovering it was part of the lymphatic system that produces white blood cells and cleans out waste from the bloodstream. For years, people were advised to get their tonsils removed regardless of whether they were infected or not because it wasn't believed they served any purpose in the human body before they, too, were discovered to promote human health. Just because we don't know what purpose they serve doesn't mean we know they serve no purpose.

Once more. MEN HAVE NIPPLES.

You say that as if you have some sort of point to make. Or did you not know that all fetuses start out, for all intents and purposes, the same gender?

That all fetuses start out the same gender, physically, is rather the point actually. Why should nipple formation not be part of female development, since nipples serve a purpose only in females? Hint: because evolution doesn't think, while a designer would. You can wave it away as "God's will" or somesuch, but all that tells me is that you like your theories unfalsifiable and therefore not scientific (EDIT: and, therefore, only theories in the lay sense of the word, and not even hypotheses in any scientific sense). And have you any evidence against this? Or are you ignoring it because you prefer debating facts on the basis of opinions?

It might be because this thread moves fast, and there's only one of me. And I type slow. And am playing Dwarf Fortress right now too.

[Bauglir]

But believing that goo can be struck by lightning and gain the ability to respirate and reproduce is simply too incredible for me to believe without proof.

Good, because no scientist is saying that happened. Actually what happened is a pool of goo got struck by lightning and a few of the molecules ended up in nucleotide chains, which happen to replicate in the presence of other nucleotides. All you need from there is mutation, and everything follows.

EDIT: No problem. DF is a much more important task than arguing pointlessly over the internet. I'll keep bringing it up every page, or so, though, so at least other people can get a chance.

[Andir]

Bring me the proof that everything has always existed and then talk to me again, words with no proof means nothing.  If anyone has an ego, it's you believing you know everything with a perfect knowledge, having no faith.

On the contrary, I ask you to bring me proof of your god.

And it's not me with the ego... it's those that think everything was created for them.  I'm playing the humble role in this game.  If a planet slammed into Earth tomorrow crushing us all, I'd shrug my shoulders and say, "That sucks!" and you'd be praying for some imaginary creature to save you because you are more important than the planet or the result.

[DarthCloakedDwarf]

Anyways, I've made the points I feel are important to bring up, and encourage atheists and Christians alike to read Unlocking the Mysteries of Creation by Dennis R. Petersen.

Urist McCloaked Cancels Friendly Debate in Thread: Interrupted by Dwarf Fortress

[Andir]

Anyways, I've made the points I feel are important to bring up, and encourage atheists and Christians alike to read Unlocking the Mysteries of Creation by Dennis R. Petersen.

Urist McCloaked Cancels Friendly Debate in Thread: Interrupted by Dwarf Fortress

I can already tell how the book will lean based on your capitalization principles.  (yeah, I know that's petty...)  What if said Atheist doesn't believe that there was a creation?  Reading a book on the theory that everything was created seems counterproductive.