• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

The Flood

Status
Not open for further replies.

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,856,301
52,680
Guam
✟5,164,960.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Upvote 0

Split Rock

Conflation of Blathers
Nov 3, 2003
17,607
730
North Dakota
✟22,466.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Yes --- it was revealed that there was no mother ship behind the Hale-Bopp comet --- nor had there been.

It was reported as a hoax.

So can you prove that there wasn't a cloaked mothership behind the Hale-Bopp comet that we could not detect with our primative instruments?

Yes --- the cloaking device was invented by the Romulans --- in the 23[sup]rd[/sup] (?) century.
The Romulans are sci-fi. These people believed the mother-ship would really be there. Surely you don't imagine a civilization with the technology for interstellar travel would be unable to hide their ship from our equipment?

Again I ask... can you prove it wasn't there?
 
Upvote 0

FishFace

Senior Veteran
Jan 12, 2007
4,535
169
37
✟28,130.00
Faith
Atheist
Easy to say.

Can you suggest how you, Inan3, lone message board scientist, would be more believable than the countless serious scientists who have actually done the work ?

I hear YEC or Creationists say the method of determining the age is wrong, but yet none of them can explain why the very same science that underlies this can work for things like nuclear medicine, atomic weapons, radiological studies of all sorts.

But it doesn't stop there. Radiometric dating relies on a type of rate modelling called "First Order Kinetics".

The same type of rate modelling can be used not just for radiological issues but also for standard chemical issues. It is a means of calculating how much of a chemical is left over after a certain length of time. It is applicable to figuring out how long some medicines stay active in the body. How long some dangerous pesticides stay active in the environment.

When someone talks about a "half life" it isn't just radioactive decay.

So, if you want to throw out this particular bathwater, how many babies are you throwing out with it?

And of course medical imaging with radioisotopes uses the premise that the material used has the correct half-life such that it will still be there when the image is taken, and that it won't be there many years afterwards. If nuclear science didn't work properly, we'd either be killing everyone with the radiation, or we'd be unable to get images out of them.
 
Upvote 0

thaumaturgy

Well-Known Member
Nov 17, 2006
7,541
882
✟12,333.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
And of course medical imaging with radioisotopes uses the premise that the material used has the correct half-life such that it will still be there when the image is taken, and that it won't be there many years afterwards. If nuclear science didn't work properly, we'd either be killing everyone with the radiation, or we'd be unable to get images out of them.

Yup.

I think the YEC like to think radiometric dating was "ginned up" completely independently of the century of work around radioactivity in general.

We know a lot about radioactive decay thanks to the hard non-miraculous work of countless dedicated scientists.

I wish YEC would also realize that the concept of "half-life" isn't just associated with radioactive decay. It can equally be applied to any process which follows this type of kinetic.


Granted, radioactive decay is NOT a chemical reaction, it is a nuclear reaction and the underlying processes are different, but indeed the rate of decay is what we are talking about here and we have extensively studied all of these various rates and modelled them.

The first order rate law is a very important rate law, radioactive decay and many chemical reactions follow this rate law and some of the language of kinetics comes from this law. The form of Equation 14d is called an "exponential decay." This form appears in many places in nature. One of its consequences is that it gives rise to a concept called "half-life."
(SOURCE)

Let us use the following chemical equation: A ---> products.
The decrease in the concentration of A over time can be written as: - d[A] / dt = k [A]
Rearrangement yields the following: d[A] / [A] = - k dt
Integrate the equation, which yields: ln [A] = - kt + C Evaluate the value of C (the constant of integration) by using boundry conditions. Specifically, when t = 0, [A] = [A]o. [A]o is the original starting concentration of A. (SOURCE)

The half life is the time it takes for half of the concentration of the reactant under observation to disappear. It summarizes down to:

Image849.gif

k= the first order rate constant.


If YEC want to discuss the failings of radiometric dating, perhaps they can start with discussing first order rate kinetics in general.
 
Upvote 0

NailsII

Life-long student of biological science
Jul 25, 2007
1,690
48
UK
✟24,647.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Except that God left us to live our lives how we choose, i.e. free will. Even if it had been a commandment, we'd still be in this mess of pollution, etc. So you trying to blame God for that seems a little... well, lame. Sorry, not trying to flame, but that's my thought on it.
But you're using the Old Testament. Some things in the OT were kinda.... obsolete once the NT came in. Like not being able to eat certain things considered unclean. Until God ok'd it with Peter in the NT.
Thank you for your prompt reply NavyGuy.
However, I believe you completely skated around the question. Unlike AV, who tried to dismiss it as out of context.
So I shall put it into context:

Leviticus 19 (New International Version)

1 The LORD said to Moses,
2 "Speak to the entire assembly of Israel and say to them: 'Be holy because I, the LORD your God, am holy.
3 " 'Each of you must respect his mother and father, and you must observe my Sabbaths. I am the LORD your God.
4 " 'Do not turn to idols or make gods of cast metal for yourselves. I am the LORD your God.
5 " 'When you sacrifice a fellowship offering to the LORD, sacrifice it in such a way that it will be accepted on your behalf. 6 It shall be eaten on the day you sacrifice it or on the next day; anything left over until the third day must be burned up.
7 If any of it is eaten on the third day, it is impure and will not be accepted.
8 Whoever eats it will be held responsible because he has desecrated what is holy to the LORD; that person must be cut off from his people.
9 " 'When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest.
10 Do not go over your vineyard a second time or pick up the grapes that have fallen. Leave them for the poor and the alien. I am the LORD your God.
11 " 'Do not steal.
" 'Do not lie.
" 'Do not deceive one another.
12 " 'Do not swear falsely by my name and so profane the name of your God. I am the LORD.
13 " 'Do not defraud your neighbor or rob him.
" 'Do not hold back the wages of a hired man overnight.
14 " 'Do not curse the deaf or put a stumbling block in front of the blind, but fear your God. I am the LORD.
15 " 'Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly.
16 " 'Do not go about spreading slander among your people.
" 'Do not do anything that endangers your neighbor's life. I am the LORD.
17 " 'Do not hate your brother in your heart. Rebuke your neighbor frankly so you will not share in his guilt.
18 " 'Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD.
19 " 'Keep my decrees.
" 'Do not mate different kinds of animals.
" 'Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed.
" 'Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.
20 " 'If a man sleeps with a woman who is a slave girl promised to another man but who has not been ransomed or given her freedom, there must be due punishment. Yet they are not to be put to death, because she had not been freed.
21 The man, however, must bring a ram to the entrance to the Tent of Meeting for a guilt offering to the LORD.
22 With the ram of the guilt offering the priest is to make atonement for him before the LORD for the sin he has committed, and his sin will be forgiven.
23 " 'When you enter the land and plant any kind of fruit tree, regard its fruit as forbidden. For three years you are to consider it forbidden; it must not be eaten.
24 In the fourth year all its fruit will be holy, an offering of praise to the LORD.
25 But in the fifth year you may eat its fruit. In this way your harvest will be increased. I am the LORD your God.
26 " 'Do not eat any meat with the blood still in it.
'Do not practice divination or sorcery.
27 " 'Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard.
28 " 'Do not cut your bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on yourselves. I am the LORD.
29 " 'Do not degrade your daughter by making her a prostitute, or the land will turn to prostitution and be filled with wickedness.
30 " 'Observe my Sabbaths and have reverence for my sanctuary. I am the LORD.
31 " 'Do not turn to mediums or seek out spiritists, for you will be defiled by them. I am the LORD your God.
32 " 'Rise in the presence of the aged, show respect for the elderly and revere your God. I am the LORD.
33 " 'When an alien lives with you in your land, do not mistreat him.
34 The alien living with you must be treated as one of your native-born. Love him as yourself, for you were aliens in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.
35 " 'Do not use dishonest standards when measuring length, weight or quantity.
36 Use honest scales and honest weights, an honest ephah and an honest hin. I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt.
37 " 'Keep all my decrees and all my laws and follow them. I am the LORD.'

So please, show me where it is out of context.
And then explain why you do not follow these laws as god dictated them.
And remember, the OT is was not overturned by Jesus, he was there to fulfill it. He said so himself.
 
Upvote 0

dukeofhazzard

Regular Member
Aug 15, 2007
498
57
✟23,418.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Hey Dukes, where did you go?

Guess we're not discussing "The Flood" anymore. :p

I was just visiting family :). This thread has DOUBLED -- CRAZY!!


Personally, I'd like to address ship cloaking technology. Wouldn't any civilzation advanced enough to *have* interstellar travel also theorietically be advanced enough for cloaking tech?
 
Upvote 0

Inan3

Veteran Saint
Jul 22, 2007
3,376
88
West of the Mississippi
✟27,875.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
So if God can "speak" to you in a way you understand, and you don't care about science, why doesn't he "speak" to scientists like me in a way I understand?
My inclusion of this site ="http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/03/collins.commentary/index.html" was not to challenge you or atheism but to merely answer your question (above) "why doesn't God speak to scientists", of which I answered "I think He does."

Originally Posted by article
But reason alone cannot prove the existence of God. Faith is reason plus revelation, and the revelation part requires one to think with the spirit as well as with the mind. You have to hear the music, not just read the notes on the page. Ultimately, a leap of faith is required.
Revelation is exceedingly weak. I've known someone who had extremely strong revelations that he "programmed their dental work into a television set" and would sit for hours with the remote trying to "unprogram" the false teeth from the TV set (yes, it's a true story, my dad did this very thing when he started having small strokes which ultimately robbed him of his mind.)


What your father was experiencing was not revelation. It was a confusion in his brain brought on by his stroke. A biblical revelation is defined in the Greek as:


1) laying bare, making naked

2) a disclosure of truth, instruction

a) concerning things before unknown

b) used of events by which things or states or persons hitherto withdrawn from view are made visible to all

3) manifestation, appearance

It is something not known or understood before coming to light.

Revelation? No, what Collins seems to be thinking about here is "feelings". I love music. My brain is wired for it. I'm not a good musician but I can listen to music for hours. Most humans can do this. It "feels good" to us. It is how our brains are wired. Nothing supernatural. The well-placed scalpel in the quick hands of a doctor and I bet I'd wind up completely incapable of understanding music. But I bet I'd love to talk to ice cream.

On the contrary, Collins hit it right on the head. He wasn't talking about "feelings". You can have revelation without feelings and you can have feelings without revelation. Music produces emotional feelings in all of us but you can "know" the music without having the feelings and you can have the feelings without "knowing" the music.

He wasn''t really talking about music anyway. He was trying to make a contrast, that music is much more powerful and sweet when heard, as it is meant to be, than merely being written down on a sheet of paper. Even as, knowledge is much more powerful and sweet when reason is accompanied by further revelation rather than just being left to itself. It's more than saying I exist. It's saying I am alive! I live! I have purpose! I have being! I have value! I am!

And here I applaud Dr. Collins. I give him a standing ovation.

I give him a standing ovation for it all!.
 
Upvote 0

Inan3

Veteran Saint
Jul 22, 2007
3,376
88
West of the Mississippi
✟27,875.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Fair enough on the quote from Matthew.

But Daniel 5:2 doesn't call Belshazzar "the son of Nebuchadnezzar", it refers to Nebuchadnezzar as the "father" of Belshazzar.

Can you point to conditions in the Bible where "father" is used as anything but the direct male predecessor?

Of course "father" is used in reference to God quite a bit. But I don't think Danile 5:2 is supposed to indicate that Nebuchadnezzar was Belshazzar's god.

But again, without external information to the contrary, one would assume Belshazzar was born from the union of Nebuchadnezzar and his wife Mrs. Nebuchadnezzar.

It requires additional information to discern the real truth and to let us know that the words of the Bible do not give an accurate enough picture to draw a correct conclusion from.

And that is the main point I was making.

Gen 4:20 & 21
Gen 17:5
Gen 19:38
Gen 28:10 -13
Gen 32:9Gen 32:9 And Jacob said, O God of my father Abraham, and God of my father Isaac, the LORD which saidst unto me, Return unto thy country, and to thy kindred, and I will deal well with thee:

There are more but I am too tired to keep looking.
 
Upvote 0

Inan3

Veteran Saint
Jul 22, 2007
3,376
88
West of the Mississippi
✟27,875.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Thank you for your prompt reply NavyGuy.
However, I believe you completely skated around the question. Unlike AV, who tried to dismiss it as out of context.
So I shall put it into context:

Leviticus 19 (New International Version)



So please, show me where it is out of context.
And then explain why you do not follow these laws as god dictated them.
And remember, the OT is was not overturned by Jesus, he was there to fulfill it. He said so himself.

Total misunderstanding of the meaning which I will have to explain at another time.
 
Upvote 0

thaumaturgy

Well-Known Member
Nov 17, 2006
7,541
882
✟12,333.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Gen 4:20 & 21
Gen 17:5
Gen 19:38
Gen 28:10 -13
Gen 32:9Gen 32:9 And Jacob said, O God of my father Abraham, and God of my father Isaac, the LORD which saidst unto me, Return unto thy country, and to thy kindred, and I will deal well with thee:

There are more but I am too tired to keep looking.

Fair enough. Good call.
 
Upvote 0

thaumaturgy

Well-Known Member
Nov 17, 2006
7,541
882
✟12,333.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
What your father was experiencing was not revelation. It was a confusion in his brain brought on by his stroke. A biblical revelation is defined in the Greek as:


What you are doing here is selectively defining something so you don't feel uncomfortable with the results.

Are you familiar with Christina Mirabilis? While I realize you are not a Catholic I hope you will see that honest Christians can easily take "delusion" as "holiness".

Just because you don't like the idea that some revelations are little more than delusions, or that you may not be able to tell which is which, doesn't make it valid to merely dismiss delusions as "non-revelatory".

Look at your defintion closely:

1) laying bare, making naked

2) a disclosure of truth, instruction

a) concerning things before unknown

b) used of events by which things or states or persons hitherto withdrawn from view are made visible to all

3) manifestation, appearance


It is something not known or understood before coming to light.

It "reveals" or brings to light a previously unknown or not understood thing. Indeed this is a very clear definition of the onset of a delusion.

Not that all revelations are by definition delusions, but this can easily define a delusion.

But further, how can you differentiate?
 
Upvote 0

thaumaturgy

Well-Known Member
Nov 17, 2006
7,541
882
✟12,333.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Total misunderstanding of the meaning which I will have to explain at another time.

Total? Do you really want to go that far? I think there's a reasonable argument for the OT Laws still being in effect. There's good reason to assume Jesus presumably meant what he said when he said:

[bible]Matthew 5:18[/bible]

Now granted, Jesus did claim to come to fulfill the law, but he also claimed he was going to return, and bring the kingdom of heaven in power. So when is complete fulfillment?

Clearly this was an issue that Paul and Peter duked it out over as well as the other various governing groups in the early Christian Church. This was clearly not settled by Jesus, otherwise there wouldn't have been Ebionites and Marcionites or a battle over applicability of the Laws.

Leviticus 23:14, when discussing Passover the phrase is used: "it shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations", which of course would apply to the Jews, but if all was fulfilled and Jesus presumably knew this, then why did God allow this phrase in Leviticus? Why did he not say "it shall be a statute until such time as I come to atone you to myself.."? Or some such verbiage?

1 Chronicles 16:15 states the laws will be binding for a thousand generations, which should, by just about any calculcus, easily include 1st century Judea.

So while indeed the Old Testament laws may not be in effect, clearly it is not a total misunderstanding to assume that they are.

Indeed, I have heard protestant fundamentalist christians talk about how homosexuality is an abomination before God, but they don't seem to mind eating unclean animals and most don't necessarily feel that this is equally important:

[bible]Leviticus 11:12[/bible]

Certainly I don't see them picketting Red Lobster like some do Gay Pride parades.

So which is it? Are the laws all still in effect or just some? Which ones? Why are lobsters OK now but gay people not?
 
Upvote 0

Inan3

Veteran Saint
Jul 22, 2007
3,376
88
West of the Mississippi
✟27,875.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Easy to say.

Can you suggest how you, Inan3, lone message board scientist, would be more believable than the countless serious scientists who have actually done the work ?

I hear YEC or Creationists say the method of determining the age is wrong, but yet none of them can explain why the very same science that underlies this can work for things like nuclear medicine, atomic weapons, radiological studies of all sorts.

But it doesn't stop there. Radiometric dating relies on a type of rate modelling called "First Order Kinetics".

The same type of rate modelling can be used not just for radiological issues but also for standard chemical issues. It is a means of calculating how much of a chemical is left over after a certain length of time. It is applicable to figuring out how long some medicines stay active in the body. How long some dangerous pesticides stay active in the environment.

When someone talks about a "half life" it isn't just radioactive decay.

So, if you want to throw out this particular bathwater, how many babies are you throwing out with it?

Well maybe after the first thousand years it goes askew!:)

I don't really know about any of this and just because you have cited a few things does not mean that I know any more. I would have to know all the perameters involved. Then I could only make a guess but I do know that something is amuck in scienceland because there is no way that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, maybe 3.78 but certainly not 4.5. :doh:
 
Upvote 0

Skaloop

Agnostic atheist, pro-choice anti-abortion
May 10, 2006
16,332
899
49
Burnaby
Visit site
✟44,046.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-NDP
Well maybe after the first thousand years it goes askew!:)

I don't really know about any of this and just because you have cited a few things does not mean that I know any more. I would have to know all the perameters involved. Then I could only make a guess but I do know that something is amuck in scienceland because there is no way that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, maybe 3.78 but certainly not 4.5. :doh:

So you admit that you don't really know about any of this, but you feel confident in saying that there is no way that the Earth can be 4.5B years old? Yet you accept that it could be 3.78B years old? What's your reason for not accepting that extra 700 million years? On what basis do you conclude that 4.5B is completely ruled out?
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.