Scientists on the Moon

DerelictJunction said:

Yet he still sings those Hymns with gusto every Sunday. What you do on the internet stays on the internet.

Click to expand...

AV1611VET said:

Not that it matters, but for the record:

AV1611VET said:

We have great respect for science -- let's keep it that way, eh?

Click to expand...

AV1611VET said:

No, I mean the pro-science posts that show you to be wrong in accusing me of having a lack of respect for science.

Click to expand...

And QV this post to Strathos: 31

Click to expand...

You saying you respect science is belied by your constant use of examples of perceived impropriety or inconsistency by scientists in other fields to bolster your criticism of biologists', paleontologists', and geologists' conclusions regarding evolution and the fossil record. The only way that type of broad brush characterization would work for you is if it was a criticism of all scientists. So, your hatred of scientists and science itself is shown in your actions.

However, my comment wasn't regarding your respect, or lack thereof, of science. It concerned your consistent use of those examples despite the fact that you have been shown they are incorrect. It puts your honesty in question. My comment was about the probability that you would feel justified in not asking forgiveness from your God for the marginally dishonest actions taken in anonymity on the internet. Saying you are dishonest may be overstepping the bounds a bit. Dishonesty requires intent to deceive and I cannot prove that. The best I can do is say the the appearance of dishonesty is present because you have been shown you are incorrect but use the examples anyway.

Your attempts at demeaning an entire group of people (scientists) and the requirements of your faith to treat others as you would like to be treated seem in conflict also. Yet, I think you don't see that either.

EternalDragon said:

The only logical time frame for the fall is on the 7th day when God "rested". Because everything else up to that point was "Very good" (in a very wide sense). So Lucifer and the fallen angels would have still been "very good" up to day 6.

Click to expand...

God only said his creation was very good and the creation referenced in Genesis up to that point was the universe.
Do you believe He was including supernatural beings, which are also considered created, when He made that statement?
What scriptural support do you have for your point of view?

EternalDragon said:

The only logical time frame for the fall is on the 7th day when God "rested". Because everything else up to that point was "Very good" (in a very wide sense). So Lucifer and the fallen angels would have still been "very good" up to day 6.

Click to expand...

Cool story. Got any Scriptural support for it? Wild guesses that add to the Bible don't count.

DerelictJunction said:

God only said his creation was very good and the creation referenced in Genesis up to that point was the universe.
Do you believe He was including supernatural beings, which are also considered created, when He made that statement?
What scriptural support do you have for your point of view?

Click to expand...

Yes. Angels, humans, animals....we are all supernatural beings. It says "everything" so I can only conclude that means "everything".

Gen. 1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

AV1611VET said:

I believe the universe was created pristine and without "floaties;" but is now occupied by dust and debris due to a cosmic battle that took place some 6000 years ago between good and bad angels.

The asteroid belt is no exception.

Click to expand...

First, meteorites, which come from the asteroid belt, have radiometric ages of about 4500 million years, with a maximum age of 4568 million years. Also, meteorites have cosmic-ray exposure ages of tens or hundreds of millions of years, showing that they have been orbiting the Sun for at least this time.

Second, there are families of asteroids, which are fragments of a single large asteroid that was broken up by a collision. From the present orbits of the members of the family, it is possible to calculate how much time has elapsed since the asteroids were part of a single body; these calculations show that the asteroid families are tens or hundreds of millions of years old. These ages, which are not radiometric, confirm the results obtained from the cosmic-ray exposure ages of meteorites.

Third, an age of 6000 years is inconsistent with the rotational properties of asteroids. Some asteroids are in stable rotation about their principal axis; this is a low-energy state, in contrast to asteroids that tumble chaotically and have an irregular rotation frequency.

Images from space-probes show that all asteroids are heavily cratered; the impacts that produced these craters would have destabilised the rotation of the asteroids and caused them to tumble. It takes time, a time that can be calculated, for an asteroid to lose energy and make the transition from chaotic tumbling rotation to rotation about its principal axis. For small slowly-rotating asteroids this time is hundreds or thousands of millions of years.

If the asteroid belt was only 6000 years old, all asteroids would be tumbling, but in fact most asteroids rotate about their principal axis; as expected, only small slowly-rotating asteroids are in a chaotic tumbling state. This observation shows that the asteroids are thousands of millions of years old, and that the heavy cratering we observe happened early in their history.

Thus we have three or four independent means of measuring the ages of meteorites and asteroids, and they agree on an age of hundreds or thousands of millions of years, very much larger than your estimate of 6000 years.

Astrophile may or may not have seen these videos that explain how the rotation of the asteroids is incredibly strong evidence for an Old Earth:

tumbling asteroids and creationism part 1 ozmoroid bloviates (mirror) - YouTube


tumbling asteroids and creationism part 2 - ozmoroid bloviates (mirror) - YouTube

I see that Astrophile is a very new member and cannot post videos yet. As a side note I am at my parents' house right now using an old Apple with out of date and unupdateable software. I get a warning from YouTube that soon I will not be able to use YouTube any longer. They don't use their computer very much at all. The interesting part is that I did not have to delete the "s" on the "https" it does not exist with this software.

Subduction Zone said:

AV, yes, you are always wrong here. If not in detail at the very least in intention.

As I have said many many times, try debating honestly for once.

In fact here is a question for you:

Why can't creationists argue honestly? That means no word games. No quoting out of context. No use of false web sites? I know the answer do you?

Click to expand...

Bold emphasis mine.

I might also add, "just making stuff up" and painting God as a deceiver by creating the earth 6,000 years ago and planting embedded ages showing that it is 4.54 billion years old that would not be realized for 6,000 years.

Dizredux said:

Interesting, are you saying that all the NASA photographs are fake? Boggled minds are interested.

Dizredux

Click to expand...

Did I not mention "Airbrushing things out" of their real photos?

AV1611VET said:

I like to bring NASA up to those who think they can let a valid refutation slip by me.

Paul pulled this on me:

... and while I believe what he said (about there only being one theory now), I think he needs to read more.

Click to expand...

I get it, but I also like to bring up other things they tend to get away with...mind blowing!
I want to be positive here, I'm quite sure they do a lot more stuff that actually helps us.

Sasquatchit said:

Did I not mention "Airbrushing things out" of their real photos?

Click to expand...

Yes you did but you also said

Their pics r nothing more than fairy tale pics.

Click to expand...

Which would imply that all NASA pics are faked. That is why I asked for a clarification which you did not respond to.

Dizredux

Subduction Zone said:

Astrophile may or may not have seen these videos that explain how the rotation of the asteroids is incredibly strong evidence for an Old Earth.

Click to expand...

Thank-you. I hadn't seen the videos before. They were very interesting and informative.

Astrophile said:

Thank-you. I hadn't seen the videos before. They were very interesting and informative.

Click to expand...

You are welcome. It seemed to me that you already understood those videos by a comment that you made.

So, in other words, because science doesn't know one specific thing, it therefore knows nothing.

And furthermore, even if it does learn that one specific thing, it will still no nothing.

No, I think you can keep your false dichotomy to yourself.

The problem is that Morris kept himself purposefully ignorant. That means he knew less than he should, not more.

AV1611VET said:

Thanks for the QED.

You polymaths aren't that way though, are you?

Click to expand...

You mean the QED that if you believe in someone that that person is a certified idiot?

You are welcome.

AV1611VET said:

Thanks for the QED.

You polymaths aren't that way though, are you?

Click to expand...

No, unlike Mr. Morris and yourself, we spend our time pursuing knowledge -- not running away from it.

AV1611VET said:

I somehow get the feeling Mr. Morris was more famous than you guys will ever be.

I could be wrong ... but I doubt it.

Click to expand...

Nope, the correct term is "infamous". And in that I do agree. Mr. Morris was more infamous than any of us guys will ever be.