-
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.
God did not create from nothing
- Thread starter timewerx
- Start date
Hans Blaster
Reconstruction 3 will come
- Mar 11, 2017
- 25,893
- 18,697
- 56
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Bible ain't worth it. It's just a big jumble of ancient religious literature. Religion and literature are both boring. Religious literature is boring squared.
I came to this section to deal with pseudoscience. Just like the stuff you've been spewing, but you want to distract with your preaching and claims about your god.
Oh brother, output from an artificial idiot. (ai)
Why would I care what philosophers say? (Just survey the ones on this thread and see what level of care I will give.)
"6000 years ago" is not something I would even give serious consideration to and never have.
The Earth doesn't have a "biological age" it is a self-gravitating, density stratified, sphericalized ball of rock. It is not alive.
Uhuh, sure you don't, sure you don't. Why don't I believe that?
This time I will inform you that calling science a myth or religion is prohibitted on this subforum, just the same as calling religion myth is.
The Universe is not alive. "Biological age" is meaningless nonsense in cosmology.
It has literally been expanding for 13.7 Billion years and we have very good measurements to show that. We do not how long before 13.7 Billion years ago it exited. Perhaps forever.
If the Universe sprang into existence 13.7 Billion years ago (as most lay people understand the BB theory to imply), it does not need any age for expansion to occur after it is "created" or for the initial composition of H, He, and Li to form, or galactic structure to form, etc., etc., etc.
Sounds like a theology issue. I don't care about theology.
Upvote
0
AI on how resolving problems and limitations of isochron dating.
Isochron dating (commonly used in radiometric methods like Rubidium-Strontium dating or Samarium-Neodymium dating) was actually developed to reduce many of the classic problems in radiometric dating—but it still has limitations. The “resolution” of those problems comes from both careful methodology and cross-checking with other evidence.
Here’s how the main issues are handled:
1. Unknown Initial Daughter Isotope
Problem:Traditional radiometric dating requires knowing how much daughter isotope was present at the start.
Solution with isochrons:
Isochron dating sidesteps this by plotting ratios from multiple minerals in the same rock. The key idea comes from isochron method:
- Different minerals start with the same initial ratio but different parent/daughter amounts.
- When plotted, they form a straight line (the “isochron”).
- The intercept gives the initial daughter ratio automatically.
2. Contamination / Open-System Behavior
Problem:If a rock gains or loses isotopes (through fluids, heat, etc.), the age can be wrong.
How it’s addressed:
- Scientists analyze multiple minerals from the same sample.
- If contamination occurred, points won’t fall on a straight line.
- A disturbed system produces a scatter or multiple lines, revealing the problem.
3. Metamorphism and Resetting
Problem:Heat or pressure (metamorphism) can partially or fully reset isotopic systems.
Resolution:
- Use different isotope systems with different closure temperatures.
- Example: Uranium-Lead dating vs. Potassium-Argon dating
- Compare ages:
- If they match → likely original formation age.
- If they differ → indicates later thermal events.
Upvote
0
Ophiolite
Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape
I didn't need an AI to construct this list of reasons why the idea that people can cross roads on foot is just science fiction.
- Roads are designed for cars, trucks and other motorised forms of transport. People are not motorised forms of transport.
- These vehicles are massive and will cause death or serious injury if they strike a person.
- Many roads have multiple lanes of traffic, so that a person attempting to walk across may be eventually struck, even if they make it across one or two lanes safely.
- Many people start out crossing a road and then part way across change their minds and return.
- Thousands of people are killed every year attempting to cross roads.
- The equipment in use at locations allegedly designed for people to cross does not always work.
- People are seen crossing roads in films and TV programs, but these are fictional productions and the movements of people and vehicles is carefully scripted.
- In the dark drivers are much less likely to see someone attempting to cross a highway.
- Old people move slowly and vehicles move rapidly making a safe crossing a doubtful affair.
- People who are blind, or deaf have little chance of recognising when it might be safe to attempt to cross.
Upvote
0
You haven't shown me anything except a severe affliction of cognitive dissonance.
Responding to my criticism of Gentry's polonium halo 'theory' with some random AI comment on the 'flaws' on isochron dating is a case in point.
It is apparent you do not even understand the context of your AI quote, how many times will it take before it gets through your thick skull, isochron testing is not only about determination of age but has a built-in go/no-go component.
Scatter, outliers, poor regression statistics, and geologically unreasonable intercepts of the isochron line with the Y-axis which are the initial isotope ratio conditions can reveal unsuitable samples or disturbed isotope systems, the so called 'flaws' in your AI quote and are rejected for age determination.
These so called 'flaws' in your AI quote are not flaws but are largely systematic errors.
Your cognitive dissonance is most evident by ignoring the elephant in the room as to how independent dating methods should end up producing consistent age results if they are all flawed.
Upvote
0
Except that people are indeed motorized forms of transport.How do the legs move other than by the sensory-motor apparatus? They are even capable of "divine transport" as evidenced by J d'Arc and others.(many say this)
Also Robert Johnson sold his soul at the Crossroad and I doubt he turned around and walked back.
Upvote
0
@-57
Posting Gentry's theory' on polonium halo's as proof of creationism and then changing the subject when challenged is disingenuous.
Granite is an igneous rock which was produced instantaneously but what about other igneous rocks such as basalt?
Here we have a problem as there has been a long running thread which clearly shows basalt was not created instantaneously but through the fast cooling of lava flows.
The obvious question which arises is why one form of igneous rock was created instantaneously while another type was not?
Posting Gentry's theory' on polonium halo's as proof of creationism and then changing the subject when challenged is disingenuous.
Granite is an igneous rock which was produced instantaneously but what about other igneous rocks such as basalt?
Here we have a problem as there has been a long running thread which clearly shows basalt was not created instantaneously but through the fast cooling of lava flows.
The obvious question which arises is why one form of igneous rock was created instantaneously while another type was not?
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,857,078
- 52,819
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Were you bored square when Jim Jones, Shoko Asahara, or Khalid Sheikh Mohammed did their dirty work according to their religious literature?
Religious literature might lull you to sleep, but you'd better pray you're not in the way when it strikes again.
Upvote
0
Platte
Well-Known Member
- Jul 14, 2020
- 1,693
- 283
- 57
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
The Bible has a lot of interesting History too!
I'm not surprised - its a tough concept to grasp - Its certainly not taught in any public forum. Progress and History support it.
I've never called science a myth or a religion - I did say C14 daying is science fiction (Anyone who supports it should be ashamed)....just like the Covid vaccine was science fiction.
How do you estimate the age of the Universe without knowing the speed of light?
God's modelistic approach to Creation is not a theological issue - its a science issue!
Upvote
0
Hans Blaster
Reconstruction 3 will come
- Mar 11, 2017
- 25,893
- 18,697
- 56
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Democrat
The "Tales of the Massacres of the Israelites" is not interesting.
It's not hard to grasp at all. It is not taught because the rocks clearly say otherwise.
Wow! You claim you don't an then literaly do it before the next period. (And for good measure throw in another, non-relevant thing which is also real and call it fiction.) Knock it off.
What? I put forth a bunch of items countering your nonsense claims and you make a new one about not knowing the speed of light? The speed of light was well established by the beginning of the 20th century. Well before any modern cosmology starts.
God = theology, not science.
Upvote
0
Platte
Well-Known Member
- Jul 14, 2020
- 1,693
- 283
- 57
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
Too Funny...and too typical of science people. No common sense among them. The interpetation of the fossil record that science has made is reasonable....but trying to pass it off as fact - makes that....yep, science fiction.
C14 is well established and clearly that doesn't make it right. My point was you can't establish the age of the Universe if you don't know the speed of light. Science is really good at making things up with a specialty on word play. Vaccines by definition are preventative...not reducive. Science people like to change the rules to make themselves feel good.
God created science!
Upvote
0
Hans Blaster
Reconstruction 3 will come
- Mar 11, 2017
- 25,893
- 18,697
- 56
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Democrat
I'm not doing humor. I am correcting your errors.
Common sense is a reasoning trap. Many very real things counter "common sense". You mention the speed of light again below. That the speed of light is the same for all observers is *NOT* common sense at all. It violates every "common" experience we have about relative velocities. That's what made Einstein's hypothesis so brilliant and revolutionary.
Please stop confusing science with simplistic thinking like "common sense".
Stop violating the board rules. (and learn some science)
If C14 dating wasn't right it wouldn't be well established. Your causal reasoning is inverted.
Yes, but so what? We know the seed of light and did so long before determining the age of the Universe by measuring stars, galaxies, and other things in space.
Science is not word play. We use terms precisely and they may be different than common usage, but there is a madness to our method.
Not the topic and you are also wrong.
Reality does not care if I like a scientific fact or not. This I tell to the students and I tell it to you.
Last month they were telling me it was the Catholics. Either way, science is clearly a human invention and there is a field of study of how it arose -- History of Science.
Upvote
0
Platte
Well-Known Member
- Jul 14, 2020
- 1,693
- 283
- 57
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
I haven't made any errors
Pretty funny considering the main "Convention" Eistein used to establish his hypothesis. (this is where common sense comes in)
My boss got 13 covid shots - smdh. If C14 was well established it wouldn't be making annual changes.
See - there you go....scientific fact - like a fact in science is different that any other normal fact. Good way to get consensus. The reality is
science has brought us few factual findings.
Science is not an invention - science is discovery
Upvote
0
Hans Blaster
Reconstruction 3 will come
- Mar 11, 2017
- 25,893
- 18,697
- 56
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Literally every one of your interjections in this post had an error in them. It follows the pattern established in your prior postings.
As you have clearly told me, you don't know anything about the history of relativity or likely much of physics at all.
I don't care.
What?
A scientific fact is just a fact derived from science. That is all.
Are you that ignorant or are you just expressing a false anti-science rhetoric?
Oh brother.
Upvote
0
Warden_of_the_Storm
Well-Known Member
- Oct 16, 2015
- 16,435
- 8,057
- 32
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Deist
- Marital Status
- Single
I have gone through all 26 pages (so far) of this thread and have less of a clue of what's going on than when I started on this thread.
Upvote
0
partinobodycular
Well-Known Member
- Jun 8, 2021
- 3,126
- 1,257
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Agnostic
- Marital Status
- Single
The problem is that just like Last Thursdayism your rebuttal is self-defeating, because if everything could've been created 314,000 Thursdays ago, then it could just as easily have been created 100,000 Thursdays ago... or 3,635 Thursdays ago.
Which means that the whole Creationist argument becomes meaningless nonsense, because it has no standard by which to determine the objective nature of any historical event. History becomes an illusion, and the bible becomes a fairy tale.
That's what inevitably happens when you choose to believe in creationism.
Upvote
0
Platte
Well-Known Member
- Jul 14, 2020
- 1,693
- 283
- 57
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
Lets just wrap this up with what I said - how can you estimate the age of the Universe when you don't know the speed of light?
And you know we don't know the speed of light.
Upvote
0
Warden_of_the_Storm
Well-Known Member
- Oct 16, 2015
- 16,435
- 8,057
- 32
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Deist
- Marital Status
- Single
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,857,078
- 52,819
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
In that case, the genealogies in the Bible would be different, wouldn't they?
Or you're stuck on playing Simon, and not thinking this through.
Creationists look at the exact same thing as evolutionists look at.
If evolutionists can deem something "objective," then creationists can too.
It's the TIME FRAME that makes the difference.
An evolutionist sees a crater in Chicxulub and the next thing you know, it was reported as made by an asteroid six to nine miles wide that hit the earth 66 million years ago and so on and so forth ad nauseum.
You'd think they were there and saw it all themselves.
That, to me, is absolute junk science.
I'll agree with your history.
To a point.
I'll even agree that an asteroid hit the earth in the Yucatan Peninsula in Mexico.
But I absolutely will not agree that it happened 66 million years ago.
You have no idea what I believe re creationism.
Not a clue.
You, Warden, Hans, Aron Ra, Glen Morton (who also accused me of Last Thursdayism), or any other evolutionist here.
That includes Thaumaturgy, and that guy here who helped build that LHC.
I think he posted under the name Cabal.
So I'm not really losing any sleep over what I'm being accused of choosing to believe.
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,857,078
- 52,819
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
For the record, I don't have a problem with going along with what they say the speed of light is.
If they want to say it's 299,792,458 m/s, then so be it.
And if they change it tomorrow, then so be it also.
But using the speed of light to contradict the Bible ... well ... that's where I draw the line.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
