Fossil Fish

[Dannager]

The problem is what you do expect is only a belief, and since it is not supportable it may not be called science, and used against other beliefs.

Did you miss the fact that nothing in science ever gets proven during your high school science class? Every time you ask that science prove something you look more and more ignorant. Put down the shovel and learn a little something about the topic you're arguing over.

Honestly, dad, how many people here have asked that you stop and learn something for yourself? Ten? Twenty? Has it ever crossed your mind that this many people telling you to do something for yourself, coming from all different faiths and persuasions, might be doing it because it'd be the smart thing to do?

 

[Valkhorn]

I eat reality for breakfast, and breathe it in while looking at the glorious creation, and breathe it out when sighing over your imaginary past, and specks!

Only in your mind.

 

[Valkhorn]

Honestly, dad, how many people here have asked that you stop and learn something for yourself? Ten? Twenty? Has it ever crossed your mind that this many people telling you to do something for yourself, coming from all different faiths and persuasions, might be doing it because it'd be the smart thing to do?

Of course not. Dad knows more than anyone else about everything including stuff he knows nothing about.

 

[dad]

Did you miss the fact that nothing in science ever gets proven during your high school science class? Every time you ask that science prove something you look more and more ignorant. Put down the shovel and learn a little something about the topic you're arguing over.

Glad you admit that the stuff called science regarding old ages is baseless.

Honestly, dad, how many people here have asked that you stop and learn something for yourself? Ten? Twenty? Has it ever crossed your mind that this many people telling you to do something for yourself, coming from all different faiths and persuasions, might be doing it because it'd be the smart thing to do?

I learn all the time. A lot of what I learn is how little you actually know. High school science didn't teach that electricity, light, and friction were something the tooth ferry believes for no reason. It usually could demonstrate the things it claimed, and taught. WE take a magnet, and watch the shavings move on the other side of the paper, etc. There is no present restricted, physical only past of future that we see on the other side of the paper. It is just a paper tiger! So cut the juvenile lecture attempts, and fess up how little you know on old ages proofs.

 

[dad]

Of course not. Dad knows more than anyone else about everything including stuff he knows nothing about.

If I knew nothing about the past and future I wouldn't teach that nothing, as you do, as science.

 

[Dannager]

Glad you admit that the stuff called science regarding old ages is baseless.

Just because something can't be proven doesn't mean it is baseless. I'm not going to continue telling you that science doesn't ever prove anything, ever. It only disproves. You've been told this, if not before, now. For you to continue to claim that science ever proves anything, or to demand proof on a scientific topic like evolution will be taken as intellectual dishonesty. Do not continue to do this.

I learn all the time. A lot of what I learn is how little you actually know. High school science didn't teach that electricity, light, and friction were something the tooth ferry believes for no reason. It usually could demonstrate the things it claimed, and taught. WE take a magnet, and watch the shavings move on the other side of the paper, etc. There is no present restricted, physical only past of future that we see on the other side of the paper. It is just a paper tiger! So cut the juvenile lecture attempts, and fess up how little you know on old ages proofs.

As I said above, proofs have no business in science. There are no "old ages proofs". You can only disprove a theory. Any further claims that proof needs to be supplied, or that without proof something is "baseless" will be interpreted by me as intellectual dishonesty on your part.

 

[Dannager]

If I knew nothing about the past and future I wouldn't teach that nothing, as you do, as science.

Frankly, scientists don't care. Sure, thousands of years ago the laws of physics may have been different. Who cares? There's no way of knowing that, and giving up on current knowledge because something may have worked differently in the past is pointless. We teach based on what we know, and what we know is that the present functions as the present does, and we have no reason not to interpret the past or future based on the present. So you can ramble on about how the past or future may be different all you want, but it doesn't affect science so none of us care.

 

[Guywiththehead]

It usually could demonstrate the things it claimed, and taught. WE take a magnet, and watch the shavings move on the other side of the paper, etc. There is no present restricted, physical only past of future that we see on the other side of the paper. It is just a paper tiger!

Tell me why those shavings couldn't be pushed there by angels.

 

[Valkhorn]

Frankly, scientists don't care. Sure, thousands of years ago the laws of physics may have been different. Who cares? There's no way of knowing that, and giving up on current knowledge because something may have worked differently in the past is pointless. We teach based on what we know, and what we know is that the present functions as the present does, and we have no reason not to interpret the past or future based on the present. So you can ramble on about how the past or future may be different all you want, but it doesn't affect science so none of us care.

Exactly. And, there is no reason to assume that the cosmological constant, the speed of life, and even the gravitational constant, etc. changed recently in the past.

Why? Because if they did it would drastically change the entire universe. Say the gravitational constant changed just a fraction of an amount. The Earth would fly off into outer space or hurtle towards the sun. And, that would be a quick end to life as we know it on this planet. If the speed of light had changed in the slightest, it would put quantum theory and even the great equation E = MC^2 into jeopardy. And, you know what uses that equation? The sun.

The sun converts Hydrogen into Helium in a process called thermonuclear fusion. It produces a staggering amount of energy, so much that if the constant changed by the smallest amount the total output by the sun or even the temperature and color of the sun would change or even not shine.

I think ancient people would notice that, wouldn't you?

Also, there are other constants that basically hold our universe together, and since we have no evidence that the universe is very young (including the Earth) it is very reasonable to assume that these constants have in fact been constant for a very long time.

Even if you discount radiometric dating, it doesn't discount tree ring data or ice core data or even accounts of civilizations that pre-date a supposed 6,000 year old 'creation'. Even erosion rates of the grand canyon suggest that it was formed over a great deal of time. Of course some would claim the grand canyon was formed in a few days, but that is often by those who do not realize the amount of water needed to cut that much granite and shale in a few days would require water so powerful that the canyon would be a straight line with walls so sharp they would look like they were cut by lasers, but that's besides the point.

Bottom line, it never ceases to amaze me how much creationists wish to argue about things they know nothing about.

 

[Valkhorn]

It usually could demonstrate the things it claimed, and taught. WE take a magnet, and watch the shavings move on the other side of the paper, etc.

In my high school physics lab we studied electromagnetism and how to measure electromagnetic fields. The 'experiment' you describe isn't usually offered in any high school physics classes. Remedial physical science classes before about grade 5 usually cover that.

Which reminds me, that in Physics 202 in college one of our professors had a magnet from some battleship that was just over 1 Tesla in strength. That thing was dangerous. You could literally hold it up and pull a metal cart 5 feet away.

 

[HairlessSimian]

Whoa, nelly. I gotta find a new career!
If dad is correct, we can teach no science whatsoever, because it changes over time or at the whim of a god!
Put down your science books. Recycle libraries. Close all the labs. There is no constancy in science, no truth to find. There is no point in studying the Pythagorean theorem or the Periodic Table, because hypothenuses won't obey anymore and gallium will move ahead of indium! Forget evolution too. It'll change as well. T. rex will actually be alive again! And the sun, the moon and the stars? They will be on the 'firmament' and rotate around the earth, then Mars will be an actual moving star.

Well. Since I need a new career, I'd thought I'd try theatre and playwriting. Here's my first short play.

Dialogue with a scientist and a dad

Scientist: Isn't it funny though? The bodies of all those patriarchs, who lived to be hundreds of years old only a few millenia ago, can't be found. Even in the small geographic area they occupied, there's no sign of very, very old people. Yet we can find lots of pieces of much younger humans from much older times over much vaster territory.
dad: Wait, no, that can't be! They can't be older than Adam! Fire those paleontologists! Recalibrate the radioactive clock! It must be wrong, or rather it must have changed. Yes, that's it. The clock is slower now, making it appear that Lucy died millions of years ago, but everyone knows she can't be more than a few millenia more than 23. Radioactive nuclides that give us the clocks were more stable back when spirits abounded in biblical times.
Scientist: Oh, but why do we have so much helium underground? Helium comes from the alpha-decay of uranium-238. If that decay was slower and all took place over a period of 6000 years or so, we'd have next to no helium at all! Which I know is not true because we have a large measurable amount of uranium and...
dad: No, no. You've got it wrong. It's from ... from, er ... devils! Yeah, that's it. Devils fart helium underground. There! I showed you, ha ha. Prove me wrong! And I know you can't.

The end.

 

[RightWingGirl]

There are probably some places on earth (like the Canadian Shield, and other old igneous rock complexes) that have always been above sea level.

But a big chunk of the earths surface was below sea level at some time in the past, and has since been uplifted to it's current elevation. Different places were below sea level at different times, of course.

And were fossils layers laid down at that time?

 

[OC1]

And were fossils layers laid down at that time?

Yes, in other places. The oldest fossils (cyanobacteria) date back to 3.5 billion years or so.

 

[HairlessSimian]

Quote Originally Posted by: OC1
There are probably some places on earth (like the Canadian Shield, and other old igneous rock complexes) that have always been above sea level.

But a big chunk of the earths surface was below sea level at some time in the past, and has since been uplifted to it's current elevation. Different places were below sea level at different times, of course.


Let's be clear. At different times, many large parts of the earth's land mass were under water for varying periods. This is not the same as saying that much of the earth was under water at some point. As far as we know, there was no time when most of the land was underwater.

 

[dad]

Just because something can't be proven doesn't mean it is baseless. I'm not going to continue telling you that science doesn't ever prove anything, ever. It only disproves. You've been told this, if not before, now. For you to continue to claim that science ever proves anything, or to demand proof on a scientific topic like evolution will be taken as intellectual dishonesty. Do not continue to do this.

Ha. How can I tell when I hit a sensitive nerve? Usually when I drill down, and get to the root of the matter.
"Scottish scientists claim to have video evidence which proves that bubbles in a glass of beer can move downwards"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/3516100.stm
"New science proves that cancer is reversible, but organized medicine insists that cancer cannot be cured ..."
http://www.newstarget.com/001582.html
"Truth is on the pro-life side. Science proves the case. When technology gave us access to information, the tide began to turn. Ultrasound gave us greater detail and we could actually see inside the womb and there the proof was self-evident. There was the fetus –- an active baby -- sucking its thumb.
http://www.cwfa.org/articledisplay.asp?id=5642&department=BLI&categoryid=femfacts
"science proves that all pollution is related and is never a local problem"
http://www.hd.net/op_worldreport_epguide.html
"Science starts with the assumption that there is a set of realities outside of minds and human influences. It is called objective reality. objective means originating outside of the minds in question.

Science proves that there is such an objective set of realities. The proof is in the fact that numerous independent studies get related results."
http://nov55.com/sct.html

So, these are just a few sites I snagged, guess a lot of corrections are needed, better get to work, man.
The term normally is used fairly loosely, meaning more that we have real reason to believe a certain thing, or we have a mountain of evidence and observations etc.
On many things we do, and may certainly be considered real science.
On other things we do not, such as the admittedly unprovable claim that the present PO will always be.
All you have to do is admit it. Some beliefs just don't belong in science class!

"As I said above, proofs have no business in science. There are no "old ages proofs".

Hey, you're telling me? Ha. I know that. Now we must ask why some pretend it is science.

You can only disprove a theory. Any further claims that proof needs to be supplied, or that without proof something is "baseless" will be interpreted by me as intellectual dishonesty on your part.

Hey, you can interpret a day really means a billion years for all I care! If you claim that the future that includes heaven will not be eternal, with spiritual and physical, don't pretend your claim is science, or it will be interpreted by me as intellectual dishonesty on your part. I kid you not.

 

[dad]

...As far as we know, there was no time when most of the land was underwater.

Ha, that's not saying much. As far as you know it has been underwater. The only way we know is by assumptions we artificially presume into the past there, so, your results of that exercise are only as good as the assumptions involved, which is just something you believe to be the case, which means NOTHING.

 

[dad]

....Put down your science books. Recycle libraries. Close all the labs. There is no constancy in science, no truth to find.

Wait a minute, no sour grapes here, just because your beliefs are out, leave the rest alone.

There is no point in studying the Pythagorean theorem or the Periodic Table, because hypothenuses won't obey anymore and gallium will move ahead of indium!

No, go ahead, it will apply, unless locally spiritually overruled for quite a while still. Enjoy.

Forget evolution too. It'll change as well.

Finally, you get an "A" here. Well done.

T. rex will actually be alive again! And the sun, the moon and the stars? They will be on the 'firmament' and rotate around the earth, then Mars will be an actual moving star.

Dinos again, maybe, but as for your strange little interpretation of the coming universe being some type of stardust stage prop around earth, sorry, back to the "f" s again here.

Dialogue with a scientist and a dad

Scientist: Isn't it funny though? The bodies of all those patriarchs, who lived to be hundreds of years old only a few millenia ago, can't be found. Even in the small geographic area they occupied, there's no sign of very, very old people. Yet we can find lots of pieces of much younger humans from much older times over much vaster territory.

Older in your belief that eminates only from you, sir. No correlation in reality, beyond the physical only present you came from, exists. Also how do you know the famous first world cruiser occupied a small area only? Also, sir, have you heard of the ressurection of the Messiah, after which bodies in that small area rose from the dead and walked among men? Us modern Christians wait for our ressurection when Jesus returns, but it seems the Old Testament guys already may have had theirs!!!!!

Scientist: Oh, but why do we have so much helium underground? Helium comes from the alpha-decay of uranium-238. If that decay was slower and all took place over a period of 6000 years or so, we'd have next to no helium at all! Which I know is not true because we have a large measurable amount of uranium and...

How much was created with the earth, or resulted from some pre split process, sir, can you tell us that here and now?

The end

Applause, curtains close.

 

[Guywiththehead]

Oh, so there is nothing against angels pushing the shavings?

So we should stop teaching that baseless theory of magnetism?

I love dad logic.

 

[dad]

Oh, so there is nothing against angels pushing the shavings?

So we should stop teaching that baseless theory of magnetism?

I love dad logic.

Hey, do the experiment if you are of little faith. I can tell you right now, generally, no angels are required there. So don't think we're going to throw that baby out with the evo old age bathwater!

 

[Jet Black]

We don't have to call it flooding, but in the Evolution model almost all of the world was covered by water at various times?

probably the vast majority yes, though you would have to ask a geologist about that. The supernontinents have broken and reformed several times so far.