How many of you think there was a World Wide Flood? please vote.

[Yggdrasil]

People, just don't feed this guy any more decent arguments, he's too far gone.

 

[Split Rock]

Take the moon landing, for instance - (since this is classic scientific PR).

When Armstrong walked on the moon, it was believed that the moon contained several feet of moondust.

When it only contained an inch or two, scientists, instead of admitting they made a mistake, simply said they "discovered new evidence".

That's how science works: they "discover new evidence", instead of admit they were wrong.

I used to have a list of all the techno-jargon scientists used to cover their mistakes. I wish I still had it - it was hilarious [sad, actually].

What is hilarious is how you relate lies told to you by "Creation Scientists" as if they were great truth.

Now lets see if you can admit to a mistake.

Okay, so it wasn't the moonlanding --- but it still constitutes a mistake, no matter what year it was shown otherwise.

I guess not.

How about it AVET? Will you admit you made a mistake? Come on, show us all how to do it.

and the way the universe works - the actual data and facts - conflicts with a literal reading of Genesis. You've never thought your own interpretation of the Bible might be wrong.

Let's see if he can admit to that possibility.

When I think about interpretation --- I worry more about how you "scientists" misinterpret data --- not how we creationists misinterpret Scripture.

I guess not, once again!

No, it wasn't "thought" there "might" be a lot of dust because we had "hardly even ventured into space".

It was calculated on a computer with mathematical precision, using a predetermined formula.

You johnny-come-lately, armchair apologists for "science" aren't fooling us Christians one bit.

It was calculated as an upper limit on how much dust may be on the surface of the moon. But the lying "Creation Scientists" that you listen to didn't tell you that, did they? Who's the one "being fooled" AVET? Looks like it is you.

 

[Split Rock]

People, just don't feed this guy any more decent arguments, he's too far gone.

Yeah, I know. AVET does have one saving grace... he actually admits that his issue with evolution (and much of modern science) is based entirely on his religious beliefs and not because the physical evidence says it is wrong. That is still more than most Creationists are willing to admit.

 

[Split Rock]

I doubt you are really interested in learning, are you?

No --- I'm not.

That about says it all folks. AVET is here to preach, not to learn. Please everyone, try to remember that.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

AV, just one question: did those scientatheists at NASA get men to the moon? Yes or no?

 

[Loudmouth]

Let's put it this way: I know Who the Author of science is.

Prove it.

I have no problem with that. What I said was: when shown to be wrong, they never admit it. Instead, they have a whole slew of public-relation techo-jargon that they sugar-coat it with.

I thought that you had a problem with science changing it's conclusions all of the time. So which is it? That science sticks to dogma or it is ever-changing?

No, it wasn't an "opinion". It was stated as a calculated fact, based on dust accretion x a certain length of time.

It was stated as a calculation based on the influx of cosmic dust over a certain time period. The time period was right but the rate of influx was wrong. The experimental data that the NASA scietists first used was flawed and has been considered obsolete for quite some time now. Below is a good summary of the experimental data concerning moon dust (found here):

This argument: A single measurement of the rate of meteoritic dust influx to the Earth gave a value in the millions of tons per year. While this is negligible compared to the processes of erosion on the Earth (about a shoebox-full of dust per acre per year), there are no such processes on the moon. The moon must receive a similar amount of dust (perhaps 25% as much per unit surface area due to its lesser gravity), and there should be a very large dust layer (about a hundred feet thick) if the moon is several billion years old.
Morris says, regarding the dust influx rate:

"The best measurements have been made by Hans Pettersson, who obtained the figure of 14 million tons per year (1)." (Morris 1974, p. 152) [emphasis added]
​

Pettersson stood on a mountain top and collected dust there with a device intended for measuring smog levels. He published calculations which measured the amount of nickel he collected, assumed that nickel was only present in meteoritic dust, and assumed that some percentage of meteoritic dust was nickel, to get his final figures (that first assumption was wrong and caused his published figures to be a vast overestimate).
Pettersson's calculation resulted in the a figure of about 15 million tons per year. He believed that estimate to be an over-estimate, and indicated in the paper that 5 million tons per year was a much more likely figure.
Much more accurate measurements were available, from satellite penetration data (no possibility of earthly contamination), by the time Morris published Scientific Creationism. These more accurate measurements give the value of about 18,000 to 25,000 tons per year. These measurements agree with levels of meteoritic dust levels trapped in sediments on Earth. (That is, they are verified by an independent cross-check.)
Morris chooses to pick obsolete data with known problems, and call it the "best" measurement available. His calculations are based on a figure that is nearly three orders of magnitude too high. With the proper values, the expected depth of meteoritic dust on the moon is less than one foot.
​

The most accurate measurements of influx show that the current thickness of moon dust is consistent with a moon that has been geologically inactive for billions of years. Is this evidence of an old moon? Or was the moon created with billions of years worth of moon dust on it?

You're making it sound too innocent. They didn't "throw this idea into a pot", they calculated it with mathematical precision, using a formula that had an incorrect factor (length of time).

Wrong. The incorrect factor was cosmic dust influx. Are you going to admit that your are wrong?

Once again --- I'm harping about how they present this "new data" to the public; not how scientists show each other how they're wrong.

How should they present it?

 

[anffyddwyr]

AV1611VET, why do scientists need to admit they are wrong?
when they make a claim about something and it's proved to be wrong,
everyone can see it's wrong, why would they need to admit it?
that's how science works.

If I have an idea about something I write a paper outlining my idea,
(remember, I believe my idea is right that's why I am telling everybody)
the paper is read by other scientists and discussed, they raise arguments
for or against it and they in turn write papers outlining their opinion
as to the validity or invalidity of my idea, that's when you have a
consensus of opinion, if the majority are for it, it is believed to be true,
with a few reservations, if the majority are against it, it is believe to be false,
with the possibility that it could be true, if everyone agrees it is true,
it is accepted as being the truth, it's all open and above board,
how can you make an argument against that method?
they are only ideas coming from peoples minds, nothing else.

That's why ideas keep changing, nothing is written in stone,
we are learning all of the time, about everything.

 

[AV1611VET]

AV, just one question: did those scientatheists at NASA get men to the moon? Yes or no?

Yes.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

Yes.

Would you therefore not say that this giant achievement is more important to the discussion of whether science is useful or not, rather than the minuscule detail of a false upper limit on moon dust thickness?

 

[tanzanos]

Yes, I believe in a worldwide flood. It was caused when the planet Nibiru travelled so close to Terra during its orbit that the gravity of Nibiru caused the water on Terra to move slightly towards Nibiru. This effect was like the moons effect on our oceans and seas which cause the high and low tides; however the high tide effect that Nibiru's gravity had on Terra was so high that the oceans were actually rising above the continents; and as Terra spinned on its axis this meant that the water would have washed over all the land mass of Terra multiple times over multiple days until Nibiru moved far enough away on its orbit to the point where it was no longer close enough for its gravity to have such an effect on Terra's water.

This was a once in a universes lifetime event. The calculations show that even in billions of years of future orbitations of Terra and Nibiru, Nibiru will never pass close enough to Terra to cause this to happen again.

You are totally wrong: Nibiru came so close to Mars that it sucked all the planet dry but when Nibiru came close to Earth and Earth being much larger sucked all the water from nibiru thus causing the great flood. Nibiru was so ticked off that it collided thus joined with Mangwata A large Jovian moon thus when the next year the much larger Nibiru took revenge by sucking the excess water from Earth. Then Nibiru committed suicide by colliding with the sun.
Now you have the true story of the Great Flood!

 

[AV1611VET]

Would you therefore not say that this giant achievement is more important to the discussion of whether science is useful or not, rather than the minuscule detail of a false upper limit on moon dust thickness?

MrGoodBytes --- you have me all wrong in my attitude towards science.

Without science, we would not be where we are today.

My hat goes off to scientists around the world today, some of whom put their very lives on the line to advance a worthy cause.

In fact, I hold science up to a higher standard that most scientists themselves do.

And if you are a scientist --- my hat goes off to you as well.

 

[tanzanos]

No --- I'm not.

Your total lack of any scientific knowledge really makes what you say amusing at best.
Of course a person such as you has never had a need for science so I must make the following conclusion:

You have never been to a doctor or hospital.
You have never or will never use any mechanical transportation.
You have never or will never use any apparatus that uses electricity ie: light bulbs, refrigerators, radio, tv, door bells, COMPUTERS etc.

Hmmm So who am I replying this post to?

Jesus did say after all : " Hypocrites and Pharisees"

 

[MrGoodBytes]

MrGoodBytes --- you have me all wrong in my attitude towards science.

Without science, we would not be where we are today.

My hat goes off to scientists around the world today, some of whom put their very lives on the line to advance a worthy cause.

In fact, I hold science up to a higher standard that most scientists themselves do.

And if you are a scientist --- my hat goes off to you as well.

I appreciate that, really (keep the hat on for a few more years, though ). But do you see my point about taking the moon dust mistake as an example for the shortcomings of science, instead of acknowledging the success of an infinitely more difficult undertaking, the moon landing itself?

 

[AV1611VET]

I appreciate that, really (keep the hat on for a few more years, though ). But do you see my point about taking the moon dust mistake as an example for the shortcomings of science, instead of acknowledging the success of an infinitely more difficult undertaking, the moon landing itself?

Yes, I do --- and I appreciate you and FB setting me straight on that (I really do).

 

[MrGoodBytes]

Yes, I do --- and I appreciate you and FB setting me straight on that (I really do).

Prepare to get repped.


(It's a hot day in Helsinki and AV has just accepted a mistake.)

 

[AV1611VET]

Prepare to get repped.


(It's a hot day in Helsinki and AV has just accepted a mistake.)

Singularities do occur once in awhile ---

 

[anffyddwyr]

If we could just make it 100 against, we could break the record.
Not that we need 100, everyone knows the truth anyway.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

If we could just make it 100 against, we could break the record.
Not that we need 100, everyone knows the truth anyway.

So we broke 100. What amazes me is that there are still 15 people in world who would vote that there was a global flood, let alone 15 on this board (at the point I write this post). I guess it just shows the great power of Morton's Demon.

 

[Chalnoth]

So we broke 100. What amazes me is that there are still 15 people in world who would vote that there was a global flood, let alone 15 on this board (at the point I write this post). I guess it just shows the great power of Morton's Demon.

If you really looked, you could probably find 15 people somewhere who believe in each of the entities we usually trot out because "nobody" believes in them, to show that Christians have the burden of proof when it comes to the existence of the Christian God. Yes, even the Flying Spaghetti Monster could easily have 15 adherents. Don't ask me how, but with so many people in the world, I wouldn't discount it.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

If you really looked, you could probably find 15 people somewhere who believe in each of the entities we usually trot out because "nobody" believes in them, to show that Christians have the burden of proof when it comes to the existence of the Christian God. Yes, even the Flying Spaghetti Monster could easily have 15 adherents. Don't ask me how, but with so many people in the world, I wouldn't discount it.

Well when you consider the number of apparently intelligent people who follow a religion invented by a science fiction writer I suppose you have a point.

I was in the Roman Baths at Bath recently and the recorded tour audio talks about the God the Romans associated with the hot springs and then says something like "We now look at all the great engineering accomplishments of the Romans and wonder that they clung to such primative superstitious beliefs in Gods and Godesses". I wonder if 2000 years from now some tour guide in early 21st century ruins will say "It is amazing that so many of the people who could send men to the moon and sequence the human genome still clung to the primative belief that a supernatural diety created the universe in 6 days."