My Rock Challenge

[Phred]

Science has nothing to do with the creation event; not a thing; zero; zippo.

Science didn't even exist when God brought the earth into existence.

Science is a method. It's a method by which we men study the universe. It has rigid rules and those rules prevent us from recognizing things like your god as being real. Scientifically your deity, the things you claim it does/did... all do not exist. This is because they cannot be studied. In much the same way Cinderella cannot be studied. There is no tangible evidence for her existence and nothing to examine. Same for your god. Not a thing. Zero. Zippo.

So you can claim that your deity brought the earth into existence. You can claim purple unicorns with menstrual cramps did it. The result is the same.

When you find some evidence, some data, something that shows the world that your deity exists and actually did something then you can enter into a logical discussion. But simply saying that everything would look just as it does even though your god created it last Thursday and made it look as if it had been here for billions of years well... who cares? If it was created old then it's old.

When science came into being is irrelevant to the issue. It's what we use today. If we find out something that makes us change what we accept then we change. That's not a failing. It's not as if we invent the microscope and then refuse to accept the existence of germs. Or like we invent the telescope and refuse to accept that the earth isn't the center of the universe. Like the church does. So what if astronomers change the classification of pluto from a planet to something else. It's still there, it's still the same size, shape, in the same orbit. Only they decided to call it something else. Because it doesn't fit the definition of what a planet IS. That's not a failing. Unlike those that are so stubborn and foolish they can't accept what's in front of their noses.

The ToE explains how species came about. It explains why they change. It explains the methods, lays out the evidence and shows the results.

Creationism says that the narrative in the Bible is correct. It doesn't explain how, it doesn't explain why. It doesn't show us the methods used. It can't be used to tell us anything about anything. We can't learn about your god. We can't learn about our earth or the universe.

Creationism is a falsified scientific theory. The evidence that should have been there wasn't. It's been lie after lie ever since. And all you can do is pretend that everything we've found is what your god created it to look like... how... childish.

 

[mzungu]

Bologna.
Everyone has a set of rules they use to interpret and understand the world.

re·li·gion

   [ri-lij-uh

n] Show IPA
noun 1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.

3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.

4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.

5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.

Science is not based on beliefs! Science is not a religion. When you quote a dictionary make sure you understand what it says first!

 

[AV1611VET]

Science is not based on beliefs!

No, they're just called what? hypotheses? theories? suppositions? educated guesses? evidence? ideas?

 

[OllieFranz]

No, they're just called what? hypotheses? theories? suppositions? educated guesses? evidence? ideas?

I prefer "models." A model is a simplified representation of reality that enables us to focus on those details that specifically affect the problem we are studying. A different model would focus on different details to study a different problem. The answers we get from the model are often accurate to less than the tolerance of our measuring devices, as long as we keep to the problem that the model answers. Models are not the same as the thing they model, and so are not "true" in any absolute sense. "True" and "false" are matters of philosophy, and therefore belief. Models are not "true" or "false." They are "useful," or not.

Consider maps. Near the equator a Mercator projection is generally the best to use (except for certain specific problems). but near the poles it would be wildly off. A polar projection's usefulness would be just the opposite.

The equations of Newtonian Physics are different from those of Special Relativity, but as long as the velocity is considerably less than the speed of light, the difference in the solutions those equations produce are less than all but the most sensitive instruments can measure. So, since the Newtonian equations are easier to work with, we still use them in those circumstances.

The models can always be refined and even replaced as our measuring instruments improve and our knowledge of exotic conditions grows, but the older models are not "false" as in the claim that "scientific theories are always changing, and what's true today can be declared false tomorrow." They still can be used in their own areas and still give correct predictions in those areas.

 

[Greg1234]

Science is a method.

Philosophically speaking. http://www.experiment-resources.com/history-of-the-philosophy-of-science.html

It's a method by which we men study the universe.

The method used today is only due to the faculties man is endowed with. You blot out a man's eyes and viewing a computer or a stop light becomes an extensive scientific venture with tumultuous hotspots made to look difficult due to the continual degradation of man over the eons.

It has rigid rules and those rules prevent us from recognizing things like your god as being real.

Um..it's just methodological naturalism.

Scientifically your deity, the things you claim it does/did... all do not exist. This is because they cannot be studied.

That's ok. Seismographs cannot map DNA either.

In much the same way Cinderella cannot be studied.

Think more along the lines of DNA. Think seismographs. Think methodological visiblism.

There is no tangible evidence for her existence and nothing to examine. Same for your god. Not a thing. Zero. Zippo.

I can't say methodological naturalism speaks for everyone.

So you can claim that your deity brought the earth into existence. You can claim purple unicorns with menstrual cramps did it. The result is the same.

I think it was the one that hit Babe Ruth's home runs. After it evolved from bacteria.

When you find some evidence, some data, something that shows the world that your deity exists and actually did something then you can enter into a logical discussion.

With methodological naturalism? Oh heavens no. We're still trying to get you people to understand that robotics cannot arise by chance and necessity. When you have that level of materialistic extremity, one would be advised to leave the more complex and abstract concepts far away. Not that it can't be given, it's just those bacteria men...man. Is someone required to desert an historical document? No again.

But simply saying that everything would look just as it does even though your god created it last Thursday and made it look as if it had been here for billions of years well... who cares? If it was created old then it's old.

If you don't want to be in the discussion then walk away. Simple.

When science came into being is irrelevant to the issue. It's what we use today. If we find out something that makes us change what we accept then we change. That's not a failing.

And remember also kids "It has rigid rules and those rules prevent us from recognizing things like your god as being real." By the way, whether you change your mind or not is irrelevant. You're not an authority. We move on as planned recognizing that microbes can't turn into men. There's much more to do and much more getting done.

It's not as if we invent the microscope and then refuse to accept the existence of germs.

After we check it first for all theological connotations or measure for future reversions.

Or like we invent the telescope and refuse to accept that the earth isn't the center of the universe. Like the church does.

Classic. Purify physical science with theological transmissions.

So what if astronomers change the classification of pluto from a planet to something else. It's still there, it's still the same size, shape, in the same orbit. Only they decided to call it something else. Because it doesn't fit the definition of what a planet IS. That's not a failing. Unlike those that are so stubborn and foolish they can't accept what's in front of their noses.

Those definitive definitions are definitely difficult to define.

The ToE explains how species came about. It explains why they change. It explains the methods, lays out the evidence and shows the results.

And we refuted it.

Creationism says that the narrative in the Bible is correct. It doesn't explain how, it doesn't explain why. It doesn't show us the methods used. It can't be used to tell us anything about anything. We can't learn about your god. We can't learn about our earth or the universe.

Using conventional science and it's methods. Well that's humbling. Looks like you're going to have to do it the old fashioned way. Ol' seismograph has come to the end of the road with protein synthesis. But make up ridiculous theories and they'll be refuted. Nothing personal.

Creationism is a falsified scientific theory.

You don't say. Microbes remaining microbes, Intelligence governing adaptation, tests revealing the impotency and limitations of random mutation, etc etc. Scientific theory? We'll pass though. The methodologically naturalistic constraint and the confinement to time already disqualify it.

The evidence that should have been there wasn't.

(audible gasp)

It's been lie after lie ever since. And all you can do is pretend that everything we've found is what your god created it to look like... how... childish.

If you want simple, try the linear progression of history in Darwinism. Talk about booooorring and false. They assume only the physical dimensions were involved but when you add another dimension of movement (as seen in theology) and take into consideration its interaction and influence, and assess the inclusion of even more dynamic variables involved, that square seems to become much more complex. So children make cubes.

 

[Belk]

If a rock came into existence ex nihilo and radiodated as 10,000 years old:

1. Explain why that would not be an example of embedded age.

You have defined embedded age as having no history. Radio dating measures the history of an object. Therefore something created ex nihilo with embedded age would not date as being old.

2. How old would the rock be:

• physically

10,000 years old

• existentially

10,000 years old

 

[AV1611VET]

Radio dating measures the history of an object.

No, it doesn't.

It measures the ratio of elements to other elements in the same object.

Radiometric dating (often called radioactive dating) is a technique used to date materials such as rocks, usually based on a comparison between the observed abundance of a naturally occurring radioactive isotope and its decay products, using known decay rates.

I could be wrong on this, but I doubt it.

Therefore something created ex nihilo with embedded age would not date as being old.

Bologna.

10,000 years old

10,000 years old

The existential age coincides with how many times it went around the sun -- try again.

 

[mzungu]

The existential age coincides with how many times it went around the sun -- try again.

In order for the rock to exist it has to be made of matter particles or anti matter particles. So if the rock was created ex nihilo then this means that not only was the rock created at that moment but the particles that constitute it. So the Rock will be as old as the time it was created ex nihilo.

This pretty much shoots down your embedded age hypothesis!

Nice try though!

 

[AV1611VET]

In order for the rock to exist it has to be made of matter particles or anti matter particles.

Okay.

So if the rock was created ex nihilo then this means that not only was the rock created at that moment but the particles that constitute it.

Yup.

So the Rock will be as old as the time it was created ex nihilo.

Nope -- the rock will be as old as its creator deems.

In fact, just to make a point, half the rock can be 10,000 years old, and the other half 4 days old.

This pretty much shoots down your embedded age hypothesis!

Nope.

 

[Split Rock]

Science can only disprove ideas. Not prove any.

Hey, you got something right! Have a cigar.

All worldviews are a type of religion.

Ohhhh... and you were doing SO well.... Sorry... just because your world-view is based on your religion, doesn't mean everyone's world-view is based on religion.

 

[Split Rock]

Nope -- the rock will be as old as its creator deems.

In fact, just to make a point, half the rock can be 10,000 years old, and the other half 4 days old.

Please show us this process. How does one make something out of nothing and make it 10,000 years old? Descibe for us how the "embedding" process actually works.

 

[VirOptimus]

Can God make a square circle?

 

[Delphiki]

Can God make a square circle?

Suppose I create a circle ex nihilo that consists of only four flat sides of equal length, intersected at right angles.

What is it's existential shape?

What is it's physical shape?

 

[AV1611VET]

Please show us this process.

From a former thread:

Maturity without history.

Keep in mind:

1. Only God can do it.
2. It is an act of omnipotence - not science - and therefore cannot be verified.
3. Since it cannot be verified, documentation would be necessary for clarification.

How soon we forget, eh?

How does one make something out of nothing and make it 10,000 years old?

I give up -- how?

If it's not science, it must be a ... well ... here ... I'll use another OP of mine: 1

 

[AV1611VET]

Can God make a square circle?

Circle what?

 

[AV1611VET]

Suppose I create a circle ex nihilo that consists of only four flat sides of equal length, intersected at right angles.

What is it's existential shape?

What is it's physical shape?

?

 

[Delphiki]

?

Can you give me a simple answer?

 

[VirOptimus]

Circle what?

A circle with 4 corners, a square circle.

 

[Belk]

No, it doesn't.

It measures the ratio of elements to other elements in the same object.

I could be wrong on this, but I doubt it.

Nope, you are correct. That is how it works. Now, what is required for a radioactive isotope to break down?

Bologna.

Stunning refutation AV.

The existential age coincides with how many times it went around the sun -- try again.

OK. Give me evidence of this so called "existential age" and it's difference from physical age. Until then it's just a nonsense term you have come up with to when you are unable to even define age in any way.

 

[gaara4158]

This is really simple, AV. A rock that has appeared out of nowhere one minute ago is one minute old, no matter how much radioactive decay it has. Radiometric dating is a way to measure age, not assign it. The only reason radiometric dating would be wrong in this case is because of the impossible premise that this rock was created ex nihilo. To assume the results of radiometric dating are wrong in actual reality is in fact Last Thursdayism. You're just plain wrong, sir. You must know this.