The Flood (2)

[Nathan Poe]

Hmmm ... no comment.

You want the glory and the credit, but you don't like responsibility, do you?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Nope -- I'm not putting my eternal future in the hands of a minority who see planets where there are no planets, and listen for things out in space to answer their calls.

it would seem to me that your "eternal future" is already spoken for -- and nobody on this side of eternity can do anything about that.

But it's not the eternal future you really care about, is it, AV? nor is it anything after this life -- scientists earn respect and authority, and you guys want a piece of the pie.

Too bad you can't do anything to earn it -- too afraid to make a stand yourself, you prefer to harp on others' mistakes.

 

[Jazer]

So your forced to believe god created those stars with light already in motion, or the universe is at least as old as the distance that light has traveled.

There is no time at the speed of light.

 

[Delphiki]

There is no time at the speed of light.

Only relative to the light itself. To us, it's about 186000 m/s... Which is 186,000 meters (a distance) per second (a time).

 

[Skaloop]

There is no time at the speed of light.

So light emitted by the sun reaches Earth instantaneously? Or does it take ~8 minutes?

 

[Inan3]

It's my opinon they believe in something because they're afraid to find out if it's true or not.

Well, it's my opinion YOU GUYS haven't got anything to show us. So what have we got to be afraid of??? Once again ... Here we go round the Mulberry bush...

 

[AV1611VET]

Only relative to the light itself. To us, it's about 186000 m/s... Which is 186,000 meters (a distance) per second (a time).

That would be "miles" -- not "meters".

Light travels at 186,282 miles per second.

But yes -- it's still distance.

 

[Herman Hedning]

Only relative to the light itself. To us, it's about 186000 m/s... Which is 186,000 meters (a distance) per second (a time).

~ 186000 miles per second.

 

[Delphiki]

Of course. My mistake.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Well, it's my opinion YOU GUYS haven't got anything to show us. So what have we got to be afraid of??? Once again ... Here we go round the Mulberry bush...

I guess there's nothing about science that you guys could use to inflate your opinions of yourselves... so no, I guess we've got nothing to show you that you'd be interested in.

Have fun with your Mulberry bush.

 

[Inan3]

I guess there's nothing about science that you guys could use to inflate your opinions of yourselves... so no, I guess we've got nothing to show you that you'd be interested in.

Have fun with your Mulberry bush.

I'm not asking for that. I'm asking for proof of a common ancestor. You know you can't provide it so what's wrong with thinking that God is the Creator?

 

[Nathan Poe]

I'm not asking for that. I'm asking for proof of a common ancestor. You know you can't provide it so what's wrong with thinking that God is the Creator?

Suppose God created the common ancestor and evolution took over from there? Would that be so horrible?

 

[Hespera]

is there a creationist between the poles of the earth who can grasp the idea that in science we dont do proof?

Demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt.

ALL known evidence for, no evidence against.

If a creationist were on a jury, and the evidence was, say ten million individual exhibits... fingerprints, photos, eye witness testimony etc etc...all showing guilt.

and there was not one single piece of data for innocence...


Would our creationist say "what is wrong with voting not guilty"


There is nothing wrong with the idea of god; maybe there is a god.
there is something wrong with thinking anyone knows that their version of that god is infallible, and that they are right, even tho all the actual evidence shows they are wrong.

 

[Freodin]

I'm not asking for that. I'm asking for proof of a common ancestor. You know you can't provide it so what's wrong with thinking that God is the Creator?

Are you asking for "proof" - that is, an explanation that shows that it must be this way and cannot be any other way - or "evidence"?

This just as a clarification, so that afterwards one cannot say, "but it could be different". It could. We know that. Natural science does not deal with "proof".

As for evidence, ERVs are a good starting point. We know the mechanisms by which genetic material is transferred, and thus we can conclude to a common ancestry based on genetic similarity.

Yes, it could be different. Everything could be different. You can believe what you want. But you should be aware where the evidence points at.

A simple counterexample: make a genetic test on me and my father. It will show that we are related.

Could it be that I am not my father's son... that I wasn`t sired and born at all... but directly created by God?

How would you decide?

 

[Hespera]

Are you asking for "proof" - that is, an explanation that shows that it must be this way and cannot be any other way - or "evidence"?

This just as a clarification, so that afterwards one cannot say, "but it could be different". It could. We know that. Natural science does not deal with "proof".

As for evidence, ERVs are a good starting point. We know the mechanisms by which genetic material is transferred, and thus we can conclude to a common ancestry based on genetic similarity.

Yes, it could be different. Everything could be different. You can believe what you want. But you should be aware where the evidence points at.

A simple counterexample: make a genetic test on me and my father. It will show that we are related.

Could it be that I am not my father's son... that I wasn`t sired and born at all... but directly created by God?

How would you decide?

Another possibility is they just pretended to do the lab work.
or there could be the exact mutations that make two unrelated people appear to be related.
Or someone paid them to lie.

We could go to another lab and another and another. They could all do the same things; be lazy, or take bribes. Even after going to every lab in the country. They all do the exact same thing... could be.


And maybe everyone just happens to mutate as needed to appear to be related and we are all adopted. But who could actually think that would be what happened?

Evidence for common ancestry in living things is far stronger than every lab in the country getting the same results. that tho.

What would a reasonable person decide?

What would an unreasonable person with an agenda decide?

 

[Split Rock]

YES I DO CLAIM THAT AND I MEANT IT AND JUST BECAUSE YOU DON'T BELIEVE ME DOESN'T MAKE IT WRONG!

ALL BECAUSE YOU USE ALL CAPS DOESN'T MAKE YOU RIGHT!

[YOU DON'T KNOW ME AT ALL!! YOU KNOW ONLY WHAT YOU FABRICATE IN YOUR OWN MIND ABOUT ME.

DOESN'T THE BIBLE TELL US WE WILL KNOW THEE FROM THY WORKS?

[Well, there you go, so if I said scientists lied or misrepresented the data, AND by your admission they do, then you are confirming that I was NOT lying when I said it. THEREFORE your accusation of me in the former posts is wrong and therefore, just that ... a false accusation.

You asked if scientists ever misrepresent data. I answered yes. That does not mean that most do, or even that it is commonplace. You have implied in the past, and even in the thread I am responding to that it is commonplace. The reason I discussed what happens to a scientist who lies shows one reason why it is rare. The consequences are dire. What happens to the data misrepresented? It is certainly not used to formulate theories published in books, which you do not "trust."

[As to creation scientists lying, that was NOT what we were discussing. We were discussing YOUR accusation of me that I was LYING (which I do not do) AND that I was not speaking the truth in love (which I do do). I suggest to you Split Rock that it is not so much the Christians lying but rather you atheists lying (or at best misrepresenting without knowing) and twisting what we say. I have experienced that on many occasions.

Funny how I have experiences creationists twisting what other say. For example, I accused you of accusing scientists of lying... I did not accuse you of lying. Now you are claiming I accused you of lying. How does that work again?

[As to the what happens to creation scientists that get caught lying and get hailed as great Christians that is another accusation and a bit melodramatic and I would suspect from my experience with you guys a GREAT twisting of what actually happens.

It happens all the time. The great creation scientist Duane Gish is a good example of this. He tells lies and they are propagated all over the internet. Why? Becasue he gets away with it. Because creationists like you don't care if he lies to you, as long as the lie re-inforces your dogma and assumptions about how dishonest, stupid, incompetent, etc. scientists are.

[As to you being sick and tired of the way I post and my text coloring. GET OVER IT!! I have to. You see I'm pretty tired of the false accusations and the twisting of my words that 99% of you atheists do on these posts, not once but over and over again and for many years and I have to deal with it. Yes, I too remember.

What does going out of your way to use an annoying color for you font have to do with you being falsely accused?

[I repeat you DON'T know me and if you are going to accuse me then please FIND those posts where YOU say I lied and make sure you haven't twisted what I said or the situation. In other words put up or shut up! Your assessment of me is wrong, wrong, wrong, and no amount of your rhetoric or accusations is going to make me who YOU say I am.

Just show us the love you keep speaking of... give us an example of that. As far as an example of you accusing scientists of lying (and no, I did not accuse you of lying, for the last time) here it is in your next passage:

[You guys wonder WHY we don't listen to YOUR so called evidence. It's because we don't TRUST you. You conive, twist, misrepresent, and even lie. You know it, we know it. You wonder why we don't believe scientists. You guys tell me you are scientists and you conive, twist, misrepresent and then you expect me to believe scientists. Sorry does not compute!! CASE CLOSED!

(emphasis mine)

CASE CLOSED!

 

[MoonLancer]

I'm not asking for that. I'm asking for proof of a common ancestor. You know you can't provide it so what's wrong with thinking that God is the Creator?

provided. But you know what they say, you can lead a horse to water but you make it drink.

Just like i know your not actually going to read this link.

Evidence of common descent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[AV1611VET]

there is something wrong with thinking anyone knows that their version of that god is infallible, and that they are right, even tho all the actual evidence shows they are wrong.

I'm not buying this argument.

Does it matter to an atheist what version exists, if God is?

After all, any version would be a wake-up call to an atheist.

 

[Nathan Poe]

I'm not buying this argument.

Does it matter to an atheist what version exists, if God is?

After all, any version would be a wake-up call to an atheist.

Ah, but you're far too proud to settle for "any version," as we've all seen.

It can only be your version -- why else would you concoct such utter nonsense to defend it?

 

[AV1611VET]

Ah, but you're far too proud to settle for "any version," as we've all seen.

It can only be your version -- why else would you concoct such utter nonsense to defend it?

Again, when it comes to the creation week, even Quetzacoatl (sp.?) would be a wake-up call.

(Quetzacoatl would be to me too, but it would be a double-shock to them.)