Why doesnt creationism need any data?

[SkyWriting]

An "open Cabal Conspriacy"? That is an "Englishy" term.

It's accurate.

 

[SkyWriting]

No it isn't nor did he. "Dirt" is the combination of rock broken down into small particles combined with broken down organic material. "Soil" as we know it, didn't exist until about 400 million years ago when a combination of eroded rock, minerals and organic material first formed it. This again plays into my point about "dirt" having the appearance of history, not of "maturity" or "age". It has the latter two, but not without the former.Oh wow! You got me. Except you completely ignored the salient point I made about Adam having the appearance of history from his scars resulting from a childhood that supposedly didn't exist. That is what we see on the earth and in life. It didn't just "appear" ready to chat up created ladies and magical fruit. There's a history to the solar system, the planet and to life on it that predates and nullifies any fiat scenario.Yet another red herring that scientist RW finds "excellent"? Wow. You're really not that good at this debate as you think. Oxygen was not part of the original atmosphere of the earth and didn't come around until the earliest beings like stromatolite bacteria and algae had evolved. Was the blind man created by fiat in 30 A.D. with a navel, scars on his knees from a fall in 15 A.D. and pock marks from a bout of smallpox he suffered two years earlier? If not then this is another red herring not actually addressing the issue of age/maturity vs. history.Your hubris amuses me. Huh? Do you realize you're repudiating millenia of Christian doctrine?

Sorry. I was referring to Creationist worldview.
Not referring to your entertaining religious science fictional account of past events that cannot be recreated.

My premise is that the scriptures are easy to read and correct.
Genesis 2:2 By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work.

According to the Creationist premise, everything was formed in one week.
I'm not aware of any scars on Adam. You'll need to cite your sources.
Again, the scientific method has no way to create a history about the past. Nor does it claim to.

 

[SkyWriting]

Look up 1989A&A...220...83B Page 83

I think your saying Creation has all the markings of being old.
I agree.
Adam and Eve were not created as newborns either.
It wasn't a trick to play on dunderhead Scientists.
Adam and Eve needed to feed themselves.
God is oblivious to the desires for Lab Nerds to date stuff accurately.
I'm not putting down Lab Nerds. It's my favorite job over the years.

 

[Davian]

I think your saying Creation has all the markings of being old.
I agree.

So everything has the markings of being old; it looks old, from cosmology, geology, biology, etc. and we can conduct science "as if" everything is old.

Adam and Eve were not created as newborns either.
It wasn't a trick to play on dunderhead Scientists.
They needed to feed themselves.
God is oblivious to the desires for the Lab Nerds to date stuff accurately.

And scientists can be oblivious to the need for some to date everything so as to fit into their particular religious beliefs.

Could you go over the part why we shouldn't just conclude that everything is old?

 

[SkyWriting]

Looks like Mr. "I can't count the times my well researched posts with links
to relevant, respected information sources get zero response." doesn't have his irony meter calibrated.

Oh, because I ignored a link with no claim, proposal or even one character of text?
Please.

 

[SkyWriting]

So everything has the markings of being old; it looks old, from cosmology, geology, biology, etc. and we can conduct science "as if" everything is old.

And scientists can be oblivious to the need for some to date everything so as to fit into their particular religious beliefs.

Could you go over the part why we shouldn't just conclude that everything is old?

Your saying that Science can see into the past way past their nose. The most powerful computers known to man can't get the weather right 4 hours into the future. That's the power of Science. About 4 hours from any moment. But...
I don't suggest to anyone that stuff is not old.
I suggest that the 7 day Creation account is accurate and correct.
WHY does the world look old? For the same reason that healed limbs are correctly sized and aged. For the same reason a blind man has age appropriate eyes. For the same reason a man brought back from the dead doesn't smell like he's been dead for 3 days. I've seen people dead 3 days. They really smell. As a building manager I've had to clean up the juices.

 

[Davian]

I think your saying Creation has all the markings of being old.
I agree.

So everything has the markings of being old; it looks old, from cosmology, geology, biology, etc. and we can conduct science "as if" everything is old.

And scientists can be oblivious to the need for some to date everything so as to fit into their particular religious beliefs.

Could you go over the part why we shouldn't just conclude that everything is old?

Your saying that Science can see into the past way past their nose.

You seemed to agree with that, above. Everything looks old. "All the markings" of being old. Not "some markings".

The most powerful computers known to man can't get the weather right 4 hours into the future. That's the power of Science. About 4 hours from any moment. But...
I don't suggest to anyone that stuff is not old.

So everything may actually be old.

I suggest that the 7 day Creation account is accurate and correct.
...

But based on some meteorologists' inability to give you an accurate long range weather forecast, a bible story may be literally correct since those "dunderhead" scientists could be wrong about everything else.

Or it may be simply be the case that forecasting weather is a hard thing to do accurately, and we can safely conclude that everything is old.

 

[Nathan Poe]

For the same reason that healed limbs are correctly sized and aged. For the same reason a blind man has age appropriate eyes. For the same reason a man brought back from the dead doesn't smell like he's been dead for 3 days.

You mean because none of those events ever happened.

 

[sfs]

I'll take that as confirmation of my statement.

Your statement was wrong. I pointed out that your statement was wrong. You can "take" my response any way you like; your statement will still be wrong. Science does not deny the supernatural.

 

[SkyWriting]

You seemed to agree with that, above. Everything looks old. "All the markings" of being old. Not "some markings".

So everything may actually be old.

But based on some meteorologists' inability to give you an accurate long range weather forecast, a bible story may be literally correct since those "dunderhead" scientists could be wrong about everything else.

Or it may be simply be the case that forecasting weather is a hard thing to do accurately, and we can safely conclude that everything is old.

Perfectly safe. I feel that "Young Earth" Creationists are incorrect.

But just as it safe to conclude that a cured lame man had perfectly good legs all along, the "safe" conclusion is simply one that ones drinking buddies will agree with. It doesn't mean it's an accurate assessment of what actually happened. Exactly like modern science. Assumptions made about the age of something are perfectly good, until the assumptions are proven wrong. Then suddenly, there is a new truth in town.....up until the next convincing theory comes along.

For example a very few, weird, oddball scientists believe they have a handle on how life evolved at the very beginning of time. Posters on this mighty forum speak about life starting with single cells. And yet, how far back can they see, with how little evidence?

Not far:

The Great Mystery: Current Arguments

No, Seriously, What Killed the Dinosaurs? : Discovery News

 

[sfs]

USincognito said, “Check out Supernova 1987A for an example of what WC was talking about and the problem with the age/maturity vs. history issue.”

Belk said, “Look up 1989A&A...220...83B Page 83"

Aside from the fact that Belk’s reference labeled “1989A” went to an article talking about “1984A”, USincognito seemed to think it should be 1987A. I read Belk’s link and was impressed with the number of times the author used the words, “this is controversial”, “with these assumptions” (or words to that effect).

I went to Wikipedia (Horrors! I know I’m breaking all the rules by trusting Wikipedia, but I want a second opinion, an overview and something current). I noticed the following things of interest about 1987A (in case this was what Belk was really trying to say):
1. The star was determined to be a ‘blue supergiant’, an impossibility by current science
2. Speculations are rampant: “the star may have merged with a companion star prior to the supernova” and “blue giant Sanduleak -69° 202a was about one-tenth as luminous as the average observed type-II supernova, which is associated with the denser makeup of the star”. Much speculation resulted from there being no evidence of a neutron star, “A number of possibilities for the 'missing' neutron star are being considered, although none is clearly favored. The first is that the neutron star is enshrouded in dense dust clouds so that it cannot be seen. Another is that a pulsar was formed, but with either an unusually large or small magnetic field. It is also possible that large amounts of material fell back on the neutron star, so that it further collapsed into a black hole. Neutron stars and black holes often give off light when material falls onto them. If there is a compact object in the supernova remnant, but no material to fall onto it, it could be very dim and therefore avoid detection. Other scenarios have also been considered, such as if the collapsed core became a quark star."

Now let me see: Distance to all of these astronomical features is important because it helps astronomers determine brightness (is it a very bright star very far away or a dim star closer?), velocity (the closer a speeding object is, the greater its apparent speed), and size/mass.

Dr. Halton Arp, a pioneer in this field and the first to use red-shifted light to calculate distance, questioned his own calculations because of the indefensibility of his initial assumption that the red-shifted star must be fleeing away from the Earth at near the speed of light. He questions then the distance calculations most astronomers use, which could be biasing the results they calculate. See his website for additional data backing his view (haltonarp.com)


Is there any other ‘strange’ stuff possibly resulting from these miscalculated distances:

• Star mass moving at greater than light speeds (sorry, you perfectionists, I read this years ago and don’t have a reference. But you guys asked me to look up 1987A on my own, so you can do the same).
• Dark matter needed to fill in the gaps of this artificially expanded universe
• Established and trusted rules breaking down with new sightings

One of the key ‘tells’ to a theory that is breaking down is just this kind of ‘strange’ behavior and new data coming in that violates the theory.

Then you guys come to us and cite these collapsing theories as proof of your ‘vision’. Get your science straightened out before seeking new converts!

All of that response, and you said nothing at all about the relevance of SN1987A to age and distance. Impressive.

 

[SkyWriting]

Your statement was wrong. I pointed out that your statement was wrong. You can "take" my response any way you like; your statement will still be wrong. Science does not deny the supernatural.

Ok.
I concede your point. "Science" does not deny the supernatural.
It's just those very vocal pesky Scientists acting in anti-scientific close-minded ways that do.

We Are Atheism Campaign - - - We Are Atheism - RichardDawkins.net

Category:Scientist - Celebrity Atheist List

List of atheists in science and technology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[SkyWriting]

You mean because none of those events ever happened.

I have no proof they did. But after my own experiences with answered prayer, I have no reason to think those things didn't. If they didn't happen, I have a hard time figuring out the purpose of the stories. As fictional accounts, they don't do much. Fiction usually has some moral story to tell. Jesus healed some guy and he took up his mat and went home. Kind of a yawner in my opinion. What's the moral of the story.....lie around on mats until somebody heals you? Its not like the guy lifted a finger to save himself.

A pretty sad religion if it's all fiction. The stories have too little punch. What's the moral of the story for Noah's Ark? Marry up? Only family got on board.

 

[USincognito]

All of that response, and you said nothing at all about the relevance of SN1987A to age and distance. Impressive.

Thank you. I was afraid I was the only one who thought that wall of text had nothing to do with the point I was trying to make.

It's just those very vocal pesky Scientists acting in anti-scientific close-minded ways that do.

So atheists aren't allowed to go into the sciences? I mean the bottom two links you provided could just as easily have listed Greek Orthodox, Jewish, Vegetarian or Red Sox fans as scientists. So what?

Dawkins is his own sort of being. A New Atheist who conflates a sense of smug superiority regarding his religious beliefs* with his professional calling. I think he's absolutely brilliant with his writing when it comes to pop-sci and the Crevo debate**, but I've not been a fan of his New Atheism since he and some others came up with "brights" a few years back.

* IMO he's a strong atheist and that's a belief rather than a lack of belief.
** At The Amaz!ng Meeting 3, I only wanted one photo with one of the celebrity speakers - Dawkins.

 

[Nathan Poe]

I have no proof they did.

So you're not really in a position to describe the circumstances under which they allegedly happened -- it's just wishful thinking on your part.

But after my own experiences with answered prayer, I have no reason to think those things didn't.

Ever prayed anyone back from the dead?

If they didn't happen, I have a hard time figuring out the purpose of the stories. As fictional accounts, they don't do much. Fiction usually has some moral story to tell.

And so do the healing stories -- you don't get them because you're not the intended audience.

I'm going to assume you're interested in learning this. Let's start with an important but often overlooked premise: Jesus, the disciples, the Gospel writers, and their intended audience were all observant Jews.

Now, in order for those writers to express Jesus in ways the readers would understand and appreciate, they went back to the Hebrew Scriptures, lifted tales of their Old Testament heroes, and worked Jesus into them.

In fact, I'll make a bold claim regarding Jesus' miracles -- none of them are original. Every miraculous act Jesus performs was already done by an Old testament Prophet.

The reason is simple -- While Jesus' teachings were, by Jewish standards of the time, a bit out there in Left Field, the Gospel writers wanted to fit him into the Hebrew religion (remember, Christianity was originally considered a Jewish sect, and wasn't considered a separate religion until long after Jesus' death)

Of course, they didn't just want to put him among the OT prophets -- as the Messiah, he needed to be superior to them, so his miracles, although based on OT accounts of the prophets, are more jazzed up -- anything they could do, he could do better.

But don't take my word for it -- pick a specific miracle from the Gospels and we'll take a look at it.

Jesus healed some guy and he took up his mat and went home. Kind of a yawner in my opinion. What's the moral of the story.....lie around on mats until somebody heals you? Its not like the guy lifted a finger to save himself.

Just for the record, you, not me, are calling Jesus boring.

(Also just for the record, it's not like you lifted a finger for your salvation, either.)

But if you want to focus on a healing miracle, as I said, go ahead and pick one -- we'll look at it in more detail, and you'll learn something you didn't know before.

A pretty sad religion if it's all fiction.

Not "fiction" -- myth. Myth has a meaning which transcends fact or fiction.

It is a pretty sad religion, but only because you guys lost the meaning of it all centuries ago. But you know what? It's never too late to get it back.

The stories have too little punch. What's the moral of the story for Noah's Ark? Marry up? Only family got on board.

A fitting analogy for the Jewish nation -- remember, in the Old Testament, Yahweh was a God for the Jewish people only; only "family" (the 12 tribes) were "on board" with him.

Granted, I'm just spitballing on that one -- how about we stick with Jesus for now?

 

[Tinker Grey]

* IMO he's a strong atheist and that's a belief rather than a lack of belief.

Except that he explicitly says he is not. He gives himself a 6 on his 1-7 scale where 7 would be absolute certainty in the non-existence of gods.

 

[Delphiki]

It's just those very vocal pesky Scientists acting in anti-scientific close-minded ways that do.

You mean by not drawing conclusions until there is sufficient data, testing, and evidence to back it up? If that's what you call close-minded, then so be it.

All you have to do to challenge scientific claims is present something testable or have some evidence that contradicts a theory. It's not too difficult if you have it.

 

[sandwiches]

Except that he explicitly says he is not. He gives himself a 6 on his 1-7 scale where 7 would be absolute certainty in the non-existence of gods.

Yea... the more I think about theism and atheism, the more absurd I feel calling myself a "weak atheist." After all, I am as sure that a deity doesn't exist as I am sure that leprechauns and unicorns don' exist. And to be honest, unicorns and leprechauns seem even more plausible to me anyway.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yea... the more I think about theism and atheism, the more absurd I feel calling myself a "weak atheist." After all, I am as sure that a deity doesn't exist as I am sure that leprechauns and unicorns don' exist. And to be honest, unicorns and leprechauns seem even more plausible to me anyway.

¿Xapurcar?

 

[sandwiches]

¿Xapurcar?

I'm not sure what you think that means but I'll say that No mas andas papaloteando, mijo...