Congratulations YEC’s you are way ahead of mainstream science
ReligionDiscuss General Theology, Religions and Denominations, God's Attributes, Predestination and Free Will, Dispensationalism, Eschatology, Philosophy, Origins, Archaeology, Science, World History and other such topics.
I never do that. I always say "Go on in, ya moron, so we can see you get killed stupidly!" And if the moron in question is the pretty girl who is always in these movies: "Strip down to your undies and go investigate that noise in the basement while carrying only a flashlight with weak batteries!"
I think horror movies are stupid but I always love that part.
Lord Kelvin was recognized as a good Christian. He was also the premier authority on thermodynamics in his day. He made a careful study of how old the earth would have to be to have the temperature it does. He concluded it was tens of millions or years old. No one since has falsified his work, except for adding in a factor he was unaware of – radioactive heating. That factor exacerbates his values even more from your view. Brings the age of the earth into the billions of years. Makes YEC timelines a mockery.
I have presented this same information before in threads with you. You have not countered it, but feign ignorance anyway.
(And you will need to forgive me; I had forgotten you need to be spoon-fed).
Hello! Sawdust for brains. What observations?
I too have a theory on the heat of the Earth. I know why the inside of the Earth is hot and how it got that way in the last 6,000 years. And that includes the generation of radioactivity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrRadish
In my experience he usually only starts taking what you describe as 'cheap shots' when his targets have already been using unhelpful rhetorical techniques like insults, game-playing, and quoting scripture to non-Christians, or otherwise are being particularly obstinate in refusing to concede a point which has been demonstrated not to be true.
I'm sure you genuinely do experience it differently. I imagine we both overlook a lot more bad behaviour by the people we agree with than by those with whom we don't.
Like I say, this is all he ever has to offer. When you see him post something of value, let us know.
You are being very selective in the examples you link to. The first one is drawing on the far fringes of observational astronomy. I hope you have something that is more mainstream than that. But as long as you bring it up, does the Bible say much of anything about whether or not life exists elsewhere in the universe?
The second article you link to is instructive, but not much help for you. It is one of the details of evolution that is being refined. It is not calling into question whether or not evolution happened. Notice it speaks of “human-like teeth … (that) are 400,000 years old”. The best that article is going to do for you is push Adam and Eve (or the stock from which they descended) back a hundred times farther than YECs normally say the earth is old.
But how about this age of the earth thing? A few hundred years ago, the Bible was about as good as any book for getting science out of. But it was often Christians who saw evidence that things were a whole lot older than the Bible timeline. Probably one of the earlier realizations that the earth was old was from geology, starting a couple hundred years ago. Later came Darwin, asking for millions of years for his evolution. Lord Kelvin, who I mentioned above in another post published why the earth was at least millions of years old. Then came the discovery of radioactivity, and that pushed Lord Kelvin’s dating back by orders of magnitude. Those approaches all conflicted with YEC timelines, but the best hadn’t even come along yet. When we finally started understanding quantum tunneling (which is what determines radioactive half-lives), then a slew of different radioactive decay sequences said the earth was really old.
Don’t give me some solitary astronomer who is looking at data on near the limits of detectability, and ignore multiple dating methods agreed upon across the breadth of the scientific community.
And in place of your out-of Africa example, how about many studies tracing molecular genetic similarities, taking into account mutation rates? How about the order is which fossils are found as you go into older and older strata? Do those fossils jibe with the order Genesis says the fish and animals and birds were put on earth?
Feel free to get whatever spiritual comfort from the Bible you want. But as a book of accurate science, I am afraid it runs a poor third when compared to a general Freshman science text.
It's too bad that your only interest is in playing dress-up caricature science and not in actually attempting to participate in what science really is. Otherwise you might at the very least understand the scientific definition and usage of the term "theory". You certainly don't have a "theory". You have an untested hypothesis. And I'm will to wager that it's an extremely absurd one at that which in-accidentally happens to buttress your specific religious beliefs.
I sincerely wish you would take your "theory" and attempt to present it at a geological science conference/seminar. News of you being laughed out of the building would make my week. Possibly my month.
I appreciate the fact that of all the regulars at TOL, you are one of the most proficient at exemplifying that Christianity has honed your proficiency at name-calling.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stripe
I too have a theory on the heat of the Earth. I know why the inside of the Earth is hot and how it got that way in the last 6,000 years. And that includes the generation of radioactivity.
Yes, the Walt Brown concoction. Do you know if Walt Brown has submitted his ideas to be published in a real science journal – you know – where they must pass at least a cursory peer review by other qualified scientists? I wonder what it must be like for you to have to pin your hopes for science validating your narrow dogma on a single pseudo-scientific malcontent who claims the solar system astrophysicists are uniformly wrong, the geologists are mistaken, those who study dendochronology, ice core analysis – pretty much any branch of science that has implications reaching back more than a few millennia – they are all off base, and Walt has it right.
It's too bad that your only interest is in playing dress-up caricature science and not in actually attempting to participate in what science really is. Otherwise you might at the very least understand the scientific definition and usage of the term "theory". You certainly don't have a "theory". You have an untested hypothesis. And I'm will to wager that it's an extremely absurd one at that which in-accidentally happens to buttress your specific religious beliefs.
I sincerely wish you would take your "theory" and attempt to present it at a geological science conference/seminar. News of you being laughed out of the building would make my week. Possibly my month.
You're easily amused.
But if you were actually interested in honest discussion you could listen for a few moments, understand what it is you're up against and show us yourself how what I say might be wrong.
But you still haven't managed to tell us how an aquifer might form. I reckon this too will be well beyond you.
I appreciate the fact that of all the regulars at TOL, you are one of the most proficient at exemplifying that Christianity has honed your proficiency at name-calling.
Gosh, you're dense.
Quote:
Yes, the Walt Brown concoction. Do you know if Walt Brown has submitted his ideas to be published in a real science journal – you know – where they must pass at least a cursory peer review by other qualified scientists? I wonder what it must be like for you to have to pin your hopes for science validating your narrow dogma on a single pseudo-scientific malcontent who claims the solar system astrophysicists are uniformly wrong, the geologists are mistaken, those who study dendochronology, ice core analysis – pretty much any branch of science that has implications reaching back more than a few millennia – they are all off base, and Walt has it right.
Get back to us when you've got something other than an appeal to authority.
But if you were actually interested in honest discussion you could listen for a few moments, understand what it is you're up against and show us yourself how what I say might be wrong.
I've heard enough of your blathering on Walt Brown and read enough about it myself. It's a joke. All of it. I've even watched all your you-tube videos. They were good for a laugh. If I thought that you had enough intellectual integrity to discuss, by point, why all of that is non-sense, I might actually be inclined to spend the time and do it with you. But I know better.
Quote:
But you still haven't managed to tell us how an aquifer might form. I reckon this too will be well beyond you.
Besides being an intellectual disgrace, you also have shameless liar to add to your professional resume. Good for you.
I've heard enough of your blathering on Walt Brown and read enough about it myself.
But you've never been to the source. I've yet to read a critique of his work that has shown any indication of having read the book.
Quote:
It's a joke. All of it.
And you're a retard. All of you.
Quote:
I've even watched all your you-tube videos. They were good for a laugh.
You're easily entertained.
Quote:
If I thought that you had enough intellectual integrity to discuss, by point, why all of that is non-sense, I might actually be inclined to spend the time and do it with you. But I know better. Besides being an intellectual disgrace, you also have shameless liar to add to your professional resume. Good for you.
Gosh, you're dense.
Linear Mode
