Evolution and Creationism

[Michaelangelo]

We have found light speed is not constant in the past. Decay rates are partly based on this.

I would be very interested to see a reference for this claim. Don’t confuse maniplation of photons with the value of c

 

[Pattylt]

Me, too.

It often turns out that the evidence is actually lacking yet it’s needed so desperately in order to reach their conclusions. If only they would just follow the evidence…

We have multiple methods for dating and most have them have been verified by other dating methods, ie, tree rings, ice cores, different elements decay rates…and where they overlap they show themselves to be quite accurate. It isn’t just a matter of using carbon dating (and the ridiculous notion that anything older than 50,000 years can be used!) but you’d have to start explaining why all of them verify each other. On the other hand, when carbon dating agrees with some claim of the YECs, then it’s the best thing since sliced bread!

 

[buffalo]

If the earth was completed leveled right now we would be under around 9000 feet of water. In addition an ocean was found under China, and so much more water locked in the rocks. Not enough water should not be used as an argument against the flood.

 

[Chet1]

It would have been described as natural philosophy.

Okay, natural philosophy

 

[Chet1]

And ‘limitations of the tactile’? Well, there’s lots of things I can’t touch…

I use tactile as short hand for the senses, you could as easily use sensate, or empirical, limited by what can be observed through the senses, and iva the “scientific method,” must be repeatable.

 

[Chet1]

senate. Ptecieved thought the senses, and per t h e scientific method, repeatable

 

[Freddy]

If the earth was completed leveled right now we would be under around 9000 feet of water. In addition an ocean was found under China, and so much more water locked in the rocks. Not enough water should not be used as an argument against the flood.

Total groundwater is around 23 million km3 (about 1.7% of the total water on the planet) How Much Water is There on Earth?.

Get that up outa the ground and the sea levels certainly go up. By about 45mm (that’s a tad under 2 inches). I think that ‘not enough water’ should definitely be used as an argument.

Total water on the planet (and I mean literally everything available from wherever it is sitting right now) is about 1.38 billion km3. The extra water needed to flood the whole planet on top of everything we have now is over 2 billion km3.

How much is that? Well if the body of the groundwater was literally the size of the planet then it would be 4 kms deep. Imagine removing a volume of material the size of the whole planet for a depth of 4 kilometres. What do you replace it with?

 

[Noose001]

If time means nothing then what does 6,000 years represent? Can we agree that the 6,000 is the number represnting the number of times the planet has orbited the sun? In which case you are waaaay too far out in your estimation for a reasonable discussion to take place.

Yes we can agree that 6000 years represents the number of times the earth ‘has been observed’ to orbit the sun not that the measure itself matters more than the one who measures.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

If time means nothing then what does 6,000 years represent? Can we agree that the 6,000 is the number represnting the number of times the planet has orbited the sun? In which case you are waaaay too far out in your estimation for a reasonable discussion to take place.

Yes we can agree that 6000 years represents the number of times the earth ‘has been observed’ to orbit the sun not that the measure itself matters more than the one who measures.

May I ask how old you are?

 

[Noose001]

May I ask how old you are?

Very weird but i’m approaching 40

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

May I ask how old you are?

Very weird but i’m approaching 40

Well, now we know how many times the earth has orbited the sun since you were born. If I was sixty then I’d have seen it go around twenty more times before you were born.

Pretty simple and we both now agree on the length of a year. And you think there have been 6,000 orbits since the planet was formed. And obtained that number from some guy adding up all the begats in the bible.

And you want a serious discussion about evolution?

 

[Noose001]

And you want a serious discussion about evolution?

Is it because you think you hold a superior position?

Well, now we know how many times the earth has orbited the sun since you were born. If I was sixty then I’d have seen it go around twenty more times before you were born.

Pretty simple and we both now agree on the length of a year. And you think there have been 6,000 orbits since the planet was formed. And obtained that number from some guy adding up all the begats in the bible.

Again, what i said from the start, experience of passage of time can be divided into; past (what was experienced) present (what is being experienced or was projected based on past experience), future (what we project based on what we are experiencing and what was experienced in the past).
I can easily make plans for 2021 and 2022.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

And you want a serious discussion about evolution?

Is it because you think you hold a superior position?

No. Because you hold to a position that the earth’s age is based on lots of begats in a religious book. You then lose any credibility when it comes to scientific matters.

 

[Noose001]

No. Because you hold to a position that the earth’s age is based on lots of begats in a religious book. You then lose any credibility when it comes to scientific matters.

So you think your position is superior to Religion and all that pertains to it?

If science deals with measurements/observation and i can observe, then how is my observation not credible?

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

No. Because you hold to a position that the earth’s age is based on lots of begats in a religious book. You then lose any credibility when it comes to scientific matters.

So you think your position is superior to Religion and all that pertains to it?

I’ve just made a comment about some guy trying to work out the age of the planet by working out how long people were said to have lived in the bible. Please do not be so presumptious as to tell me that because of that any position I hold is therefore superior to religion ‘and all that pertains to it’.

If you want to trust counting birthdays as a great method of determining planetary age then please feel free. But don’t expect me to treat anything else you say about science with any degree of respect. You have forfeited that right.

 

[Noose001]

I’ve just made a comment about some guy trying to work out the age of the planet by working out how long people were said to have lived in the bible.

That guy has given his opinion based on what he has observed, you have your own opinion which you also think are facts and truths. So why don’t you bring your arguments and tell us why you think the other guys observation is not credible.

I have given my opinion on why 13.8 Billion years is not a fact and if you can show me why i’m wrong, i might accept or dismiss depending on your argument.

 

[rossum]

So you think your position is superior to Religion and all that pertains to it?

Religion? Which religion? A Hindu will complain that a 13 billion year old universe is too short because Hindu scriptures give a far longer timescale for the existence of the earth.

So, do you believe that reincarnation, as in Hinduism, is superior to science? Did Izanagi and Izanami really create the islands of Japan, despite what science says?

 

[Freddy]

I have given my opinion on why 13.8 Billion years is not a fact and if you can show me why i’m wrong, i might accept or dismiss depending on your argument.

You already know the science. And have already rejected it. I really have better things to do with my time than to reiterate it again as if you were seriously interested in examining it.

You have forfeited the right to a reasonable dicussion because you don’t offer reasonable alternatives. Once you have one, let me know.

 

[Noose001]

Religion? Which religion? A Hindu will complain that a 13 billion year old universe is too short because Hindu scriptures give a far longer timescale for the existence of the earth.

I said religion coz @Freddy says religious dating is not scientific, doesn’t matter whether it is Hindu or Christianity and its variants.

So, do you believe that reincarnation, as in Hinduism, is superior to science? Did Izanagi and Izanami really create the islands of Japan, despite what science says?

Most religions deal with after life and before life concepts, areas which science does not deal with. Science found that an observer collapses the wave function which means that Izanagi created the islands in Japan in a sense. You can also create the islands by observing the islands.

 

[rossum]

Most religions deal with after life and before life concepts, areas which science does not deal with.

However, most religions also have stories explaining the origin of the material universe. Those stories cross into areas which science does deal with: the material. The literal interpretation of some of those stories does conflict with science. For example, see “Forbidden Archaeology” by Cremo and Thompson.