sleeper;1148852 wrote:They don't believe the **** they are peddling, they are doing it for a paycheck. AiG is paying them more money because they have a PhD next to their name, in return the "scientists" peddle their bull**** and lose all credibility in their work.

This is not a difficult concept to understand unless you are a delusional evangelical with your head in the sand.

100% sleeper's only position. 0% fact.

http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/

I take that back. Here's an entire website devoted to calling out the fraud science that jmog and his AiG group are spreading.

I win again, jmog. How does it feel?

This is from one of the technical articles (Comets and the Age of the Solar System), i know because it said technical in parentheses, as oppose to semi-technical or complete bullshits.

This places a maximum distance from the Sun that a comet may orbit. If this maximum distance can be estimated, Kepler's third law of planetary motion can be used to deduce the greatest possible orbital period that a comet may possess (about 11 million years).

How old is the earth again? Are you going to now say "god was busy making the rest of the universe before he made us, that's why things in space are more than 6,000 years old"

That website is bogus.

jmog;1148844 wrote:Read my earlier post. Both sides of the aisle do this. I did say I do not like that type of science. I also never said that link was scientific proof. I was asked for some EVIDENCE which that link most definitely provides some scientific evidence of a young earth.

You seem to be playing Devil's Advocate here. Can I ask your personal opinion as to the age of the earth?

Because you don't seem to be defending the idea that the earth is young but rather people that believe this.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/about/faith

Read that and tell me that anything from that site can be trusted.

"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record."

Seriously, fucking insane.

I Wear Pants;1148858 wrote:You seem to be playing Devil's Advocate here. Can I ask your personal opinion as to the age of the earth?

Because you don't seem to be defending the idea that the earth is young but rather people that believe this.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/about/faith

Read that and tell me that anything from that site can be trusted.

"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record."

Seriously, fucking insane.

I lol'd. Nice find. What a fraud of science the entire group is. At least they admit they are biased, that's pretty fucking hilarious though.

I Wear Pants;1148858 wrote: Seriously, fucking insane.

x2938293823002

http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/~matthewt/yeclaimsbeta.html

Here's an absolute shredding of any notion of a young earth. The basis of the Bible and a finish touch to the complete dressing down of our resident "scientist".

Raw Dawgin' it;1148605 wrote:Apparently god created Adam and Eve - he can create life but can't stop suffering on earth, who knew?

This is something that frustrates me too. But, where does this suffering start/stop?

So, child hunger/violence is definitely suffering. Rape is too. Being tortured is too. But, a finger-prick while learning how to sew is also suffering. Any "pain" we go through is suffering. Different people react differently to deaths...that is suffering. But scraping my knee as I learn how to ride a bike is also suffering.

Where does the suffering begin or end? Do we want God to live our lives for us? Do we want God to treat us like pawns on a chessboard and move us about earth?

I Wear Pants;1148770 wrote:Dude, all of those that I read use the Bible as a source and thus are invalid. I want purely scientific evidence that the earth is 6000 years old. Which you probably won't be able to show.

I can find some book that claims to be from a god and says that 9500 years ago man roamed the earth with unicorns and other outlandish claims. You would expect me to provide proof outside of my holy book and you'd be reasonable for that expectation.

And you're right about Carbon 14 dating being limited to about 50,000 years but that's why it's used for younger rocks.

Potassium Argon is a much better method for older rocks.

Also, did you just say there are things that are 50,000 years old or older? If so I think you should probably stop defending the "earth is 6000 years old" idea.

There's a reason why they use the Bible as a reference...because it IS a reference book. They deal a lot with "Biblical authority" because they are showing that the Bible is accurate in MANY things. It's accuracy is relevant because they want to show the accuracy of "everything else" proves the accuracy of Jesus.

The Bible is not just a "story book." There are stories in it. There are parables. But, the historical parts are just that...another reference book to history. Look at the book of Luke -- he was a historian. He wrote as a historian. He didn't write as a story-teller.

I Wear Pants;1148840 wrote:But even the technical ones are based upon the idea that the Bible is correct which is a massive assumption and something you claimed to have disdain for in your post.

I don't need this quote in here from you...I guess I just included it because it goes to my above statements.

The AiG is proving "Biblical authority." They are showing that the Bible is MORE than just a storybook. They are showing there is truth in it. That truth then points directly to God's omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence.

According to the Bible, which has been proven 100% to be accurate and infallible, humans incur pain and suffering because Eve ate an apple off a tree.

And people actually believe this stuff.

OSH;1148892 wrote:This is something that frustrates me too. But, where does this suffering start/stop?

So, child hunger/violence is definitely suffering. Rape is too. Being tortured is too. But, a finger-prick while learning how to sew is also suffering. Any "pain" we go through is suffering. Different people react differently to deaths...that is suffering. But scraping my knee as I learn how to ride a bike is also suffering.

Where does the suffering begin or end? Do we want God to live our lives for us? Do we want God to treat us like pawns on a chessboard and move us about earth?



There's a reason why they use the Bible as a reference...because it IS a reference book. They deal a lot with "Biblical authority" because they are showing that the Bible is accurate in MANY things. It's accuracy is relevant because they want to show the accuracy of "everything else" proves the accuracy of Jesus.

The Bible is not just a "story book." There are stories in it. There are parables. But, the historical parts are just that...another reference book to history. Look at the book of Luke -- he was a historian. He wrote as a historian. He didn't write as a story-teller.



I don't need this quote in here from you...I guess I just included it because it goes to my above statements.

The AiG is proving "Biblical authority." They are showing that the Bible is MORE than just a storybook. They are showing there is truth in it. That truth then points directly to God's omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence.

The Bible is at best (talking about what you call the historical parts of the Bible, not the parts about magic) a very poor historical record. It was written hundreds of years after the events it talks about took place and has be edited and rewritten and translated a whole bunch of times over hundreds of years. And there's nothing to corroborate it's accuracy so even the historical parts people ask us to just assume are true.

Another thing, even assuming the historical parts of it are true. That doesn't give any more likelihood that the parts about magic are true. If I stick Harry Potter into a giant history book it doesn't give any sort of validity to the claim that wizards are real despite how accurate the history may be.

Edit: And I've asked this a bunch of times here and everywhere else and never once have I got an answer. Can someone tell me specifically which books and passages in the Bible are to be taken literally and which aren't. Because it seems like Christians just pick and choose to suit whatever their particular goal is.

It's very telling to me that in most religions the god hates all the same things and people as the followers of that religion and has chosen them as the special people.

Raw Dawgin' it;1148857 wrote:This is from one of the technical articles (Comets and the Age of the Solar System), i know because it said technical in parentheses, as oppose to semi-technical or complete bullshits.



How old is the earth again? Are you going to now say "god was busy making the rest of the universe before he made us, that's why things in space are more than 6,000 years old"

That website is bogus.

If you actually read and understood the article it was NOT saying that the universe was X years old. It was saying that the universe appears to be far less than X years old.

It did not make any definitive claim about the age it just said that due to the physics of comets the universe appears to be far less than X years old.

Reading comprehension is crucial.

sleeper;1148864 wrote:I lol'd. Nice find. What a fraud of science the entire group is. At least they admit they are biased, that's pretty ****ing hilarious though.

They do admit they are biased which is better than most scientists.

I Wear Pants;1148905 wrote:The Bible is at best (talking about what you call the historical parts of the Bible, not the parts about magic) a very poor historical record. It was written hundreds of years after the events it talks about took place and has be edited and rewritten and translated a whole bunch of times over hundreds of years. And there's nothing to corroborate it's accuracy so even the historical parts people ask us to just assume are true.

Another thing, even assuming the historical parts of it are true. That doesn't give any more likelihood that the parts about magic are true. If I stick Harry Potter into a giant history book it doesn't give any sort of validity to the claim that wizards are real despite how accurate the history may be.

Bolded is not true.

Bolded and underlined is also untrue. In fact, some of the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John -- could also throw in Acts because it is written by Luke) have been dated to close to <10 years AFTER Jesus' crucifixion. That's definitely not "hundreds of years."

The italicized is also debatable. The books represented have been found numerous times to be almost identical...no matter where they are found and in what translation. No matter Hebrew, Greek, or Aramaic, they are all the same. And that is from copies found all over the world. But, you should know since you've actually read ANY Hebrew, Greek, or Aramaic...

And finally the bolded, italicized, and underlined part...I would agree with you IF the Bible were written that way. It wasn't written that way. It was written to give an account of what was happening and almost IS happening. The Bible was never a compilation of "fiction stories by anonymous authors" to be the highest selling book for 2000+ years. That was never its intention. The goal from the authors is understood to be factual, parable, historical, and meaningful.

jmog;1148915 wrote:They do admit they are biased which is better than most scientists.

Great. Only in jmog's delusional head in the sand world is a bias a good thing.

sleeper;1148891 wrote:http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/~matthewt/yeclaimsbeta.html

Here's an absolute shredding of any notion of a young earth. The basis of the Bible and a finish touch to the complete dressing down of our resident "scientist".

Lol good job using google. The question is do you understand anything that was said? If not it is just babbling to you.

jmog;1148919 wrote:Lol good job using google. The question is do you understand anything that was said? If not it is just babbling to you.

I do. And even if I didn't, it doesn't invalidate the data. How does it feel to be wrong?

sleeper;1148918 wrote:Great. Only in jmog's delusional head in the sand world is a bias a good thing.

You can't read worth a crap. Never did I say a bias on either side was a good thing. I matter of factly said I did not like bias in scientific study on EITHER side. But hey let's not let petty things like reading comprehension get in the way of sleepers rant.

I Wear Pants;1148905 wrote:The Bible is at best (talking about what you call the historical parts of the Bible, not the parts about magic) a very poor historical record. It was written hundreds of years after the events it talks about took place and has be edited and rewritten and translated a whole bunch of times over hundreds of years. And there's nothing to corroborate it's accuracy so even the historical parts people ask us to just assume are true.

Another thing, even assuming the historical parts of it are true. That doesn't give any more likelihood that the parts about magic are true. If I stick Harry Potter into a giant history book it doesn't give any sort of validity to the claim that wizards are real despite how accurate the history may be.

Edit: And I've asked this a bunch of times here and everywhere else and never once have I got an answer. Can someone tell me specifically which books and passages in the Bible are to be taken literally and which aren't. Because it seems like Christians just pick and choose to suit whatever their particular goal is.

It's very telling to me that in most religions the god hates all the same things and people as the followers of that religion and has chosen them as the special people.

That's one thing about history books -- if they're written from a religious point of view, there needs to be a certain suspension of disbelief if you're reading them for the historical reference parts. Like how, in the Old Testament's main historical part (kings, chronicles) where it's basically describing all the rulers who followed David and Solomon, the entire slant is basically to make a direct correlation between how devout (or blasphemous) the current ruler was with the success or failings of the kingdom with it clear that god's displeasure or pleasure was the sole factor determining what was going on.

It reminds me of a book I read in an Early Christianity class in college. By a Roman philosopher type (can't remember the name, but it was one of the gazillion "one-name" philosophers from that period who was Christian. Basically is a biased historical look at the first few A.D. centuries. I found it interesting and kind of amusing because if you look at how various Roman emperors are generally considered in history and how he looked at them, there were some huge differences. Some guys who are considered great leaders who really helped consolidate Roman power during their reins are looked at as horrible pieces of shit because they persecuted Christians (Diocletian, I think, was one); while guys who were looked at as weak tools who didn't help and likely hurt the Empire with their presence (like Claudius) were spoke of with praise because they were supportive or at least neutral as far as Christianity went.

So, as a pure historical document, I look at some things like the Bible and whatnot to need to be taken with a shaker full of millions of grains of salt. Too much obvious bias mixed with fantastic tales of magic and such.

jmog;1148931 wrote:You can't read worth a crap. Never did I say a bias on either side was a good thing. I matter of factly said I did not like bias in scientific study on EITHER side. But hey let's not let petty things like reading comprehension get in the way of sleepers rant.

Here you go on your "reading comprehension" shtick again. I can read just fine. You've been backed into a corner and you're lashing out on irrelevant tangents because you've been dressed down repeatedly, not only by me, but by everyone else on this thread. How does it feel in your corner?

jmog;1148911 wrote:If you actually read and understood the article it was NOT saying that the universe was X years old. It was saying that the universe appears to be far less than X years old.

It did not make any definitive claim about the age it just said that due to the physics of comets the universe appears to be far less than X years old.

Reading comprehension is crucial.

totally is...

"This means that all comets are members of the Solar System, but the very largest, most elongated orbits are observationally indistinguishable from parabolas. The comets following these orbits would have periods of many thousands, if not millions, of years."

OSH;1148917 wrote:Bolded is not true.

Bolded and underlined is also untrue. In fact, some of the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John -- could also throw in Acts because it is written by Luke) have been dated to close to <10 years AFTER Jesus' crucifixion. That's definitely not "hundreds of years."

The italicized is also debatable. The books represented have been found numerous times to be almost identical...no matter where they are found and in what translation. No matter Hebrew, Greek, or Aramaic, they are all the same. And that is from copies found all over the world. But, you should know since you've actually read ANY Hebrew, Greek, or Aramaic...

And finally the bolded, italicized, and underlined part...I would agree with you IF the Bible were written that way. It wasn't written that way. It was written to give an account of what was happening and almost IS happening. The Bible was never a compilation of "fiction stories by anonymous authors" to be the highest selling book for 2000+ years. That was never its intention. The goal from the authors is understood to be factual, parable, historical, and meaningful.

So you're saying that if part of a book is true than the rest of a book is true. You're saying that if the purely historical parts of the Bible are true it gives weight to the claims of magic found in the Bible.

I strongly disagree.

I Wear Pants;1148803 wrote:What's not great about science is that when they find out they were wrong they change their theories and assumptions and what's great about creationism is the story has never changed.

I know.

I Wear Pants;1148905 wrote:Edit: And I've asked this a bunch of times here and everywhere else and never once have I got an answer. Can someone tell me specifically which books and passages in the Bible are to be taken literally and which aren't. Because it seems like Christians just pick and choose to suit whatever their particular goal is.

That's a good question. The problem with MOST Christians is they just go with what the pastor/preacher/priest/layperson/minister/etc. tells them. They don't do the "figuring out" themselves. It's so easy to apply a certain passage to someone's life and go with it. But you can do that with ANY book, quote, song, etc.

Our "job" as Christians, this is my opinion, is to try to understand the Bible as it is written THEN and how do we apply it now. We need to understand where THEY (the authors and audience) are at in their lives and understand the historical context. So many times we (Christians) pick and choose certain verses and parts of the Bible because they hit us emotionally or whatever...and that's not how the Bible is written.

Heretic;1148932 wrote:So, as a pure historical document, I look at some things like the Bible and whatnot to need to be taken with a shaker full of millions of grains of salt. Too much obvious bias mixed with fantastic tales of magic and such.

Obvious bias? Like being present? Or their relatives being present? Or a friend being present? Where does the "bias" stop and start?

The authors (some or all) of the Gospels were alive during Jesus' lifetime -- that's understood. So where does their "real-life" bias or experiences actually hold any validity or legitimacy?

Skyhook79;1148953 wrote:I know.

Now I know you're just trolling and don't actually believe the shit you post which is good.

sleeper;1148895 wrote:According to the Bible, which has been proven 100% to be accurate and infallible, humans incur pain and suffering because Eve ate an apple off a tree.

And people actually believe this stuff.

Adam and Eve dis- obeyed a direct command from the creator is the reason. I thought you said you read the Bible?