Prayers from Madison County

BoatShoes;1599565 wrote:Again, I think it is wrong to call you a liar. You simply weren't evaluating evolution with common descent in good faith and that is why I say you're acting on the fallacy of composition when you talk about "holes in the evidence for evolution" and talk about the farking Piltdown Man. LOL. That is as spurious as it gets!

And there is a difference between you saying that I will believe in creationism one day as you're missing the point. I'm suggesting you always had that creationism card in the back of your mind.

There's two places people who were evangelical christians can go when they're confronted with the truth....they either accept the sadness and despair that comes with knowing all you believed your life was a lie and march foward doing the best you can....or you revert. Most people who do the latter will have some silly explanation as to why they came to understand that common descent is a fraud and blah blah blah.

So please, in your infinite wisdom about MY experience, explain how 'using' Piltdown man as one comment/piece of evidence, a known fraud, is a 'spurious' argument for what I believe?

See, you are using the presumption that what you believe to be true IS the truth, "when Christians are encountered with the truth they either accept sadness and despair that what they believed was a lie or they revert".

Maybe in your infinite wisdom about what I believe you failed to realize that I NEVER was 'confronted' with a 'truth' that the supreme being that I believed in did not exist anymore like you somehow seem to believe I did. I never stopped believing in God, just that the stories I had grew up with were lies and that God was the creator that used natural processes to take his single cell creation to humans.

I will make it much more basic for you. Before I knew really anything about science (before college) I believed in creationism.
As I started studying it in grave detail as an undergraduate I abandoned that belief and went full on evolution.
As I gained more knowledge and understanding through my last few years in college (senior year and master's work) I slowly came to be much more of a cynic when it comes to propagandized science, and that goes for both sides. So I studied it for myself, looked at both sides, read books on philosophy of both sides, books on science of both sides, and came to a revised belief system that is close, yes, to my original beliefs but with a much greater understanding that just saying "the Bible said so, so it is true".

You are asserting that your belief system is the ultimate truth, when that is another vast logical leap that has not even been close to proven (neither has mine).

jmog;1599555 wrote:So, I list a few obvious fabrications/fallacies and that immediately means I never believed evolution? Come on man, use a little logic before you make huge leaps in assuming what my background/belief is based on.

Except those fabrications/fallacies have been recognized as such and aren't used as the basis of current evolutionary thinking. There's absolute mountains of evidence for it and finding that some of it isn't correct doesn't negate the overwhelming amount of it that is. There is so much more evidence suggesting current scientific consensus on the subject is correct than there are examples of fabrications/fallacies. Not to mention I don't know of other theories that explain the evidence for evolution.

Basically...



Edit: To be clear, sleeper is a dick despite agreeing with me on the subject.

I Wear Pants;1599573 wrote:Except those fabrications/fallacies have been recognized as such and aren't used as the basis of current evolutionary thinking. There's absolute mountains of evidence for it and finding that some of it isn't correct doesn't negate the overwhelming amount of it that is. There is so much more evidence suggesting current scientific consensus on the subject is correct than there are examples of fabrications/fallacies. Not to mention I don't know of other theories that explain the evidence for evolution.

Basically...



Edit: To be clear, sleeper is a dick despite agreeing with me on the subject.

I don't believe I stated that those fabrications/frauds are used in modern evolution theory did I?

I stated that they were frauds and used in textbooks, which is a true set of statements.

There are so many logical fallacies being used in this thread it is getting ridiculous, from straw man to No True Scotsman, etc.

The "mountains of evidence" is such a funny statement because here's the thing, not one single human being has ever OBSERVED or EXPERIMENTALLY OBSERVED any major jump in the animal kingdom, from say cows to whales, cats to dogs, apes to humans, etc. It is NOT observational science, which is what science is supposed to be.

Science does not do a good job of predicting the past or the future, it can predict/observe the present as the universe is too chaotic for our finite brains to do a good job of predicting what has happened or what will happen. There are SO MANY assumptions that go into ALL historical predictions (evolution, big bang, etc) and future predictions (stock market, planetary trajectories, heck, even throwing a baseball) that if one assumption is changed, the end result is VASTLY different.

jmog;1599583 wrote:I don't believe I stated that those fabrications/frauds are used in modern evolution theory did I?

I stated that they were frauds and used in textbooks, which is a true set of statements.

There are so many logical fallacies being used in this thread it is getting ridiculous, from straw man to No True Scotsman, etc.

The "mountains of evidence" is such a funny statement because here's the thing, not one single human being has ever OBSERVED or EXPERIMENTALLY OBSERVED any major jump in the animal kingdom, from say cows to whales, cats to dogs, apes to humans, etc. It is NOT observational science, which is what science is supposed to be.

Science does not do a good job of predicting the past or the future, it can predict/observe the present as the universe is too chaotic for our finite brains to do a good job of predicting what has happened or what will happen. There are SO MANY assumptions that go into ALL historical predictions (evolution, big bang, etc) and future predictions (stock market, planetary trajectories, heck, even throwing a baseball) that if one assumption is changed, the end result is VASTLY different.

We have observed evolution. There's things like the dark fly and tons of other shit they've done as well. What you're proposing is impossible though unless you know a viable way to conduct an experimental observation over thousands of years.

We understand that the continents are moving, I've never seen a different arrangement of the landmasses but that doesn't mean it won't eventually happen. Not everything is feasible to observe in its entirety. But if you understand the processes happening you can predict the results with some accuracy.

I'm not a scientist and while I like to think of myself as moderately intelligent most of what I can discuss is from a low level of understanding when compared to people who actually study this stuff. What I'm wondering is what gives you the confidence to say that all these other scientists are wrong/why is your line of thinking correct when the other explanation seems to make so much sense?

Starting point???

Nothing creating something has not, does not, and will not happen.

I Wear Pants;1599605 wrote:We have observed evolution. There's things like the dark fly and tons of other shit they've done as well. What you're proposing is impossible though unless you know a viable way to conduct an experimental observation over thousands of years.

We understand that the continents are moving, I've never seen a different arrangement of the landmasses but that doesn't mean it won't eventually happen. Not everything is feasible to observe in its entirety. But if you understand the processes happening you can predict the results with some accuracy.

I'm not a scientist and while I like to think of myself as moderately intelligent most of what I can discuss is from a low level of understanding when compared to people who actually study this stuff. What I'm wondering is what gives you the confidence to say that all these other scientists are wrong/why is your line of thinking correct when the other explanation seems to make so much sense?

1. Dark fly experiments showed them adapting to their environment and adding "features" to help them live better in their environment. Similar to how canines that live in Canada/Alaska/Russia have developed longer/thicker fur while those native to Central America have short thin fur. Adapting ones features to better survive in your environment does not equal major animal kind jumps. Adaptation is a well observed scientific fact, cell to human evolution is not. That does not mean that cell to human evolution is not true, is not a viable theory, etc, it just means that it is not fact/proven as it has not been observed scientifically.

2. "You can predict the results with some accuracy". Ok, let's take a simple example of motion. Let's say I throw a baseball from the outfield toward home plate. Let's look at two different prediction possibilities.

a. Immediately after leaving my hand one could take trajectory angle and velocity measurements, maybe even wind measurements, and predict if I will get close to the catcher or not. What assumptions go into that calculation? The assumptions are that the wind will not shift during flight, that a bird won't fly near the ball, that no one else will cut it off, that it won't start to rain, etc. If any of those assumptions end up being off then the "prediction" will be WAY off. That is why science can make predictions about the future, but they are predicated on major assumptions.

b. Now, lets look at the same 'throw' from a different angle. Let's say I throw the ball and immediately hide behind a tree. You had no idea I was there, no evidence I was there, but you turn around and see a ball flying. Your goal this time is to determine where that ball came from. You could take the EXACT same measurements, trajectory angles, velocity, wind, etc. You could make the same assumptions as well. You know where the laws of physics would lead you to? It would say that the ball came from the ground, with a calculated upward trajectory angle (obviously depends on how I threw the ball) and original velocity/acceleration/force. So, your laws of physics would determine that the ball started on the ground and some invisible force projected the ball at a given angle with a given initial velocity. Your laws of physics would NOT be able to predict HOW that ball leaped off the ground however, it would be some "unknown force". With regards to the origins of the universe in the laws of physics, that original initial force is the "Big Bang" that no one still knows how it "started", they just theorize how it acted fractions of a second AFTER the Big Bang.

Now, with that thought experiment in mind, is it any less logical to assume that someone "threw the ball" with the 'someone' being a supreme being and the 'ball' being the universe?

2 different people could look at that same ball, take the exact same measurements, and come up with VASTLY different ideas on how the ball got started. One person could come up with the unknown force that shot it off the ground while another could come up with a person throwing the ball and they can't see said person anymore.

Anyone that has ever taken high school physics, calculus, etc knows exactly what I am talking about with projectile motion and it's parabolic arcs.

3. I have not once stated that I think all of these scientists are "wrong" or "stupid" or that I know more than they do. I have stated that they start with or can obtain the same evidence that I do, but given their assumptions vs my assumptions we come up with vastly different theories on how the universe/life began. That is what I am saying.

Another good example is the Grand Canyon...

1. It is a geological fact that if you have a little bit of water (river) flowing for a vastly long time (millions of years) you get rock stratification/layers and a large canyon. That is a viable theory for how the Grand Canyon was formed, nothing scientifically wrong with it. The assumption made however is that the "little" bit of water has been fairly constant the whole time, or basically "river" size the whole time over millions of years.

2. It is also a gelogical fact that if you have a huge amount of water (flood) flowing for a short time, you get rock stratification/layers and a large canyon. That is a viable theory for how the Grand Canyon was formed, nothing scientifically wrong with it. The assumption made however is that there was a HUGE flood covering all the land.

Same bit of modern day evidence leading to two vastly different theories as to how the Grand Canyon was formed, just like the baseball thought process just a little more complicated.

If anyone believes in a young earth. They are foolish. Christian or not.

pmoney25;1599638 wrote:If anyone believes in a young earth. They are foolish. Christian or not.

And what dating technique PROVES an Earth that is billions of years old?

Also, I guess Isaac Newton, and this growing list of modern PhD scientists are fools?

http://www.examiner.com/article/growing-list-of-scientists-who-consider-young-earth-creationism-yec-a-fact-and-evolution-as-bunk

jmog;1599639 wrote:And what dating technique PROVES an Earth that is billions of years old?
Also, I guess Isaac Newton, and this growing list of modern PhD scientists are fools?

http://www.examiner.com/article/grow...lution-as-bunk

Radiometric dating.

Newton was also an alchemist, occultist, and spent half of his adulthood concerning himself with the philosopher's stone. I'm sure if ancient aliens was a thing back then, he'd be into that too.

All you have to do to discredit that list is look at the user comments at the bottom. One of those PhD havin' scientists is apparently in jail, and two of the bios I randomly clicked on were hosted by christian science sites. Not exactly an impartial, credible list.

pmoney25;1599638 wrote:If anyone believes in a young earth. They are foolish. Christian or not.

Anyone who thinks we'll actually have a date or even a year that the earth was created, started, began, started to exist, or however else one wants to put it...is probably pretty foolish too.

OSH;1599654 wrote:Anyone who thinks we'll actually have a date or even a year that the earth was created, started, began, started to exist, or however else one wants to put it...is probably pretty foolish too.

I think it was 1982, but I can't be for sure.

Go see the Creation Museum in Cinci it has all the answers and its a "museum" so it's gotta be true right?

OSH;1599654 wrote:Anyone who thinks we'll actually have a date or even a year that the earth was created, started, began, started to exist, or however else one wants to put it...is probably pretty foolish too.

Where did I state I knew the exact date?The evidence for an older earth is more convincing to me than a 10000 year old earth.

Mohican00;1599646 wrote:Radiometric dating.

Newton was also an alchemist, occultist, and spent half of his adulthood concerning himself with the philosopher's stone. I'm sure if ancient aliens was a thing back then, he'd be into that too.

All you have to do to discredit that list is look at the user comments at the bottom. One of those PhD havin' scientists is apparently in jail, and two of the bios I randomly clicked on were hosted by christian science sites. Not exactly an impartial, credible list.

There are more than a dozen radiometric dating methods. You will have to get more specific.

Carbon 14?
Potassium-Strontium?
Uranium-Lead?
etc.

We have all seen your rants on dating methods. No need to rehash it again.

Even if it is not 100 % reliable, it is better than any evidence for a 10000 year old earth.

Mohican00;1599646 wrote:Radiometric dating.

Newton was also an alchemist, occultist, and spent half of his adulthood concerning himself with the philosopher's stone. I'm sure if ancient aliens was a thing back then, he'd be into that too.

All you have to do to discredit that list is look at the user comments at the bottom. One of those PhD havin' scientists is apparently in jail, and two of the bios I randomly clicked on were hosted by christian science sites. Not exactly an impartial, credible list.

Circular reasoning fallacy.

A PhD scientist who happens to believe in a young earth will of course be listed on a creation website of some sort as a reference. That in and of itself does not discredit their academic standing or accomplishments.

Notice you completely ignored the baseball metaphor to explain how the same evidence can lead to two vastly different beliefs on how something started. Same evidence and same scientific method (in the baseball reference projectile motion) leading to two different beliefs on how the baseball started because of different assumptions.

pmoney25;1599663 wrote:We have all seen your rants on dating methods. No need to rehash it again.

Even if it is not 100 % reliable, it is better than any evidence for a 10000 year old earth.

Have you seen the "Halo" problem with Uranium-Lead? It actually points to a young Earth date rather than billions of years.

jmog;1599667 wrote:Have you seen the "Halo" problem with Uranium-Lead? It actually points to a young Earth date rather than billions of years.

Yes, and my earlier statement still stands.

pmoney25;1599669 wrote:Yes, and my earlier statement still stands.

So evidence that Uranium-Lead should really be labeled Polonium-Lead and therefore dating rocks to 1000s of years instead of billions is just dismissed because "they aren't 100% accurate but close enough"?

The Halo problem doesn't create a "well it's 4 billion instead of 4.5 billion years" problem. If it is "real" it creates a 9 order of magnitude problem, 1000s of years instead of billions. Those pesky alpha particles "burning halos" leaving observable evidence that may refute the assumption that 100% of lead in the rocks came from uranium.

pmoney25;1599661 wrote:Where did I state I knew the exact date?The evidence for an older earth is more convincing to me than a 10000 year old earth.

Where did I state that you stated you knew the exact date?

OSH;1599654 wrote:Anyone who thinks we'll actually have a date or even a year that the earth was created, started, began, started to exist, or however else one wants to put it...is probably pretty foolish too.

Just curious, considering your educational background, what are your thoughts on the age of the earth?

jmog;1599662 wrote:There are more than a dozen radiometric dating methods. You will have to get more specific.

Carbon 14?
Potassium-Strontium?
Uranium-Lead?
etc.

burden of proof is on skeptics. One can use several different isotope systems (for example, Uranium-Lead, Lutetium-Halfnium, Potassium-Argon) on the same rock, and they all come up with the same age. Most importantly if radiometric dating were inaccurate, it would be easy to show it.

jmog;1599666 wrote:Circular reasoning fallacy.

A PhD scientist who happens to believe in a young earth will of course be listed on a creation website of some sort as a reference. That in and of itself does not discredit their academic standing or accomplishments.

Notice you completely ignored the baseball metaphor to explain how the same evidence can lead to two vastly different beliefs on how something started. Same evidence and same scientific method (in the baseball reference projectile motion) leading to two different beliefs on how the baseball started because of different assumptions.

I never said it discredits anything they have accomplished (well, maybe the convict), but I would assume that any stand alone list of accomplishments - if any - would be hosted by a site other that a christian science website. Mostly I want to point toward their academic accomplishments.

I didn't read your baseball metaphor as I was perfectly happy with your Colorado River/Grand Canyon example. You've completely eliminated an extremely important factor, geology of the bedrock, out of the equation and have used very broad generalities to make a point. Where are your large Canyons in the Amazon? Not sure your example constitutes geological fact.

And to get you up to speed, the "Mega Lake" or "Lake Hopi" canyon carving event is looking a little less likely

...thought experiment, lol

Automatik;1599677 wrote:Just curious, considering your educational background, what are your thoughts on the age of the earth?

Honestly, I don't even care about it. I feel as if we will never know the age. It's not a concern of me at all. I feel as if I would waste more time, energy, mental capacity, etc. putting thought into something that we really will never know about while on earth. Is that a scapegoat or copout? Maybe to some.

I just don't know why I would want to be concerned with it. There's many more things to be concerned about that could actually do something today instead of putting too much into however old the earth may be. I also am not in any way, shape, form, or educationally (formal or informal) aware of all the ins and outs to really understand science at the capacity that it needs to be for these discussions. I really enjoy science, but not to the extent of knowing a whole lot about it. I do think that there's really no way to "confirm" nor "deny" how old the earth really is. Maybe someone has been right in the past? Maybe we haven't even came close to the actual age? Who will prove or disprove it? And how will we actually know it?

If you wanted to know, the age of the earth really isn't a sticking point on my faith, values, and beliefs. I place much more importance in people and how there's a lot of people who need loved and helped.

jmog;1599673 wrote:So evidence that Uranium-Lead should really be labeled Polonium-Lead and therefore dating rocks to 1000s of years instead of billions is just dismissed because "they aren't 100% accurate but close enough"?

The Halo problem doesn't create a "well it's 4 billion instead of 4.5 billion years" problem. If it is "real" it creates a 9 order of magnitude problem, 1000s of years instead of billions. Those pesky alpha particles "burning halos" leaving observable evidence that may refute the assumption that 100% of lead in the rocks came from uranium.

The "evidence" you talk about seems to be rather easily refuted and not considered scientifically consistent.

Im not going to pretend Im an expert. I will leave that to the real experts and to me their evidence seems a lot more plausible than yours.

Does a young earth have to exist for Christianity to be considered valid?