jonathan180iq
Well-Known Member
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_trees
There's a Bristlecone Pine in the California MOUNTAINS that is more than 5,000 years old...
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
God Recreated the Earth 6,000 Years Ago!
- Thread starter Salvador
- Start date
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_trees
There's a Bristlecone Pine in the California MOUNTAINS that is more than 5,000 years old...
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
All,
Thanks for attacking the fact that I omitted a word I've used repeatedly on this thread, "circa" or "approximately". I didn't mean 5,000 years ago meaning I know the Flood occurred beyond a doubt in 2885 BCE and more important, you know I meant approximately.
Thanks for attacking the fact that I omitted a word I've used repeatedly on this thread, "circa" or "approximately". I didn't mean 5,000 years ago meaning I know the Flood occurred beyond a doubt in 2885 BCE and more important, you know I meant approximately.
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
There are so many things wrong in your post, it's hard to know where to begin. Overall, you seem to feel (on this thread) that showing me 50 poor radiometric dating examples is superior to showing me one, in a sort of bastardization of Hume's (incorrect) syllogism regarding miracles. Both he and you are unwilling to weigh the evidence for individual miracle (or non-miracle) Bible events but rather wish to add evidence. "I have more scientists to say miracles don't happen, so I'm right..."
Further, you use the worst sort of name calling to discredit me. I never "discredited astronomy". I never even "discredited the Kuiper Belt and Oort Cloud." I rather, mentioned the known facts that in places where modern astronomers expect to find 10,000 to 100,000 deep space objects... they've found 50 or so (from memory, the point of inflation of expectation compared to reality stands). A better way to put it, "How can I discredit these deep space fields until they are credited by observation?" The inductive is yet to be deductive. It was deducted that these places must exist or the solar system is, ahem, young. They have not been observed. But no, rather than try to come up with an alternative explanation, you simply parrot the people on this thread by suggesting I'm unscientific, non-relevant, etc.
How about posting something relevant to ReligiousForums.com, then? Because your last two dozen posts were attacking my religion and religious faith while contributing nothing spiritual to our discussion. It sure sounds like your god is science. Do you have a god, and if so, how did he get you to worship science without the understanding that science says nothing until scientists make interpretations of data? How did your god become fact without creative thinking, and logic... without love?
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
You ignore everything we write.
Because you cannot address anything with credibility, and have no credible sources to substantiate a single word you write.
I don't ignore everything everyone writes, but I mostly ignore what you write. Can you guess why that might be?
outhouse
Atheistically
Because you cannot accept the academic truth and what is taught without question in EVERY credible university around the civilized world as high education.
You fight what professors teach despite having no credible authority or education to do so, because it goes directly against the known mythology to us, you claim is real.
You fight tooth and nail with no credible evidence, due to your faith and faith alone.
Its why you have no credible evidence leaving your opinion unsubstantiated.
outhouse
Atheistically
You have been discrediting yourself pushing a pseudoscience your forced to adhere to because real science goes 100% against what you propose.
outhouse
Atheistically
So what your saying is emotions are required to report on observed facts ?
What part does creative thinking and emotions play when observing nature ? It sounds like you need emotions and imagination required when shoving square blocks through round holes.
outhouse
Atheistically
We require honesty in this forum
We also require credible sources when one makes any sort of questioned claim, if you did not know that is how debating works.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuiper_belt
The Kuiper belt was named after Dutch-American astronomer Gerard Kuiper, though he did not actually predict its existence. In 1992, 1992 QB1 was discovered, the first Kuiper belt object (KBO) since Pluto.[7] Since its discovery, the number of known KBOs has increased to over a thousand, and more than 100,000 KBOs over 100 km (62 mi) in diameter are believed to exist
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
A fact, you posted... a fact! Good job.
WHY are more than 100,000 KBOs believed (hoped) to exist?
WHY are you that accepting of a theory that is 1% proven/testable/verified (1,000 found, 99,000 are "...Somewhere, we dunno, they must be there somewhere, keep using the telescopes, boys!")?
WHY if a theist says "something is believed to exist" that must be wrong to you but when a scientist, even many scientists, say something is believed to exist but have no evidence it exists do YOU believe them?
Perhaps we should discuss Hume's views regarding the miraculous and why Hume is wrong.
PS. I don't expect you to answer any of my three questions except to say "Because you are anti-academic" and to take three to five posts to do so, Outhouse!
outhouse
Atheistically
I follow all of academia, you refuse completely ALL of academia below despite its factual status.
You might want to research REAL facts, not the mythology your peddling. Pseudoscience has no credibility.
We agree that the following evidence-based facts about the origins and evolution of the Earth and of life on this planet have been established by numerous observations and independently derived experimental results from a multitude of scientific disciplines. Even if there are still many open questions about the precise details of evolutionary change, scientific evidence has never contradicted these results:
You might want to research REAL facts, not the mythology your peddling. Pseudoscience has no credibility.
We agree that the following evidence-based facts about the origins and evolution of the Earth and of life on this planet have been established by numerous observations and independently derived experimental results from a multitude of scientific disciplines. Even if there are still many open questions about the precise details of evolutionary change, scientific evidence has never contradicted these results:
- In a universe that has evolved towards its present configuration for some 11 to 15 billion years, our Earth formed approximately 4.5 billion years ago.
- Since its formation, the Earth – its geology and its environments – has changed under the effect of numerous physical and chemical forces and continues to do so.
- Life appeared on Earth at least 2.5 billion years ago. The evolution, soon after, of photosynthetic organisms enabled, from at least 2 billion years ago, the slow transformation of the atmosphere to one containing substantial quantities of oxygen. In addition to the release of the oxygen that we breathe, the process of photosynthesis is the ultimate source of fixed energy and food upon which human life on the planet depends.
- Since its first appearance on Earth, life has taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve, in ways which palaeontology and the modern biological and biochemical sciences are describing and independently confirming with increasing precision. Commonalities in the structure of the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicate their common primordial origin.
outhouse
Atheistically
You might have an eye problem. Because the credible quote I posted clearly says KNOWN KBO's not "hoped for"
the number of known KBOs has increased to over a thousand, and more than 100,000 KBOs
I will tell you once more we require honesty here in tis forum, we also require YOU to supply credible sources to back your statements like the one above that has been shown to be in error.
jonathan180iq
Well-Known Member
Because all Solar System models predict this and because we've witnessed these objects both in our own solar system and in other star systems.
Because before telescope technology allowed us to peer further out, we had already predicted the existence of this deep solar-orbiting belt. That prediction was proven accurate, as we've discovered, per your own admissions, thousands of Kuiper Belt objects do in fact exist. Where you're wrong is in the statement that there are only 1,000 or so known objects. There are more than 70,000 known trans-Neptunian objects which make up just a part of the Kuiper Belt.... about 1,300 of those objects are enormous enough for us to accurately track their movements and make some estimations about their speed, density, and so on.
http://www2.ess.ucla.edu/~jewitt/kb.html
http://www2.ess.ucla.edu/~jewitt/papers/2010/J10c.pdf
http://www2.ess.ucla.edu/~jewitt/papers/2008/JML08.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_brightest_Kuiper_belt_objects
http://www.space.com/16144-kuiper-belt-objects.html
"Scientists estimate that thousands of bodies more than 62 miles (100 km) in diameter travel around the sun within this belt, along with trillions of smaller objects, many of which are short-period comets."
We also accept the predictions made about the incredibly vast amount of objects located in the Kuiper Belt because we have physically observed these belts around other star systems, and like our Kuiper Belt, they lay beyond the furthest Exoplanets, and they're filled with possibly millions of individual objects.
So, to fully answer your question, we made a prediction about the Kuiper Belt's existence. That prediction was proven accurate. We made a prediction about the type and quantities of objects out there, and so far we've discovered tens of thousands of individual objects, of which more than 1,000 are nearly as large as Pluto. We've also discovered these same types of asteroid belts orbiting other stars and in other star systems.
Why then should be suddenly suspend acceptance of a model that has, to this very day, never been discredited or proven to be faulty? It's a model that has, literally, thousands of individual pieces of supporting evidence.
Why should we suddenly suspend all of this knowledge and information just because a few religious people hold too tightly to their creation mythologies?
I mean, if we are going to really think and ask questions of each other, why should we pretend like all of this data doesn't exist?
The difference is that Scientists do have evidence... That's the great barrier to religious claims.
If you read those thinks above, you'll physically see thousands of individually charted Kuiper Belt objects. There's no disputing the data. It's all right there. There are two tables listed with each large object's stats attached - and there are thousands.
In comparison, Theists posit these completely unsubstantiated stories and ask us to take them at face value, as if being emotionally invested in something is the same as actual physical evidence.
Do you have any evidence that the Earth and the Solar System is very young, or that the Kuiper Belt is actually limited to just a thousand disappointing objects, or that a Global Flood occurred roughly 5,000 years ago? Any at all? Or just more posturing?
Why is Hume wrong? Miracles can either be accepted without evidence, or they can require evidence for proof, of which there is none because they are, by definition, miraculous.
And even if you accept the idea that natural events can be miraculous, how do you differentiate them from unmiraculous natural events?
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
That's awesome. How many creation science conferences have you attended in person or online?
Monk Of Reason
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
Probably the same number of Voodoo medical conferences and Horoscope based meteorological conventions. Though I don't see how this point is relevant as he said that he followed academia. Pseudo junk science bible conventions are no academia.
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
A creationist's Solar System model might predict that there is no such belt of that many objects, because God would not deceive us via creation. We have good reasons to believe the universe is 15B years old while the Solar System is more recent. The reasons include scientific data. By the way, you use "all" rather often despite statements like this first sentence in Wikipedia re: the Oort Cloud:
"Oort cloud or Öpik–Oort cloud, named after Dutch astronomer Jan Oort and Estonian astronomer Ernst Öpik, is a theoretical spherical cloud…"
It sounds to me like you need to edit the Wikipedia article and delete the word theoretical in the entry, as well as personally realize why it was that such a region in space was originally theorized to exist. You also tend to overstate what is real science, because the Wikipedia entry on the Kuiper Belt states:
"Since its discovery, the number of known KBOs has increased to over a thousand..."
...something a little removed from your "We made a prediction about the type and quantities of objects out there, and so far we've discovered tens of thousands of individual objects, of which more than 1,000 are nearly as large as Pluto." Again, you might want to tell the Wikipedia editors a grievous error exists on that page if you are correct.
And I hope this doesn't sound mean or trite, but you write on this forum as if you are a past master of all disciplines including radiocarbon dating, geology, geography, cosmology, space science, geomatics, etc. It's a little off-putting to me, a lay person whose expertise is far more in the social sciences.
**
You are misstating the nature of Hume's argument (though I do not think you are doing so deliberately).
**
You are (again) challenging whether natural evidence exists for miracles and conflating such with whether natural evidence exists for other things, like a young Solar System. A young Solar System may seem unlikely to you (or to me, since I grew up in a skeptics' home and didn't attend church) but "unlikely" isn't the same as "miraculous".
I'm sorry, but your biases are showing. I don't mean to say that in any mean way. It's what I see.
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
He said he followed all academia, and academia includes research into metaphysics and things that skeptics want to check on, too. Be consistent. Even if it is junk science, he and you would check on it if you check on ALL academia.
PS. I call baloney. Thousands and thousands of tenured, skilled, researchers and faculty are theists, creationists, even--dare I say it? Born again Bible believers. But thanks for dissing all of them (not!).
outhouse
Atheistically
Bias ? is this not the pot calling the kettle black? You seem to be so biased you refuse credible academia.
Your pseudoscience has no credibility. This below is accepted fact not in dispute.
We agree that the following evidence-based facts about the origins and evolution of the Earth and of life on this planet have been established by numerous observations and independently derived experimental results from a multitude of scientific disciplines. Even if there are still many open questions about the precise details of evolutionary change, scientific evidence has never contradicted these results:
- In a universe that has evolved towards its present configuration for some 11 to 15 billion years, our Earth formed approximately 4.5 billion years ago.
- Since its formation, the Earth – its geology and its environments – has changed under the effect of numerous physical and chemical forces and continues to do so.
- Life appeared on Earth at least 2.5 billion years ago. The evolution, soon after, of photosynthetic organisms enabled, from at least 2 billion years ago, the slow transformation of the atmosphere to one containing substantial quantities of oxygen. In addition to the release of the oxygen that we breathe, the process of photosynthesis is the ultimate source of fixed energy and food upon which human life on the planet depends.
- Since its first appearance on Earth, life has taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve, in ways which palaeontology and the modern biological and biochemical sciences are describing and independently confirming with increasing precision. Commonalities in the structure of the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicate their common primordial origin.
outhouse
Atheistically
People with fanaticism and fundamentalism are often blind to credible knowledge when refusing it their whole lives.
Exactly, and I stand behind that statement.
I also qualified his statement which he ignored imagine that
Which he freely admits he fights against.
outhouse
Atheistically
Non sequitur. Theist helped develop the age of the earth and the facts of evolution. So you don't have a credible leg to stand on.
It is not a fight between theist and scientist.
It is a fight against those that refuse credible academia, and you admit you fight the established facts.
outhouse
Atheistically
Were factually not dissing all of them, not all are so fanatical and fundamental that they refuse credible academia. Only those that do refuse credible education and knowledge because they place faith before fact.