Moderator: Community Team
john9blue wrote:surely if atheism was beneficial to society then we would have seen more societies throughout history without religion. it is not a radical concept unless people explicitly make it one. there is a reason religion is present in most every successful society.
crispybits wrote:As long as you also believe that Spiderman is real yes
GreecePwns wrote:This claim is unfalsifiable. How does Jefferson know what the Almighty Stuff wants for us? Does he have access to knowledge that we don't? How?
In truth, there are no natural "rights," just privileges that a society agrees to give to its members through a social contract.
GreecePwns wrote:That these "rights" are amendable contradicts directly the idea that they something given to us by the Almighty Stuff, let alone anything other than privileges supported by an overwhelming majority.
Gillipig wrote:Does this count as evidence? ............It says so in the bible!
Ooooh, you look so strong knockng down that straw man!Gillipig wrote:crispybits wrote:As long as you also believe that Spiderman is real yes
Don't forget Lord of the rings!
Wow I guess Frodo really did save middle earth. I have new found respect for him now that I know what he did for us!
Maybe he's this "Jesus" character people have been talking about!?
daddy1gringo wrote:Ooooh, you look so strong knockng down that straw man!
crispybits wrote:daddy1gringo wrote:Ooooh, you look so strong knockng down that straw man!
Amazingly, given the amount of bible quotes in this thread, it seems "the Bible said so" is not so much a strawman as the constant fall back when all else fails of some theists.
If we had no bible quotes in here then I'd agree with you.
comic boy wrote:I like Jefferson's appeal to ' Natural law ' , whether one chooses to believe such law is or is not related to a Deity is surely irrelevent to its impact on societal behaviour.
Chariot of Fire wrote:As for GreecePwns.....yeah, what? A massive debt. Get a job you slacker.
Viceroy wrote:[The Biblical creation story] was written in a time when there was no way to confirm this fact and is in fact a statement of the facts.
Lionz wrote:
If the earth-moon system is said to be 4.5 billion or so years old and it would have been straight up in contact with earth about 1.4 billion years ago extrapolating backwards using recent data, then how much can moving continents Really do to help you? Would the moon not cause serious problems to life if it was even a little closer?
"The rate at which the earth-moon distance is presently increasing is actually being measured at about 4 centimetres a year. It would have been even greater in the past.
This immediately raises the question as to whether the earth-moon system could be 4.5 billion years old, as most evolutionists insist. Would we not have lost our moon a long time ago? Using the appropriate differential equation (which takes into account the fact that t
Lionz wrote:"The rate at which the earth-moon distance is presently increasing is actually being measured at about 4 centimetres a year. It would have been even greater in the past.
This immediately raises the question as to whether the earth-moon system could be 4.5 billion years old, as most evolutionists insist. Would we not have lost our moon a long time ago? Using the appropriate differential equation (which takes into account the fact that the force of gravity varies with distance), Dr DeYoung shows that this gives an upper limit of 1.4 billion years."
"That is, extrapolating backwards, the moon should have been in physical contact with the earth's surface 'just' 1.4 billion years ago. This is clearly not an age for the moon, but an absolute maximum, given the most favourable evolutionary assumptions. Obviously, in a creation scenario, the moon does not have to begin at the earth's surface and slowly spiral out.* Evolutionist astronomers have not yet satisfactorily answered this, nor the lack of geological evidence that the moon has dramatically receded over the past 4.5 billion years, which would have to be so if their framework was correct."
-http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v14/n4/moon
Lionz wrote:You might need to copy and paste to get parenthesis in for address, but how about check here if you're basically rewording stuff from a Talk Origins page? http://creationwiki.org/Moon_is_recedin ... lk.Origins)
If you are going to counter evidence for young earth like modern models are not complex enough to explain why there would be an apparent contradiction with conventional timescales, do you have any evidence not based on circular reasoning and uniformitarianism assumptions that suggests earth IS more than 6,000 years old? What is your biggest piece of evidence if you think you have more than one?
Gillipig wrote:Does this count as evidence? ............It says so in the bible!
Lionz wrote:Huh? Are you trying to argue that the distance did not increase at a faster rate in the past?
AAFitz wrote:In any case, if the math works out that the increase in distance now, means that the moon would have been at the earth(which coincidentally it probably was at one point) then obviously, the rate was different in the past.
Lionz wrote:How about we use common sense if the moon is moving away from earth at a rate that would have put it in contact with earth a little over one billion years ago and you think it started existing almost five billion years ago? What can tides and continents do to help explain stuff away for you? And who is demanding unthinking obeisance? Pastes here with the first missing bold?
8:8 How do ye say, We are wise, and the law of YHWH is with us? Lo, certainly the lying pen of the scribes hath made it falsehood.
5:1 Run ye to and fro through the streets of Jerusalem, and see now, and know, and seek in the broad places thereof, if ye can find a man, if there be any that executeth judgment, that seeketh the truth; and I will pardon it.
Lionz wrote:How about we use common sense if the moon is moving away from earth at a rate that would have put it in contact with earth a little over one billion years ago and you think it started existing almost five billion years ago? What can tides and continents do to help explain stuff away for you? And who is demanding unthinking obeisance? Pastes here with the first missing bold?
Metsfanmax wrote:AAFitz wrote:In any case, if the math works out that the increase in distance now, means that the moon would have been at the earth(which coincidentally it probably was at one point) then obviously, the rate was different in the past.
You can't say things like that to someone who rejects this as circular reasoning. You are taking it as a given that the Earth-Moon system is 4.5 billion years old, and then attempting to reconcile other data by just saying "obviously it can't conflict." That won't convince someone like Lionz, and anyways it's not science.
Now, it's true that the reason we were led to think more deeply about the issue is because a naive assumption some people held conflicted with other data; but when we made our assumptions more complex and realistic, we found that there's no conflict between the two sets of data.
Metsfanmax wrote:Lionz wrote:How about we use common sense if the moon is moving away from earth at a rate that would have put it in contact with earth a little over one billion years ago and you think it started existing almost five billion years ago? What can tides and continents do to help explain stuff away for you? And who is demanding unthinking obeisance? Pastes here with the first missing bold?
Since you asked for common sense, let's put it this way. If a car is now moving away from you now at 60 miles per hour, does that it mean it was always moving at 60 miles per hour away from you?
Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,
Users browsing this forum: pmac666