Moderator: Community Team
crispybits wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:Maybe it's not that it's arrogant, but instead it's satisfying. Many people don't like facing the "I don't know" prospect, so inserting a "god did it" explanation corrects that felt uneasiness.
Neil Tyson has a nice lecture which applies this explanation to some of history's greatest scientists and mathematicians:
See that's one thing I don't understand. I know there's things I don't know, and that's a good feeling, because it means that there's still new and interesting things I can learn about. I'd hate to be in the position where I think I have the answer to everything because that would mean I could never grow (intellectually/spiritually/whateverly) and had reached my limits. There lies real hopelessness in my books.
I've seen that lecture before, still interesting stuff if I remember it rightly. It explains the phenomena without attempting to justify it (and if memory serves he actually fairly strongly criticises that mindset in the end for much the same reasons as above, but that might be subtext that I took from it due to confirmation bias, not sure)
chang50 wrote:_sabotage_ wrote:Chang, I have the evidence. I am writing this and you are reading it, or had been and without God this is impossible.
The better we understand science, the more clear it is that that were any of the rules governing the universe tweaked even a a trillionth of a trillionth, life would not be possible. If the universe acted to bring these laws about, why would that not be considered our reason for existence and given the credit of God?
I understand that is what you believe and you are obviously entitled to believe as you choose,BUT this is emphatically not a scientific claim as you stated.The universe does indeed appear to us to be fine-tuned,no argument from me there.The problem comes with the gigantic leap you make from that in giving the reason as 'god',however you define it.You simply cannot get there using the scientific method.You can philosophise as theologians have done for centuries employing metaphysical arguments but that is not science..
betiko wrote:universalchiro wrote:hotfire wrote:perhaps u failed to read that land for the state of mississippi is actually old river deposit from the river of mississippi...is that part of the 4500 year old sample or does the 4500 year old sample not contain that portion of deposit?
Valid question: I hear you, it's understood that the banks of the Mississippi has portions of increase from the Mississippi River sediment deposits, and it is plausible that the Mississippi exited out of Mississippi in the past, but the satellite images show there is still not enough sediment to establish an old age in geological terms.
The estimated age with the amount of deposit and rate of deposit is approximately 4,500 years. Indicating the continents formed not so long ago. Hope that helps.
Let s assume you are right and rivers like the mississippi, the nile or the rhein are approximately 4500. How do you jump from this to "continents formed not so long ago"? If those rivers weren t there then the continents never existed?? How far back can can we go regarding egyptian artefacts found around the nile? And we are just talking about the egyptians.
universalchiro wrote:betiko wrote:universalchiro wrote:hotfire wrote:perhaps u failed to read that land for the state of mississippi is actually old river deposit from the river of mississippi...is that part of the 4500 year old sample or does the 4500 year old sample not contain that portion of deposit?
Valid question: I hear you, it's understood that the banks of the Mississippi has portions of increase from the Mississippi River sediment deposits, and it is plausible that the Mississippi exited out of Mississippi in the past, but the satellite images show there is still not enough sediment to establish an old age in geological terms.
The estimated age with the amount of deposit and rate of deposit is approximately 4,500 years. Indicating the continents formed not so long ago. Hope that helps.
Let s assume you are right and rivers like the mississippi, the nile or the rhein are approximately 4500. How do you jump from this to "continents formed not so long ago"? If those rivers weren t there then the continents never existed?? How far back can can we go regarding egyptian artefacts found around the nile? And we are just talking about the egyptians.
Prior to the continents being formed, Pangea existed. So my contention is that mankind lived during Pangea, why is it a problem to find human artifacts older than earth's oldest river? It's not.
Prior to the Continents being formed, Pangea existed. So since the land that separated from Pangea existed already, why is it a problem for the land of the Continents to be older than the oldest river? It's not.
I agree, that if the Continents aren't there, then the rivers aren't there. The rivers have to come after the land is there. This seems too obvious to miss, but you gave it a double question mark, as though you interpret that's what I think. But you've missed the intent of the thread.
Evolutionist believe that the continents are 120 million years old, but ask yourself, why wouldn't there be rivers that have deposited sediment into the deltas, that exceed approximately 4,500 years?
As the Continents broke apart from Pangea 120million years ago (allegedly), then as they slowly moved away, the rivers that deposited sediment on the ocean floor, would have left a trail indicating where they were and origin. There should be a trail from the Amazon river to the Mid-Atlantic ridge. And a trail from the Congo River to the Mid-Atlantic ridge. It's not there. But what is there are multiple scars on the Atlantic ocean floor of what looks like stretch marks indicating violent and sudden movement.
My contention is that since the deltas of all rivers on earth do not have enough sediment to exceed roughly 4,500 years, and no river left it's trail of sediment deposit as Pangea broke apart, then the logical conclusion is that Pangea broke apart quickly. As in potentially 1 year, rather than the estimated 120 million years that evolutionist purport.
This is observable and testable evidence that any layman can search out for themselves.
Ask yourself, if the Continents really are 120 million years old, why isn't there enough delta sediment to support this hypothesis anywhere on the planet.
BigBallinStalin wrote:universalchiro wrote:Valid question: I hear you, it's understood that the banks of the Mississippi has portions of increase from the Mississippi River sediment deposits, and it is plausible that the Mississippi exited out of Mississippi in the past, but the satellite images show there is still not enough sediment to establish an old age in geological terms.
The estimated age with the amount of deposit and rate of deposit is approximately 4,500 years. Indicating the continents formed not so long ago as in geological terms. Hope that helps.
Well, his position makes sense if you believe that all anthropologists and archeologists around the world are involved in a mass conspiracy. They're all fabricating 'evidence' with their radiocarbon dating and tree-rings measurements!
universalchiro wrote:mrswdk wrote:universalchiro wrote:mrswdk wrote:universalchiro wrote:Why didn't the Amazon leave a trail of sediment across the Atlantic?
The Amazon didn't exist when Pangea broke up, and when it first came into being it flowed into the Pacific, not the Atlantic.
River sediment doesn't just build up and up into a giant mountain and then stay in the exact same place forever.
Why didn't the Amazon leave a trail of sediment across the Atlantic?
The Amazon didn't exist when Pangea broke up, and when it first came into being it flowed into the Pacific, not the Atlantic.
River sediment doesn't just build up and up into a giant mountain and then stay in the exact same place forever.
Why didn't the Amazon leave a trail of sediment across the Atlantic?
_sabotage_ wrote:Your criticism to my proof of God, ie there could be multiple universes or there are aliens creating universes, does not disprove anything. It does not adhere to the scientific method as the only evidence that supports this is the lack of possibility that we exist without intelligent design. Those universes or aliens require a beginning, just as God requires a beginning.
Please do calculate the planetary surface in our solar system which is hospitable for life. Something to chew on while you do: if each electron in our universe represented a chance that life exists, they do not add up to that chance. Perhaps I should rephrase, your stance is absurd.
My stance is arrogant, and I will apologize to the first alien I meet. On the other hand, until then, I will arrogantly praise God as our creator and then will see what evidence the alien has that supports or contradicts this. If you feel that the environment isn't fitted to us, then I would recommend changing your environment.
_sabotage_ wrote:The better we understand science, the more clear it is that that were any of the rules governing the universe tweaked even a a trillionth of a trillionth, life would not be possible.
_sabotage_ wrote:So it's not true. The earth is not at a tilt which allows for life, moon is not the right size to create this tilt, the distance of the earth from the sun does not provide us with the right amount of energy to support life, our gravity is not correct to sustain life, our position in the universe is unstable, the sun is not the right size, the ingredients of life are not on our planet, we can just create life out of nothing, there are trillions and trillions of universes, so ours isn't designed.
_sabotage_ wrote:The rate of the Big Bang expansion, the laws governing matter, the laws governing force
_sabotage_ wrote:I could go on, but I could just say:
That all things point to intelligent creation. All scientific evidence, that is all proven scientific laws points to God and the only way for scientists to avoid this is by imagining unobservable phenomenon. Which is absurd (sorry Chang, live with it). If any of these laws were broken, we would not exist.
_sabotage_ wrote:!. How does this support anything but intelligent design?
2. How does this go against intelligent design?
3. Please show me that it does. Please use observed evidence.
The basic forces? So he took all controls into account in the 7 minute video? Without much of an effect, do you mean, we couldn't move, breath or reproduce? Not much of an effect...
Edit: couldn't watch past the point where he said: gravity is irrelevant.
When they culminate the laws that exist, and discover the chance of them being random, a scientist has to decide:
Do they point to an intelligent design or not?
The laws support intelligent design 100%, they support random design 0.000000000000000000000000000000001%.
The scientist who then takes observed and proven laws and decides they support random design has to justify this. They do so using unobserved phenomenon: multiple universes. If there are trillions upon trillions of universes then the odds become possible. But using this unobserved phenomenon, they aren't adhering to the scientific method and therefore aren't relevant.
_sabotage_ wrote:The laws support intelligent design 100%, they support random design 0.000000000000000000000000000000001%.
universalchiro wrote:betiko wrote:universalchiro wrote:hotfire wrote:perhaps u failed to read that land for the state of mississippi is actually old river deposit from the river of mississippi...is that part of the 4500 year old sample or does the 4500 year old sample not contain that portion of deposit?
Valid question: I hear you, it's understood that the banks of the Mississippi has portions of increase from the Mississippi River sediment deposits, and it is plausible that the Mississippi exited out of Mississippi in the past, but the satellite images show there is still not enough sediment to establish an old age in geological terms.
The estimated age with the amount of deposit and rate of deposit is approximately 4,500 years. Indicating the continents formed not so long ago. Hope that helps.
Let s assume you are right and rivers like the mississippi, the nile or the rhein are approximately 4500. How do you jump from this to "continents formed not so long ago"? If those rivers weren t there then the continents never existed?? How far back can can we go regarding egyptian artefacts found around the nile? And we are just talking about the egyptians.
Prior to the continents being formed, Pangea existed. So my contention is that mankind lived during Pangea, why is it a problem to find human artifacts older than earth's oldest river? It's not.
Prior to the Continents being formed, Pangea existed. So since the land that separated from Pangea existed already, why is it a problem for the land of the Continents to be older than the oldest river? It's not.
I agree, that if the Continents aren't there, then the rivers aren't there. The rivers have to come after the land is there. This seems too obvious to miss, but you gave it a double question mark, as though you interpret that's what I think. But you've missed the intent of the thread.
Evolutionist believe that the continents are 120 million years old, but ask yourself, why wouldn't there be rivers that have deposited sediment into the deltas, that exceed approximately 4,500 years?
As the Continents broke apart from Pangea 120million years ago (allegedly), then as they slowly moved away, the rivers that deposited sediment on the ocean floor, would have left a trail indicating where they were and origin. There should be a trail from the Amazon river to the Mid-Atlantic ridge. And a trail from the Congo River to the Mid-Atlantic ridge. It's not there. But what is there are multiple scars on the Atlantic ocean floor of what looks like stretch marks indicating violent and sudden movement.
My contention is that since the deltas of all rivers on earth do not have enough sediment to exceed roughly 4,500 years, and no river left it's trail of sediment deposit as Pangea broke apart, then the logical conclusion is that Pangea broke apart quickly. As in potentially 1 year, rather than the estimated 120 million years that evolutionist purport.
This is observable and testable evidence that any layman can search out for themselves.
Ask yourself, if the Continents really are 120 million years old, why isn't there enough delta sediment to support this hypothesis anywhere on the planet.
Metsfanmax wrote:_sabotage_ wrote:The laws support intelligent design 100%, they support random design 0.000000000000000000000000000000001%.
The problem with this statement is that you can construct any unfalsifiable scenario and then claim that the evidence supports it 100%. If my theory is that the planets orbit the Sun because of invisible fairies that push them in slightly elliptical orbits, and I posit a set of fairies that perfectly explains the observed orbits, then I can say "the laws support fairy design 100%." Yes, it's true -- but you haven't actually explained anything.
_sabotage_ wrote:Metsfanmax wrote:_sabotage_ wrote:The laws support intelligent design 100%, they support random design 0.000000000000000000000000000000001%.
The problem with this statement is that you can construct any unfalsifiable scenario and then claim that the evidence supports it 100%. If my theory is that the planets orbit the Sun because of invisible fairies that push them in slightly elliptical orbits, and I posit a set of fairies that perfectly explains the observed orbits, then I can say "the laws support fairy design 100%." Yes, it's true -- but you haven't actually explained anything.
Its not a scenario, unless you believe you don't exist. Unfortunately you are saying this to someone who does believe he exists and can observe why this is so.
You are right, science is a story until a better one comes along, and explaining the fact that the laws coincide to create our existence is random isn't a good story based on observable facts, so back to the drawing board with you lot. Don't worry, I'm sure you are smearing God to people regardless of the poor quality story you tell, but if you want some of the sounder souls, then you have your work cut out for you. I would try to work with observable and provable facts, going against the scientific method is a bit hypocritical.
Metsfanmax wrote:No one is really arguing that there's some random number generator in the sky
Random.org wrote:RANDOM.ORG offers true random numbers to anyone on the Internet. The randomness comes from atmospheric noise, which for many purposes is better than the pseudo-random number algorithms typically used in computer programs.
Symmetry wrote:Metsfanmax wrote:No one is really arguing that there's some random number generator in the skyRandom.org wrote:RANDOM.ORG offers true random numbers to anyone on the Internet. The randomness comes from atmospheric noise, which for many purposes is better than the pseudo-random number algorithms typically used in computer programs.
Doesn't this site generate its random numbers from the sky?
Sorry, a bit of a fatuous aside, but I liked it.
Carry on
Metsfanmax wrote:No, which is why our numbers are not really random.
universalchiro wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:universalchiro wrote:Valid question: I hear you, it's understood that the banks of the Mississippi has portions of increase from the Mississippi River sediment deposits, and it is plausible that the Mississippi exited out of Mississippi in the past, but the satellite images show there is still not enough sediment to establish an old age in geological terms.
The estimated age with the amount of deposit and rate of deposit is approximately 4,500 years. Indicating the continents formed not so long ago as in geological terms. Hope that helps.
Well, his position makes sense if you believe that all anthropologists and archeologists around the world are involved in a mass conspiracy. They're all fabricating 'evidence' with their radiocarbon dating and tree-rings measurements!
Tree ring measurements? You should recheck your facts. The oldest verified tree ring is:
Pinus longaeva 5062years White Mountains, California, USA Discovered by: Ed Schulman, Tom Harlan
http://www.rmtrr.org/oldlist.htm
And you mentioned fabricated evidence? here is a small list with cursory work:
List of fabricated evidence to support Evolution:
Haeckels Embryo drawings: Proven fraud:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/06/le ... 03726.html
Piltdown man: Missing link of primates to humans: Proven fraud:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man
Archeoraptor: Missing link of dinosaurs to birds: Proven fraud:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeoraptor
Lucy: Missing link of ape to human: Proven fraud:
http://yecheadquarters.org/shame.html
Nebraska man: Missing link of ape to human: Proven fraud:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebraska_Man
The list just keeps going, but you get the gist.
The newest tale, when those that age the continents to be 120 million years old, tell you not to look behind the curtain. Look for yourself, look at the lack of sediment deposits at the river deltas. Look at the zero river deposits leading from the Mid-Atlantic ridge to their current location. Don't blindly follow, take leadership and search for yourselves.
Frigidus wrote:_sabotage_ wrote:So it's not true. The earth is not at a tilt which allows for life, moon is not the right size to create this tilt, the distance of the earth from the sun does not provide us with the right amount of energy to support life, our gravity is not correct to sustain life, our position in the universe is unstable, the sun is not the right size, the ingredients of life are not on our planet, we can just create life out of nothing, there are trillions and trillions of universes, so ours isn't designed.
1. What percentage of the planets in the universe meet these conditions? Would a designed universe have such a tiny portion of it capable of sustaining life?
Users browsing this forum: Evil Semp