Originally posted by Wild Shadow
but at least i was raised with the catholic believe and later found it to be historically inaccurrate. as a child every time i asked a question that was controversial i was hit.they were innocent comments at age 7.
So you were a dumb kid. What do you want, sympathy?
Originally posted by Wild Shadow
it would be simple if ppl simply had faith of their believes but it is not enough.. many feel the need to push their believe and inacurracies to others who happen to actually know said believes and maybe more so...
Do the world a favor. Never have children.
Originally posted by Wild Shadow
comparing satellites and ancient stories are not the same. i know how a GPS works in the middle of a flat desert i know there is no hills or mountains to bounce a signal to my location.
Are you just ****ing dense? I never said anything about bouncing it off mountains. I said you can bounce a signal off something like a firmament, seriously they actually bounce radio signals off the atmosphere. You rationalizations are at the point where you have to explicitly ignore the other person for them to make sense.
Are you just ****ing dense? I never said anything about bouncing it off mountains. I said you can bounce a signal off something like a firmament, seriously they actually bounce radio signals off the atmosphere. You rationalizations are at the point where you have to explicitly ignore the other person for them to make sense. [/B][/QUOTE]
when did i start name calling you? there is no reason to do it to me...
the gps comment is that you cannot bounce telementry from the firmament and get you location it doesnt work that way...
unless you have taken navigation land nav you would know that... you need at least two constant points to help pinpoint your location.
not just some random radio wave being bounce off our atmosphere..
come on bro no need to be rude.... by the way my early age statement was to show that church did not have all the answers to very specific questions that were asked.. that i actually had to find it on my own... so please dont insult me because i wont insult you..
Originally posted by Wild Shadow
wow i thought you were going to proof me wrong for a sec... but there is no way that it can tranqulate my location in a middle of a desert,,,,it is also experimental..
unless i missed something that you feel like sharing
Only that you can bounce a radio signal off the atmosphere. The rest, I don't care about. 😉
i was like what the hell is meteor burst antenna?
did they install it on hill tops or something all over the world...
do i have to explain line of sight and empty flat desert?
or am i really stupid and missed an important lecture while doing my land nav training that a civilian can school me...should i be embarrassed if he has better survival training then me?
those were my thoughts 🙂
Originally posted by Wild Shadow
i was like what the hell is meteor burst antenna?did they install it on hill tops or something all over the world...
Maybe 😏. The conspiracy is everywhere.
Originally posted by Wild Shadow
do i have to explain line of sight and empty flat desert?
Want me to explain that the sky is up and satellites are similarly UP and that the firmament is the sky and thus UP and thus IF YOU PUT A GODDAMNED RECEIVER IN THE ****ING FIRMAMENT IT WOULD BE EXACTLY LIKE A SATELLITE (which means there is no line of sight problem at all if you have a firmament and the objection is stupid beyond all comprehension).
For the record, I'm not saying the firmanet exists I'm just saying that it's moronic to claim that if it did we couldn't have GPS.
Originally posted by Wild Shadow
or am i really stupid and missed an important lecture while doing my land nav training that a civilian can school me...should i be embarrassed if he has better survival training then me?
Well I'm sure you didn't miss any lectures.
Originally posted by Da Pittman
Good video, your thoughts JIA 😉
Your video is flawed. I'd be willing to go point by point tomorrow, if anyone thinks it is necessary. For now, I have to say that it begins with an attempt at casting doubt on Darwin's reasoning for evolution (if his views on the Cell are wrong then his views on everything must be wrong too!!(1)) and then moves into a simple argument from personal incredulity. (I didn't make it past minute 8.) If this is the best you can come up with then your argument really is defeated. (Hint: The correct answer is "Yes, Red- it is beaten. There isn't any reason to re-hash old debunked arguments anymore.)
Re: Can you handle the Truth?
Evolution is not fact. Don't even try for that one. It should not be taught in schools, as it is a religion.
Definition of science:
1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
Since evolution supposedly happened "billions of years ago" We can safely assume that you can not observe or experiment on it, thus it is not science.
A critical assumption used in carbon-14 dating has to do with this ratio. It is assumed that the ratio of 14C to 12C in the atmosphere has always been the same as it is today (1 to 1 trillion). If this assumption is true, then the AMS 14C dating method is valid up to about 80,000 years. Beyond this number, the instruments scientists use would not be able to detect enough remaining 14C to be useful in age estimates. This is a critical assumption in the dating process. If this assumption is not true, then the method will give incorrect dates. What could cause this ratio to change? If the production rate of 14C in the atmosphere is not equal to the removal rate (mostly through decay), this ratio will change. In other words, the amount of 14C being produced in the atmosphere must equal the amount being removed to be in a steady state (also called “equilibrium”). If this is not true, the ratio of 14C to 12C is not a constant, which would make knowing the starting amount of 14C in a specimen difficult or impossible to accurately determine.
If the bombardment of the suns rays, which is what causes c14, is consistent, this will be accurate. If the bombardment is inconsistent, or changes, the date will be immensely off. The christian scientist's (don't laugh) theory is that at one point the "firmament" that is mentioned in Genesis is a layer of ice above the atmosphere that was collapsed onto the earth during the deluge. This "firmament" would result in double today's air pressure, resulting in abnormal crop, human, and animal growth. After the "firmament" collapsed, man's stature and health would have declined from the 1000+ max lifespan of the large Antediluvian humans. This "firmament" would result in protection from the harmful bombardment of rays and a warm glow instead of a harsh yellow sun. It also would have a terrific impact on the amount of, you guessed it, carbon 14 found in the earth.
Also, for one, they don't have a transitional link, they date the fossils by the geologic layers they are found in and they date the geologic layers by the fossils that are found inside of them (circular reasoning)
My conclusion? Neither one is conclusive enough to be taught as fact. Let parents chose which religion they want to teach their child. As long as one is in the schools, the other one will always fight.
Originally posted by Red Nemesis
Your video is flawed. I'd be willing to go point by point tomorrow, if anyone thinks it is necessary. For now, I have to say that it begins with an attempt at casting doubt on Darwin's reasoning for evolution (if his views on the Cell are wrong then his views on everything must be wrong too!!(1)) and then moves into a simple argument from personal incredulity. (I didn't make it past minute 8.) If this is the best you can come up with then your argument really is defeated. (Hint: The correct answer is "Yes, Red- it is beaten. There isn't any reason to re-hash old debunked arguments anymore.)
Just curious are you a scientist? Microbiologist?
Re: Re: Can you handle the Truth?
Originally posted by JesusIsAliveOMFG you responded to one of my posts Am I off your ignore list? 😱
YouTube video
I asked for you thoughts on the video that was posted, what does this have to do with the video? All this time of waiting around and you can't even reply to the video that was posted, you have to post another video that doesn't even deal with the video that I was talking about. I expect better from you JIA.
Originally posted by JesusIsAliveWhat does that have to do with anything?
Just curious are you a scientist? Microbiologist?
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11Last time I check the Theory of Evolution is a "Theory" and not the "Fact of Evolution" so I don't know what school that you went to. It is not a religion by any means, please do explain. Even with your second definition of science is the exact explanation of the Theory of Evolution through observation.
Evolution is not fact. Don't even try for that one. It should not be taught in schools, as it is a religion.
Definition of science:
1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11You were doing OK until this statement, evolution is happening every day. 😆 Last time I check there wasn't even any life on this planet "Billions of years ago". 😆
Since evolution supposedly happened "billions of years ago" We can safely assume that you can not observe or experiment on it, thus it is not science.
Re: Re: Can you handle the Truth?
You know Knightfall, you never came back to finish our discussion. Are you sure that you want to get into this again? I'll argue you down a second time if you like. 😈
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
Evolution is not fact. Don't even try for that one. It should not be taught in schools, as it is a religion.
Definition of science:
1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
For future reference:
http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/evolution/qanda.shtml
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
Since evolution supposedly happened "billions of years ago" We can safely assume that you can not observe or experiment on it, thus it is not science.
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
The way that carbon 14 dating works is using the amount of 12c to find out how many 14c was in a carbon based life form, and then figuring out how much 14C is left in the carbon based life form, using the decay rate, or half life to figure out how much has decayed, and then calculating exactly how long the carbon based life form has decayed. this is inaccurate for a number of reasons.If the bombardment of the suns rays, which is what causes c14, is consistent, this will be accurate. If the bombardment is inconsistent, or changes, the date will be immensely off. The christian scientist's (don't laugh) theory is that at one point the "firmament" that is mentioned in Genesis is a layer of ice above the atmosphere that was collapsed onto the earth during the deluge. This "firmament" would result in double today's air pressure, resulting in abnormal crop, human, and animal growth. After the "firmament" collapsed, man's stature and health would have declined from the 1000+ max lifespan of the large Antediluvian humans. This "firmament" would result in protection from the harmful bombardment of rays and a warm glow instead of a harsh yellow sun. It also would have a terrific impact on the amount of, you guessed it, carbon 14 found in the earth.
You started with an ancient document and then came up with ideas that could explain and support its narrative. I looked at a body of facts and came up with an explanation that fit them. The difference between us is that you look for facts that support a preconceived world view, while I look for a worldview that fit the facts. I leave it to you (and everyone else) to decide which is the superior method.
I'll address this in chronological order, rather than go point by point. (Because it is faster and requires less editing of your post.)
1. The varying output of the sun is an established fact; the change follows 11 year cycles which mirror/affect (I'm a bit sketchy at the moment) sunspot activity. The solar output therefore most likely does change, but because of the cyclical and repetitious nature of the changes it is most likely that the ratio of C14 to C12/13 has remained relatively stable. After all, directly following a period of low intensity there is a period of high intensity that balances everything out. The result is a net stability in the C14/12 ratio globally.
2. Unless you have some hithero unrevealed information that I can't find, I'm reasonably confident that there is no data supporting the idea of an encircling 'firmament.' I respect that you are free to posit whatever history you like, but if you ask me to take it as fact without evidence then you have to respect my right to call you a raving idiot. 😛
3. Ignoring the fact that you have no evidence suggesting a 'firmament' of any kind I will point you to this ]this[/URL] site, which suggests that intense periods of solar output are beneficial to human ingenuity and development. Great advances- like the innovations leading to the bronze age- are suggested to have occurred during warm periods of intense solar activity, while low points in human history- like the fall of the Aztec empire- seem to happen during troughs in output. (I don't fully agree with the conclusions on Global Warming, but it is a fascinating read nonetheless.) These findings suggest that the downfall of a global firmament would increase productivity and health (advanced tech means better lives) rather than suppress it. Also, do you have any evidence about air pressure and human growth? On top of all of this, why do none of the records from 'pre-flood' times describe the sun differently?
I guess the bulk of this can be summarized by saying: "Prove it." If you assert the presence of an antediluvian shell around the globe then it is down to you to substantiate your claim. Go ahead and claim a 'change in air pressure and C14 production' and even call radiometric dating bunk, but Prove it.
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
Also, for one, they don't have a transitional link, they date the fossils by the geologic layers they are found in and they date the geologic layers by the fossils that are found inside of them (circular reasoning)
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
My conclusion? Neither one is conclusive enough to be taught as fact. Let parents chose which religion they want to teach their child. As long as one is in the schools, the other one will always fight.
Evolution isn't a religion. Science isn't even a religion. So you are wrong on both counts.
Originally posted by JIA
Just curious are you a scientist? Microbiologist?
Not by profession, no. I do try to keep current with new discoveries though. I will admit that my knowledge isn't perfect, but I am willing to look for any answer that I don't know off the top of my head.
@ the Video:
I transcribed the video on paper and am working from that. If I misquote anything feel free to correct me; the freakishly long pauses weren't quite long enough for a verbatim copy, nor am I going to type it here. I will address only the major points.
Point One:
Science was less advanced in the mid 19th century. The 'primitive' equipment' made it impossible to observe the cell. Scientists had superstitious beliefs like 'life has a simple form.'
Response:
I can not for the life of me figure out how an understanding of the cell pertains to Evolutionary theory in the slightest. Darwin's work all dealt with mutations on the macro level. That he though life was "simple" (which is subjective anyway) at the cellular level does not diminish the truth of Darwin's explanation for the diversity of life.
Point Two:
[continuing the 'superstitious beliefs theme] Going back to the time of Aristotle scientists 'believed' that life could (and I quote) "Self originate by coincidental assembly of inanimate matter in a moist milleaux."
Response:
The theory of Abiogenesis is irrelevant to the mechanics of the theory of Evolution. I can debate Abiogenesis as well as evolution (courtesy of the books Genesis: The Scientific quest for Life's Origin and Aquagenesis.) Somehow I don't think either of you can cope with a discussion at that level. (Knightfall, maybe- last time he backed out before he had a chance to substantiate any of his own claims...) JIA, this is probably not a good place to debate on unfamiliar turf.
Point Three:
"While developing his theory, Darwin relied on a belief that life basically had a simple structure."
Response:
This is nonsense. The complexity of a cell has no bearing (didn't I say this already) on evolution: even if a cell was 'simple' it would still be acted upon by natural selection and still pass its traits on to future generations, facilitating the change in populations over time. So once again, the video is attempting misdirection by attacking something that is not Evolution, but which sounds like it. It is intellectually dishonest and disingenuous.
The next few minutes are really just a continuation of the same theme- they lump Haeckel, Huxley and Darwin together in being mistaken about the complexity of a cell, and call life the 'result of chance.' They then go on to prove that the cell is very complex. Because they do not make any assertions about a designer or IC (irreducible complexity) during the second half of the video. I will trust that their explanations of basic cellular processes are correct, because investigation would simply take up too much time.
Bottom line: That Haeckel (and possibly Darwin) were mistaken about a cell does not mean that the theory of evolution is invalid. Attacking along those lines is intellectually dishonest and leaves them (and by association, [u]you[/i]) open to scientific scrutiny. You have not cleared that scrutiny. Either let Knightfall finish this debate or learn basic logic; I will not go through another 11 minutes of the hell that was that movie just to tell you that the movie attacks the wrong theories.
Re: Re: Re: Can you handle the Truth?
Originally posted by Red Nemesisthat's why i'm here 😉 i got a few days left of vacation to spend typing up thesis's before college starts. Wait a minute...
You know Knightfall, you never came back to finish our discussion. Are you sure that you want to get into this again? I'll argue you down a second time if you like. 😈
I do belive that is religion because it is a unprovable theory about how the world came to be. Since it "happens' over a span of millions of years, you can't easily experiment on it. Those experiments that have been done are invalid/unsupported.
Evolution deals with a body of facts and laws (observed mutations and natural selection in action) and is gained through observation and experimentation. You've made the assertion that it is religion- would you care to support your claim?
indeed. As such, it is not what should be pounded into children's head's since birth as scientific fact. For instance, while talking to some weak-minded high schoolers, I was given the retort that "It was made up by scientists who went to college, so it must be fact". Obviously it should be kept out of schools.
For future reference:Evolution is a theory.
re⋅li⋅gion
   /rɪˈlɪdʒən/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ri-lij-uhn] Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
[/b]
Evolution wasn't a single occurrence. 😬 It continues to affect today's organisms: the emergence of drug resistant bacteria is just one example. I'm sure I could come up with more.[/b]
This really applies to both evolution and the bible. :/ for instance, darwin writes that all animals have a common ancestor. Every secular scientist since has tried to find "facts" that support it. If you looked at a world view that fits the fact, it would be "we know what we know, and what we don't know, we don't know". Evolution is nothing but educated guessing at something that nobody witnessed.
You started with an ancient document and then came up with ideas that could explain and support its narrative. I looked at a body of facts and came up with an explanation that fit them. The difference between us is that you look for facts that support a preconceived world view, while I look for a worldview that fit the facts. I leave it to you (and everyone else) to decide which is the superior method.
you have things like sunspots and the fact that the earth is moving in relation to the sun. think about it.
I'll address this in chronological order, rather than go point by point. (Because it is faster and requires less editing of your post.)1. The varying output of the sun is an established fact; the change follows 11 year cycles which mirror/affect (I'm a bit sketchy at the moment) sunspot activity. The solar output therefore most likely does change, but because of the cyclical and repetitious nature of the changes it is most likely that the ratio of C14 to C12/13 has remained relatively stable. After all, directly following a period of low intensity there is a period of high intensity that balances everything out. The result is a net stability in the C14/12 ratio globally.
The Earth's rotation is slowing but at a much slower rate than 1 leap second every so many years. The length of time it takes the Earth, at the present time, to rotate once is 86,400.002 seconds compared to 86,400 seconds back in 1820. The rotation has slowed roughly only by 2 milliseconds since 1820. That seems like an insignificant amount of time BUT over the course of the planet's entire lifetime, it has had very profound effects on the geophysics of the planet.
2. Unless you have some hithero unrevealed information that I can't find, I'm reasonably confident that there is no data supporting the idea of an encircling 'firmament.' I respect that you are free to posit whatever history you like, but if you ask me to take it as fact without evidence then you have to respect my right to call you a raving idiot. 😛
they don't really describe the sun at all. and your hypothesis interesting but unfounded. http://creationsciencemessages.org/worldbeforenoah.htm
3. Ignoring the fact that you have no evidence suggesting a 'firmament' of any kind I will point you to this ]this[/URL] site, which suggests that intense periods of solar output are beneficial to human ingenuity and development. Great advances- like the innovations leading to the bronze age- are suggested to have occurred during warm periods of intense solar activity, while low points in human history- like the fall of the Aztec empire- seem to happen during troughs in output. (I don't fully agree with the conclusions on Global Warming, but it is a fascinating read nonetheless.) These findings suggest that the downfall of a global firmament would increase productivity and health (advanced tech means better lives) rather than suppress it. Also, do you have any evidence about air pressure and human growth? On top of all of this, why do none of the records from 'pre-flood' times describe the sun differently?
Tomato plants have been grown in Japan under double atmospheric pressure and shielded from radiation that reach 30 feet in height and have 3,000 tomatoes on each plant, also they become perennial and never need to be replanted.
I guess the bulk of this can be summarized by saying: "Prove it." If you assert the presence of an antediluvian shell around the globe then it is down to you to substantiate your claim. Go ahead and claim a 'change in air pressure and C14 production' and even call radiometric dating bunk, but Prove it.
[/b]
1. Archeopteryx. The horse and whale are also fairly well represented.
2. Wait, what? They date the fossils relative to the other fossils in that layer, they date layers relative to other layers and their fossils, and then they go figure out a date with absolute methods like radiometric dating. We learned this stuff in 9th grade man! Get with the program!
Creationism doesn't have facts to support it, all it does is attack evolutionary claims. Creationism isn't a theory! Once you substantiate the 'firmament' we'll talk.
i didn't say science was. Just evolution, and I believe so because it is based on things that cannot be proven or can be easily disproven, and requires faith to believe.
Evolution isn't a religion. Science isn't even a religion. So you are wrong on both counts.
Not by profession, no. I do try to keep current with new discoveries though. I will admit that my knowledge isn't perfect, but I am willing to look for any answer that I don't know off the top of my head.[/B]