Latest post of the previous page:
Think!Alan H wrote:Why?Pahu wrote:Yes, I am sure nothing existed before the universe because that is logical based on observation and experience.
Latest post of the previous page:
Think!Alan H wrote:Why?Pahu wrote:Yes, I am sure nothing existed before the universe because that is logical based on observation and experience.
Pahu wrote:Think!Alan H wrote:Why?Pahu wrote:Yes, I am sure nothing existed before the universe because that is logical based on observation and experience.
Yes. Here is more information on that subject:Alan H wrote:Seriously?Pahu wrote:Sagan's name was found in the article "The Origin of Comets" where there is this statement: Early scientists discovered other types of organic matter in comets “similar to organic matter of unquestioned biological origin on Earth,” and concluded that they came from “decomposed organic bodies.”2 Endnote 2 has this quote from Sagan:
“We know that it is hard to find a comet without the spectral features of C2, C3, and CN in their comas. Huggins was struck by the fact that the material in the comets was similar to organic matter of unquestioned biological origin on Earth. Many scientists cautiously concluded that the carbon compounds found by Huggins [in 1868] in the comas of comets were, as one of his contemporaries wrote, ‘the result of the decomposition of organic bodies.’ ” [emphasis in original] Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan, Comet (New York: Ballantine Books, 1997), p. 148.
The amount of water on Earth greatly exceeds that known to be on or within any other planet in the solar system. Liquid water, which is essential for life, has unique and amazing properties; it covers 70% of Earth’s surface. Where did all Earth’s water come from?Dave B wrote:Re Carl Sagan and organics in comets, this might be of interest.
So, is CS saying that comets did create life on Earth or just provide some of the building blocks nature needed, over billions of years, to produce billions of combinations of compounds in the primordial gloop - until some of them started self-replicating? Anyway, where were Adam and Eve at this time?
Some postulate that all the water on Earth came from comets, if so it was bound to contain all those nice chemicals and compounds. There are loads of "organic" chemicals out there, in clouds between the stars. Given enough time, all the natural elements, enough energy and the biggest possible mixing bowl any possible compound can be made (and probably has).
Scientists will offer ideas, even ones counter to their beliefs, if they think it may advance knowledge - as opposed to baseless superstition.
I'm asking you why you are sure of that. Can you answer without any using any logical fallacies?Pahu wrote:Think!Alan H wrote:Why?Pahu wrote:Yes, I am sure nothing existed before the universe because that is logical based on observation and experience.
The entire page debunks your arguments. It is the purpose of the page. The site lists 12 arguments that science confirms the bible and then, in 12 numbered sections, debunks those arguments one by one. I can't believe that you still haven't read the page that you mistakenly cited in support of your arguments. Why not try it now?Pahu wrote:Please show me where the information on that site debunks my arguments rather than supporting the claims that I make.jdc wrote:Show me where the information on that site is wrong.A wall of text, a list of journals, and a list of names. Given that you thought the rationalwiki wiki page (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Science_Confirms_the_Bible) confirmed the scientific accuracy of the bible, you'll forgive me if I'm skeptical that all of the names and all of the journals listed actually support anything you've said. You suggested that if people want more information they can find it on the internet, which is not particularly helpful.
The problem isn't that the information on that site is wrong, the problem is that the information on that site debunks your arguments rather than supporting the claims you that make.
That's not from one of the journals in your list and it doesn't disprove evolution.Pahu wrote:Sagan's name was found in the article "The Origin of Comets" where there is this statement: Early scientists discovered other types of organic matter in comets “similar to organic matter of unquestioned biological origin on Earth,” and concluded that they came from “decomposed organic bodies.”2 Endnote 2 has this quote from Sagan:If I see you cite an article that disagrees with you, it makes me wonder about your other citations and whether they actually support your claims. That's why I'd like to see them for myself. That's why I asked you to provide me with the Sagan paper that disproves evolution - "Instead of listing names and journals, please provide a proper reference to the material that you claim backs up your views. You can start with the paper Sagan published in whichever one of those journals it was of those you listed."
“We know that it is hard to find a comet without the spectral features of C2, C3, and CN in their comas. Huggins was struck by the fact that the material in the comets was similar to organic matter of unquestioned biological origin on Earth. Many scientists cautiously concluded that the carbon compounds found by Huggins [in 1868] in the comas of comets were, as one of his contemporaries wrote, ‘the result of the decomposition of organic bodies.’ ” [emphasis in original] Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan, Comet (New York: Ballantine Books, 1997), p. 148.
Because that is logical based on observation and experience.Alan H wrote:I'm asking you why you are sure of that. Can you answer without any using any logical fallacies?Pahu wrote:Think!Alan H wrote:Why?
That is quite simply not true. Kelvin's 1862 calculations clearly demonstrate that, without radiative heating, the minimum time for Earth to cool from molten to its present-day temperature is 20 million years.Pahu wrote:Rapid CoolingIf the Earth began in a molten state, it would have cooled to its present condition in much less than 4.5 billion years.
This conclusion holds even if one makes liberal assumptions for the amount of heat generated by radioactive decay within Earth.
Again, this is simply not true. YECs also, in this context, have the problem of how plate tectonics started and has been maintained, as well as the resulting fossil distribution in the modern world.The known temperature pattern inside Earth is consistent only with a young Earth.
Yes, it is receding at that rate now, but it has not always done so. This was demonstrated by Kirk Hansen over 30 years ago!Pahu wrote:It is moving away from us at a rate of 3.78 centimeters (1.5 inches) per year.Alan H wrote:How fast is the moon receding?Pahu wrote:As tidal friction gradually slows Earth’s spin, the laws of physics require the Moon to recede from Earth. (Edmond Halley first detected this recession in 1695.) Even if the Moon began orbiting near Earth’s surface, the Moon should have moved to its present distance from Earth in billions of years less time than the 4.5-billion-year age evolutionists assume for the Earth and Moon. So, the Earth-Moon system must be much younger than evolutionists assume.
I have, on my desk in front of me, a fragment of the Sikhote-Alin meteorite. This is typical of the iron meteorites in that it contains about 6% Nickel. However, iron meteorites comprise less than 6% of meteorite falls, so we would expect approximately 0.36% of meteoric fall to consist of nickel. Meteoric dust would not accumulate to 16', or anything like it, in 4.5 billion years - in case you hadn't noticed, transport, erosion and weathering occurs on Earth's surface.Pahu wrote:Meteoritic DustMeteoritic dust is accumulating on Earth so fast that, after 4 billion years (at today’s low and diminishing rate), the equivalent of more than 16 feet of this dust should have accumulated. Because this dust is high in nickel, Earth’s crust should have abundant nickel. No such concentration has been found on land or in the oceans. Therefore, Earth appears to be young.
I see what you are referring to. Those 12 numbered "refutations" are simply showing how the ungodly can twist Bible facts to suit their erroneous conclusions. For more information, go here: http://www.berenddeboer.net/sab/index.htmljdc wrote:The entire page debunks your arguments. It is the purpose of the page. The site lists 12 arguments that science confirms the bible and then, in 12 numbered sections, debunks those arguments one by one. I can't believe that you still haven't read the page that you mistakenly cited in support of your arguments. Why not try it now?Pahu wrote:Please show me where the information on that site debunks my arguments rather than supporting the claims that I make.jdc wrote:
Show me where the information on that site is wrong.
The problem isn't that the information on that site is wrong, the problem is that the information on that site debunks your arguments rather than supporting the claims you that make.
Sagan's name was found in the article "The Origin of Comets" where there is this statement: Early scientists discovered other types of organic matter in comets “similar to organic matter of unquestioned biological origin on Earth,” and concluded that they came from “decomposed organic bodies.”2 Endnote 2 has this quote from Sagan:If I see you cite an article that disagrees with you, it makes me wonder about your other citations and whether they actually support your claims. That's why I'd like to see them for myself. That's why I asked you to provide me with the Sagan paper that disproves evolution - "Instead of listing names and journals, please provide a proper reference to the material that you claim backs up your views. You can start with the paper Sagan published in whichever one of those journals it was of those you listed."
True. Sagan is included because in an earlier edition a quote was in the journal Science. It has been removed from the current edition. It proves comets came from earth, disproving the evolution idea of the origin of comets.That's not from one of the journals in your list and it doesn't disprove evolution.
Now, Pahu, apply that thinking to the theory of God.Because that is logical based on observation and experience.
Tsk, tsk.Pahu wrote:Because that is logical based on observation and experience.Alan H wrote:I'm asking you why you are sure of that. Can you answer without any using any logical fallacies?Pahu wrote:
Think!
Pahu wrote:Those 12 numbered "refutations" are simply showing how the ungodly can twist Bible facts to suit their erroneous conclusions.
Ah, now we come to my favourite tale of one John Baumgardner. John was interviewed by New Scientust about his beliefs and his science, particularly radio-isotope dating of rocks and the Young Earth therory. It is a great pity that I cannot access his actual words in answer to this but, basically, his answer was that God fiddled around with time for his own purposes that we cannot fathom.Pahu wrote:
Those 12 numbered "refutations" are simply showing how the ungodly can twist Bible facts to suit their erroneous conclusions.
Dave B wrote:Ah, now we come to my favourite tale of one John Baumgardner. John was interviewed by New Scientust about his beliefs and his science, particularly radio-isotope dating of rocks and the Young Earth therory. It is a great pity that I cannot access his actual words in answer to this but, basically, his answer was that God fiddled around with time for his own purposes that we cannot fathom.Pahu wrote:
Those 12 numbered "refutations" are simply showing how the ungodly can twist Bible facts to suit their erroneous conclusions.
So, score one for a once good scientist trying to change reality to accord with his beliefs. I very, very much doubt he is the only one!
Now, the Wiki entry is so bland he probably wrote it himself. This however is a little more illustrative of this fine creationalist scientist. But, Pahu, I cannot see you accepting evidence from Christians with enough brains to accept the theory of evolution.
Before the universe existed there was nothing from which it appeared, which is impossible by any natural cause. Therefor the cause of the universe was supernatural, proving the existence of God.Dave B wrote:Now, Pahu, apply that thinking to the theory of God.Because that is logical based on observation and experience.
Please list the observations and the experiences that do not apply to individuals, prone as we humans are to delusion, halucination, hysteria etc. Concentrate on those, in the real world, that any person can point to and find absolute proof that it has no possible earthly cause, from science through natural phenomena to pure coincidence. Something that only the supernatural could be the cause of.
No one with the ability to think accepts the scientifically disproved hypothesis of evolution.Dave B wrote:Ah, now we come to my favourite tale of one John Baumgardner. John was interviewed by New Scientust about his beliefs and his science, particularly radio-isotope dating of rocks and the Young Earth therory. It is a great pity that I cannot access his actual words in answer to this but, basically, his answer was that God fiddled around with time for his own purposes that we cannot fathom.Pahu wrote:
Those 12 numbered "refutations" are simply showing how the ungodly can twist Bible facts to suit their erroneous conclusions.
So, score one for a once good scientist trying to change reality to accord with his beliefs. I very, very much doubt he is the only one!
Now, the Wiki entry is so bland he probably wrote it himself. This however is a little more illustrative of this fine creationalist scientist. But, Pahu, I cannot see you accepting evidence from Christians with enough brains to accept the theory of evolution.
[my bold] Oh! When was it demoted from a theory then, Pahu? Does your belief in your supernatural entity qualify you to decide such?No one with the ability to think accepts the scientifically disproved hypothesis of evolution.