Creation Science House Bill 3826

[Polymath257]

I get that, the memories planted and all, i just dont take it serious.
.

Most people don't. But what is important here is *why* they don't take it seriously. What *fundamental* difference is there between Last Thursdayism and thinking that God made the universe to *look* old even if it isn't?

 

[Polymath257]

Secondly, how do scientists know we would fly off the planet if it stopped spinning? Its not like its happened before while there abserving it.

It's a fairly basic principle called inertia. There are two things that would happen if the Earth immediately stopped spinning (or, even stopped over the course of a few days).

The first is that the inertia of the water would keep it moving, which would flood everything.

The second is that the energy of the spinning motion has to go somewhere. This energy would heat up the Earth to the tune of about 50,000 degrees Kelvin, so it would end up being much hotter than the sun.

 

[Astrophile]

Secondly, how do scientists know we would fly off the planet if it stopped spinning? Its not like its happened before while there observing it.

Nonsense. Around Israel, the earth is rotating at about 600 miles per hour. If you are riding in a car at just 50 mph, what happens if the car suddenly stops (as in it hits a brick wall).

In fact, we should not fly off the Earth if it stopped spinning. At the equator, the Earth's rotation speed is 0.465 km/s; this is less than a twentieth of the Earth's escape velocity, which is 11.1 km/s, so we should not be ejected into interplanetary space. However, that does not mean that we could survive the experience of being suddenly projected eastwards at hundreds of metres per second.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I do have ways to figure whatt the intended meaning was of the biblical text.

1, use a lexicon to check hebrew/greek words and there definitions and ways to translate to english.

2, context

3, syntax

4, look at additional documents from the time period.

5, archaeology

6, peer deeper then meets the eye on so called contradictions within each document.

7, Use your own human experience and logic and bring it into the text.

Except most of that still relies on individual interpretation, not objective determination of authorial intent, and they certainly don't prevent people from re-interpreting the text with they either disagree with it or find its assertions to be factually inaccurate.

These 7 tools come to mind and using all of them are very helpful.

Also it cannot be wrong because spiritual experiences has been around with the human race since the dawn of time. These things aren't made up, there EXPERIENCES.

So how can you use a holy text as an objective book of truth?

Oh well i never was debating that it was a science text book. Its a historical record. Its spiritual and political.

The point is that you compared religious belief in a holy text to the naturalist position of investigation and re-examination - I pointed out that, by their nature, holy texts are unreliable because people can just re-interpret them when they are proven false, and when the "historical" elements are found to be false or inaccurate they can merely be re-interpreted as allegorical. I'm not saying one or the other is necessarily the correct reading, but the fact that there is no agreed upon interpretation or authorial intent means that you can't meaningfully compare or contrast it with a naturalistic methods of investigation.

More reliable? I dont see how one is more reliable then the other. I see them both as reliable, just different in there approach.

Science is demonstrably more reliable.

Yea, its either intelligent design or unguided natural forces. One or the other. ID makes more sense to me.

This is ignoring my argument and setting up a false dichotomy. The point is that your reasoning for determining ID as a cause is fallacious - I can see that ID makes more sense to you, but the reasons you give for ID making more sense are based on fundamentally flawed logic.

Well, mayby you dont make a claim either way, but some atheists make the claim that unguided natural forces did it.

I make no claim to speak for other atheists.

And logically its either one of the two, God did it or unguided forces did it.

This is a false dichotomy. Natural laws are not "unguided", they ARE guides.

Ok, well, good, but other atheists have made the assumption that DNA is not a code and did not come from intelligence.

All I've seen is people explaining that DNA is not a literal code. I've seen nobody argue that it didn't necessarily come from intelligence, just that there is no reason to assume it did.

Are you saying your undecided in your view?

It's decided that DNA is not a code, and we currently have no reason to assume intelligence is behind it.

Does it look like a code? Does it look like information? Thats the test.

That's not a test since "code" and "information" are vague, undefined terms. I could say that a pile of rocks "looks like" code, but that doesn't mean that the pile of rocks contain innate information place there by design - it's merely an indication that I have a mind that works to put things in order. It's like seeing specific shapes in the clouds or a face on the moon - the "information" is put there by our brains interpreting the input in ways that PLACE intent or meaning upon nature. That doesn't mean that intent or meaning is inherent in nature itself.

Oh so you do have a claim now?

It's more a reaction to your claim that complexity indicates design. Please demonstrate that complexity can ONLY come from design and never from observable processes that lack inherent intent or intelligence.

Either God did it or nothing did it. Take your pick.

False dichotomy again. Natural consequences of physical laws are not "nothing", and you've again not addressed the flaws I pointed out in your reasoning.

 

[ecco]

The first is that the inertia of the water would keep it moving, which would flood everything.

AH HAA!

You just showed how God flooded the entire earth. Just a light sprinkle for forty days and nights. Just a few wells upflowing. And then God stopped the rotation "which would flood everything".

The forty days and nights rain was just so Noah could yell from the prow: "I TOLD YA SO, I TOLD YA SO!

Now, no more silly anti-bible questions like where did all the water come from - and - where did all the water go.

Thanks Polymath257!

 

[ecco]

In fact, we should not fly off the Earth if it stopped spinning. At the equator, the Earth's rotation speed is 0.465 km/s; this is less than a twentieth of the Earth's escape velocity, which is 11.1 km/s, so we should not be ejected into interplanetary space. However, that does not mean that we could survive the experience of being suddenly projected eastwards at hundreds of metres per second.

Thanks for the info. If it did happen, I hope I'd be on the very top of a tall mountain. It would be a great, albeit short, ride.