Speed of Light and the Age of the Universe

[ecco]

I accept all evidence, all that I dismiss is beliefs that have no basis. You cannot get away with calling baseless beliefs evidence. Get over it.

If you were being honest you would have written:

All that I dismiss is beliefs that have no basis. Any beliefs that counter my religious beliefs based on a literal interpretation of Genesis, have no basis.​

 

[gnostic]

We know that at one point there was no life on Earth and later there was. The question is was it natural or was it magic? I tend to go with natural.

Me too.

The real world is very fascinating, with still many natural wonders, mysteries and unexplained phenomena and events, that you don’t need to rely on age-old superstitions and religious beliefs.

Don’t get me wrong, I loved good stories, especially of ancient myths, folklores and legends. I even like creation myths, but only as stories, not reality.

And you know me better than anyone else in this forum, I also like sci-fi and fantasy fictions, whether they be books, movies or tv shows. But you also know that I don’t confuse fiction or myths with science or the real world.

And there is nothing natural about creator deity/deities creating world or universe with wills, or with magic powers or words.

 

[dad]

Duck and dodge and evade.

As far as evidence for no flood, I could post every article that has been written about geology in the past 50 years. All either ignore The Flood as too silly to even mention or firmly dispute it.

Your religion ignores the flood and interprets evidence in a belief based way. It would not know the truth if it bumped into them.

Here is just one which you won't bother to read because you don't believe in science anyway. Yes, Noah's Flood May Have Happened, But Not Over the Whole Earth

From your article
"
However, interlayered with these fossil-bearing sedimentary rocks on all continents are layers of evaporite rock salt (sodium chloride), gypsum (hydrated calcium sulfate), anhydrite (calcium sulfate), and various potash and magnesium salts, which are associated with red beds (shales) containing fossilized mud cracks (Schreiber and others 2007).

Many of these mineral compounds and red beds have combined thicknesses on different continents of more than one kilometer (~3,281 feet) (Collins 2006). The red beds are red because they contain red hematite (iron oxide) which formed from magnetite grains that were oxidized while the muds were exposed to oxygen in open air. .."


The article is blissfully unaware (due to preconceptions and misconceptions based on their religion) that after the flood and before the flood a lot happened also. For example, mountain building and uplift after the flood. They look for some sort of bizarre uniformity that is expected in their religion, and accuse God of being a liar when we don't see any such silly thing. To call this science is delusional.

Actually, your call to me to post evidence is hypocritical because we all know you will ignore it like you have ignored all scientific evidence that anyone has ever posted.

You just tried, and what a joke.

But, you know how this works, you make a ridiculous claim that the entire earth was covered in water sometime in the past 6000 years. It is your responsibility to provide evidence.

Don't conflate your imaginary religious time with real time. In so called science time I suspect the flood was some 70 millions years ago, and more like about 4500 in actual time. No one cares what happened 6000 years ago in imaginary time.

 

[dad]

If you were being honest you would have written:

All that I dismiss is beliefs that have no basis. Any beliefs that counter my religious beliefs based on a literal interpretation of Genesis, have no basis.​

Correct I dismiss beliefs with no basis. Mine have basis.

 

[shmogie]

I have seen such chart and similar ones before. And there are numbers of them.

The Tree of Life have more to do with Evolution’s common ancestry and to illustrate biodiversity of life, not Abiogenesis - it is not about the origin of life.

Try again.

Look at the bottom of the chart, see the little one celled representations at the bottom of the tree, what is below that as part of the tree ?

What would you tell a kid it means if they asked ? What conclusions would they draw from the chart ?

 

[gnostic]

Look at the bottom of the chart, see the little one celled representations at the bottom of the tree, what is below that as part of the tree ?

What would you tell a kid it means if they asked ? What conclusions would they draw from the chart ?

Which chart?

As I said before, there are numbers of different versions of Tree of Life.

2nd, there are two main grouping of unicellular organism,

1. Bacteria
2. Archaea

I am not a biologist, nor a paleontologist, but my understanding is that the ancient bacteria are different from modern bacteria, so I wouldn’t have clues which of these bacteria were the earliest, since there are virtually thousands of different bacteria existing in the Precambrian aeon.

My point is that the single-felled organism could be any one of the microscopical organism, and the chart don’t necessarily show the earliest species of bacteria.

And I don’t think you have refuted my last reply about the chart. Any version of the Tree of Life actually illustrated Evolution, not that of Abiogenesis.

 

[dad]

I don't think thousands of Bible-believing clergy are wrong.

Right, you think they must be correct in not believing in creation as per Genesis. The problem is that is not so much bible believing.

If there is a case to be made for a literal interpretation of Genesis, then you are the one who should be making it.

It isn't really debatable, and is not the topic.

But you don't. Why is that? Is it because there isn't a shred of evidence to support Genesis?

I am not here defending God or His word or my belief in them. You are here to defend your fables.

Oh no! He's going to cut and paste from AIG.

They use a same state past also. Useless in the debate.

 

[gnostic]

Don't conflate your imaginary religious time with real time. In so called science time I suspect the flood was some 70 millions years ago, and more like about 4500 in actual time. No one cares what happened 6000 years ago in imaginary time.

What a load of pseudoscience craps.

This why no one is taking your posts seriously, you keep making are BS. If I was a counselor, I would recommend you seek professional help and get therapy for your compulsive lying and your delusions. The other thing I would recommend is go back to school and learn basic arithmetic.

4500 years don’t equal to 70 million years. That’s just plain irrational.

 

[dad]

What a load of pseudoscience craps.

This why no one is taking your posts seriously, you keep making are BS. If I was a counselor, I would recommend you seek professional help and get therapy for your compulsive lying and your delusions. The other thing I would recommend is go back to school and learn basic arithmetic.

4500 years don’t equal to 70 million years. That’s just plain irrational.

The pseudoscience crap is smearing your same nature in the past belief based 'dates' onto things.

In a different nature, the radioactive dating ratios simply have no old age relation or meaning. I know it is hard to imagine evidences without your beliefs splattered all over them, but such you must strive to do.

PS I recommend that the poor kids you counseled get help from some Christian councilor.

 

[shmogie]

Which chart?

As I said before, there are numbers of different versions of Tree of Life.

2nd, there are two main grouping of unicellular organism,

1. Bacteria
2. Archaea

I am not a biologist, nor a paleontologist, but my understanding is that the ancient bacteria are different from modern bacteria, so I wouldn’t have clues which of these bacteria were the earliest, since there are virtually thousands of different bacteria existing in the Precambrian aeon.

My point is that the single-felled organism could be any one of the microscopical organism, and the chart don’t necessarily show the earliest species of bacteria.

And I don’t think you have refuted my last reply about the chart. Any version of the Tree of Life actually illustrated Evolution, not that of Abiogenesis.

Bacteria are very complicated organisms. The alleged precursor organism is supposed to be much simpler.

 

[gnostic]

PS I recommend that the poor kids you counseled get help from some Christian councilor.

Councilor is someone who work in the town hall.

 

[dad]

Councilor is someone who work in the town hall.

Kids would be safer if some folks worked there.

 

[Jose Fly]

You ask for a quotation, I give it to you

I realize how at times it can be confusing when trying to carry on conversations with multiple people, so I'll just remind you that I asked for a quotation from the textbooks you cited. I didn't ask for a quote from a third party talking vaguely about the textbooks.

you ask for a link, I don´t have it but tell you exactly how to find it, and the entire article.

That makes no sense. If you know how to find the link, what's stopping you from posting it? Do you know how to copy and paste?

I make an assertion, and tell you from what books, and even give you the pages where the evidence is found, I am being deceptive.

I don't know if you're being deliberately deceptive, if you don't understand how to back up an assertion, or whether there's something else going on. But the fact remains, you've made a number of assertions in this thread that you haven't backed up.

You claimed that many people in this forum "believe and say that abiogenesis is fact". But you were only able to name one person (@Subduction Zone) and he said you were misrepresenting him.

You claimed that "millions believe it [abiogenesis] has been proven to have occurred". But beyond SZ you were only able to point to your daughter's elementary school teacher as a specific example.

You claimed it was "common" for people to believe that abiogenesis has been proven, but have been unable to support that in any way.

You claimed that high school textbooks don't describe abiogenesis as an unknown and instead describe it as being likely. But you have not quoted a single word from any textbook.

You claimed that charts used in high school to illustrate evolution depict abiogenesis. But you have not supported that in any way at all.

That speaks for itself.

If I was in fact dodging, I picked a heck of a way to go about it. I will have given anyone but one moribund by laziness every opportunity to prove it.

You haven´t. You can´t.

It fascinates me how frequently evolutionists and terminal lazy people do this. Hyper lazy evolutionists are the worst.

So perhaps the issue here is that you simply do not understand how these things are supposed to work. You see, when a person makes a positive claim (I assume you know what a "positive claim" is), the burden is on them to substantiate that claim; it is in no way anyone else's responsibility. Trying to shift that responsibility onto others is known as the fallacy of "shifting the burden of proof".

"When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim especially when it challenges a perceived status quo."​

Do you understand, or should we go through some examples?

The bogus narrative must be maintained, creationists dodge the issues, so, of course no matter what a creationist does, it has to be inadequate, to maintain the narrative.

Again, I would caution against this sort of thing in a written-word forum where who's done/said what is trivially easy to check. As noted above, you've made a series of assertions that you've not been able to substantiate. That's simply a matter of record.

 

[shmogie]

I realize how at times it can be confusing when trying to carry on conversations with multiple people, so I'll just remind you that I asked for a quotation from the textbooks you cited. I didn't ask for a quote from a third party talking vaguely about the textbooks.


That makes no sense. If you know how to find the link, what's stopping you from posting it? Do you know how to copy and paste?


I don't know if you're being deliberately deceptive, if you don't understand how to back up an assertion, or whether there's something else going on. But the fact remains, you've made a number of assertions in this thread that you haven't backed up.

You claimed that many people in this forum "believe and say that abiogenesis is fact". But you were only able to name one person (@Subduction Zone) and he said you were misrepresenting him.

You claimed that "millions believe it [abiogenesis] has been proven to have occurred". But beyond SZ you were only able to point to your daughter's elementary school teacher as a specific example.

You claimed it was "common" for people to believe that abiogenesis has been proven, but have been unable to support that in any way.

You claimed that high school textbooks don't describe abiogenesis as an unknown and instead describe it as being likely. But you have not quoted a single word from any textbook.

You claimed that charts used in high school to illustrate evolution depict abiogenesis. But you have not supported that in any way at all.

That speaks for itself.


So perhaps the issue here is that you simply do not understand how these things are supposed to work. You see, when a person makes a positive claim (I assume you know what a "positive claim" is), the burden is on them to substantiate that claim; it is in no way anyone else's responsibility. Trying to shift that responsibility onto others is known as the fallacy of "shifting the burden of proof".

"When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim especially when it challenges a perceived status quo."​

Do you understand, or should we go through some examples?


Again, I would caution against this sort of thing in a written-word forum where who's done/said what is trivially easy to check. As noted above, you've made a series of assertions that you've not been able to substantiate. That's simply a matter of record.

Wrong, If I were writing a paper, and made an assertion, a footnote of references would be adequate.

I have told you what, and where. If you disagree then you may check the references.

I gave you a quotation from a three person scientific review of American textbooks. This review wasn´t done by creationists, it was done to ensure that actual, factual, established science is being taught. I assumed you would read the paper. You apparently are too lazy to look it up, or are unable to use google, or are just being recalcitrant for itś harassment value.

The internet presentation of this report DOES NOT HAVE A LINK that I could find. So I told you exactly how to find it, just as I did.

I don´t care what you think, all of this is just knit picking, nothing more.

This conversation has ended, your game has become tiresome, finito.

I have seen many assertions made by you with no support of the kind you demand.

 

[Jose Fly]

Wrong, If I were writing a paper, and made an assertion, a footnote of references would be adequate.

But you're not writing a paper. This is a debate (note that this is a sub-forum under "Religious Debates"). And in a debate, if you say "textbooks say X", then you are expected to substantiate that claim with direct quotes from actual textbooks. Your say-so is insufficient to establish the point.

I have told you what, and where. If you disagree then you may check the references.

So it does seem that you do not understand how the burden of proof works. My apologies for assuming you did. Would you like some reading material to help you better understand?

I gave you a quotation from a three person scientific review of American textbooks. This review wasn´t done by creationists, it was done to ensure that actual, factual, established science is being taught. I assumed you would read the paper. You apparently are too lazy to look it up, or are unable to use google, or are just being recalcitrant for itś harassment value.

Two things....first, I again apologize for assuming you understood where the burden of proof lies in a debate. Second, the fact remains that you made a claim about what textbooks say, but since then you have not quoted a single word from a single textbook.

The internet presentation of this report DOES NOT HAVE A LINK that I could find. So I told you exactly how to find it, just as I did.

????? If there's no URL, how is it on the internet?

This conversation has ended

Thank you for your time.

I have seen many assertions made by you with no support of the kind you demand.

Can you provide specific examples, or is this yet another assertion that you have no intention of backing up?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Wrong, If I were writing a paper, and made an assertion, a footnote of references would be adequate.

I have told you what, and where. If you disagree then you may check the references.

I gave you a quotation from a three person scientific review of American textbooks. This review wasn´t done by creationists, it was done to ensure that actual, factual, established science is being taught. I assumed you would read the paper. You apparently are too lazy to look it up, or are unable to use google, or are just being recalcitrant for itś harassment value.

The internet presentation of this report DOES NOT HAVE A LINK that I could find. So I told you exactly how to find it, just as I did.

I don´t care what you think, all of this is just knit picking, nothing more.

This conversation has ended, your game has become tiresome, finito.

I have seen many assertions made by you with no support of the kind you demand.

Oh my, the projection is so thick.

By the way, someone should tell him that I did his homework for him. I found his paper. It was not "scientific". Of the three authors at least two were creationists, I could not find anything on the third, not even anything about his education. Of the other two one was a medical doctor, clearly not an expert in the field. The other was an engineer, even further from being an expert in the field. What little could be read showed that they were using old failed arguments even at that time.

 

[ecco]

Your religion ignores the flood and interprets evidence in a belief based way. It would not know the truth if it bumped into them.

I am an atheist. I do not have a religion. Your continued reference to the "religion of atheism" is nonsensical. Is your only way to have a discussion based on altering the English language to suit your own needs?

Furthermore, science did not ignore the Flood. It investigated it. It found there never was a Flood. I do realize that you must continue to defend your fairy tale. It is so ingrained in your psyche that to begin to become rational, would probably destroy you.

But, since you are such a believer, it should be easy to provide evidence for the flood. But you don't. Why is that?

 

[ecco]

The article is blissfully unaware (due to preconceptions and misconceptions based on their religion) that after the flood and before the flood a lot happened also. For example, mountain building and uplift after the flood.

One of the problems with lying is that one must make up more lies to support the original lies.

The same is true of myths.

You believe the Genesis Flood actually occurred. To support that belief you have to make up stories about mountain lifts and rapid continental drifts. Can you supply any evidence to support these nonsensical assertions? Does even AIG support rapid continental drifts? To my knowledge, you are the only person who has ever proposed rapid continental drifts and "rapid mountain building and uplift".

Maybe you can make up some more stories to support those silly beliefs.

Stories supporting stories supporting stories just like lies supporting lies supporting lies.

They look for some sort of bizarre uniformity that is expected in their religion, and accuse God of being a liar when we don't see any such silly thing. To call this science is delusional.

What "uniformity" are you talking about? Science (rational people) know that 6000 years ago Mt. Everest looked pretty much like it does today - 29,000 ft. Science (rational people) know that 6000 years ago Mt. Ararat looked pretty much like it does today - 16,000 feet. You are the one calling for nonsensical uniformity before the flood and ridiculous rapid rise after the flood.

The Bible doesn't say there was rapid mountain rise after the flood. The Bible isn't lying about rapid mountain rise after the Flood. You are the one claiming rapid mountain rise after the Flood.

The Bible doesn't say there was rapid continental drift after the flood. The Bible isn't lying about rapid continental drift after the Flood. You are the one claiming rapid continental drift after the Flood.

 

[dad]

I am an atheist. I do not have a religion.

If you believe in origins science claims such as the TOE you sure do. Relax, I don't need or expect you to admit or even realize it.

Your continued reference to the "religion of atheism" is nonsensical. Is your only way to have a discussion based on altering the English language to suit your own needs?

Try to focus. The belief system being discussed here is so called science, I never even mentioned silly little atheism.

Furthermore, science did not ignore the Flood. It investigated it. It found there never was a Flood.

It looked in the wrong places and in a clueless manner.

I do realize that you must continue to defend your fairy tale. It is so ingrained in your psyche that to begin to become rational, would probably destroy you.

My house is built on the Rock, I have no chance of being blown down. You are the one who needs to give the head a shake.

But, since you are such a believer, it should be easy to provide evidence for the flood. But you don't. Why is that?

I consider many things evidence, but science does not due to it's religious bias. It is blind and deaf to truth and religiously determined to impose it's faith based methodology on everything. Fanatics.

 

[Subduction Zone]

One of the problems with lying is that one must make up more lies to support the original lies.

The same is true of myths.

You believe the Genesis Flood actually occurred. To support that belief you have to make up stories about mountain lifts and rapid continental drifts. Can you supply any evidence to support these nonsensical assertions? Does even AIG support rapid continental drifts? To my knowledge, you are the only person who has ever proposed rapid continental drifts and "rapid mountain building and uplift".

Maybe you can make up some more stories to support those silly beliefs.

Stories supporting stories supporting stories just like lies supporting lies supporting lies.




What "uniformity" are you talking about? Science (rational people) know that 6000 years ago Mt. Everest looked pretty much like it does today - 29,000 ft. Science (rational people) know that 6000 years ago Mt. Ararat looked pretty much like it does today - 16,000 feet. You are the one calling for nonsensical uniformity before the flood and ridiculous rapid rise after the flood.

The Bible doesn't say there was rapid mountain rise after the flood. The Bible isn't lying about rapid mountain rise after the Flood. You are the one claiming rapid mountain rise after the Flood.

The Bible doesn't say there was rapid continental drift after the flood. The Bible isn't lying about rapid continental drift after the Flood. You are the one claiming rapid continental drift after the Flood.

AiG is still considering runaway subduction. They are considering several models but not endorsing them (I guess they may have just a smidgen of wisdom, since these ideas are clearly wrong. They finally dropped the "Vapour canopy theory <cough, cough, when are they going to learn what a theory is?>. It finally sunk in that such a canopy would raise the surface temperature above the boiling point. They are not quite so quick (only fifty years!) with these other "theories":
Flood Models: The Need for an Integrated Approach