A Civil Religious Discussion


Off-Topic Discussions

12,201 to 12,250 of 13,109 << first < prev | 240 | 241 | 242 | 243 | 244 | 245 | 246 | 247 | 248 | 249 | 250 | next > last >>
Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Doodlebug Anklebiter wrote:
The Jewish version of it runs Don't do to others what you wouldn't want done to you IIRC, which I find a little bit better, but it wouldn't avoid Kirth's masochist example.

From a Biblical stand point, there are two related verses. One in Matthew 7:12 "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." And the other in Matthew 22:39,40 (and again in Mark) "And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

The first instance is smack in the middle of the Sermon on the Mount. Like much of that sermon, it in many ways simply says "Use you heads people!". The second instance, one of the pharisees tries to "trap" Jesus and he responds with this.

The thing that I find most interesting in both cases is that they are not meant to stand on their own. "...for this sums up the Law and the Prophets" and "...all the Law and the Prophets hang on these two..."

I see it in many ways as a "filter" of sorts. Sort of a way to help guide and/or interpret the Law. This really wasn't meant to stand alone.


bugleyman wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
I think ethics are important enough that they shouldn't be trusted to an 11-word homily. That maybe it's useful to really think things through sometimes, and see how things end up in real life when you do different things, instead of blindly trusting too-easily-misleading folk sayings.
Forgive me, that seems so obvious as to go without saying (really; not trying to be a smart-ass). Was someone arguing to the contrary?
Kryzbyn wrote:

Treat others like you yourself would like to be treated.

That's it.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
I think ethics are important enough that they shouldn't be trusted to an 11-word homily. That maybe it's useful to really think things through sometimes, and see how things end up in real life when you do different things, instead of blindly trusting too-easily-misleading folk sayings.
Forgive me, that seems so obvious as to go without saying (really; not trying to be a smart-ass). Was someone arguing to the contrary?
Kryzbyn wrote:

Treat others like you yourself would like to be treated.

That's it.

In that case I agree with you. The Golden Rule is a good starting point, but is by no means "it."


Kirth Gersen wrote:
More importantly, you're now imparting to yourself oracular powers: somehow in the past, you looked into the future and saw the pregnancy would definitely occur,

No, I'm not. I'm looking at the present and evaluating the odds. You, however, -are- imparting oracular powers to yourself by assuming that everyone but you would be upset if they heard the truth.

Kirth Gersen wrote:


OK, here's an easier one: Bob is a masochist who feels that he's worthless and wants it proven all the time, so he gets himself into situations where he's hurt and/or degraded. Obviously, he should hurt and/or degrade everyone around him, too, right? And before you turn around and say "he doesn't know what he really wants," consider this -- what empowers you to be the judge of what everyone "really" wants? That way lies a True Scotsman argument just waiting to happen.

I can't figure out what you're trying to say here. You seem to be saying that Bob's a masochist so he should be a sadist and .. <<some sort of rhetorical magic happens here>> .. <<true scotsman>> .. ?


Doodlebug Anklebiter wrote:
The Jewish version of it runs Don't do to others what you wouldn't want done to you IIRC, which I find a little bit better, but it wouldn't avoid Kirth's masochist example.

There's a Confucian version which runs like that, but I didn't know there was a Jewish version that did as well.

Scarab Sages RPG Superstar 2013

Kirth Gersen wrote:
Moff Rimmer wrote:
  • I'll try not to lie to you and will tell you when you're being an ass. (Nicely, of course.)
  • I think I'm done being hurt and angry. I might defend my position, but I don't think that's what you are talking about. But I'll always listen to what you have to say -- but I'm not necessarily going to agree.

    Still looking forward to that beer.

  • Me, too, Moff. One of the reasons I consider you a friend is precisely because you're not afraid to tell me when I'm being an ass. I appreciate that more than I can tell you.

    I don't wanna beer. But I think I'd still like to play Pathfinder with both of you.


    I want to interject that the 'Golden Rule' is actually the second priority listed by Christ. He actually says the most important commandment is to love God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength. And the second commandment is a lot like it, love your neighbor as yourself.

    He didn't even say to treat other people like you want to be treated. He said love your neighbor as yourself. Give them the same consideration. Don't automatically give yourself first priority. He didn't say always make yourself last place, either.

    If our focus is on love, be it altruism, affection, servant-leadership, or however else we manifest it, then we are fine. Love shouldn't be mistaken for weakness or passivity, but if our eyes are on God, and if we see the world as God sees it, we can't go wrong.


    LilithsThrall wrote:
    Doodlebug Anklebiter wrote:
    The Jewish version of it runs Don't do to others what you wouldn't want done to you IIRC, which I find a little bit better, but it wouldn't avoid Kirth's masochist example.
    There's a Confucian version which runs like that, but I didn't know there was a Jewish version that did as well.

    Confucian, Jewish, what's the diff?


    Doodlebug Anklebiter wrote:
    LilithsThrall wrote:
    Doodlebug Anklebiter wrote:
    The Jewish version of it runs Don't do to others what you wouldn't want done to you IIRC, which I find a little bit better, but it wouldn't avoid Kirth's masochist example.
    There's a Confucian version which runs like that, but I didn't know there was a Jewish version that did as well.
    Confucian, Jewish, what's the diff?

    My inner anthropologist just cried.


    Ancient Sensei wrote:
    I want to interject that the 'Golden Rule' is actually the second priority listed by Christ.

    Although I am keenly aware of what you're saying, I suppose a reminder to others never hurts. We were discussing the Golden Rule as interpreted by another poster as the ultimate rule, though -- and not the rule as it actually appears in Scripture.


    LilithsThrall wrote:
    Doodlebug Anklebiter wrote:
    LilithsThrall wrote:
    Doodlebug Anklebiter wrote:
    The Jewish version of it runs Don't do to others what you wouldn't want done to you IIRC, which I find a little bit better, but it wouldn't avoid Kirth's masochist example.
    There's a Confucian version which runs like that, but I didn't know there was a Jewish version that did as well.
    Confucian, Jewish, what's the diff?
    My inner anthropologist just cried.

    No, you're supposed to say: "Three thousand years of beautiful tradition from Moses to Sandy Koufax..."


    Doodlebug Anklebiter wrote:
    No, you're supposed to say: "Three thousand years of beautiful tradition from Moses to Sandy Koufax..."

    You're out of your element, Doodle.


    You're g$%!#&n right I'm living in the f~@!ing past!


    Doodlebug Anklebiter wrote:
    You're g+~~$@n right I'm living in the f$&*ing past!

    Say what you will about Trotskyist Socialism, at least it's an ETHOS...

    but nevertheless, everything's a f---ing travesty with you, Doodlebug.
    Spoiler:
    Says the guy who was planning to attend Lebowski-fest dressed as a park ranger.


    Kirth Gersen wrote:
    Doodlebug Anklebiter wrote:
    You're g+~~$@n right I'm living in the f$&*ing past!

    Say what you will about Trotskyist Socialism, at least it's an ETHOS...

    but nevertheless, everything's a f---ing travesty with you, Doodlebug.
    ** spoiler omitted **

    I thought you were going as an Irish monk.

    Anyway, Lillithsthrall is probably right: I think I am getting the Confucian "version" of the Golden Rule confused with something one of my ex-roommates of Jewish descent explained to me about slight translation differences between the Christian and Jewish Ten Commandments.


    Doodlebug Anklebiter wrote:
    I thought you were going as an Irish monk.

    That was the original plan, but someone beat me to it.

    I told my wife to dress up as a lingonberry pancake, but she patiently explained that would only work if I were a pig-in-a-blanket.


    Doodlebug Anklebiter wrote:
    Confucian, Jewish, what's the diff?

    Not a lot. We both eat Chinese food on Christmas.


    Hee hee!

    I knew I was on to something!


    I'm just bumping this thread so I can hide it.


    Adding a post to get the dot back/experiment with the new board settings. *Bows*

    Paizo Employee Senior Software Developer

    That's mean. You can hide threads as they show up, you don't have to bump them.


    John Milton, Internet Troll:

    On the New Forcers of Conscience under the Long Parliament

    Spoiler:
    Because you have thrown off your Prelate Lord,
    And with stiff vows renounced his Liturgy,
    To seize the widowed whore Plurality,
    From them whose sin ye envied, not abhorred,
    Dare ye for this adjure the civil sword
    To force our consciences that Christ set free,
    And ride us with a Classic Hierarchy,
    Taught ye by mere A.S. and Rutherford?
    Men whose life, learning, faith, and pure intent,
    Would have been held in high esteem with Paul
    Must now be named and printed heretics
    By shallow Edwards and Scotch What-d'ye-call!
    But we do hope to find out all your tricks,
    Your plots and packing, worse than those of Trent,
    That so the Parliament
    May with their wholesome and preventive shears
    Clip your phylacteries, though baulk your ears,
    And succour our just fears,
    When they shall read this clearly in your charge:
    New Presbyter is but old Priest writ large.

    Hmm. I can't figure out how to indent lines--oh well.


    I don't have the time to read this thread that I just found, but here's an interesting website that I found.

    Thoughts?


    nategar05 wrote:
    Thoughts?

    Is that serious, or a parody (Poe's Law, I guess)? If the latter, it's really beautifully done.


    Kirth Gersen wrote:
    nategar05 wrote:
    Thoughts?
    Is that serious, or a parody (Poe's Law, I guess)? If the latter, it's really beautifully done.

    As tempted as I am to say that it was a parody, it wasn't. Part II looks especially interesting.


    Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
    nategar05 wrote:

    I don't have the time to read this thread that I just found, but here's an interesting website that I found.

    Thoughts?

    Psuedo science, just like the theory of intelligent design. Try as one might to wrap creationism in science, it is not.

    Just because we can't explain or understand something right now doesn't mean it is the work of God. It just means we can't explain or understand some right now.


    Black Moria wrote:
    nategar05 wrote:

    I don't have the time to read this thread that I just found, but here's an interesting website that I found.

    Thoughts?

    Psuedo science, just like the theory of intelligent design. Try as one might to wrap creationism in science, it is not.

    Just because we can't explain or understand something right now doesn't mean it is the work of God. It just means we can't explain or understand some right now.

    The entirety of Part II doesn't even bring up religion or creationism at all. It is strictly observational science.

    Yes it's true that we may someday discover explanations for things that we don't understand right now. However, shouldn't we explore all possibilities if we can't explain something?

    Liberty's Edge

    Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
    nategar05 wrote:
    Black Moria wrote:
    nategar05 wrote:

    I don't have the time to read this thread that I just found, but here's an interesting website that I found.

    Thoughts?

    Psuedo science, just like the theory of intelligent design. Try as one might to wrap creationism in science, it is not.

    Just because we can't explain or understand something right now doesn't mean it is the work of God. It just means we can't explain or understand some right now.

    The entirety of Part II doesn't even bring up religion or creationism at all. It is strictly observational science.

    Yes it's true that we may someday discover explanations for things that we don't understand right now. However, shouldn't we explore all possibilities if we can't explain something?

    Sure. If they have edivence for it. Show me scientific evidence for God and we can include Him in science. Otherwise, just like Thor or Zeus or Ra, He has no place in science. So far the Abrahamic idea of God is inherently unscientific. It literally cannot be falsified by any means. So it cannot be part of science.

    Would you take someone who said derro were responsible for earthquakes seriously? Of course not because they have no evidence and are just invoking something to answer a question they don't know the answer to. YTou can't credibly use God in the same way in science.


    Paul Watson wrote:
    nategar05 wrote:
    Black Moria wrote:
    nategar05 wrote:

    I don't have the time to read this thread that I just found, but here's an interesting website that I found.

    Thoughts?

    Psuedo science, just like the theory of intelligent design. Try as one might to wrap creationism in science, it is not.

    Just because we can't explain or understand something right now doesn't mean it is the work of God. It just means we can't explain or understand some right now.

    The entirety of Part II doesn't even bring up religion or creationism at all. It is strictly observational science.

    Yes it's true that we may someday discover explanations for things that we don't understand right now. However, shouldn't we explore all possibilities if we can't explain something?

    Sure. If they have edivence for it. Show me scientific evidence for God and we can include Him in science. Otherwise, just like Thor or Zeus or Ra, He has no place in science. So far the Abrahamic idea of God is inherently unscientific. It literally cannot be falsified by any means. So it cannot be part of science.

    Would you take someone who said derro were responsible for earthquakes seriously? Of course not because they have no evidence and are just invoking something to answer a question they don't know the answer to. YTou can't credibly use God in the same way in science.

    Is evolution or naturalism falsifiable? They're all worldviews and (usually) non-negotiable starting points for you how interpret evidence. It's certainly not easy to see the world through the other way of thinking, because people often assume naturalism in the first place.

    He also has a standing offer to debate whoever feels qualified. As you can see in the link, he insists on keeping religion out of it entirely.

    Shadow Lodge

    I find it very ironic that people can say the search for possibilities to explain the universe are psuedo-science, and the idea the "true" science doesn't try to wrap concepts and ideas as we understand them right now it fact.

    :)

    Liberty's Edge

    Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
    nategar05 wrote:
    Paul Watson wrote:
    nategar05 wrote:
    Black Moria wrote:
    nategar05 wrote:

    I don't have the time to read this thread that I just found, but here's an interesting website that I found.

    Thoughts?

    Psuedo science, just like the theory of intelligent design. Try as one might to wrap creationism in science, it is not.

    Just because we can't explain or understand something right now doesn't mean it is the work of God. It just means we can't explain or understand some right now.

    The entirety of Part II doesn't even bring up religion or creationism at all. It is strictly observational science.

    Yes it's true that we may someday discover explanations for things that we don't understand right now. However, shouldn't we explore all possibilities if we can't explain something?

    Sure. If they have edivence for it. Show me scientific evidence for God and we can include Him in science. Otherwise, just like Thor or Zeus or Ra, He has no place in science. So far the Abrahamic idea of God is inherently unscientific. It literally cannot be falsified by any means. So it cannot be part of science.

    Would you take someone who said derro were responsible for earthquakes seriously? Of course not because they have no evidence and are just invoking something to answer a question they don't know the answer to. YTou can't credibly use God in the same way in science.

    Is evolution or naturalism falsifiable? They're all worldviews and (usually) non-negotiable starting points for you how interpret evidence. It's certainly not easy to see the world through the other way of thinking, because people often assume naturalism in the first place.

    He also has a standing offer to debate whoever feels qualified. As you can see in the link, he insists on keeping religion out of it entirely.

    So you agree we should consider astrology, tarot reading, crystal healing, telepathy, psychic residue to say nothing of Thor causing lightning or Ra causing the Sun to rise as valid science. Could you explain your reasons for why we should deny any of those things if we are including your perferred supernatural explanation?


    nategar05 wrote:
    Is evolution or naturalism falsifiable?

    Yes! Easily!

    J.B.S. Haldane wrote:
    Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian!


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    nategar05 wrote:
    He also has a standing offer to debate whoever feels qualified.
    Scott D. Weitzenhoffer wrote:
    Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory.

    See also why Dawkins won't debate creationists.


    Paul Watson wrote:
    nategar05 wrote:
    Paul Watson wrote:
    nategar05 wrote:
    Black Moria wrote:
    nategar05 wrote:

    I don't have the time to read this thread that I just found, but here's an interesting website that I found.

    Thoughts?

    Psuedo science, just like the theory of intelligent design. Try as one might to wrap creationism in science, it is not.

    Just because we can't explain or understand something right now doesn't mean it is the work of God. It just means we can't explain or understand some right now.

    The entirety of Part II doesn't even bring up religion or creationism at all. It is strictly observational science.

    Yes it's true that we may someday discover explanations for things that we don't understand right now. However, shouldn't we explore all possibilities if we can't explain something?

    Sure. If they have edivence for it. Show me scientific evidence for God and we can include Him in science. Otherwise, just like Thor or Zeus or Ra, He has no place in science. So far the Abrahamic idea of God is inherently unscientific. It literally cannot be falsified by any means. So it cannot be part of science.

    Would you take someone who said derro were responsible for earthquakes seriously? Of course not because they have no evidence and are just invoking something to answer a question they don't know the answer to. YTou can't credibly use God in the same way in science.

    Is evolution or naturalism falsifiable? They're all worldviews and (usually) non-negotiable starting points for you how interpret evidence. It's certainly not easy to see the world through the other way of thinking, because people often assume naturalism in the first place.

    He also has a standing offer to debate whoever feels qualified. As you can see in the link, he insists on keeping religion out of it entirely.

    So you agree we should consider astrology, tarot reading, crystal healing, telepathy, psychic residue to say nothing of Thor causing lightning or Ra causing the Sun to rise as valid science. Could you explain your reasons for why we should deny any of those things if we are including your perferred supernatural explanation?

    If there's legitimate observational scientific evidence for it, sure. That's a big if though.

    Kirth, I saw that you're a geologist. I'm curious as to what you think of the overview and the section on Plate Tectonics.


    nategar05 wrote:
    It's certainly not easy to see the world through the other way of thinking, because people often assume naturalism in the first place.

    Some people do that (which is "philosophical naturalism"), but most working scientists like myself instead follow a system of methodological naturalism, in which we first look for natural explanations because of their past predictive success rate, and entertain supernatural ones only if there is evidence that such are at work -- it's like looking in your pocket for your car keys before searching in the dishwasher.


    nategar05 wrote:

    Kirth, I saw that you're a geologist. I'm curious as to what you think of the overview and the section on Plate Tectonics.

    Give me some time to read it more carefully and I'll be happy to comment.

    EDIT: The section on "Plate Tectonics" is page after page of outright misrepresentation and unsupported assertions... is there any one particular item you're interested in? It will take a LOT of time and effort to rebut each point with (a) enough clarity to make it comprehensible and (b) enough references to support everything I'm saying.


    nategar05 wrote:
    Black Moria wrote:
    nategar05 wrote:

    I don't have the time to read this thread that I just found, but here's an interesting website that I found.

    Thoughts?

    Psuedo science, just like the theory of intelligent design. Try as one might to wrap creationism in science, it is not.

    Just because we can't explain or understand something right now doesn't mean it is the work of God. It just means we can't explain or understand some right now.

    The entirety of Part II doesn't even bring up religion or creationism at all. It is strictly observational science.

    Yes it's true that we may someday discover explanations for things that we don't understand right now. However, shouldn't we explore all possibilities if we can't explain something?

    But most of what he purports to explain with his hydroplates nonsense is stuff real science understands perfectly well. Or disagrees with the premise since much of it appears to be using the pseudo-science to explain Biblical stories: Where did the global flood water go? What were the fountains of the great deep?

    Or things that only can't be explained if you're a young earth Creationist. Grand Canyon, rock strata, fossil sorting, etc.

    There are no great mysteries in science that he's answering with this . This is just another attempt to cover up the gaping holes in Biblical young earth creationism.

    All this is based on the blurbs on his website. Maybe he's hidden the real compelling questions in the book, but I'm certainly not going to buy it to find out. I'm sure if you poke around the web a little, you'll find real scientists ripping his nonsense apart in much more detail than I can.


    thejeff wrote:
    nategar05 wrote:
    Black Moria wrote:
    nategar05 wrote:

    I don't have the time to read this thread that I just found, but here's an interesting website that I found.

    Thoughts?

    Psuedo science, just like the theory of intelligent design. Try as one might to wrap creationism in science, it is not.

    Just because we can't explain or understand something right now doesn't mean it is the work of God. It just means we can't explain or understand some right now.

    The entirety of Part II doesn't even bring up religion or creationism at all. It is strictly observational science.

    Yes it's true that we may someday discover explanations for things that we don't understand right now. However, shouldn't we explore all possibilities if we can't explain something?

    But most of what he purports to explain with his hydroplates nonsense is stuff real science understands perfectly well. Or disagrees with the premise since much of it appears to be using the pseudo-science to explain Biblical stories: Where did the global flood water go? What were the fountains of the great deep?

    Or things that only can't be explained if you're a young earth Creationist. Grand Canyon, rock strata, fossil sorting, etc.

    There are no great mysteries in science that he's answering with this . This is just another attempt to cover up the gaping holes in Biblical young earth creationism.

    All this is based on the blurbs on his website. Maybe he's hidden the real compelling questions in the book, but I'm certainly not going to buy it to find out. I'm sure if you poke around the web a little, you'll find real scientists ripping his nonsense apart in much more detail than I can.

    I've done plenty of independent research aside from that site. I've done enough to know that "real scientists" are pessimistic when it comes to many things, including the possibility explaining the origin of life by natural causes and even the Grand Canyon forming. I'm not so sure that "real science" does understand this stuff.

    The entire book is completely free on that website. No purchasing required. I haven't.

    As to if other scientists on the web are ripping it apart, I've looked a fair amount and haven't found anything substantial. Most people set up straw-men and then say "Yay, I won!". Not that some creationists haven't done the same of course, but that's my experience with it.


    Walt Brown wrote:

    Ice Age.

    1. An ice age implies extreme snowfall which, in turn, requires cold temperatures and heavy precipitation. Heavy precipitation can occur only if oceans are warm enough to produce equally heavy evaporation. How could warm oceans exist with cold atmospheric temperatures?

    2. Another problem is stopping an ice age once it begins — or beginning a new ice age after one ends. As glaciers expand, they reflect more of the Sun’s radiation away from earth, lower temperatures and cause glaciers to grow even more. Eventually the entire globe should freeze. Conversely, if glaciers shrink, as they have in recent decades, the earth should reflect less heat into space, warm up, and melt all glaciers forever.

    Let's start here, because it's quick and provides a pretty good example.

    1. For a geologist, an ice age implies heavy snow accumulation, but not a big heavy snowfall all at once, because we do not insist that it has to happen overnight -- we work within time frames of thousands of years. Low temperatures lead to lower evaporation rates, but do not mean that all evaporation magically stops. As long as it's cold enough to accumulate, low rates over longer periods of time work just fine as an explanation. What Brown is doing here is attempting to force the reader into a de facto acceptance of very short time frames -- i.e., a young earth.

    2. Brown is correctly describing ONE of the feedback loops involved in climate. In this case, it's a positive feedback loop: more ice = higher planetary albedo (more reflection of incoming solar radiation) = lower temperature. There are a large number of these loops, however, both positive and negative. For example, warmer temperatures promote more cloud cover; low (stratus) clouds tend to reflect sunlight and cool climate, but high (cirrus) clouds can be transparent to sunlight (allowing it to reach the Earth) and opaque to infrared radiation (thus trapping heat and warming the climate). It is possible that warmer tempratures are more favorable for forming stratus clouds, thus creating a negative feedback loop: higher temperatures = more clouds, and more reflective clouds = cooler temperature. A lot of the uncertainty in climate models is from the complexity of these loops; you can't simply point to one of them and ignore the others.


    nategar05 wrote:
    thejeff wrote:


    But most of what he purports to explain with his hydroplates nonsense is stuff real science understands perfectly well. Or disagrees with the premise since much of it appears to be using the pseudo-science to explain Biblical stories: Where did the global flood water go? What were the fountains of the great deep?
    Or things that only can't be explained if you're a young earth Creationist. Grand Canyon, rock strata, fossil sorting, etc.

    There are no great mysteries in science that he's answering with this . This is just another attempt to cover up the gaping holes in Biblical young earth creationism.

    All this is based on the blurbs on his website. Maybe he's hidden the real compelling questions in the book, but I'm certainly not going to buy it to find out. I'm sure if you poke around the web a little, you'll find real scientists ripping his nonsense apart in much more detail than I can.

    I've done plenty of independent research aside from that site. I've done enough to know that "real scientists" are pessimistic when it comes to many things, including the possibility explaining the origin of life by natural causes and even the Grand Canyon forming. I'm not so sure that "real science" does understand this stuff.

    The entire book is completely free on that website. No purchasing required. I haven't.

    As to if other scientists on the web ripping it apart, I've looked a fair amount and haven't found anything substantial. Most people set up straw-men and then say "Yay, I won!". Not that some creationists haven't done the same of course, but that's my experience with it.

    The origins of life I will freely admit we do not completely understand. Last time I looked into this, which was a while ago, there were some good possibilities, but nothing solid.

    But I was referring to your reference to his Part II, which contains his hydroplates theory. I'm greatly amused by the idea of a solid crust floating on a deep underground layer of water (And wonder if I can incorporate it into a gameworld Underdark), but it's not science. We have a good understanding of plate tectonics, that matches nicely with existing continents, mountain ranges, fault lines, etc, etc. We understand how rock strata were laid down and why certain types of fossils are found in certain layers. We understand how fossils form. We can see how the various types of radioactive dating match up with different layers. We know how rivers form channels and canyons.
    Do we know all the details of how every individual geologic formation was made? Which river drainage, when and how long? No. But we know the general principles. And we know they take time. Deep time.

    His theory turns everything on its head. Throws away everything we know about geology, much of what we know about physics (since radioactive decay has to change drastically) and many other things. Even archeology and history have to be rewritten if he wants this flood to have occurred in historic times.

    And we don't gain anything significant out of it. He's not even claiming to explain anything that there are real questions about.


    thejeff wrote:
    nategar05 wrote:
    thejeff wrote:


    But most of what he purports to explain with his hydroplates nonsense is stuff real science understands perfectly well. Or disagrees with the premise since much of it appears to be using the pseudo-science to explain Biblical stories: Where did the global flood water go? What were the fountains of the great deep?
    Or things that only can't be explained if you're a young earth Creationist. Grand Canyon, rock strata, fossil sorting, etc.

    There are no great mysteries in science that he's answering with this . This is just another attempt to cover up the gaping holes in Biblical young earth creationism.

    All this is based on the blurbs on his website. Maybe he's hidden the real compelling questions in the book, but I'm certainly not going to buy it to find out. I'm sure if you poke around the web a little, you'll find real scientists ripping his nonsense apart in much more detail than I can.

    I've done plenty of independent research aside from that site. I've done enough to know that "real scientists" are pessimistic when it comes to many things, including the possibility explaining the origin of life by natural causes and even the Grand Canyon forming. I'm not so sure that "real science" does understand this stuff.

    The entire book is completely free on that website. No purchasing required. I haven't.

    As to if other scientists on the web ripping it apart, I've looked a fair amount and haven't found anything substantial. Most people set up straw-men and then say "Yay, I won!". Not that some creationists haven't done the same of course, but that's my experience with it.

    The origins of life I will freely admit we do not completely understand. Last time I looked into this, which was a while ago, there were some good possibilities, but nothing solid.

    But I was referring to your reference to his Part II, which contains his hydroplates theory. I'm greatly amused by the idea of a solid crust floating on a deep underground layer of water (And wonder if I can incorporate it into a gameworld Underdark), but it's not science. We have a good understanding of plate tectonics, that matches nicely with existing continents, mountain ranges, fault lines, etc, etc. We understand how rock strata were laid down and why certain types of fossils are found in certain layers. We understand how fossils form. We can see how the various types of radioactive dating match up with different layers. We know how rivers form channels and canyons.
    Do we know all the details of how every individual geologic formation was made? Which river drainage, when and how long? No. But we know the general principles. And we know they take time. Deep time.

    His theory turns everything on its head. Throws away everything we know about geology, much of what we know about physics (since radioactive decay has to change drastically) and many other things. Even archeology and history have to be rewritten if he wants this flood to have occurred in historic times.

    And we don't gain anything significant out of it. He's not even claiming to explain anything that there are real questions about.

    1. The rock doesn't float in the first place. It's more like a waterbed where the water is completely sealed, pressurized, and surrounded by rock.

    2. He explains earthquakes, trenches, the origins of radioactive decay, the sorting of strata and fossils, and many other things.

    3. Speaking of geology, did you know that there are gravity anomalies below the ocean trenches and that there's less than there should be under them? That means there is LESS mass there than there should be, even adjusting for its shape. Mass deficiencies aren't explainable by Plate Tectonics. According to that theory, there should be extra mass below trenches because plates are subducting.

    4. Do you know of the unprovable assumptions behind radioactive dating and that it's not necessarily accurate because of this? To be brief about it, it's essentially like an hourglass. You measure how much sand is in the bottom part and how quickly it flows from the top to the bottom and thus its rate of accumulation. Then you figure out how long ago the hourglass was flipped. That at minimum assumes:

    a. That the rate of flow has been constant.
    b. That the amount of sand originally at the bottom is knowable.

    Radioactive dating is very similar. I can go into more detail if you'd like.

    5. Speaking of strata, do you know that there is WAY more limestone on Earth than can be accounted for by present day processes, contrary to scientific theory?


    Quote:
    4. Do you know of the unprovable assumptions behind radioactive dating and that it's not necessarily accurate because of this? To be brief about it, it's essentially like an hourglass. You measure how much sand is in the bottom part and how quickly it flows from the top to the bottom and thus its rate of accumulation. Then you figure out how long ago the hourglass was flipped. That at minimum assumes:

    Which kind of radioactive dating allegedly works like this?


    BigNorseWolf wrote:
    Quote:
    4. Do you know of the unprovable assumptions behind radioactive dating and that it's not necessarily accurate because of this? To be brief about it, it's essentially like an hourglass. You measure how much sand is in the bottom part and how quickly it flows from the top to the bottom and thus its rate of accumulation. Then you figure out how long ago the hourglass was flipped. That at minimum assumes:
    Which kind of radioactive dating allegedly works like this?

    All of them: Radiocarbon, Uranium-Lead, Potassium-Argon...


    BigNorseWolf wrote:
    Quote:
    4. Do you know of the unprovable assumptions behind radioactive dating and that it's not necessarily accurate because of this? To be brief about it, it's essentially like an hourglass. You measure how much sand is in the bottom part and how quickly it flows from the top to the bottom and thus its rate of accumulation. Then you figure out how long ago the hourglass was flipped. That at minimum assumes:
    Which kind of radioactive dating allegedly works like this?

    All of them. Particularly carbon dating. It's a lousy analogy, but not horribly wrong.

    You know the percentage of isotopes in the atmosphere. You know how fast Carbon-14 decays (how quickly it flows). You measure the percentage left (how much sand is in the bottom part), so you can calculate how long it's been since the sample absorbed its carbon from the atmosphere (was flipped).

    The usual claim is that the flood altered the ratio of carbon-14 in the atmosphere. Some also claim that we can't prove that the rate of decay has been constant.


    thejeff wrote:
    BigNorseWolf wrote:
    Quote:
    4. Do you know of the unprovable assumptions behind radioactive dating and that it's not necessarily accurate because of this? To be brief about it, it's essentially like an hourglass. You measure how much sand is in the bottom part and how quickly it flows from the top to the bottom and thus its rate of accumulation. Then you figure out how long ago the hourglass was flipped. That at minimum assumes:
    Which kind of radioactive dating allegedly works like this?

    All of them. Particularly carbon dating. It's a lousy analogy, but not horribly wrong.

    You know the percentage of isotopes in the atmosphere. You know how fast Carbon-14 decays (how quickly it flows). You measure the percentage left (how much sand is in the bottom part), so you can calculate how long it's been since the sample absorbed its carbon from the atmosphere (was flipped).

    The usual claim is that the flood altered the ratio of carbon-14 in the atmosphere. Some also claim that we can't prove that the rate of decay has been constant.

    It was a horrible analogy because I didn't have time to do a better one. I still don't because I need to get off of the computer again. I'll do a proper response when I have the time, but for now: radioactive decay ISN'T constant. It's been demonstrated in laboratory experiments that tremendous pressure will greatly accelerate decay rates.


    nategar05 wrote:

    1. The rock doesn't float in the first place. It's more like a waterbed where the water is completely sealed, pressurized, and surrounded by rock.

    2. He explains earthquakes, trenches, the origins of radioactive decay, the sorting of strata and fossils, and many other things.

    3. Speaking of geology, did you know that there are gravity anomalies below the ocean trenches and that there's less than there should be under them? That means there is LESS mass there than there should be, even adjusting for its shape. Mass deficiencies aren't explainable by Plate Tectonics. According to that theory, there should be extra mass below trenches because plates are subducting.

    4. Do you know of the unprovable assumptions behind radioactive dating and that it's not necessarily accurate because of this? To be brief about it, it's essentially like an hourglass. You measure how much sand is in the bottom part and how quickly it flows from the top to the bottom and thus its rate of accumulation. Then you figure out how long ago the hourglass was flipped. That at minimum assumes:

    a. That the rate of flow has been constant.
    b. That the amount of sand originally at the bottom is knowable.

    Radioactive dating is very similar. I can go into more detail if you'd like.

    5. Speaking of strata, do you know that there is WAY more limestone on Earth than can be accounted for by present day processes, contrary to scientific theory?

    I shouldn't wast time, but ...

    1) I know.

    2) I know he has explanations. My point was that he wouldn't need explanations if he didn't throw away all modern science to push creationism. We know how this stuff works.

    3) I don't know enough about this to really comment. A quick google search make me think that there's no great mystery. Either that or all the geologists studying it are hiding their confusion.

    5) Does any mainstream scientists think this? Or is this a problem that he invented to solve? I've never heard this suggested before.
    (Aside: I'm a caver. I happen to believe there isn't anywhere near enough limestone in the world. Especially in my part of it.)

    4) This kind of thing is what marks this firmly as pseudoscience. Is it possible that radioactive decay is not constant? Yeah, I suppose. Proving that would guarantee a Nobel prize in physics and shake the entire foundation of modern understanding of the universe to the core. In creation science, you not only assume it isn't constant but that it varies just the right way to make your story work. We can't observe it in the past, so it could have been different then. Poof, move on.

    Do any of these people actually consider the implications of their theories? Most of modern scientific knowledge has to be wrong. If evolution is wrong, everything we think about the relationship of groups of animals and plants goes out the window. All the genetic studies. All the fossil evidence. Modern biology goes from being a coherent field to just a collection of facts about unrelated creatures.

    Geology is nonsense. All our understanding of rock formation, plate tectonics, etc. Gone.

    Physics loses it's understanding of radiation. According to this guy's theory radioactive material doesn't come from long ago novas, but was created in the flood event. All our basic cosmology is gone. Heavy elements aren't formed in the nuclear reactors of stars.

    Even human prehistory has to be radically rewritten. Especially if this event is supposed to have occurred on the Biblical schedule.

    Liberty's Edge

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    nategar05 wrote:

    It was a horrible analogy because I didn't have time to do a better one. I still don't because I need to get off of the computer again. I'll do a proper response when I have the time, but for now: radioactive decay ISN'T constant. It's been demonstrated in laboratory experiments that tremendous pressure will greatly accelerate decay rates.

    I think John Reed was the first one to use the hourglass analogy. It's way too simplistic, but effective with an audience whose minds have really already been made up (and they're reading Reed's Rock Solid Answers book as some weird means of reassuring themselves).

    In the case of radiometric dating, researchers use multiple methods to test and verify: dendrochronology, varve chronology, ice cores, coral banding, speleotherms, fission track dating, and electron spin resonance dating.

    It's pretty safe to bet in favor of radiometric dating when all of these methods agree within 40 years or so.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    Well, carbon dating has been proved pretty accurate by comparing it to dendrochronology.

    The inside of a tree is dead. Only the outer layer is alive. I'm sure you've heard you can count the tree rings and get the age of the tree.

    That's just the start though. Because trees have good and bad years the rings vary. If you rate them from say, 1 to 10 , you get a pattern.

    You can then match up different trees , living or fossil, one after another, and establish a reliable chain back longer than the life of any single tree. It would have to be a hell of a coincidence for this method and carbon dating to match up so well time after time.

    Quote:
    It's been demonstrated in laboratory experiments that tremendous pressure will greatly accelerate decay rates.

    You would need to be pushing atoms together to do something like that. The pressure of lava in the ground isn't even close to doing that.


    Kirth Gersen wrote:


    J.B.S. Haldane wrote:
    Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian!

    When asked by a clergyman whether or not the study of nature could reveal anything about the Creator, J.B.S. Haldane, Internet Troll responded:

    "An inordinate fondness for beetles."

    Hee hee!


    BigNorseWolf wrote:

    Well, carbon dating has been proved pretty accurate by comparing it to dendrochronology.

    The inside of a tree is dead. Only the outer layer is alive. I'm sure you've heard you can count the tree rings and get the age of the tree.

    That's just the start though. Because trees have good and bad years the rings vary. If you rate them from say, 1 to 10 , you get a pattern.

    You can then match up different trees , living or fossil, one after another, and establish a reliable chain back longer than the life of any single tree. It would have to be a hell of a coincidence for this method and carbon dating to match up so well time after time.

    And the ice cores and with historical records where we have them and with other radioactive dating methods where they overlap. Etc Etc.

    Quote:
    It's been demonstrated in laboratory experiments that tremendous pressure will greatly accelerate decay rates.

    You would need to be pushing atoms together to do something like that. The pressure of lava in the ground isn't even close to doing that.

    And is irrelevant anyway since the things one tends to date with C-14 dating (bones wooden artifacts, etc) wouldn't have survived even lava pressure.

    12,201 to 12,250 of 13,109 << first < prev | 240 | 241 | 242 | 243 | 244 | 245 | 246 | 247 | 248 | 249 | 250 | next > last >>
    Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / A Civil Religious Discussion All Messageboards

    Want to post a reply? Sign in.