 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Nobby
Board - Admin
Joined: 16 Sep 2002
Posts: 5018
Location: Missouri
|
 Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 2:15 pm Post subject: C vs E: Age of the Earth |
 |
|
_____________C vs E: Age of the Earth
A debate between PrysdieHeer & P1234567890!
Below you will see the challenge & some additional rules by the challenger!
Please make sure that you study the in another thread on the One_on-One. I would hate to see one forfeit the debate because they didn't study & know the rules!
| Quote: | Alright this has gone on way to long!
I challenge you to a one-on-one debate _-_Creation vs Evolution_-_.
If you win I will convert to an evolutionist.
If I win you must convert to a creationist. OK?
Rules]
No quote mining! - Unless absolutely necessary
No Gish Galloping.
No Atozing - I think you know what I mean === Even though I don`t see it as bad, just not practical for a debate.
No going of topic.
Honesty required.
Any rules you like to add?
Remember I`m not trying to attack you, I`m trying to show you the light, I`m sure you are trying to do the same, this is why we have debates, to find the truth!
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Prys die Heer! |
God luck to both of you! 
Get Ready!...1....2.....3 Go!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
PrysdieHeer!
Big Pit Bull
Joined: 30 Dec 2007
Posts: 392
Location: South Africa; Gardens of Pretoria
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 4:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thank you Nobby!
:::::::::::::::::::::::
OK this is a multi-part debate starting with the age of the earth.
The winner will be the one with the right statement . . Which will be found out by the end of the debate.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::
First of all I would like to say I don`t debate to attack, I would like to come to the truth, if it is to be Evolution, sure enough I will become an evolutionist, but if it is creation, then P1234567890 has agreed to become a creationist.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::
Now for my statement:
I confess the Creation story is religion and not Science, but so is Evolution, and there are no proof to Evolution or is there any proof the Earth is millions of years old.
Both Science and Religion are used to make sense of the things we observe. But there is a difference.
Science:
We believe something because it is Fact.
Religion:
It is fact Because we Believe.
Now they have almost the same way of digging for Facts:
Science:
Step1 Observasion:
Step2 Interpretation:
Step3 Proof:
Step4 Believe: Because it as been proven.
But there is an catch The proof may not be the same as the observation, as this will always results in Circular-Reasoning. Also your proof may not based on any other circular reasoning or assumptions.
For example:
False fact:
Observation: When you close a book quickly, with the open side to a candle, the fire goes out.
Interpretation: There is a ghost living in every book, And if you close it too fast, it gets angry and blows out your candle.
Proof:When you close a book quickly, with the open side to a candle, the fire goes out. Same as observation, thus false.
Believe: Because this is not a valid fact, proof missing, you cannot believe it without it becoming religion. As I will explain in a minute.
True fact.
Observation: When you close a book quickly, with the open side to a candle, the fire goes out.
Interpretation: When you close the book with force in generates enough wind, which puts out the flame.
Proof: Every time you close the book, you can feel wind, if you try to feel. Every time the fast wind comes over the candle in goes out.
Believe: Since it is now a valid Fact it can be believed.
This is how religion works:
Step1 Observation:
Step2 Interpretation:
Step3 Believe:
Step4 Fact: To you it is now a fact because you believe it.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
So my statement is the Creation story is religion, but there is some science in it, but the evolution theory is Religion. And during this debate series I Would like to show P1234567890 that, or for him to show me otherwise.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Alright now for this debate session.
I say the Earth is about 6000 years old, but don`t claim it to be science, only scientificly possible, P1234567890 claims the earth is about 4.5 Billion years old and claims it to be science. Now I don`t have much proof for a young earth, but There is no reason to believe otherwise. And it is better to believe in My religion - The Bible - Than in Evolution.
So I challenge You to Name the Proof of an old earth one-by-one, and then if it is proven to be a religion, you must name the advantages of it.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Prys die Heer! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 5:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| PrysdieHeer! wrote: |
First of all I would like to say I don`t debate to attack, I would like to come to the truth, if it is to be Evolution, sure enough I will become an evolutionist, but if it is creation, then P1234567890 has agreed to become a creationist. |
Are you going to stick to our agreements or not? We're only a few lines in to your opening post, and already you're talking about creation and evolution.
We're NOT talking about evolution and creation here. We're talking about the age of the Earth.
Are you capable of sticking to that topic or not?
| PrysdieHeer! wrote: |
I confess the Creation story is religion and not Science, but so is Evolution, and there are no proof to Evolution
|
AGAIN! Why on Earth are you talking about creation and evolution? We're NOT going to debate that!
I'm having serious doubts about this one-on-one debate with you if you can't even stick to our agreed topic of the age of the Earth.
| PrysdieHeer! wrote: |
or is there any proof the Earth is millions of years old.
|
Finally, your first on-topic sentence!
| PrysdieHeer! wrote: |
Both Science and Religion are used to make sense of the things we observe. But there is a difference.
Science:
We believe something because it is Fact.
|
This is a terrible characterization of science. Also, is this on-topic? What does this have to do with the age of the Earth?
| PrysdieHeer! wrote: |
Religion:
It is fact Because we Believe.
|
Believing something doesn't make it a fact, but again, what does this have to do with our topic?
| PrysdieHeer! wrote: |
Now they have almost the same way of digging for Facts:
Science:
Step1 Observasion:
Step2 Interpretation:
Step3 Proof:
Step4 Believe: Because it as been proven.
|
This is NOT the scientific method, and again it has nothing to do with our debate topic.
| PrysdieHeer! wrote: |
But there is an catch The proof may not be the same as the observation, as this will always results in Circular-Reasoning. Also your proof may not based on any other circular reasoning or assumptions.
For example:
False fact:
Observation: When you close a book quickly, with the open side to a candle, the fire goes out.
Interpretation: There is a ghost living in every book, And if you close it too fast, it gets angry and blows out your candle.
Proof:When you close a book quickly, with the open side to a candle, the fire goes out. Same as observation, thus false.
Believe: Because this is not a valid fact, proof missing, you cannot believe it without it becoming religion. As I will explain in a minute.
True fact.
Observation: When you close a book quickly, with the open side to a candle, the fire goes out.
Interpretation: When you close the book with force in generates enough wind, which puts out the flame.
Proof: Every time you close the book, you can feel wind, if you try to feel. Every time the fast wind comes over the candle in goes out.
Believe: Since it is now a valid Fact it can be believed.
|
Are you going to debate the age of the Earth with me, or are you going to beat around the bush indefinitely? You don't have to give me your definition of science. I know quite well what science is all about.
| PrysdieHeer! wrote: |
This is how religion works:
Step1 Observation:
Step2 Interpretation:
Step3 Believe:
Step4 Fact: To you it is now a fact because you believe it. |
That's not a fact, and again what does this have to do with the age of the Earth?
| PrysdieHeer! wrote: |
So my statement is the Creation story is religion, but there is some science in it, but the evolution theory is Religion. And during this debate series I Would like to show P1234567890 that, or for him to show me otherwise. |
Evolution is NOT religion, and it's ridiculous to say so, and do you see what you're doing? You're ALREADY derailing our debate. We agreed to debate the age of the Earth, but all you seem to be able to do is discuss evolution and creation.
| PrysdieHeer! wrote: |
Alright now for this debate session.
I say the Earth is about 6000 years old, but don`t claim it to be science, only scientificly possible,
|
Oh, I get it; your previous statements were all just an introduction, and the debate is only starting now!
Well, in any case, it sounds like you're admitting that you have no scientific arguments that the Earth is about 6000 years old and that you are resting your case.
| PrysdieHeer! wrote: |
P1234567890 claims the earth is about 4.5 Billion years old and claims it to be science. Now I don`t have much proof for a young earth, but There is no reason to believe otherwise. |
I'm going to give you lots of reasons. See my next post.
| PrysdieHeer! wrote: |
And it is better to believe in My religion - The Bible - Than in Evolution. |
I'm confused. Has the debate started or not? Are you capable of sticking to our agreement or not? Are we going to discuss the age of the Earth, or are you going to keep bringing up evolution vs. creation?
Look at the rules above which Nobby posted:
| Quote: | | No going of topic. |
Does this mean that I automatically win the debate right now?
| PrysdieHeer! wrote: |
So I challenge You to Name the Proof of an old earth one-by-one, |
See my next post.
So far I must say that you've disappointed me greatly in being able to stay on the topic we agreed on. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PrysdieHeer!
Big Pit Bull
Joined: 30 Dec 2007
Posts: 392
Location: South Africa; Gardens of Pretoria
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 5:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
P123456789
This was really just the Introduction:
It was an intro into the debate series:
Only the last part was of this specific thread.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Prys die Heer! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 6:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ok, let's get started on actually debating the topic.
You said that you don't have any scientific evidence that the Earth is only 6000 or so years old, so all I have to do is provide ANY scientific evidence that it billions of years old, and the debate is over.
Here are a few SCIENTIFIC arguments showing that the Earth is MUCH more than 6000 years old. In fact, this value is off by a factor of almost a million:
1. Continental Drift, Argument 1: We know that at one time all of the continents were together, and they have since drifted apart. This can be seen very clearly at the mid-Atlantic Ridge, which is a rift at the bottom of the Atlantic from which the continental plates are moving apart as the Earth's crust is being continuously created.
The continental plates move at different rates, but it's on the order of about 1cm / year to 10 cm / year. Reference: [url=]http://hypertextbook.com/facts/ZhenHuang.shtml[/url]
We know that the South American and African plates used to be adjacent, and now they are approximately 5000 km apart. At a rate of 1cm drift per year, it would take the plates about 500,000,000 years to drift that far apart. At the upper bound of 1cm per year it would take them about 50,000,000 years to drift the ~5000 required kilometers. In either case, the Earth is MANY millions of years old at the very least, which isn't even remotely CLOSE to 6000 years old.
The rebuttal to this is that we don't know that the continents moved only 1 - 10 cm/year in the past, which brings us to the next argument:
2. Continental Drift, Argument 2: If we assume that the Earth is only about 6000 years old, then it means that Brazil and Africa moved apart at a rate of about 833 m / year, which is about 2.28 m / day. This has MAJOR problems with it:
First of all, there is no mechanism inside the Earth which can move continents at those speeds.
Secondly, even if there was, then it would have created MASSIVE Earthquakes and tsunamis, and these would have been constant. At 6 cm / year, a plate has enough energy to produce Earthquakes above 9.0 on the Richter scale. To put that into perspective, at 8.0 strong buildings collapse, and a 9.0 Earthquake is 31.6 times as powerful as an 8.0. And that's at a rate of 6 cm / year!!!
You can imagine what plates sliding at 229 cm PER DAY would do. Under these conditions, it is doubtful that life could survive as we know it, and certainly any buildings from thousands of years ago would have collapsed. But there are buildings which are thousands of years old which are still around, so this shows that the Earth most certainly is NOT only a few thousand years old. Then of course there's the issue that humans would have been around to experience all of this, and they would have written records of the earthquakes, since the earthquakes would have been a constant and major part of their lives. But there are no such records or references among the artifacts, architecture, and art which we have from back then. This all shows very conclusively that the Earth most certainly is not only 6000 years old, or even anywhere near that figure.
3. Radiological Dating: We have literally hundreds of independent samples which have been radiologically dated, and their results are EXTREMELY consistent, showing that the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old.
4. Starlight: Let's assume for a second that the Bible is right and that God created the Earth before he created the stars. This means that the Earth is older than the stars, so if we find out how old a star is, then the Earth must be older than that. There are MANY stars and galaxies which are billions of light years away, and their light has reached us. This means that their light has been in transit for billions of years, which means that the stars existed billions of years ago in order to create the light. Since the Earth is older than the stars, the Earth must therefore be at least billions of years old.
That should get us started. I claim that these are all extremely scientific arguments, and furthermore that they are independent. No argument relies on any other one. In order for the Earth to be only about 6000 years old, they must ALL be wrong.
You by your own admission don't have ANY scientific arguments showing that the Earth is 6000ish years old, and I've given four extremely strong arguments, all based on mainstream science. In order for you to be right, ALL of my arguments must be wrong, which means that mainstream nuclear physics, geology, seismology, plate tectonics, astronomy, and several other mature scientific areas would ALL have to be VERY wrong.
So the summary of the debate thus far is:
Your side: No scientific arguments at all.
My side: Multiple orthogonal arguments which are strongly backed by mainstream science.
I don't think this debate is going very well for you so far.
Last edited by P1234567890 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 6:31 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PrysdieHeer!
Big Pit Bull
Joined: 30 Dec 2007
Posts: 392
Location: South Africa; Gardens of Pretoria
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 6:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ok P1234567890
Here is the thing my previous statements were about the whole series, and stuff we are to use in during the series (I dont see many relevance in your post either): Here is one about The age of the Earth:
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
There is no Scientific Way to calculate the age of the earth without making some assumptions. Show me otherwise!
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Trees are found standing upright connecting layers of the earth, proving they formed quickly.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
My explanation Whould be the Flood:
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Ofcource The flood is a serious problem for Old Earth Evolutionists/ Creationist. They Explain Observations with Millions of Years, We Explain most of it with the flood - - They can be proof for both
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Prys die Heer! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PrysdieHeer!
Big Pit Bull
Joined: 30 Dec 2007
Posts: 392
Location: South Africa; Gardens of Pretoria
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 7:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | 1. Continental Drift, Argument 1: We know that at one time all of the continents were together, and they have since drifted apart. This can be seen very clearly at the mid-Atlantic Ridge, which is a rift at the bottom of the Atlantic from which the continental plates are moving apart as the Earth's crust is being continuously created.
The continental plates move at different rates, but it's on the order of about 1cm / year to 10 cm / year. Reference: [url=]http://hypertextbook.com/facts/ZhenHuang.shtml[/url]
We know that the South American and African plates used to be adjacent, and now they are approximately 5000 km apart. At a rate of 1cm drift per year, it would take the plates about 500,000,000 years to drift that far apart. At the upper bound of 1cm per year it would take them about 50,000,000 years to drift the ~5000 required kilometers. In either case, the Earth is MANY millions of years old at the very least, which isn't even remotely CLOSE to 6000 years old.
The rebuttal to this is that we don't know that the continents moved only 1 - 10 cm/year in the past, which brings us to the next argument: |
How can people still believe that nonsense. This is not science. Saying the continents drifted apart is very illogical, because they don`t drift, or at least on water, they drift on magma. Take the water out of the oceans and the continents clearly do not fit. Another thing we Read in Ps104 of God changing the shape of the world. This can be interpreted in both ways, however your arguments are not scientific.
| Quote: | 2. Continental Drift, Argument 2: If we assume that the Earth is only about 6000 years old, then it means that Brazil and Africa moved apart at a rate of about 833 m / year, which is about 2.28 m / day. This has MAJOR problems with it:
First of all, there is no mechanism inside the Earth which can move continents at those speeds.
Secondly, even if there was, then it would have created MASSIVE Earthquakes and tsunamis, and these would have been constant. At 6 cm / year, a plate has enough energy to produce Earthquakes above 9.0 on the Richter scale. To put that into perspective, at 8.0 strong buildings collapse, and a 9.0 Earthquake is 31.6 times as powerful as an 8.0. And that's at a rate of 6 cm / year!!!
You can imagine what plates sliding at 229 cm PER DAY would do. Under these conditions, it is doubtful that life could survive as we know it, and certainly any buildings from thousands of years ago would have collapsed. But there are buildings which are thousands of years old which are still around, so this shows that the Earth most certainly is NOT only a few thousand years old. Then of course there's the issue that humans would have been around to experience all of this, and they would have written records of the earthquakes, since the earthquakes would have been a constant and major part of their lives. But there are no such records or references among the artifacts, architecture, and art which we have from back then. This all shows very conclusively that the Earth most certainly is not only 6000 years old, or even anywhere near that figure. |
Again you are assuming they moved apart! Stop saying you know, because that usually means you assume. I live between two mountain ranges and I never think those two mountains where once connected. And don`t give me that similar organisms found on both sides argument. That is like saying drinking coffee causes your babies o be born naked, your proof is everybody who drank coffee had naked babies, It is all the same - You say the same organisms are found on both sides - you forget it is found in other places ass well.
A more possible Theory, which can be proven, is the sea gets sand from the one side of the continent and goes and put it on he other, but this could not have happened over millions of years, thanks t the position of the Andes.
| Quote: | | 3. Radiological Dating: We have literally hundreds of independent samples which have been radio logically dated, and their results are EXTREMELY consistent, showing that the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old. |
No! That is proof your dating methods are wrong - From a biblical view point. Radiological Dating can not be tested on something we know the date of, so it can not be proven to work. And it also is based on Assumptions: There was no creation, and things decays at the same rate, and it was pure when it started to decay, oh and how do explain how something got to a element if it decays, I mean according to you it always decayed, other wise your dating does not work.
| Quote: | 4. Starlight: Let's assume for a second that the Bible is right and that God created the Earth before he created the stars. This means that the Earth is older than the stars, so if we find out how old a star is, then the Earth must be older than that. There are MANY stars and galaxies which are billions of light years away, and their light has reached us. This means that their light has been in transit for billions of years, which means that the stars existed billions of years ago in order to create the light. Since the Earth is older than the stars, the Earth must therefore be at least billions of years old.
That should get us started. I claim that these are all extremely scientific arguments, and furthermore that they are independent. No argument relies on any other one. In order for the Earth to be only about 6000 years old, they must ALL be wrong. |
Assumptions Again:
first there is no way of knowing how far it is away, to any accuracy above 100 light years, Secondly Light years are distance not time. You assume light moves at a constant speed, and even if it does you don`t know exactly what light is, there is a lot of flaws in optics - Example: If light consists of different colours and something absorbs the light and reflects other light which gives the object it`s colour, then a red object must appear black when anything but red light is shun on it, yet it does not. And it is possible the space is creating an optical illusion.]
| Quote: | So the summary of the debate thus far is:
Your side: No scientific arguments at all.
My side: Multiple orthogonal arguments which are strongly backed by mainstream science.
I don't think this debate is going very well for you so far. |
I fear you misunderstood me, I have many scientific arguments, I just don`t Intend to use them.
No non of your arguments are Scientific.
And it looks good for my side!
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Prys die Heer! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 8:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| PrysdieHeer! wrote: |
How can people still believe that nonsense. This is not science. Saying the continents drifted apart is very illogical, because they don`t drift,
|
Continental drift most certainly IS scientific. It's BEEN OBSERVED. Scientists routinely look at markers on continental plates before and after seismic events and can measure exactly how far the plates have moved. Denying continental drift is about as reasonable as denying that the Earth is round.
| PrysdieHeer! wrote: |
Take the water out of the oceans and the continents clearly do not fit.
|
Yes, clearly they do not fit:
| PrysdieHeer! wrote: |
Another thing we Read in Ps104 of God changing the shape of the world. This can be interpreted in both ways,
|
Now you're quoting scripture?!? Is this supposed to be a scientific argument?!?
| PrysdieHeer! wrote: |
however your arguments are not scientific. |
Unfortunately, reality disagrees with you because continental drift is OBSERVED and it is a fact. You can deny it all you want, but that just shows you to be scientifically ignorant.
Continental drift most certainly does happen, and my arguments concerning it are valid.
| PrysdieHeer! wrote: |
Again you are assuming they moved apart! |
It's not an assumption; it's a scientific fact.
| PrysdieHeer! wrote: |
No! That is proof your dating methods are wrong - From a biblical view point. |
Are you going to give religious arguments or scientific ones?
| PrysdieHeer! wrote: |
Radiological Dating can not be tested on something we know the date of, so it can not be proven to work. |
It most certainly can, and HAS been tested on something we know the date of. A good example is wooden furniture from the medieval era, which has its date of creation carved into it by the carpenter who made it. Scientists take a sample of the wood, and send it to a lab WITHOUT telling the lab when it was really made. The labs use radiological dating methods and ALWAYS come up with very accurate results.
Not that you have to test it to know that it works... If it didn't work, then atomic theory would be wrong, and it's not.
| PrysdieHeer! wrote: |
And it also is based on Assumptions: There was no creation, |
This is not an assumption which radiological dating relies on. It works fine even if God created the Universe.
| PrysdieHeer! wrote: |
and things decays at the same rate,
|
Again, not an assumption. We know the decay rates of the isotopes involved as a matter of scientific fact.
| PrysdieHeer! wrote: |
Assumptions Again:
first there is no way of knowing how far it is away, to any accuracy above 100 light years,
|
Yes, there most certainly is. We know *exactly* how powerful our telescopes are in terms of magnification power. When we use them to look at a distant galaxy, if those distant galaxies are only 6000 light-years away, then those galaxies must be absolutely tiny.
In addition, the red shift would be totally off; a galaxy which is only 6000 light-years away and is as red-shifted as the galaxies which astronomers claim to be billions of light-years away would be moving so quickly that its apparent position in the sky would change observably. But this doesn't happen.
All of the *science* shows that the galaxies really are billions of light-years away.
| PrysdieHeer! wrote: |
Secondly Light years are distance not time.
|
I'm pretty sure I made that clear in my post.
| PrysdieHeer! wrote: |
You assume light moves at a constant speed,
|
No, I KNOW for a scientific fact that light moves at a constant speed. Einstein proved this, and it has been verified experimentally many thousands of times since. This is called science. You can disagree with it if you want, but if you do, then you're wrong, especially if you don't even have an argument to back up your position, and you clearly don't.
| PrysdieHeer! wrote: |
and even if it does you don`t know exactly what light is, there is a lot of flaws in optics - Example: If light consists of different colours and something absorbs the light and reflects other light which gives the object it`s colour, then a red object must appear black when anything but red light is shun on it, yet it does not. And it is possible the space is creating an optical illusion.] |
Are you saying that the galaxies which we observe through our telescopes don't really exist and that they're optical illusions? Are you serious?!?
So let's recap: You haven't given a single scientific argument supporting your claim to a young Earth. In fact, you said,
| PrysdieHeer! wrote: |
I say the Earth is about 6000 years old, but don`t claim it to be science, |
I've given a BUNCH of MAINSTREAM scientific arguments showing that the Earth is millions or even billions of years old.
By your own admission, you can't win this debate because this debate is about SCIENCE, and you admit that a young Earth is not science.
So the best you can do is fight to a draw by showing that my arguments are all wrong. But in order for that to be the case:
1. Plate tectonics and continental drift, which are FACTUAL mainstream scientific theories and accepted by virtually all of the relevant experts has to be TOTALLY wrong.
2. Radiological dating and nuclear physics, which are mature mainstream scientific theories and accepted by virtually all of the relevant experts both have to be TOTALLY wrong.
3. Mainstream astronomy, which is an EXTREMELY mature scientific area which is accepted by virtually all of the relevant experts has to be TOTALLY wrong.
4. Einstein and the theory of relativity have to be TOTALLY wrong, even though they've been experimentally verified thousands of times.
You don't even have a single scientific argument on your side, and in order for my side to be wrong, basically all of modern science has to be wrong. This is an OUTRAGEOUSLY arrogant position to take. You don't have any scientific training. You don't know as much about any of these topics as even ONE scientist in any one of these fields. Yet somehow you have the hubris to declare that you know more than ALL of the scientists in MULTIPLE orthogonal scientific fields. You haven't even finished high-school! It's ridiculous!
This debate is very quickly becoming a farce. You literally haven't given a single scientific argument supporting your side, and every single one of your rebuttals so far has been completely unscientific and wrong.
Are you being serious?!? Are these honestly the best arguments and rebuttals that you can put forth?!? Are you even trying here?!? Have you ever even debated before? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PrysdieHeer!
Big Pit Bull
Joined: 30 Dec 2007
Posts: 392
Location: South Africa; Gardens of Pretoria
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 29, 2008 9:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Continental drift most certainly IS scientific. It's BEEN OBSERVED. Scientists routinely look at markers on continental plates before and after seismic events and can measure exactly how far the plates have moved. Denying continental drift is about as reasonable as denying that the Earth is round. |
Stop saying it IS science, science should be based on observation, logic and most of all common sense, you ignore all 3.
How illogic do you think, must I draw pictures?
The continents don’t drift. They are peaks of mountains fixed to the crust of the earth, which sticks out. They don’t drift, the plates they are fixed to drift, but are still connected. If they clash you get an earthquake. Thinking they were once connected means you look at the parts sticking out and not the whole thing, if you remove the water they don’t even come close to fitting. Something You keep Ignoring that fact. In other words, you can’t say the continents were once contacted and separated millions of years ago, because, in truth, they are still connected, take the water out, and you will see there is dirt under the sea, which connects the mountains. I live between 2 mountains, which seems like they could fit, there are no possible way they could split, I repeat Continents Do not float on Water. They Don’t drift at all, the plates they are fixed to drift, but are still connected.
| Quote: | | Now you're quoting scripture?!? Is this supposed to be a scientific argument?!? |
No, Both Scientific and Scriptural.
| Quote: | Unfortunately, reality disagrees with you because continental drift is OBSERVED and it is a fact. You can deny it all you want, but that just shows you to be scientifically ignorant.
Continental drift most certainly does happen, and my arguments concerning it are valid. |
No you observe the continents moving from each other, which could not be caused by a drift, as I just showed you, they do not drift, most likely cause is the waves. And Your observation is the same as your proof, thus it is not a valid fact.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
| Quote: | | It's not an assumption; it's a scientific fact. |
What is currently happening is no proof for what once happened. Currently Zimbabwe has an inflations rate of 5000% this was not always the case, yes they are moving apart, but that does not proof they did move apart.
| Quote: | | Are you going to give religious arguments or scientific ones? |
Both!
| Quote: | | It most certainly can, and HAS been tested on something we know the date of. A good example is wooden furniture from the medieval era, which has its date of creation carved into it by the carpenter who made it. Scientists take a sample of the wood, and send it to a lab WITHOUT telling the lab when it was really made. The labs use radiological dating methods and ALWAYS come up with very accurate results |
This is an example of C 14 Dating, which according to you does not work on Old things, and the Methods you do use to date the earth does not work on things you know the date of so you can not proof it to work. And it has been proven not to work, many times.
| Quote: | | Not that you have to test it to know that it works... If it didn't work, then atomic theory would be wrong, and it's not. |
Not the atomic theory, theories of radiology dating which works on assertions.
| Quote: | | This is not an assumption which radiological dating relies on. It works fine even if God created the Universe. |
You assume God did not create, for example, the Uranium with some lead in it.
| Quote: | | Again, not an assumption. We know the decay rates of the isotopes involved as a matter of scientific fact. |
It is not always constant, thing decay faster or slower, thanks to factors like - heat.
| Quote: |
Yes, there most certainly is. We know *exactly* how powerful our telescopes are in terms of magnification power. When we use them to look at a distant galaxy, if those distant galaxies are only 6000 light-years away, then those galaxies must be absolutely tiny. |
I did not claim them to be 6000 LY Away, And you can not calculate the distance using magnification, you will have to assume the size of that stars.
| Quote: | | In addition, the red shift would be totally off; a galaxy which is only 6000 light-years away and is as red-shifted as the galaxies which astronomers claim to be billions of light-years away would be moving so quickly that its apparent position in the sky would change observably. But this doesn't happen. |
Assuming the red shift is caused by the Doppler Effect again!
| Quote: | | All of the *science* shows that the galaxies really are billions of light-years away. |
Wake UP! Your dreaming!
| Quote: | Are you saying that the galaxies which we observe through our telescopes don't really exist and that they're optical illusions? Are you serious?!?
|
No I said Space could be causing an illusions, to make the stars seem further away, It is called a bend.
| Quote: | | So let's recap: You haven't given a single scientific argument supporting your claim to a young Earth. In fact, you said, |
I can use Scientific arguments, but I’m going to try and show you I`m right using common sense! But first I would like to show you, those who told you they have proof of an old earth is wrong.
| Quote: | | I've given a BUNCH of MAINSTREAM scientific arguments showing that the Earth is millions or even billions of years old. |
The majority tends to be wrong, like History has shown us - - Many Many times. Like the Scientists which laughed at Pasteur - - Mainstream does not make your theory more right, this is logic, because we would not be able to discover without most discovering the same thing at the same time, almost ALL Scientific discoveries began with one man.
[quote]
By your own admission, you can't win this debate because this debate is about SCIENCE, and you admit that a young Earth is not science.
| Quote: | | So the best you can do is fight to a draw by showing that my arguments are all wrong. But in order for that to be the case: |
I intend on winning, using Philosophy.
| Quote: | | . Plate tectonics and continental drift, which are FACTUAL mainstream scientific theories and accepted by virtually all of the relevant experts has to be TOTALLY wrong |
Again this proofs it is religion. Lets recap: Scientific facts can be believed because it is FACT! Determined by Logic + Observation. Religion is claimed to be fact because you believe it. You claim to have the Facts because Scientists Believe it - - That is religion.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
| Quote: | | 2. Radiological dating and nuclear physics, which are mature mainstream scientific theories and accepted by virtually all of the relevant experts both have to be TOTALLY wrong. |
Again with the "Mainstream nonsense"
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Don`t know what nuclear Physics have to do with your assumptions!
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Not TOTALY only the part which says the Earth is Factually Billions of years old! I`m against the flaws and I`m trying to correct them.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
| Quote: | | 3. Mainstream astronomy, which is an EXTREMELY mature scientific area which is accepted by virtually all of the relevant experts has to be TOTALLY wrong. |
Not astronomy, You are trying to make me seem anti-Scientific, Im not against Science, Im against flaws mixed in with it.
| Quote: | | 4. Einstein and the theory of relativity have to be TOTALLY wrong, even though they've been experimentally verified thousands of times. |
Why TOTALY, Almost nothing is perfect, I`m just against the flaws, I`ll show you them.
| Quote: | | You don't even have a single scientific argument on your side, and in order for my side to be wrong, basically all of modern science has to be wrong. This is an OUTRAGEOUSLY arrogant position to take. You don't have any scientific training. You don't know as much about any of these topics as even ONE scientist in any one of these fields. Yet somehow you have the hubris to declare that you know more than ALL of the scientists in MULTIPLE orthogonal scientific fields. You haven't even finished high-school! It's ridiculous! |
I do not have to proof most of science is wrong, only their is flaws mixed in it. No Education is a match for common sense. You have put your education above your common sense.
| Quote: | | This debate is very quickly becoming a farce. You literally haven't given a single scientific argument supporting your side, and every single one of your rebuttals so far has been completely unscientific and wrong. |
Guess again! We still have to finish this debate for you to make such a statement
| Quote: | | Are you being serious?!? Are these honestly the best arguments and rebuttals that you can put forth?!? Are you even trying here?!? Have you ever even debated before? |
Clearly you Don`t know me.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
I’m not ignorant, I test things before I Believe it - - Or else I classify it as Religion, My religion has more advantages than yours - - As I will show you Your statement is just as Religious as mine, or even less.
So Far I did not Ignore any of your questions, show me if I`m wrong. But you have ignored one of my questions:
How do explain how something got to a element if it decays, I mean according to you it always decayed, other wise your dating does not work?
So you are the ignorant one! I’ll be scraping your arguments one-by-one, this is a classic case of Education vs Common sense. Common sense always wins, And for more I have God On my Side.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Prys die Heer! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PrysdieHeer!
Big Pit Bull
Joined: 30 Dec 2007
Posts: 392
Location: South Africa; Gardens of Pretoria
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 29, 2008 1:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I just spotted something I missed.
| Quote: | | No, I KNOW for a scientific fact that light moves at a constant speed. Einstein proved this, and it has been verified experimentally many thousands of times since. This is called science. You can disagree with it if you want, but if you do, then you're wrong, especially if you don't even have an argument to back up your position, and you clearly don't. |
Can you show me this proof, As far as i Know scinetists slowed light down in a lab once, and speeded it up.
My arguments are based on Common sense - - Man`s graetest sense. My argument is we have no scientific way of calculating the age of the Earth - - Yet - - But there is no Scientific proof of an old earth. I believe the Bible. It is writen History that the Earth is About 6000 Years old.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Prys die Heer! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 29, 2008 7:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| PrysdieHeer! wrote: | | Quote: | | Continental drift most certainly IS scientific. It's BEEN OBSERVED. Scientists routinely look at markers on continental plates before and after seismic events and can measure exactly how far the plates have moved. Denying continental drift is about as reasonable as denying that the Earth is round. |
Stop saying it IS science, science should be based on observation, logic and most of all common sense, you ignore all 3. |
Continental drift IS based on observation! We see it happening ALL THE TIME! Geologists and seismologists put physical markers and GPS markers at different places on the Earth's tectonic plates, and they LITERALLY measure their movement whenever there's an earthquake!
That's about as scientific as it gets!
| PrysdieHeer! wrote: |
The continents don’t drift.
|
Yes they do. We observe it all the time. You really have no clue what you're talking about.
| PrysdieHeer! wrote: |
They are peaks of mountains fixed to the crust of the earth, which sticks out.
|
More accurately, the continents are raised portions of the tectonic plates, and they really do move when the plates underneath move.
| PrysdieHeer! wrote: |
They don’t drift, the plates they are fixed to drift, but are still connected. |
I've got no idea what you're saying here.
| PrysdieHeer! wrote: |
If they clash you get an earthquake. |
And how exactly can they 'clash' if they're not moving???
| PrysdieHeer! wrote: |
Thinking they were once connected means you look at the parts sticking out and not the whole thing, if you remove the water they don’t even come close to fitting.
|
Are you blind? Didn't you see the picture of the continents which I posted above? The African and South American plates fit together perfectly! You obviously missed it, so here it is again:
| PrysdieHeer! wrote: |
In other words, you can’t say the continents were once contacted and separated millions of years ago, because, in truth, they are still connected, take the water out, and you will see there is dirt under the sea, which connects the mountains. |
The Earth's crust between Africa and South America is NEW crust. It is constantly created at the mid-Atlantic ridge by a phenomenon called sea floor spreading.
Here, read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mid_atlantic_ridge
Relevant quote:
| Quote: | | These plates are still moving apart, so the Atlantic is growing at the ridge, at a rate of about 2.5 centimeters per year in an east–west direction. |
Here it is in picture form:
Atlantic ridge pix Link
(edited to link) - Nobby
| PrysdieHeer! wrote: |
I live between 2 mountains, which seems like they could fit, there are no possible way they could split,
|
Nobody says that ALL mountains were at one point next to each other.
| PrysdieHeer! wrote: |
I repeat Continents Do not float on Water.
|
And nobody says that they do!
| PrysdieHeer! wrote: |
| Quote: | | Now you're quoting scripture?!? Is this supposed to be a scientific argument?!? |
No, Both Scientific and Scriptural.
|
Well leave the scripture out of this discussion. We're talking about scientific evidence here.
| PrysdieHeer! wrote: |
No you observe the continents moving from each other, which could not be caused by a drift, as I just showed you, they do not drift, most likely cause is the waves.
|
The waves make the continents move apart?!? What are you saying here?
The bottom line is this: The continents DO move. This is a scientific FACT because we see it happen ALL THE TIME. Africa and South America used to be adjacent, and since then they've moved about 5000 km apart. There's NO way that could have happened in just 6000 years, so your claim that the Earth is young is toast.
| PrysdieHeer! wrote: |
What is currently happening is no proof for what once happened. Currently Zimbabwe has an inflations rate of 5000% this was not always the case, yes they are moving apart, |
Well, at least I'm making progress with you and now you realize that the continents do move.
| PrysdieHeer! wrote: |
but that does not proof they did move apart. |
The fact the South American and African plates fit together perfectly proves that they were once next to each other. (There's a lot more orthogonal evidence for this as well.) They are no longer next to each other. This proves that they 'did move apart'.
| PrysdieHeer! wrote: |
This is an example of C 14 Dating, which according to you does not work on Old things, |
True, but the principle is the same. Scientists typically use Rubidium/Strontium dating.
| PrysdieHeer! wrote: |
and the Methods you do use to date the earth does not work on things you know the date of so you can not proof it to work.
|
Even if this were true (and it is not), C-14 dating certainly works, and many objects have been C-14 dated to be MUCH more than 10,000 years old. This alone blows your young Earth theory out of the water.
But with respect to the dating methods used on the Earth, we KNOW that they work because it follows directly from atomic theory and quantum mechanics.
| PrysdieHeer! wrote: |
And it has been proven not to work, many times.
|
Not true. Radiological dating works *perfectly* if used properly. There isn't a single documented case to the contrary. If there were, then it would prove that atomic theory is totally wrong.
| PrysdieHeer! wrote: |
| Quote: | | Not that you have to test it to know that it works... If it didn't work, then atomic theory would be wrong, and it's not. |
Not the atomic theory, theories of radiology dating which works on assertions.
|
Radiological dating is a science that is based directly on atomic theory. If it is wrong, then atomic theory is wrong. You really don't have very much respect for science, do you?
| PrysdieHeer! wrote: |
| Quote: | | Again, not an assumption. We know the decay rates of the isotopes involved as a matter of scientific fact. |
It is not always constant, thing decay faster or slower, thanks to factors like - heat. |
This is simply not true. None of the radioactive isotopes used in any dating methods we use can have their decay rates affected by temperature. You have been misinformed.
| PrysdieHeer! wrote: |
I did not claim them to be 6000 LY Away,
|
If they are closer, then it gets worse for your side of the argument, so I'm being generous and saying that they are 6000 light years away.
| PrysdieHeer! wrote: |
And you can not calculate the distance using magnification, you will have to assume the size of that stars. |
For a star which looks like it is 15 billion light years away to be only 6000 light years away, it would have to be something like 2,000,000 times smaller than we expect it to be. Our sun has a diameter of about 1,392,000 kilometers. So for a main sequence star which we think is 15 billion light years away to be only 6000 light years away, it would have to have a diameter of only 0.696 kilometers.
Do you believe that there are main sequence stars with a diameter of less than a kilometer? You know that this violates the laws of physics, right?
| PrysdieHeer! wrote: |
| Quote: | | In addition, the red shift would be totally off; a galaxy which is only 6000 light-years away and is as red-shifted as the galaxies which astronomers claim to be billions of light-years away would be moving so quickly that its apparent position in the sky would change observably. But this doesn't happen. |
Assuming the red shift is caused by the Doppler Effect again! |
There are no assumptions being made. Stars are made out of mostly hydrogen and helium. When we look at their spectral maps, we know where their absorption lines should be. If they are not where we expect them to be, then we know that they are shifted. From this we can measure the star's velocity relative to us. It's all very solid science without any assumptions. You really do have no idea what you're talking about.
| PrysdieHeer! wrote: |
| Quote: | | All of the *science* shows that the galaxies really are billions of light-years away. |
Wake UP! Your dreaming!
|
Are you trying to make a scientific argument here?
| PrysdieHeer! wrote: |
| Quote: | Are you saying that the galaxies which we observe through our telescopes don't really exist and that they're optical illusions? Are you serious?!?
|
No I said Space could be causing an illusions, to make the stars seem further away, It is called a bend.
|
And exactly what in the vacuum of outer space is causing this? I'd like a scientific argument, please.
| PrysdieHeer! wrote: |
| Quote: | | I've given a BUNCH of MAINSTREAM scientific arguments showing that the Earth is millions or even billions of years old. |
The majority tends to be wrong, like History has shown us - - Many Many times.
|
I don't think you understand the gravity of the situation you're in here. I've given MULTIPLE ORTHOGONAL scientific arguments for why the Earth cannot be young. Do you know what that means? It means that they don't rely on each other. They are independent. In order for the Earth to be young, they'd ALL have to be wrong. Do you understand that?
In order for them to be wrong, half a dozen areas of science would have to be TOTALLY wrong. There's no chance that even ONE of them is wrong, let alone all of them.
You really don't appreciate the logical strength of the argument arrayed against you.
| PrysdieHeer! wrote: |
You claim to have the Facts because Scientists Believe it - - That is religion.
|
No, I claim to have facts because the ARGUMENTS supporting those facts are based on very sound logic and evidence. Scientists have nothing to do with it. I don't need any faith in what people say. That's the whole point of science.
I'd also like to point out that you're using the term 'religion' in a derogatory way. You're not doing your side of the argument any favors by saying this, because your side of the argument is exclusively based on the Bible, which really IS religion.
You just tried to discredit my argument by calling it 'religion'. So by your own words you are admitting that your religious arguments aren't worth very much. (Not that I really need you to admit it, but I thank you anyways.)
| PrysdieHeer! wrote: |
Not astronomy, You are trying to make me seem anti-Scientific, Im not against Science, Im against flaws mixed in with it. |
You're maybe the most anti-scientific person I've ever interacted with. You believe that all of the geologists, seismologists, astronomers, nuclear physicists, cosmologists, and many other scientists out there are have no idea what they're talking about and that literally TENS OF THOUSANDS of scientific papers which have been published are ALL wrong. If that isn't anti-scientific, then I don't know what is!
It's also OUTRAGEOUSLY arrogant of you, and if you really consider yourself to be a Christian, then you should cut back on your flagrant hubris.
| PrysdieHeer! wrote: |
| Quote: | | 4. Einstein and the theory of relativity have to be TOTALLY wrong, even though they've been experimentally verified thousands of times. |
Why TOTALY, Almost nothing is perfect, I`m just against the flaws, I`ll show you them. |
Einstein proved that the speed of light in vacuum is an upper bound on the velocity with which anything can travel. This is a scientific fact.
You can believe that Einstein is an idiot if you want, but that just makes you look bad.
| PrysdieHeer! wrote: |
No Education is a match for common sense. You have put your education above your common sense.
|
You really need to change your opinion on this. This is an *extremely* ignorant thing to believe. If we relied on common sense rather than logic and science we would believe that the Earth is flat, that the Sun orbits us once a day, and we would have falsely rejected all of Einstein's theories as well as all of quantum mechanics.
'Common sense' is just about the worst handicap you can have when trying to reason scientifically.
| PrysdieHeer! wrote: |
I’m not ignorant,
|
Scientifically, you are extremely ignorant. You didn't even know about continental drift.
| PrysdieHeer! wrote: |
I test things before I Believe it - - Or else I classify it as Religion, My religion has more advantages than yours - - As I will show you Your statement is just as Religious as mine, or even less.
|
You've got that right! My statements are certainly *less* religious than yours.
| PrysdieHeer! wrote: |
But you have ignored one of my questions:
How do explain how something got to a element if it decays, I mean according to you it always decayed, other wise your dating does not work?
|
I ignored this question because I didn't understand what you were saying. Please clarify what you are trying to ask.
| PrysdieHeer! wrote: |
Common sense always wins |
No, it really doesn't. Common sense says that the Earth is flat. Common sense says that the Earth doesn't move and that the Sun travels around the Earth. Common sense isn't worth very much when it comes to reasoning scientifically. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PrysdieHeer!
Big Pit Bull
Joined: 30 Dec 2007
Posts: 392
Location: South Africa; Gardens of Pretoria
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2008 12:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Continental drift IS based on observation! We see it happening ALL THE TIME! Geologists and seismologists put physical markers and GPS markers at different places on the Earth's tectonic plates, and they LITERALLY measure their movement whenever there's an earthquake!
That's about as scientific as it gets! |
No! The movement of the plates are observed: Not the drift of the continents. - - - Major Difference - - - - -
| Quote: | | Yes they do. We observe it all the time. You really have no clue what you're talking about. |
They move- They don't DRIFT
| Quote: |
More accurately, the continents are raised portions of the tectonic plates, and they really do move when the plates underneath move. |
They Don`t Drift! Their position to the plates keep constant.
The Plates Drift on Magma.
| Quote: | | 've got no idea what you're saying here. |
I`m trying to say Continents -Africa- South America -etc Do not drift, the parts sticking out!
They are parts of plates, which drifts on Magma, But they do not drift away from each other - - The plates, i Mean, because on the other side there is still plates. Nazca and Australian. Listen to me and take the Water Out of the Ocean - - In your mind - - You will see they are still tightly packed to each-other - - How do you say There is a 5000Km gap, they still clash - - How can there b a gap?
| Quote: | | And how exactly can they 'clash' if they're not moving??? |
I agree the plates move but the continents are fixed to them. I said the continents do not drift - - The plates do - -
| Quote: | | Are you blind? Didn't you see the picture of the continents which I posted above? The African and South American plates fit together perfectly! You obviously missed it, so here it is again: |
See this is where your problem is, and since I love you - - I would like to corect that. This (Your Picture) is a picture of the continents fitting together - - Not the PLATES! - -
| | |
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
