[inthebox]

[QUOTE=sassyT]

credo, i am have a bachelors degree in Biology and Chemistry and am currenty working on my masters in Biology so i am guessing i am probably more scientifically educated that you. Do you know what carbon dating is? If so do you know that the assuptions used in carbon dating? Do you know that the assumptions are unvarifiable?
Therefore there is no certainty that the earth is 4.3 billion years old. This is only true, ONLY if you ASSUME that the assumptions used in dating the earth are accurate and there is no way to prove those assumptions are factual. So if you believe the earth is 4.3 billion years old, it is by Faith not because it is a fact.





How convenient for you. You have a possitive belief that there is no life after death therefore the burden of proof is also on you.





No, actually it just points out the flaws and inconsitancies in your beliefs. You said "it is just that simple" and i am pointing out to you that it is NOT that simple. Your "golden rule" philosophy only applies to a very few of circumstances and situations.





Yes, and i will explain why theism is more logical. An Athiests sees everything around them trees, flowers, animals, complex biological systems like the digesive system, reproductive system, immune system etc and an atheist comes to the smart conclusion that it just apeared from "no where" by "accident". If one uses common sense, a reasonable person would conclude that the complexity of design seen in our universe warrants an intelligent designer.
Let me give you an analogy... It would be like if i landed on Jupitor and found a complex functional machine that resembles a car and i come to the conclusion that ithe machine just a apeared on jupitor from no where by accident and evolved over time.
A reasonable sensible person would conclude after seeing the machine, its complexity of design and functionality, that there must be intelligent life on Jupitor capable of creating a designing the machine. However using this analogy an atheist would conclude that the machine has no intelligent creator or originator but rather appeared by accident from "no where". Logical? No

SASSSSSY ;)

Agree, science, that is the evidence at hand and not unprovable assumptions or theories, point away from random chance as to why and how things are here.

[Credendovidis]

08:51 PM : I am hoping that this thread does end up being closed!

09:01 PM : Are you always so negative ? WHY do you hope that ?

09:01 PM : I hope it doesnt close because I rather like having a thread I opened and keep it going for sometime so that I can post some more posts regarding believers in general.:)
I dont think I am always negative.

Well... may be not always... yes - no - yes - no : just make up your mind what you wish...

;)

[Credendovidis]

Credo, i am have a bachelors degree in Biology and Chemistry and am currenty working on my masters in Biology so i am guessing i am probably more scientifically educated that you.

I have degrees in Electronic Engineering and in Business Management. However , neither your degrees nor mine are any assetts in a discussion that at your side seems completely biased by your religious beliefs.

Do you know what carbon dating is?

Talk about a condescending attitude... ;)

if so do you know that the assuptions used in carbon dating? Do you know that the assumptions are unvarifiable? Therefore there is no certainty that the earth is 4.3 billion years old.

I assume you are one of these young earthers, or follow other creationists or ID views.
It is rather irrelevant if the solar system is 4.3 Billion years or 4.2 Billion years old.
What is important that it is NOT some odd 6000 years old, just because some selected dates in the Bible add up to that amount of time.
Science has clearly proven beyond any doubt that the solar system is some 4.x years old.
If you have other ideas, than PROVE that. Don't babble here non-scientific creationist' claims.

You have a possitive belief that there is no life after death therefore the burden of proof is also on you.

Total nonsense ! I have never stated that. I stated (or if I once slipped up : I should have stated) that there is no objective supporting evidence for life after death.
You and your theist mates claim that there is LAD. I ask you where the objective supporting evidence for the LAD is. So far that evidence is still missing.
The claim is your, not mine. If you can't prove your claim, it is all based on belief only, and surely no support for LAD.

Your "golden rule" philosophy only applies to a very few of circumstances and situations.

The golden rule applies almost everywhere and in almost every position and view. There are very few exceptions. Even your own Christian mentor used the golden rule. Read your book of instructions !

Yes, and i will explain why theism is more logical. An Athiests sees everything around them trees, flowers, animals, complex biological systems like the digesive system, reproductive system, immune system etc and an athiest comes to the smart conclusion that it just apeared from "no where" by "accident". If one uses common sense, a reasonable person would conclude that the complexity of design seen in our universe warrants an intelligent designer.

What intelligent designer? Why him/her/it? Why not the Pink Unicorn or the Spaghetti Monster? Because you BELIEVE in the ID. You BELIEVE the ID exists. But you have no objective supporting evidence for that religious claim.
So who is making up here his/her arguments? Not I!! By the way : please get a course in logical argumentation : you really need one !

;)

[Credendovidis]

I see this "golden rule" bandied about all the time. Why do you adhere to this versus another philosophy,....
for example. I should do whatever I dang well please, that is all that matters.

And if you think that way, everyone should be allowed to think that way. How long do you think would you last under these conditions in some back street in one of the US metropoles ?

Or perhaps A Darwinian philosophy of,..... by whatever means I'm am going to survive and make sure my genes are passed on, even if means eliminating "inferior" competittion.

The golden rule tells you that if you like to pass your genes, everyone else should be allowed to do the same. A good and fair rule that serves all. But who is going to decide what "inferior" is in this philosophical context?

As to origins of life, what proof do you have that "the conditions were right, " is there a lab somewhere that actually knows the exact conditions at the very begining?

Life exists. And science tells us that life exists on earth already about 3.5 Billion year.
A logical conclusion is that the conditons were right, that long ago. Or was it 3.4 or 3.6 Billions years ?
The ID "Jack out of the box" is NOT a logical conclusion. For the ID there is no logical reason to exist at all. The universe does not need an ID, life does not need an ID. The only ones that require an ID are semi-creationist' believers in an ID.

;)

[inthebox]

And if you think that way, everyone should be allowed to think that way. How long do you think would you last under these conditions in some back street in one of the US metropoles ?


The golden rule tells you that if you like to pass your genes, everyone else should be allowed to do the same. A good and fair rule that serves all. But who is going to decide what "inferior" is in this philosophical context?

How about rape? That is a means of passing on your genes?
Look up eugenics and Hitler, this is a historical example of Darwinism.

Life exists. And science tells us that life exists on earth already about 3.5 Billion year.
A logical conclusion is that the conditons were right, that long ago. Or was it 3.4 or 3.6 Billions years ?
The ID "Jack out of the box" is NOT a logical conclusion. For the ID there is no logical reason to exist at all. The universe does not need an ID, life does not need an ID. The only ones that require an ID are semi-creationist' believers in an ID.

;)

What is the logical conclusion YOU can draw fom the fact that scientists can not prove or show evidence of life from non-life. Link me to a peer reviewed science journal that can 1] know the exact conditions at the start of life from non life 2] reproduce this 3] and demonstrate that this "life" can propagate and give rise to other divergent life forms.

This cannot be done, and so your belief, and that is what it is, is based on the faith. Faith / belief that you disparage if it is religious faith / belief.


Here is science

The Photonic Beetle: Nature Builds Diamond-Like Crystals For Future Optical Computers


“NATURE has simple ways of MAKING structures and materials that are still unobtainable with our million-dollar instruments and ENGINEERING strategies.”

“NATURE uses very simple strategies to DESIGN structures to manipulate light – structures that are beyond the reach of our current abilities,” Galusha says.

Notice all the amount of human research it takes to discover what is DESIGNED [ in nature. if you cannot accept God] by God. :D

[sassyT]

[QUOTE]

I have degrees in Electronic Engineering and in Business Management

that explains your ignorance in the field of radiometrics.

However , neither your degrees nor mine are any assetts in a discussion that at your side seems completely biased by your religious beliefs.

Your side is biased by your religious beliefs in a religion I like to call secular humanisms.

I assume you are one of these young earthers, or follow other creationists or ID views.
It is rather irrelevant if the solar system is 4.3 Billion years or 4.2 Billion years old.
What is important that it is NOT some odd 6000 years old, just because some selected dates in the Bible add up to that amount of time.
Science has clearly proven beyond any doubt that the solar system is some 4.x years old.
If you have other ideas, than PROVE that. Don't babble here non-scientific creationist' claims.

I Don't believe the earth is young or old. I believe the FACT that the age of the earth is unknowable and unprovable beyond a doubt. That is the FACT of the matter. If you believe it is 4.3 billion years old, it is by FAITH.
The Bible does not tells us the age of the earth. It just says "in the begining God created the Heavens and the earth..." It does not specify the time frame from when God created the earth to when He created man. That time frame could have been anywhere from 1day to a Trillion years. No one knows.

Total nonsense ! I have never stated that. I stated (or if I once slipped up : I should have stated) that there is no objective supporting evidence for life after death.
You and your theist mates claim that there is LAD. I ask you where the objective supporting evidence for the LAD is. So far that evidence is still missing.
The claim is your, not mine. If you can't prove your claim, it is all based on belief only, and surely no support for LAD.

There is objective evidence for life after death. There are many people who have died for a few minutes or had near death experiences and have come back to tell what they saw on the other side. Read these..
BBC News | HEALTH | Evidence of 'life after death'
Scientific evidence for survival of consciousness after death
The evidence is there but it is just a matter of do you accept it or not. Whether you do or not, your choise is purely subjective.



[QUOTE]

What intelligent designer? Why him/her/it? Why not the Pink Unicorn or the Spaghetti Monster?

It could very well have been the spaghetti monster who created the Universe. Someone did. Relying on Logic alone, logic tells us that things that apear to have an obvious design and functionality, must have an intelligent originator.
For example... It is illogical to see a Computer and conclude it appeared accidentally and has no intelligent creator behind it. The human brain far more advanced than a computer in its design and functionality, so it is just as illogical to conclude the brain appeared accidentally and has no intelligent creator.

[sassyT]

INTHEBOX: What is the logical conclusion YOU can draw fom the fact that scientists can not prove or show evidence of life from non-life. Link me to a peer reviewed science journal that can 1] know the exact conditions at the start of life from non life 2] reproduce this 3] and demonstrate that this "life" can propagate and give rise to other divergent life forms.

This cannot be done, and so your belief, and that is what it is, is based on the faith. Faith / belief that you disparage if it is religious faith / belief.

Lol.. I agree with you.. It looks like Credo is not following his/her own motto "I believe it as soon as I see it " She/he obviously has not witnessed most of what she believes in niether is there any factual evidence for the things she has Faith in.
I think its time she change her credo.. :D

[Credendovidis]

... that explains your ignorance in the field of radiometrics.

You have now lowered yourself to a deliberate insulting and aggressive attitude. Let's see how board management react on that...

You can not and have not even supported that "ignorance in the field of radiometrics".
But even if you can, it has little to do with the question lead.
Are you always reacting that way when you run out of real arguments?

;)

[wildandblue]

The theory of relativity tells us that a day is the time it takes Earth to revolve once on it's axis, a year is the time it takes to go once around the sun. So if the Earth is for some reason moving more slowly a year could take a really long time. If for some reason it starts to spin in the opposite direction time travels backward. So an Earth 6000 years or billions of years old is not mutually exclusive.

[sassyT]

[QUOTE]

You have now lowered yourself to a deliberate insulting and aggressive attitude. Let's see how board management react on that...

There is nothing insulting about saying someone is ignorant in a certain subject. I am ignorant too in the subject of sky diving, mining, flying kites etc.. Big deal... that is not an insult. :rolleyes:

You can not and have not even supported that "ignorance in the field of radiometrics".
But even if you can, it has little to do with the question lead.
Are you always reacting that way when you run out of real arguments?

You have clearly displayed an ignorance in the fact that carbon dating uses assumptions that can not be proven true to determine, with certainty, the age of the earth. Therefore saying the earth is 4.3 billion years old is NOT a fact. It is a generally accepted scientific theory. If you were educated on the subject of methods used to date the earth you would know this.

[Credendovidis]

The theory of relativity tells us that a day is the time it takes Earth to revolve once on it's axis, a year is the time it takes to go once around the sun. So if the Earth is for some reason moving more slowly a year could take a really long time. If for some reason it starts to spin in the opposite direction time travels backward. So an Earth 6000 years or billions of years old is not mutually exclusive.

You REALLY need some tutoring regarding the theory of relativity.
No, that theory is not about what a day is, how the earth revolves around it axis, and surely not on 6000 earth years being capable of - based on what you stated - billions of years.

It is not very wise to use arguments which you clearly do not understand as basis of your own religious argument.

:rolleyes:

[Credendovidis]

You have clearly displayed an ignorance in the fact that carbon dating uses assumptions that can not be proven true to determine, with certainty, the age of the earth. Therefore saying the earth is 4.3 billion years old is NOT a fact. It is a generally accepted scientific theory. If you were educated on the subject of methods used to date the earth you would know this.

You call that ignorance ? Let's discuss YOUR IGNORANCE!!
Carbon dating has never been used for dating the age of the solar system. Where did I state that?
It it YOU who brought up carbon dating. Not I.

Periods of billions of years can never be calculated from carbon dating. One of the many available dating processes that can go that far back is uranium dating.

Besides that all : it is irrelevant if it is 4.5 Billion years, or 3.5 or 5.5 Billlion years.
Note that I have no problem if you follow Ken Ham and his creationist friends. Believe whatever you prefer to believe.
But whatever Ken Ham tells you, science makes sure that certainly the earth is much much older than some odd 6000 years, a claim that is based on biblical data only, and not on facts.

;)

[HistorianChick]

Firmy... just had to say, kudos to you for effectively stating your beliefs, your belief system, and your core foundations. It takes courage to do so, even on an anonymous, public forum such as AMHD.

Debating never has, nor ever will be, one of my forte's... I'm not a proponent of debating simply to debate. Therefore, this thread has become (in my own opinion), virtually useless because it has veered off topic - that of stating an individual forum member's core belief.

Maybe it should have been posted in The Lounge as opposed to Religious Discussions... Or maybe Religious Discussions should be renamed Religious Debates. :)

Bottom line: I'm proud of you, Firmy, for stating your beliefs. For being willing to take the "heat" for what you believe. For enduring the line-by-line shredding of your belief system and not wavering. You go, girl.

One thing that Credendovidis said on one of his posts that caught my eye and made me go "Hmm, I like that" was that it is the prerogative for each individual to state "I believe that..." before stating their beliefs because that is true in its very essence. We all believe what we believe. That's it. So, kudos to credendovidis for that statement.

:) HC out. :)

(Yup, I show up, make a comment, encourage a poster, and leave. Random acts of encouragement. Yeah... I'm OK with that! :))

[firmbeliever]

Awww... thank you for the encouraging words HC!

[Credendovidis]

Your side is biased by your religious beliefs in a religion i like to call secular humanisms.

I note that you can not even spell that properly. The more angered you get, the more of these mistakes you seem to make... I wonder why...

Besides that : Secular Humanism has nothing to do with religion or religious beliefs.
It is just a worldview. (Secular = wordly and Humanism = interest in or corcern for human beings)

It really helps in a "discussion" to know what you are talking about...

;)

[sassyT]

[QUOTE]

You call that ignorance ? Let's discuss YOUR IGNORANCE!!
Carbon dating has never been used for dating the age of the solar system. Where did I state that?
It it YOU who brought up carbon dating. Not I.

Where did the solar system come from? We are talking about the earth being 4.5 billion years old. Don't abandon ship..

Periods of billions of years can never be calculated from carbon dating. One of the many available dating processes that can go that far back is uranium dating.

Which is a form of radiometric dating that uses at least 5 assumptions as a premise.

Besides that all : it is irrelevant if it is 4.5 Billion years, or 3.5 or 5.5 Billlion years.
Note that I have no problem if you follow Ken Ham and his creationist friends. Believe whatever you prefer to believe.
But whatever Ken Ham tells you, science makes sure that certainly the earth is much much older than some odd 6000 years, a claim that is based on biblical data only, and not on facts.

Like I said before, the Bible does not say or even imply the earth is 6000years old.
So who ever this Ken Ham guy is, that is his guess and his guess is as good as yours, 4.5 billion. My guess is 500 trillion :D
The bottom line is the methods used to date the earth apply assumptions that can not be proven. Just to give a reminder let me define the word "assumption" for you

as·sump·tion (ə-sŭmp'shən)
n.
The act of taking for granted: assumption of a false theory.
Something taken for granted or accepted as true without proof; a supposition.
A minor premise.

So like I said, you can only have FAITH that the assuptions in radio dating are accurate. There is NO way of KNOWING, that the assuptions are accurate therefore making 4.5 billion nothing more than a good guess. :)

[WVHiflyer]

[QUOTE=inthebox]How about rape? That is a means of passing on your genes?
Look up eugenics and Hitler, this is a historical example of Darwinism.

The passing of genes is "Darwinism" - at least part of it, but references to eugenics are examples of a bastardization of evolutionary theory called "social Darwinism" and has no real connection to evolutionary science.

As to the posts about a so-called "intelligent designer," and an atheist seeing "accidents"... your designer wasn't so intelligent in mechanical engineering, chemical engineering, DNA replication... etc. And I see none of the things you mentioned as "accidents" except in that they were not planned. From geological structures to every living thing, they are the result of entirely natural processes - which include the occasional "mistakes" which result in either the detriment of offspring, or their betterment.

[sassyT]

[QUOTE]

I note that you can not even spell that properly.

okey I can't spell and you have terrible grammar.. so we are even lol

Besides that : Secular Humanism has nothing to do with religion or religious beliefs.
It is just a worldview. (Secular = wordly and Humanism = interest in or corcern for human beings)

It really helps in a "discussion" to know what you are talking about...

Hey... I'm saying what other Humanists say about it... John Dewey described Humanism as our "common faith." Julian Huxley called it "Religion without Revelation." The first Humanist Manifesto spoke openly of Humanism as a religion.
Many other Humanists could be cited who have acknowledged that Humanism is a religion.
In the 1950's, Humanists sought and obtained tax-exempt status as religious organizations. Even the Supreme Court of the United States spoke of Secular Humanism as a religion. The Doctrine a beliefs of secular humanism are based on faith, not facts.
So it looks like you need to do more research on your own religion.

[sassyT]

[QUOTE]

As to the posts about a so-called "intelligent designer," and an atheist seeing "accidents"... your designer wasn't so intelligent in mechanical engineering, chemical engineering, DNA replication... etc.

How did you come to that conclusion? If we say hypothetically, for your sake, that there is an intelligent designer who created the entire universe and beyond, what makes you say he was not intelligent in the above components you listed? Please clarify

And I see none of the things you mentioned as "accidents" except in that they were not planned.

Isn't that in essence the saying the same thing?

From geological structures to every living thing, they are the result of entirely natural processes - which include the occasional "mistakes" which result in either the detriment of offspring, or their betterment.

This is true assuming the evolutionary theory is accurate in its premise. However although it is generally accepted by scientists, it is not however a fact and its validity is highly questionable.

[WVHiflyer]

Not so 'intelligent': humans' bad backs, appendix; panda's reappearing thumb; that there are errors in DNA replication; hormonal imbalances...

Accidents are not the same as not planned. Many things occur that aren't planned that are not considered 'accidents' and could be even "good news" (serendipity, spontaneity).

There is no credible, evidence against the theory of evolution. It is as accepted a "fact" as the one that states the Earth revolves around the Sun or that gravity is what makes you fall down. The only debate among scientists (credible ones, anyway) are the mechanisms by which it occurs. So your belief that it is "highly questionable" couldn't be more wrong.