Statler Waldorf
Member
- Jul 30, 2005
- 176
- 0
- 16
SX and Paradise Lost = Satanic ??
- Thread starter BuNdi
- Start date
I just don't see how research into the lifespan of one single material (which in this case is helium) can possibly have that ecological validity to be applied to every single material in the entire Earth.
If you want evidence to support the idea that the earth is more than 6000 years old (which is my point here, I don't even care about the "4.56billion" figure, which you seemed to have assumed) just look at pretty much any research into radiometric dating... In fact, just look at some of the research that YOU showed, ie:
As I said, I'm not arguing for the "4.56billion" crowd. Im just arguing against the idea that the earth is specifically 6000 years old.
If you want evidence to support the idea that the earth is more than 6000 years old (which is my point here, I don't even care about the "4.56billion" figure, which you seemed to have assumed) just look at pretty much any research into radiometric dating... In fact, just look at some of the research that YOU showed, ie:
As I said, I'm not arguing for the "4.56billion" crowd. Im just arguing against the idea that the earth is specifically 6000 years old.
Statler Waldorf
Member
- Jul 30, 2005
- 176
- 0
- 16
Nice try, but 24 of the articles I cited were post 1980, but please do show me where it says that any article posted in the 60s and 70s is somehow automatically invalid? This has huge implications for Darwin's Origin of Species if this is how you truly feel
Statler Waldorf
Member
- Jul 30, 2005
- 176
- 0
- 16
But this is what creationists get cirticized for doing all the time, arguing against evolutoin does not prove creation. Arguing against my theory does not prove your's. The helium argument is based upon the principle of Uniformintarianism, which is the principle the billion of years number comes from with rediometric dating. It's the belief that all processes are constant, without it dating methods don't work. Well what they have done is used the same concept to extropolate from the amounts of helium in the crystals the age of the Uranium and Thorium, because you can assume the decay rate is a constant, to be 6000 years old. It's the exact same methods and protocol used with readiometric dating.
Oh and actually I think we have all missed one very important point. Any dating research into material that has its origins from the Earth can't be completely reliable because of the simple fact that the Earth has gone under many changes and transformations in the crust the core and the mantle because of weathering, plate tectonics and many other variables.
Whereas of course dating a foreign object would be much more reliable, ie: if you dated a meteorite that has landed on earth, then obviously the Earth must have existed somewhere near that date for the meteorite to have been able to land where it did. Just logic really.
Whereas of course dating a foreign object would be much more reliable, ie: if you dated a meteorite that has landed on earth, then obviously the Earth must have existed somewhere near that date for the meteorite to have been able to land where it did. Just logic really.
noble savage
Member
Darwin had a great theory for his time. The problem with that is, he was also wrong about many things. Science has substantially built on his ideas. Science is a dynamic thing and it does progress, even a year after something is published.
How do you explain all of the dinosaur remains in the same sediment layer, away from everything else? Surely if they existed along side people, while eating coconuts of course, they would be in the same strata with lots of other things, like goats.
How do you explain all of the dinosaur remains in the same sediment layer, away from everything else? Surely if they existed along side people, while eating coconuts of course, they would be in the same strata with lots of other things, like goats.
DoomsdayZach
The Professor was right
I got it. Doesn't mean I accept it.
Here's the point. Go back and re-read my posts with your new knowledge of what i was referencing in hand, then please get back to me. i'll link you back to my specific posts. If you're still having a rough time wrapping your head around it, I'll do my best to clarify.
First Post
Second Post
Third Post
Fourth Post
Fifth Post
Start with those.
edit: just realized since i am set to view 50 posts per page instead of the default 25, my links got all fucked up. Hold on a minute while i get everything fixed.
edit 2: ok, should be fixed. That should provide you with some reading material.
Statler Waldorf
Member
- Jul 30, 2005
- 176
- 0
- 16
Oh good you're back
I knew you had too much of a scientific mind to run from the discussion. I am not trying to be mean or anything, I would just rather discuss all of this like adults than get laughed at before you guys even let me make my case. Well the young earth scientists don't believe that strata is as accurate of a time reference as the old earth folks do due to Polystratic Fossils and Strata deformation. I am going to look into your question though and see if I can find an answer. It's a good question, but so also is "If T-rex is really 65 million years old then how come red-blood cells that can only last 10,000 years maximum be found in his newly discovered bones in Alaska?"
Statler Waldorf
Member
- Jul 30, 2005
- 176
- 0
- 16
Thanks man, I will give this all a look tonight when I get back from track practice and my graphic design class, so I am not ignoring you.
.
Just stressing the only non-biased point I have, and will ever make in a discussion such as this.
To be perfectly honest, while this discussion is interesting, it is ultimately futile, as is any debate between an Athiest and a Religious person. It's impossible for the viewpoints expressed not to be biased.
Statler Waldorf
Member
- Jul 30, 2005
- 176
- 0
- 16
I completely agree, futile in the sense that I am going to convince you of my argument or you convince me of your's. However I do think it's fun and interesting to talk about and see what everyone thinks.
noble savage
Member
Oh good you're back
I'm too damn stubborn!
DoomsdayZach
The Professor was right
No, you have it backwards. Your 6000 year old theory is disproven because there is evidence showing that it is older, but it has not gone to disprove that it is 4 billion years old by any strech. Follow me please...
-Written human record shows that humans are at least 5000 years old. Can the earth be younger than 5000 years old? Not unless with the formation of the earth came written history of a civilization that did not exist. I think we can all agree that this is highly unlikely.
Using this logic (which i think you can agree is fair), showing proof or even evidence that the earth is older only casts doubt on the lower side of the scale, not the upper. Going to the extreme you gave that pertains only to the earth and not the universe or other celestial bodies (Sea Salinity dating method- 62 million years) only shows that it is not possible for the earth to be less than 62 million years old. This does not put a cap on how old it can be, only raises the lower end of the scale to the earth being at least 62 million years. That is the evidence that discredits the 6000 year old earth, but it doesn't do anything to discredit the earth being older.
This is why I say your logic is flawed. You cannot say there is good proof that the earth is more than 6000 years old, but since a few hundred million is closer to 6000 than it is to 4 billion that your argument holds more weight. In fact, it gives yours less weight and the side that says it's 4 billion a lot more credibility.
So ultimately, you're right. A few hundred million IS closer to 6000 than it is to 4 billion, but it takes a bit more critical thought to discern what exactly it is you're showing. this is not a "who's closer" contest.
DoomsdayZach
The Professor was right
It's only fun if you actually embrace the oposite sides possibilities. Again, I am agnostic. I do not have a belief system. I find some theories much more logical, but i have no answers. I can only say what doesnt' make sense and why. However, i can flat out say my frustration with you is that you do not do this. In this thread i have told you the following:
-How it is possible for me, as an agnostic, to have moral values.
-Why your point on the big bang creating light from stars that are millions and millions of light years away is flawed
-Why the concept of a 6000 year old earth is flawed based on carbon dating
-Why the concept of a 6000 year old earth is flawed based on your own evidence that has been presented
That's just off the top of my head and i don't care to go back to look again. In every single instance you have ignored the points very blatantly and willfully, even though they were presented logically and explained fully. You have twisted words and exploited loopholes (now i'm repeating myself). Very few (if any) of your conclusions have been derived through logical means and critical thought, only through means which make little sense. It's not a fun discussion, it is exasperating. And you've literally done nothing to shake my beliefs or make me think i may be wrong, you've only cemented that your side makes no sense at all. And that's not a personal attack. I don't think i would enjoy hanging out with you on a personal level under any circumstances, but that is neither here nor there. simply your facts you have presented have such a shaky foundation in the best of cases that i cannot accept them as a serious concept.
Statler Waldorf
Member
- Jul 30, 2005
- 176
- 0
- 16
Well actually I have address several of these you're just not paying attention. As I said earlier, Carbon dating does not date the earth!!! Carbon dating is used to date organic matter not the planet itself, radiometric dating was used to date the planet. You are impossible to debate with if you don't have your facts straight enough to distinguish between different dating methods. As for the not wanting to hang out with me...duely noted. I will address your other inqueries when I get back tonight as I mentioned earlier.
Statler Waldorf
Member
- Jul 30, 2005
- 176
- 0
- 16
When I get back I will also address the problems with your arguments concerning the 62 million years as well Zach.
DoomsdayZach
The Professor was right
It doesn't have to date the earth. We can agree that the organic matter that is dated beyond 6000 years exists on the earth. Unless you're going to say that everything that is organic material (read: has some sort of life cycle, be it plant or animal) that exists beyond the 6000 year mark when earth was created is an alien life form of some sort, but that also contradicts what you have said before. So, seeing as you do not believe in alien life forms, we absolutely must assume that those plants and animals were native to the earth. Since there has been organic material dated to be older than 6000 years, the only conclusions that we can draw are:
A) The Earth is older than 6000 years old
B) Carbon Dating as a realistic measure of age is flawed
For option B to be the case, you'd have to show some very good evidence that carbon dating is not accurate. It is an accepted unit of measurement, so it has obviously been tested rigorously and yielded positive results to become accepted. Option A has ample evidence via other means of dating to support that it is over 6000 years old. I will say it again, to look at these facts and still state your firm belief that they are false without any proof is willful ignorance.
I don't care if you buy into it or not, but that makes sense to me. I think others would agree. I don't care to change your mind, but I'm pointing out how the logical train of thought works and why I really shouldn't have to explain the linking steps in the hypothesis "If carbon dating is accurate, then the earth is more than 6000 years old". It doesn't have to measure anything but organic age to make this statement true.
Then again, if you were to argue in favor of alien life forms, that would change the argument entirely
Rocksister
Member
As soon as the CD name was leaked a few months prior to release, I started researching "Paradise Lost." I actually checked it out at the library. Anyone ever try to read that in its original form? Yikes. Anyway, the book I checked out also had Milton's later work "Paradise Regained." I didn't read that part, but I know it's about salvation purchased by Christ's sacrifice, thereby negating Adam and Eve's "original sin" which caused them to "lose paradise." I was mesermized; SX even used exact phrasing from "Paradise Lost," the poem. Red-winged thunder, ethereal skies, all hail the horrors.....all those phrases are right out of the poem. I also decided to read Dante's "Inferno," just for curiosity sake, and was blown away. It was written in the 13th century, and is genius. Read it some time, whether you are religious or not. It does not say yea or nay to Christianity, it just gives a view of what the author "sees" when he visits hell with a dead man (the author himself is still a live mortal). Since SX has a song "Inferno," which may or may not have anything to do with Dante's work (I think it probably does), I just wanted to read it. Paradise Lost IS the story of Lucifer's fall from Heaven and his subsequent battle to regain entry. He wants to live there and does not agree that his jealousy and planned mutiny was reason to expel him. It's quite interesting; some Biblical stuff, some embellished, some made up. Milton is genius as well. Choke it down if you want more insight into the CD. I'd bet money that Michael Romeo is a genius and a geek in disguise and he reads stuff like this with a rabid passion. Anyone who likes Poe is cool by me.
noble savage
Member
I have been thinking about this thread for most of the day today and this kept coming to mind.
All of the arguments I have presented to back myself in this thread fell only within what I know, can semi comprehend and present as a counter example or with basic logic. I spend a good deal of time reading/learning about the latest news and discoveries in science and even with that, my knowledge is still limited to the basics in almost every field.
Statler, you have been everywhere in this debate. Every question and answer I posed in fields outside my limited knowledge you have been able to counter in one form or another with what on the surface appears sound. From that I have tried to formulate some conclusions. A) You have a vast knowledge of the scientific theory behind a large number of topics. So much so that you can claim all of them are fatally flawed and use them to prove points.
Then there is B) A few pages back I called you out on a big misconception regarding the big bang and "god" particles. You then immediately stated:
Wouldn't someone who took advanced physics understand that "god" particles are just hypothetical particles that give mass to other particles (Very hypothetical, it almost sounds like the term could have been nitpicked and be put anywhere the way you used it.) and don't pertain to the spark that caused the big bang? This leads me to one conclusion:
All of the arguments you have been providing hinge on the fact that (almost) no one has the technical grasp to refute them. I know I sure as hell can't refute most of them at a technical level. The immune system question a while back is a good example. There could be a great, valid scientific understanding of it but without an understanding of the science behind it, you can claim anything you want about it. Your scientific reasoning could be 100% wrong and removed directly from a creationist site and those without proper understanding could be completely mislead by it. I think I'm starting to see what's going on here..
If you don't mind me asking, exactly what kind of science are you involved in?
All of the arguments I have presented to back myself in this thread fell only within what I know, can semi comprehend and present as a counter example or with basic logic. I spend a good deal of time reading/learning about the latest news and discoveries in science and even with that, my knowledge is still limited to the basics in almost every field.
Statler, you have been everywhere in this debate. Every question and answer I posed in fields outside my limited knowledge you have been able to counter in one form or another with what on the surface appears sound. From that I have tried to formulate some conclusions. A) You have a vast knowledge of the scientific theory behind a large number of topics. So much so that you can claim all of them are fatally flawed and use them to prove points.
Then there is B) A few pages back I called you out on a big misconception regarding the big bang and "god" particles. You then immediately stated:
Wouldn't someone who took advanced physics understand that "god" particles are just hypothetical particles that give mass to other particles (Very hypothetical, it almost sounds like the term could have been nitpicked and be put anywhere the way you used it.) and don't pertain to the spark that caused the big bang? This leads me to one conclusion:
All of the arguments you have been providing hinge on the fact that (almost) no one has the technical grasp to refute them. I know I sure as hell can't refute most of them at a technical level. The immune system question a while back is a good example. There could be a great, valid scientific understanding of it but without an understanding of the science behind it, you can claim anything you want about it. Your scientific reasoning could be 100% wrong and removed directly from a creationist site and those without proper understanding could be completely mislead by it. I think I'm starting to see what's going on here..
If you don't mind me asking, exactly what kind of science are you involved in?
Statler Waldorf
Member
- Jul 30, 2005
- 176
- 0
- 16
Hey Noble Savage,
Well I hope it's more of the first option you listed because that makes me look a lot cooler than the second one haha. Well I think I kind of got lucky in a certain way. I went to a high school that had a very over-qualified biology teacher. Still one of the sharpest people I know, he believed that teaching us the weak points of evolutionary theory was just as important as the strong points of it. We were taught not to accept the theory as a whole but rather examine each of the hypothesese that constructed it. So in high school I spent a lot of time just talking with him and bouncing ideas off of him and discussing a variety of principles and parts of science. I then enrolled in university and spent time at first as a Pre-Med student, and decided that was not for me so I switched to Environmental Sciences which I enjoyed far more. So I have completed my BS with a minor in Geographic Information Systems and am looking at doing some post-grad work. The university I earned the degree from is smaller which I think has helped me out. I have been able to have small class sizes and more one on one discussion with my instructors. For my technical emphasis I took a lot of advanced biology courses and would even have Evolutionary debates with the instructor over pizza. Though I did take a full year of advanced physics, it was more calculation and calculus oriented than theory. The God Particles thing was in a video we watched talking about theory but that was a couple years ago so the theories may have changed, and I admit physics is not my forte. I would also say I do not like debating philosophy because I only took one philosophy course and it's just not something I am acustomed to debating. So I would say my strongest fields would be the Earth Sciences followed then by Biology. So if I try debating you guys on anything outside of these feel free to call me on it. How about anyone else?
Well I hope it's more of the first option you listed because that makes me look a lot cooler than the second one haha. Well I think I kind of got lucky in a certain way. I went to a high school that had a very over-qualified biology teacher. Still one of the sharpest people I know, he believed that teaching us the weak points of evolutionary theory was just as important as the strong points of it. We were taught not to accept the theory as a whole but rather examine each of the hypothesese that constructed it. So in high school I spent a lot of time just talking with him and bouncing ideas off of him and discussing a variety of principles and parts of science. I then enrolled in university and spent time at first as a Pre-Med student, and decided that was not for me so I switched to Environmental Sciences which I enjoyed far more. So I have completed my BS with a minor in Geographic Information Systems and am looking at doing some post-grad work. The university I earned the degree from is smaller which I think has helped me out. I have been able to have small class sizes and more one on one discussion with my instructors. For my technical emphasis I took a lot of advanced biology courses and would even have Evolutionary debates with the instructor over pizza. Though I did take a full year of advanced physics, it was more calculation and calculus oriented than theory. The God Particles thing was in a video we watched talking about theory but that was a couple years ago so the theories may have changed, and I admit physics is not my forte. I would also say I do not like debating philosophy because I only took one philosophy course and it's just not something I am acustomed to debating. So I would say my strongest fields would be the Earth Sciences followed then by Biology. So if I try debating you guys on anything outside of these feel free to call me on it. How about anyone else?
