666...the Devils Moving Average

Good post. I don't know the answers to a couple of your questions and will have to do some research. Now this post I appreciate except for the usual "I'm a genius and you're an idiot" comments.

 

I'm not the one who used the membership of a very exclusive club to make an argument against theism. I'm saying that I seriously doubt that any open theist stands a chance of getting into the NAS. I believe they would treat him just like you treat me as some sort of unthinking imbecile. If you wonder why I think this way, just look at stu and GG's posts...

 

It is perfectly valid to ask for proof for macroevolution.
But this is not the subject. You conveniently switched it.
The subject is that this guys contest is RIGGED.

THAT is what I am arguing.

HE conveniently throws in some impossible requirements
to ensure that no one can take his money.

Here is a VERY simple analogy which shows what this guy has done.


---- begin fictional analogy here -------------

I will offer anyone $250,000 if they can provide
ANY evidence that 1+1=2. * ( * = see footnote )


Footnote:
1) You must prove that 1+1=2 WITHOUT god, assuming god created numbers

---------- end fictional analogy ----------0



This is nothing more than dishonest trickery.

Even those every bit as dedicated as Hovind to opposing the Theory of Evolution recognize his offer to be a sham and an embarrassment.


QUOTE: Answers in Genesis, a creationist website devoted to promoting much the same viewpoint as Hovind's, has said of the offer: "AiG would prefer that creationists refrained from gimmicks like this."

Hovinds GIMMICK is a black eye to sincere creationists who
wish to propose their hypothesis as a valid scientific theory.

Here is a quote from the creationists at AIG (Answers in Genesis website):
In the interests of maintaining Christian/creationist integrity, we believed we had to respond to Kent Hovind’s critique (albeit with a heavy heart), particularly because of the mistakes in facts and logic which do the creationist cause no good.

They consider Hovind and embarrassment to creationists.


So don't try and tell us that the money hasn't been claimed
because there is NO evidence of evolution.
That would put you on the same level as this charlatan and
his silly stunt.

peace

axeman

 

It is just as rational to assume that the NAS does not fully represent our best and brightest but only the best and brightest secular humanists and skeptics.

 

You can seriously doubt all you want.
But the fact is, your asserting that somehow the NAS
filters and or discriminates against theists.

You have NO proof of this, and in fact, since I haven't heard
of any LAWSUITS based on theistic belief, I seriously doubt it.

The theists/churches would JUMP ALL OVER the NAS if
they had the slightest hint of them keeping theists out
for their devious atheistic purposes. Ha!

In fact, about 3% of the members ARE theists.
There is a very strong correlation between level of education
and theism. It is a negative one.

You may argue that it's the "education system" then that
filters out theists. But again you would have to prove this.
I've never seen a theist de-brainwashing class in college
that is required for everyone

Simply put... the more educated you become, the less need
you have for a god to explain what you did not already understand.



"I believe they would treat him just like you treat me as some sort of unthinking imbecile."

You are being way too hypersensitive here.
We are on the opposite ends of the spectrum in this debate.
It is safe to assume there will be some friction.

However, I will never call you an idiot, a moron, a fu**ing moron, etc, like many THEISTS blatantly call me at times when they can't defend their weak position.

I can be a an aggressive debater at times, but do not assume this means I think your an imbecile. I have some VERY intelligent theist friends, which I consider a paradox of sorts I still think they are intelligent, but I simply think they cannot defend their THEISTIC position. Intelligence is not an all or nothing type of thing. I'm a moron when it comes to wine selection, for example

I don't think your criticism of stu is fair. GG, on the other hand,
frequently steps over the line. ;-) Sorry GG.... just being honest.

I would prefer GG refrain from the outright attacks. It doesn't help his position.

Even I lose my cool sooner or later sometimes. But I try my
best to keep it civil.


peace

axeman

 

No, I don't have proof. I'm simply saying that you cannot use that as a proof of your side either.

This isn't a perfect example, but you'll get the idea: what if North Americans said to all the Latin American and African athletes, "How come you guys can't play football? You guys must suck as athletes." Of course, their answer would be, "You don't recruit here."

 

I admit stu is getting better at this. But he used to not be able to write two sentences without throwing out some sort of jab. I felt like I was back in junior high instead of talking to a bunch of highly analytical, mathematically minded traders...

 

This is the core of your argument and this one does not make sense. Yes, the firmament or canopy is like a concentric circle. And, yes, it is in the "heavens". You are an English-speaker so heavens to you means in "space" or "where God lives". That is not true with ancient Greek and that's obviously not true here. Moses did not even understand space - why would he be saying that water flew down from space? And, again, Moses is not a preschooler: he's not saying that the rain mystically was coming down from the throne of God or something. He's simply describing the concept that there is a dividing point where the water went up and down between and, of course, that's the definition of a water cycle.

 

The lunar event is an incredible (of course in my opinion) example of Design. Let me give a little background before I get to the details:

The change in the earth's atmosphere (in its early history) presents a serious challenge to scientific understanding. The rule of thumb in planetary formation is tha the greater a planet's surface gravity and the greater a planet's distance from its star, the heavier and thicker its atmosphere. Yet earth departs from that rule. Theoretically, Earth should have an atmosphere heavier and thicker than that of Venus, but in fact it has a far lighter and much thinner atmosphere. This leads us to the "Moon Miracle".

The solution to this mystery apparently lies with the Earth's moon. Most moons in our solar system are formed from the same solar disk material that generated the planets. As such, the are relatively small compared to their planets. A few moons orbiting the outer planets are foreign bodies that have been captured. Earth's moon, however, is the exception. It orbits a planet that is close to the sun and it is huge compared to its planet.

The moon is younger than the Earth. According to the Apollo's lunar rock samples, it is only 4.25 billion years old, compared to earth's 4.59 billion years. The same lunar rocks gathered by Apollo astronauts tell us that the moon's crust is chemically distinct from Earth's. Its distinct chemical makeup and its youger age establish that the moon and Earth did not form together.
Astronouts have seen and measured the moon's slow and steady spiraling away from Earth and the slowing of Earth' rotation. Their calculations suggest that the moon was in contact or near contact with Earth about 4.25 billion years ago. This implies some kind of collision at that time.

Only one collision scenario fits all the observed Earth-moon parameters and dynamics: a body at least the size of Mars, possibly twice as large, made a nearly head-on hit and was absorbed, for the most part, into Earth's core. Such a collision would have balasted almost all of Earth's original atmosphere into outer space. The shell, or cloud of debris, arising from the collision would orbit Earth and eventually coalesce to form our moon.

This remarkable even, if it occurred as the evidence indicates delivered Earth from a life-suffocating atomosphere and produced a replacement atmosphere thin enough and of the right chemical composition to permit the passage of light to Earth's surface. It increased the mass and density of Eaarth enough to retain (by gravity) a large quantity of water vapor (molecular weight 18) for billions of year, but no so high as to keep life-threatening quantities of ammonia (molecular weight 17) and methane (molecular weight 16). It also elevated the iron content of Earth's crust as to permit a huge abundance of ocean life. (Algae is dependent on iron and is the basis for all ocean life.)

I could go on and on about the Design aspects of this: how it tilted our planet, left our planet spinning at the exact right angular velocity, etc., etc. for life. But I've got to go. Suffice it to say that 4.25 billion years ago the Earth was the 8 ball and imo opinion someone perfectly hit us with a cue ball...

And that's why I've got to research your post a little more. There's a lot going on in the early stages of the earth's formation and I don't want to state anything incorrectly with regard to Genesis and the surrounding events...

 

How reliable is carbon 14 testing??????? "

No...and VERY.

Axeman
_________________________________________

"A major assumption underlying all radioactive dating techniques is that rates of decay, which have been essentially constant over the past 100 years, have also been constant over the past 4,600,000,000 years. This huge, critical, and untestable assumption is made, even though no one knows what causes radioactive decay. Furthermore, two lines of evidence suggest radioactive decay was once much greater than it is today.

It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be. Age estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years). There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological ‘clock.’

The public has been greatly misled concerning the consistency and trustworthiness of radiometric dating techniques (the potassium-argon method, the rubidium-strontium method, and the uranium-thorium-lead method). For example, geologists hardly ever subject their radiometric age measurements to “blind tests.” In science, such tests are a standard procedure for overcoming experimenter bias. Many published radiometric dates can be checked by comparisons with the evolution-based ages for fossils that sometimes lie above or below radiometrically dated rock. In more than 400 of these published checks (about half of those sampled), the radiometrically determined ages were at least one geologic age in error—indicating major errors in methodology. One wonders how many other dating checks were not even published because they, too, were in error.

A blind test requires that the person making the measurements not know (or be “blind” to) which of several specimens is the one of interest. For example, to measure a rock’s age by some radiometric technique, similar rocks—but of different ages—must accompany the rock. Only after the measurements are announced, can the technicians making the measurements be told the history of any specimen. Allowing persons with vested interests in the outcome of the test to make the measurement, or in any way influence those who do, opens the experimental procedure to subtle biases. Blind tests insure objectivity.

A special type of blind test commonly used in medicine is a “double-blind test.” Neither doctor nor patients know who has received the special treatment being tested. A random selection determines which patients receive the special treatment and which receive a placebo—something obviously ineffective, such as a sugar pill. Experienced medical researchers give little credibility to any medicine or treatment that has not passed a well-designed and rigorously executed double-blind test.

The Shroud of Turin, claimed to be the burial cloth of Christ, was supposedly dated by a blind test. Actually, the control specimens were so dissimilar that the technicians at the three laboratories making the measurements could tell which specimen was from the Shroud. [Personal communication on 19 July 1989 with Dr. Austin Long who participated in the measurement.] The test would have been blind if the specimens had been reduced to carbon powder before they were given to the testing laboratories.

Radiometric dates that do not fit a desired theory are often thrown out by alleging contamination. Few ever hear about such tests. If those who object to a blind radiometric date have not previously identified the contamination, their charges should carry little weight. If contamination is alleged before the test, the test may not be needed. Therefore, careful researchers should first objectively evaluate the possibility of contamination.

Humans are naturally biased. We tend to see what we want to see and explain away unwanted data. This applies especially to those proposing theories, myself included. Scientists are not immune to this human shortcoming. Many popular ideas within geology would probably never have survived had a critical age measurement been subjected to a blind test."
Dr. Walt Brown