BoneDog Posted 18 January 2009 Posted 18 January 2009 Having just looked him up his arguments against seem pretty standard, by which I mean mostly debunked or unimportant.And can I say again - that scientists aren't precisely sure what happened half a billion years ago shouldn't be a stick to beat them with. Who has debunked his arguements? And where is the 'proof' that the earth is half a billion years old? "Evidence of the Young Age of the Earth There are many natural processes which can be used to estimate the age of the earth. Henry M. Morris, Ph.D. of the Institute for Creation Research has an article called "The Young Earth" at http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-017.htm. In it, he shows a table of 76 different processes in nature that can be used to estimate the age of the earth. The table includes processes such as the influx of various elements into the oceans, the decay of the earth's magnetic field, the accumulation of meteoric materials on the earth, and many other processes. Of these 76 processes: 26 show the earth to be less than 10,000 years old 15 show the earth to be more than 10,000 up to 100,000 years old 11 show the earth to be more than 100,000 up to one million years old 5 show the earth to be more than one million up to 10 million years old 13 show the earth to be more than 10 million up to 100 million years old 6 show the earth to be more than 100 million up to half a billion years old None of the 76 processes show the earth to be more than half a billion years old. More than half of these processes show the earth to be less than 100,000 years old. It should be noted that these processes assume uniformity and further assume that none of the daughter component (the substance being formed) was present in the sample in the beginning. If any of the daughter component was present in the sample in the beginning, then that would cause the actual age to be even younger. The assumption of uniformity, that all conditions remained constant over the period of the measurement, is much more likely to be correct for short time periods than for long time periods. Therefore, the estimates that yield younger ages are more likely to be accurate. Yet the evolutionists say the earth is ten times older than even the longest of the estimates shown above. But they certainly do not say this by preponderance of the evidence. "
BoneDog Posted 18 January 2009 Posted 18 January 2009 Let's not forget that all the best scientists we have ever known all believed in a Creator. Newton, Einstein and may more.
BoneDog Posted 18 January 2009 Posted 18 January 2009 Berlinski? Seriously? That's as good as your argument gets? Berlinski! We have nothing to discuss, I'll leave you to your cerebral Yootoob clips and wiki pages. No, that is not as good as my arguement gets. But you obviously know more about how we got here although you haven't stated where any of your knowledge comes from. I have read many books and watched many films, so I don't know why you say you'll leave me to my yootoob clips. Visit My Website
Phube Posted 18 January 2009 Posted 18 January 2009 Let's not forget that all the best scientists we have ever known all believed in a Creator. Newton, Einstein and may more. Errrr... WRONG!!!! And Newton was brought up in the 16th or 17th century... not an enlightened age! Just read Dawkins!
Guest Bilo Posted 18 January 2009 Posted 18 January 2009 Errrr... WRONG!!!!And Newton was brought up in the 16th or 17th century... not an enlightened age! Just read Dawkins! Is that any good? I was torn between God is Not Great (Hitchens) and the God Delusion in Waterstone's. I procrastinated for a while and then bought neither. What a berk.
BoneDog Posted 18 January 2009 Posted 18 January 2009 Errrr... WRONG!!!!And Newton was brought up in the 16th or 17th century... not an enlightened age! Just read Dawkins! I have read Dawkins! And seen many of his lectures. He spouts utter rubbish. 'The Dawkins Delusion' is a better book than 'The God Delusion'. It is written by Alistair McGrath but I doubt you will ever read it. Francis Collins, Director of the Human Genome Project and Owen Gingerich, Professir of Astronomy at Harvard both say good words about the book. So you are saying that Newton was not enlightened?! Any scientist would tell you his works were more valuable than Dawkins' I'm sure.
Phube Posted 18 January 2009 Posted 18 January 2009 Is that any good? I was torn between God is Not Great (Hitchens) and the God Delusion in Waterstone's. I procrastinated for a while and then bought neither. What a berk. The God Delusion is fantastic... a real Eye opener! Turned me from (what I now know to be called) a Deist to a De Facto Atheist! Deist - Believed there might be a 'creator' but has absolutely nothing to do with an omnipotent God who meddles in every day life. I.e. they just started the Universe billions of years ago and let it go. De facto Atheist - Doesn't beieve there is a God, but can't prove it. But lives life as though one didn't exist.
Monk Posted 18 January 2009 Posted 18 January 2009 I don't think this should be a 'is there or is there not a god' thread... I think the issue here is whether his claim is reasonable? I do remember seeing a few months back a Christian campaign on the side of London buses, can't remember what it said but it was a bible quote. Now, I live in East London. I don't think many of the bus drivers are Christian, in fact from clothing I know at least some of them are Muslims. They didn't speak out against the Christian adverts. And indeed Muslim or Hindu people down at the BBC don't complain about songs of praise do they? Personally I think he should just drive the damn bus. TFL are not in the wrong here as far as I'm concerned. Having said that, I am a fairweather Christian. I just think that, to quote George Carlin 'Thy should keep thy religion to thyself!'
BoneDog Posted 18 January 2009 Posted 18 January 2009 Errrr... WRONG!!!! Errr... Wrong in what way? Newton and Einstein never believed in a Creator, or they weren't top scientists?
Phube Posted 18 January 2009 Posted 18 January 2009 I have read Dawkins! And seen many of his lectures. He spouts utter rubbish.'The Dawkins Delusion' is a better book than 'The God Delusion'. It is written by Alistair McGrath but I doubt you will ever read it. Francis Collins, Director of the Human Genome Project and Owen Gingerich, Professir of Astronomy at Harvard both say good words about the book. So you are saying that Newton was not enlightened?! Any scientist would tell you his works were more valuable than Dawkins' I'm sure. Newton was a (the) mathematical genius... but a religious fool. You do realise that the colours of the rainbow we all know are false... there are only 6, but because Newton was such a religious man he split the purple end into 2 so there were 7 colours (6 being the number of the beast!).
BoneDog Posted 18 January 2009 Posted 18 January 2009 I don't think this should be a 'is there or is there not a god' thread... I think the issue here is whether his claim is reasonable? I do remember seeing a few months back a Christian campaign on the side of London buses, can't remember what it said but it was a bible quote. Now, I live in East London. I don't think many of the bus drivers are Christian, in fact from clothing I know at least some of them are Muslims. They didn't speak out against the Christian adverts. And indeed Muslim or Hindu people down at the BBC don't complain about songs of praise do they? Personally I think he should just drive the damn bus. TFL are not in the wrong here as far as I'm concerned. Having said that, I am a fairweather Christian. I just think that, to quote George Carlin 'Thy should keep thy religion to thyself!' Yes, he should of drove the bus! It's only an advert. By some guys who like to wind people up. George Carlin was one of my favourite comedians. His 'golf' chat was class.
Phube Posted 18 January 2009 Posted 18 January 2009 Errr... Wrong in what way? Newton and Einstein never believed in a Creator, or they weren't top scientists? If you'd have properly read Dawkins you'd know Einstein wasn't religious at all. He used the word God to mean the mysteries of science. Oh and out of 700 odd Nobel Prize winning scientist do you know how many believe(d) in God? 1!
BoneDog Posted 18 January 2009 Posted 18 January 2009 Newton was a (the) mathematical genius... but a religious fool.You do realise that the colours of the rainbow we all know are false... there are only 6, but because Newton was such a religious man he split the purple end into 2 so there were 7 colours (6 being the number of the beast!). Well, it's a good job you are here to correct him. You ought to produce your own scientific papers sometime soon! 6 isn't the number of the beast. Three 6's is but not one 6. You might be joking of course!
Monk Posted 18 January 2009 Posted 18 January 2009 You do realise that the colours of the rainbow we all know are false... there are only 6, but because Newton was such a religious man he split the purple end into 2 so there were 7 colours (6 being the number of the beast!). Sorry, Phube, which is the 'false' colour which doesn't exist?
BoneDog Posted 18 January 2009 Posted 18 January 2009 If you'd have properly read Dawkins you'd know Einstein wasn't religious at all. He used the word God to mean the mysteries of science.Oh and out of 700 odd Nobel Prize winning scientist do you know how many believe(d) in God? 1! WHere do you get that from? Who cares about who got a nobel prize anyway? Doesn't mean they were the best scientists. Just wondering, how long have they been giving out nobel prizes?
AoWW Posted 18 January 2009 Posted 18 January 2009 Newton was a (the) mathematical genius... but a religious fool.You do realise that the colours of the rainbow we all know are false... there are only 6, but because Newton was such a religious man he split the purple end into 2 so there were 7 colours (6 being the number of the beast!). I didn't know that. I now feel stooopid for not knowing.
BoneDog Posted 18 January 2009 Posted 18 January 2009 If you'd have properly read Dawkins you'd know Einstein wasn't religious at all. He used the word God to mean the mysteries of science. Einstein did believe in God. Just because Dawkins might say he never doesn't mean it's true. Do you take everything Dawkins says to be gospel?
Phube Posted 18 January 2009 Posted 18 January 2009 Sorry, Phube, which is the 'false' colour which doesn't exist? All colours exist... but if there are 3 primary colours how can they be split into 7 'separate' colours. So he chose to split the purple end where our eyes can't distinguish easily into Indigo and violet! Color Wavelength violet 380–450 nm blue 450–495 nm green 495–570 nm yellow 570–590 nm orange 590–620 nm red 620–750 nm Official colours!
BoneDog Posted 18 January 2009 Posted 18 January 2009 Nobody I know thinks 'God' is an invisible man! That's why people think religion is stupid. Because they follow the parts of the Bible that have been changed in the last 1000 years. The King James version and all that. Lots of people have re-worded these books to make them sound stupid.
BoneDog Posted 18 January 2009 Posted 18 January 2009 All colours exist... but if there are 3 primary colours how can they be split into 7 'separate' colours.So he chose to split the purple end where our eyes can't distinguish easily into Indigo and violet! Color Wavelength violet 380–450 nm blue 450–495 nm green 495–570 nm yellow 570–590 nm orange 590–620 nm red 620–750 nm Official colours! There are 7 colours when we look at a rainbow. Count em yourself next time you see one.
stez Posted 18 January 2009 Posted 18 January 2009 Errrr... WRONG!!!!And Newton was brought up in the 16th or 17th century... not an enlightened age! Just read Dawkins! to presume we are in the enlightened age is rather arrogant, and probably wrong. i suspect we still have rather a lot to learn about a lot of things. a MORE enlightened would be more accurate, i mean some people can't even do plumbing!
AoWW Posted 18 January 2009 Posted 18 January 2009 All colours exist... but if there are 3 primary colours how can they be split into 7 'separate' colours.So he chose to split the purple end where our eyes can't distinguish easily into Indigo and violet! Color Wavelength violet 380–450 nm blue 450–495 nm green 495–570 nm yellow 570–590 nm orange 590–620 nm red 620–750 nm Official colours! I'm good 'with colours' and, from an artistic rather than scientific perspective, this makes sense. The 'science' would appear to back it up. It also explains why I've stood looking at rainbows before now wondering why I can't see a distinct Indigo AND Violet when I can clearly see the other colours.
Hullfox Posted 18 January 2009 Posted 18 January 2009 Do you take everything Dawkins says to be gospel? No but likewise you shouldn't expect us to believe everything that you write either.
Phube Posted 18 January 2009 Posted 18 January 2009 Einstein did believe in God. Just because Dawkins might say he never doesn't mean it's true. Do you take everything Dawkins says to be gospel? Einstein - "The idea of a personal God [the one religions believe in] is quite alien to me and seems even naive." There are 7 colours when we look at a rainbow. Count em yourself next time you see one. Really, next time have a 'proper' look, oh and see below! I'm good 'with colours' and, from an artistic rather than scientific perspective, this makes sense. The 'science' would appear to back it up. It also explains why I've stood looking at rainbows before now wondering why I can't see a distinct Indigo AND Violet when I can clearly see the other colours. I'm here to help!
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.