Register | Sign In

Understanding through Discussion

EvC Forum active members: 57 (9175 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: sirs
Post Volume: Total: 917,649 Year: 4,906/9,624 Month: 254/427 Week: 0/64 Day: 0/8 Hour: 0/0

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   The Glorification and Worship of Torture
Posts: 5974
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 4.2

Message 51 of 98 (918617)
05-16-2024 9:06 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by candle2
05-15-2024 1:56 PM

It is amazing how much real science can be learned by investigating and verifying creationist claims/lies. There's even a very good series of YouTube videos based on that observation; from my own links page:
How Creationism Taught Me Real Science, a YouTube video series by Tony Reed
The general format of this series of more than 40 videos is that he starts out "encountering" a creationist claim, which he presents as a creationist would, whereupon he declares that it sounds so convincing that he just has to investigate it. Of course, the claim falls apart upon inspection.
What first attracted me to this series was the title, since it reflects my own experience. I have always liked science and knew more about science than most people. But I have found that in researching and refuting creationist claims I have also learned so much more about real science. Also, his videos are well researched and presented clearly.

As long as you mindlessly parrot creationist lies, you verify our impression that your silly false religion is pure bullshit. Thank you for your tireless dedication to your crusade to promote the growth and spread of atheism.
If promoting atheism is not your intended goal, then you need to change your evil ways. Until you do that, then thank you for your service to atheism.
Using triangulation to determine the distance of galaxies
is not reliable with distances of more than 100 light years.
Your creationist liar's source is seriously out-of-date, which is extremely common creationist practice (eg, Dr. Henry Morris' catastrophic moon dust claim was an attempt to say "nu-uh!" by citing a "1976" NASA study which was actually the 1967 printing of a 1965 symposium; that claim was so bad and obviously false that even the ICR stopped using it, though you will still find it in Morris' book, Scientific Creationism and other creationist continue to push it). By moving the process out beyond the earth's atmosphere, etc, we have pushed that old limit from half a century ago out to 10,000 light years; Wikipediaj: Parallax in_astronomy:
In 1989, the satellite Hipparcos was launched primarily for obtaining improved parallaxes and proper motions for over 100,000 nearby stars, increasing the reach of the method tenfold. Even so, Hipparcos was only able to measure parallax angles for stars up to about 1,600 light-years away, a little more than one percent of the diameter of the Milky Way Galaxy. The European Space Agency's Gaia mission, launched in December 2013, can measure parallax angles to an accuracy of 10 microarcseconds, thus mapping nearby stars (and potentially planets) up to a distance of tens of thousands of light-years from Earth. In April 2014, NASA astronomers reported that the Hubble Space Telescope, by using spatial scanning, can precisely measure distances up to 10,000 light-years away, a ten-fold improvement over earlier measurements.
In other news of how far we've advanced from old-timey "truths", the "known" dangers of them new-fangled locomotives have been disproven: it is indeed possible for human lungs to function at speeds exceeding 35 miles per hour. Oh, and, yes, manned powered flight does work.
If you want to be an idiot, then that's your own silly business. If you want to learn something, then first you need to pull your head out of your ass.
Farther out astronomers calculate distance by
luminosity. It is assumed that the brighter an object appears,
the closer it is to us. Fainter objects are assumed to be
farther away.
Are you trying to claim that the inverse-square law is false? What stupid lying creationist has deceived you into thinking that? And how could you be such a stupid ignorant idiot to believe him?
Astronomers and students of astronomy know a lot about light, extremely more than you and your stupid lying creationists do. Study astronomy and learn even a small fraction of what astronomers know.
And, yes, I'm imploring you to learn something with the full knowledge that you will never ever consider doing anything to relieve yourself of your willful ignorance and willful stupidity. You will continue unabated to demonstrate to the world what complete and utter idiots creationists are -- there are different levels of creationist, some of whom are the professionals who cook up and serve the deceptive slop and you low level creationist in the pigsty gorging yourselves on that slop.
Red shift is also questionable.
What the fuck are you talking about? Do you know nothing about Bad title - Wikipedia and what could affect it? Are you completely ignorant of the Doppler effect? And of Frauenhofer lines? And of their roles in astronomy's use of spectroscopy?
Learn how things actually work instead of mindlessly gorging yourself on stupid lying creationists' deceptions.
Light travels slower in dense material, and faster in
thinner space.

It is nor scientific to assume that light had always traveled
at the same speed.
What the fuck are you talking about? Yes, it is a well-known fact that light travels at different speeds through different media, which is why the speed of light is specified by the medium (eg, 299,792,458 metres per second IN A VACCUM).
But that has nothing to do with Setterfield's stupid false claim that the speed of light has been slowing down over time, AKA "c-decay." Every measurement has a margin of error (depicted in graphs as error bars) and as our more modern measurements of the speed of light have become more accurate (ie, smaller error bars) then that means that the earlier measurements were less accurate (ie, larger error bars). Setterfield tried to cook the data to show decay, whereas in reality the speed of light having remained constant throughout the history of those measurements lies well within the margins of error.
In addition, many physics phenomenon (including rates of radioactive decay, the very reason for Setterfield's claim) depend on the speed of light. C-decay would cause a plethora of extreme problems (including the heat problem equivalent to thousands of thermonuclear devices simultaneously detonated over every single square mile of the earth's surface and which no creationist has ever been able to answer, as pointed out frequently by Erika "Gutsick Gibbon" on YouTube (look it up!)), plus analysis of the spectra of objects thousands of light years away exhibit none of the nuclear physics effects that c-decay would have to cause, but instead shows that the speed of light was the same as now even those thousands of years ago.
Nothing supports c-decay and everything we see contradicts it.
Interesting war story (or "sea story" if you were ever Navy). Circa 1990 a creationist opened a fossil shop in a local mall and he also organized open-format (ie, unmoderated) "creation/evolution debates" in which anyone with something to say could get up and present it. Since I made sure to advertise it, the audience was roughly evenly split.
From my website:
I have actually seen many creationists present a list of old often refuted claims confidently claiming that they "remain unanswered by the evolutionist" (an actual quote from a creationist site that he continues to claim years after learning otherwise), only to be utterly dumbfounded as he watched every single claim get ripped to shreds. For example, at an amateur-night debate I witnessed a young creationist get completely blown away when he got up and announced a "brand-new scientific discovery that will blow you evolutionists away", which turned out to be a then-decade-old claim that was refuted as soon as it was published (Setterfield's claim that the speed of light has been slowing down) and the "evolutionist" half of the audience burst out into uncontrollable laughter while at the same time trying to explain to him why that claim is bogus. It was the young creationist who found himself "completely blown away" by the truth.
If you weren't so woefully lacking in self-awareness, you would immediately see yourself in that young creationist.
Those "debate nights" were also where I learned that creationists are woefully ignorant of their own position. All they can do is to parrot claims that they have heard but do not understand. They literally have no clue what they are talking about. Just like you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by candle2, posted 05-15-2024 1:56 PM candle2 has not replied

Posts: 5974
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 4.2

Message 54 of 98 (918631)
05-16-2024 4:46 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Percy
05-16-2024 4:29 PM

candle2 is making the typical creationist mistake of applying a naïvely simplistic Kindergarten-level understanding of a scientific principle while ignoring how that principle is actually applied in practice. Restricting himself to tech that's a century old is another common creationist mistake.
Distortion from peering through the earth's atmosphere was one limiting factor even half a century ago, but we are no longer limited by that thanks to space-based telescopes. Image processing technology adds even more accuracy. Basing telescopes out into interplanetary space will provide us with a baseline far greater than 2 AU. As I quoted from Wikipedia: "In April 2014, NASA astronomers reported that the Hubble Space Telescope, by using spatial scanning, can precisely measure distances up to 10,000 light-years away, a ten-fold improvement over earlier measurements."
A Mexican President remarked c. 1980 in his 60 Minutes interview: "It's been a long time since we've worn feathers." Not only does candle2 think that we still wear feathers, but he also thinks that we're still banging rocks together. Unbeknownst to him, we have made many advancements since then.
Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy:
Galactic newscaster: "And for all you lower lifeforms out there, the secret is to keep banging those rocks together, guys!"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Percy, posted 05-16-2024 4:29 PM Percy has not replied

Posts: 5974
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 4.2

Message 60 of 98 (918704)
05-18-2024 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Tanypteryx
05-18-2024 1:25 PM

candle2 writes:
Science and Creation are extremely compatable.
Not according to science.
Slight quibble.
On the surface, candle2's mere words are true, but candle2's intent is wrong and his meaning is completely false because his idea of "Creation" is completely incompatible with any possible actual Creation. That is to say that his statement as he intends it is completely false, but it actually says nothing at all about the relationship between science (which includes evolution) and a possible Divine Creation. IOW, candle2 through his creationism denies and opposes the Creation.
There is nothing about the natural universe that precludes it having been created supernaturally, it's just that, as attributed to Laplace, there is no need to invoke the supernatural in order to explain the natural. Does not disprove the supernatural; it's just that the supernatural is useless for working with the natural.
"I had no need of that hypothesis."
("Je n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là", allegedly as a reply to Napoleon, who had asked why he hadn't mentioned God in his book on astronomy.)
The natural universe is as it is regardless of how it had come into existence (or whether it had even had a beginning). Whether by supernatural means, including having been created by some supernatural Creator (whether of the thousands of Creators created by Man, or an actual Creator beyond Man's feeble imagination to create), or by purely natural processes (or a combination of natural and supernatural), the natural universe is as it actually is and works as it actually works. Whether created or not does not matter one whit.
Science is the study of the natural universe, what its nature is and how it works, based on physical evidence. Since there exists no known evidence of the supernatural, the supernatural plays no part in science -- this is not a denial of the possibility of the existence of the supernatural, just recognition of the reality that supernatural speculations cannot contribute anything at all in science. Again, this does not mean that the supernatural does not exist, but merely that it serves no purpose and hence is useless.
The natural universe works the same way whether created or not. Scientific discoveries and experiments and engineering products are not affected one whit by the religious beliefs of the scientist or operator or customer nor by any invocations to any of the 288,000 gods that we have created throughout human existence: everything in the natural universe works the same without any gods as it would with any gods (indeed, if any gods were involved, then invoking or not invoking them would have an effect, and yet there is no such effect).
If the natural universe were an actual Creation create by an actual Creator, then it was created to be what we actually find it to be and to work as we actually find it to work. What we have discovered about that Creation and how it works is exactly the same as if it were not a Creation. Created or not created: it makes no difference whatsoever. It is what it is.
With those caveats in mind, I will use the language of it being an actual Creation created by an actual Creator. Furthermore, I say "actual Creator" to differentiate that Creator from the imaginary "creators" made up by religionists and creationists (eg, candle2 and his handlers) who seek to deny the actual Creator in order to replace It with their own false gods (sorry for that redundancy).
Since science studies the Creation, the findings of science cannot contradict the Creation -- yes, we will make mistakes, but we work to detect and correct those mistakes, which eliminates the scenario of us being completely wrong about everything. Therefore, there is no inherent conflict between science and Creation (ie, the actual Creation).
Evolution is not only part of science, but it is an integral part of Life and of how Life works. Evolution is the cumulative consequence of Life doing what Life does, such that it is impossible for life to exist without it evolving. Therefore, there is no inherent conflict between evolution and Creation.
Science observes and describes the Creation and accepts it as it actually is. In sharp contrast, creationism rejects how the Creation actually is, but rather demands that It conform to their made-up stories which contradict the realities of what the Creation is like and of how it works. Creationists insist that the Creation cannot be as it actually is, and furthermore, they insist that if the Creation is as it actually is, then that disproves the Creator (whom they confuse with their own god).
For example, all the evidence shows that the earth is ancient, but YECs insist that if the earth is indeed ancient then that disproves their religion with the implication that that would also disprove their god. For example, when at the 1986 International Conference on Creationism (ICC) practicing petroleum geologist and then-YEC Glenn R. Morton (his deconversion from YECism was in its early stages at the time) asked ICR's John Morris the age of the earth, Morris' response was:
"If the earth is more than 10,000 years old then Scripture has no meaning."
("The 1986 International Conference on Creationism" by Robert Schadewald, Creation/Evolution Newsletter, Volume 6, Number 5, September/October 1986, NCSE, pp 8-14.)
Since the earth is of course obviously more than 10,000 years old, then John Morris has "proven" that Scripture has no meaning, which in his creationist theology "disproves God." Does that mean that an ancient earth actually disproves God? No! Instead, it proves that his creationist theology is wrong about that, as well as his willful stupidity of demanding that his highly fallible Man-made theology is more important than God, that his stupid false theology must be infallible in order for God to exist.
Thus, creationism not only denies and rejects the Creation, but it also denies and rejects the Creator.
Verily, candle2 and his creationism is anti-Creation and anti-Creator.
Hence, back to the [qs] thesis, Science and Creation are indeed compatible. It's creationism that is completely incompatible with both science and with Creation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Tanypteryx, posted 05-18-2024 1:25 PM Tanypteryx has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024