Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9173 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,575 Year: 4,832/9,624 Month: 180/427 Week: 93/85 Day: 0/10 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is science a religion?
CACTUSJACKmankin
Member (Idle past 6351 days)
Posts: 48
Joined: 04-22-2006


Message 286 of 295 (314095)
05-21-2006 7:52 AM
Reply to: Message 280 by MrEd
05-21-2006 1:32 AM


Re: only clarity, nothing new
quote:
>There is no evidence for the creation model and much worse, it's wrong. The creation model postulates that the earth is 10,000 years old, when it is demonsterably older.<
Ok. show evidence that creation didn't happen and that the earth is older than 6,000 years.
You really need to start reading the posts you respond to, that very paragraph has several points of evidence. Here are more:
At the mid-ocean ridges, the magnetic polarity of the rocks periodically alternate. This pattern occurs symmetrically at both sides of the ridge. This was caused by the polarity of the earth at the time that these volcanically formed rocks cooled and locked the magnetic minerals in the rock into place. For the earth to be less than 10,000 years old, the magnetic pole of the earth would reverse itself every few years, which it obviously doesn't.
I haven't even adressed radiometric dating yet. A really good piece of evidence in favor of radiometric dating is consistency. If the dating method is flawed why don't human fossils date anywhere between 20 years and 20 billion years? The cited examples of obvious mistakes in dating are probably methodological errors or contaminated samples. Methodological errors and contaminated samples can give false DNA results, that doesn't mean DNA is an invalid means of establishing relatedness or identification.
There is a geologic layer that occurs globally that has an unusually high amount of iridium, which comes from space objects like asteroids and meteors. No dinosaurs are found above this layer anywhere in the world. Everywhere in the world this layer dates approximately 65 million years. That's why scientists think an asteroid killed or finished off the dinosaurs. That's consistency!!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by MrEd, posted 05-21-2006 1:32 AM MrEd has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 290 by MrEd, posted 05-21-2006 12:02 PM CACTUSJACKmankin has not replied

AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 287 of 295 (314119)
05-21-2006 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 280 by MrEd
05-21-2006 1:32 AM


Stick on topic.
Ok. show evidence that creation didn't happen and that the earth is older than 6,000 years.
That is not the issue of this thread. As a regular poster I have pointed that out to you several times. The Queen has pointed it out to you. AdminNosy has pointed that out to you. Do not continue trying to draw this off topic.

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
  • General discussion of moderation procedures
  • Thread Reopen Requests
  • Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
    New Members: to get an understanding of what makes great posts, check out:
  • "Post of the Month" Forum
  • "Columnist's Corner" Forum
    See also Forum Guidelines, [thread=-19,-112], and [thread=-17,-45]


  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 280 by MrEd, posted 05-21-2006 1:32 AM MrEd has not replied

    MrEd
    Inactive Member


    Message 288 of 295 (314133)
    05-21-2006 11:30 AM
    Reply to: Message 283 by AdminNWR
    05-21-2006 2:18 AM


    Re: only clarity, nothing new
    >Now let's get back to the topic "Is science a religion?"
    Ok. Thanks. I clicked the peek mode and copy pasted...but it still didn't work.
    ...the answer to the topic was no, "real" science is not a religion. My point was that evolutionists who are scientists are "religious" scientists.
    This was the point I originally made by stating certain facts that I put down as evidences that they ignore in order to "believe", religiously the myth of evolution.
    This was my point. I thought I stayed within the topic at hand. I think it was a few other posters that took my point and began to change the topic.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 283 by AdminNWR, posted 05-21-2006 2:18 AM AdminNWR has not replied

    subbie
    Member (Idle past 1332 days)
    Posts: 3509
    Joined: 02-26-2006


    Message 289 of 295 (314135)
    05-21-2006 11:44 AM


    A late attempt to get this thread back on topic
    Over in the "Great breadths of time" thread JonF had this to say:
    They have to come up with a better explanation than "God did it", because that's just magic and "it's magic" is not acceptable as a scientific explanation, even if it's true. (If magic does really exist, science is forever doomed to ignore it.)
    EvC Forum: The great breadths of time.
    Why? Why would science be doomed to ignore magic if it really existed? If magic worked through means outside the nautral world, science might not be able to study those means, but if magic left behind artifacts sufficient to prove that magic was in fact at work, why couldn't science study at least that much of it?

    Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

    Replies to this message:
     Message 292 by jar, posted 05-21-2006 12:07 PM subbie has not replied

    MrEd
    Inactive Member


    Message 290 of 295 (314138)
    05-21-2006 12:02 PM
    Reply to: Message 286 by CACTUSJACKmankin
    05-21-2006 7:52 AM


    Re: only clarity, nothing new
    AdminNosy: This thread is about the approach and definitions of what is and is not science. The details concerning dating and geology should be taken to the appropriate forums. Further off topic posts will result in a suspension for whomever commits them.
    >At the mid-ocean ridges, the magnetic polarity of the rocks periodically alternate. This pattern occurs symmetrically at both sides of the ridge. This was caused by the polarity of the earth at the time that these volcanically formed rocks cooled and locked the magnetic minerals in the rock into place. For the earth to be less than 10,000 years old, the magnetic pole of the earth would reverse itself every few years, which it obviously doesn't.<
    Are you kidding me??? The mid oceanic ridges were obviously formed at the historic world wide flood which happened some 4-5 thousand years ago when the subterranean waters broke through and flooded the world breaking open the continental plates and forming the continents we have today, the fossil record, the Grand Canyon, and the sea skeletons we find on land on top of mountains and so forth.
    Furthermore, the fossils of animals still in the midst of giving birth and fossils of animals with prey still in the mouth or stomach show that it was "rapid" burial, and world wide. Then, DNA and red blood cells still found in dinosaur bones.
    >I haven't even adressed radiometric dating yet<
    Don't worry, I already have. Radiometric dating does not work for anything that is older than 4-5 thousand years for starters...
    secondly, C14 only can be used to date former "living" things...
    thirdly, tests were already made to embarrass those who use other radiometric dating methods on rocks and so forth and showed that they don't work.
    -You can not "know" how much of the radioactive or daughter substance was present at the start.
    -Simple things such as groundwater movement can carry radioactive material or the daughter element into or out of rock
    -Again, you can not know the decay rate before the world wide flood which took place some 4-5 thousand years ago
    Helen's volcanoe eruptions:
    We know "historically" when it erupted. So scientists testing the method showed that the radiometric methods were off by BILLIONS of years! Helen erupted in the 18 and 1900 hundreds- laughable even.
    Evolutionists have to "ignore" history in order to believe this fantasy, and "assume" evolution.
    Evolution isn't science, it's science-fiction. Big difference.
    Edited by AdminNosy, : To stop off topic digressions.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 286 by CACTUSJACKmankin, posted 05-21-2006 7:52 AM CACTUSJACKmankin has not replied

    MrEd
    Inactive Member


    Message 291 of 295 (314139)
    05-21-2006 12:07 PM
    Reply to: Message 284 by ohnhai
    05-21-2006 2:35 AM


    Re: Evidence.
    >Actually there is so much evidence, much of it mutually supportive I urge you to go find it.<
    See post 290.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 284 by ohnhai, posted 05-21-2006 2:35 AM ohnhai has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 293 by AdminNosy, posted 05-21-2006 12:16 PM MrEd has replied

    jar
    Member
    Posts: 34047
    From: Texas!!
    Joined: 04-20-2004
    Member Rating: 5.7


    Message 292 of 295 (314140)
    05-21-2006 12:07 PM
    Reply to: Message 289 by subbie
    05-21-2006 11:44 AM


    Re: A late attempt to get this thread back on topic
    subbie asks:
    Why? Why would science be doomed to ignore magic if it really existed? If magic worked through means outside the nautral world, science might not be able to study those means, but if magic left behind artifacts sufficient to prove that magic was in fact at work, why couldn't science study at least that much of it?
    If magic left behind artifacts sufficient to prove that magic was in fact at work, then science would likely study it. In fact, that happens quite often, James Randi has made a very good living off it.
    What has been seen so far though is that every time magic has been claimed and the incident studyied, the results have turned out to be non-supernatural. If you come to something that cannot be explained, then the answer is "I don't know what caused it", not "God caused it".

    Aslan is not a Tame Lion

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 289 by subbie, posted 05-21-2006 11:44 AM subbie has not replied

    AdminNosy
    Administrator
    Posts: 4754
    From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Joined: 11-11-2003


    Message 293 of 295 (314143)
    05-21-2006 12:16 PM
    Reply to: Message 291 by MrEd
    05-21-2006 12:07 PM


    Interesting comments
    Please take your comments about geology, dating etc. to the appropriate threads. Do not continue off topic here.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 291 by MrEd, posted 05-21-2006 12:07 PM MrEd has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 294 by MrEd, posted 05-21-2006 12:27 PM AdminNosy has not replied

    MrEd
    Inactive Member


    Message 294 of 295 (314144)
    05-21-2006 12:27 PM
    Reply to: Message 293 by AdminNosy
    05-21-2006 12:16 PM


    Re: Interesting comments
    I was only replying to the post that asked me the question? I feel you are picking on me AdminNosv.
    Why haven't you commented to the poster who questioned me and I replied to?
    I would love to stay on topic. But when some other member asked me a question I replied.
    Why don't you state to him that he is off topic? Or just move this topic to the proper thread?

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 293 by AdminNosy, posted 05-21-2006 12:16 PM AdminNosy has not replied

    AdminAsgara
    Administrator (Idle past 2380 days)
    Posts: 2073
    From: The Universe
    Joined: 10-11-2003


    Message 295 of 295 (314145)
    05-21-2006 12:32 PM


    I will help everyone stay on topic here. We are close enough to the 300 post limit that I'm just going to close this thread now.
    Yes, MrEd, others are guilty also, but you specifically have been asked to not make off topic posts. Using the claim "he did it too" doesn't cut it.

    AdminAsgara Queen of the Universe

    Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
  • General discussion of moderation procedures

  • Thread Reopen Requests

  • Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
  • New Members: to get an understanding of what makes great posts, check out:
  • "Post of the Month Forum"

  • "Columnist's Corner" Forum
  • See also Forum Guidelines, [thread=-19,-112], and [thread=-17,-45]
    http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024