Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Let's start with you, is there a chance that there is a creator God?
Yes, I've never stated there's zero chance, not until science can disprove a god, which I doubt ever happens.
However I think the chance of a creator is very, VERY, VERY slim.
Since science cannot prove or disprove the existance of God why doesn't scincecall it the God Theory instead of just saying God does not exist?
After all isn't that what all theory's in science about, all theory's?
Who come up with the idea of a God in the first place?
1.)
Moving on, he makes mention of movement in a particular direction, and given this the opposite direction is improbable because of the frame of reference (conservation of angular momentum). What he makes no mention of is that these events ARE quite improbable but mathematically likely to happen given the inclination of energy conservation in proper or retrograde rotation. Successive inclinations of retrograde directive energetic stimulus could easily explain these admittedly extremely rare events.
2.)
He begins this section with geological evolution, that is, the formation of the earths crust over time.
Unconformity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia If you wish to educate yourself as this man clearly avoided doing on this topic (among others) this is enough material to explain just about any inconsistent argument he brings up.
I want to make sure everyone knows this is from Phototonic, he clearly put effort into this and I don't want to try to take any credit from his excellent breakdown. Number 1 deals with the planets rotation, number 2 deals with the strata discussion.
He is using a theory to defy the evidence
Uh oh wiki is gonna refute what can clearly be seen with our eyes.
I dunno how to say this nicely, but I dunno how to dumb it down enough. It's basic middle school level science that teaches us about plate tectonics and how the ground is shifted and levels are moved.
If you want to say it's the devil punching the ground from his lair in Hell that's fine, but just please don't try to pretend there's any science backing any of your crazy theories.
I dunno why it's so important for you to try and mesh science in with your dogma, when someone states a scientific principle you say "nuh uh, that's wrong cuz the Bible says so" and move along. I dunno why you get into the discussion at all.
Let's start with you, is there a chance that there is a creator God?
Yes, I've never stated there's zero chance, not until science can disprove a god, which I doubt ever happens.
However I think the chance of a creator is very, VERY, VERY slim.
Since science cannot prove or disprove the existance of God why doesn't scincecall it the God Theory instead of just saying God does not exist?
After all isn't that what all theory's in science about, all theory's?
Who come up with the idea of a God in the first place?
Science+Math
If you used science +math you would see the impossibility of everything we see happening by chance.
There's no science explanation or mathematical equation that ends in god(s).
He is using a theory to defy the evidence
Uh oh wiki is gonna refute what can clearly be seen with our eyes.
I dunno how to say this nicely, but I dunno how to dumb it down enough. It's basic middle school level science that teaches us about plate tectonics and how the ground is shifted and levels are moved.
If you want to say it's the devil punching the ground from his lair in Hell that's fine, but just please don't try to pretend there's any science backing any of your crazy theories.
I dunno why it's so important for you to try and mesh science in with your dogma, when someone states a scientific principle you say "nuh uh, that's wrong cuz the Bible says so" and move along. I dunno why you get into the discussion at all.
Look educate yourself.
Continental Drift & Plate Tectonics
If you used science +math you would see the impossibility of everything we see happening by chance.
There's no science explanation or mathematical equation that ends in god(s).
Nor is there one for non-living matter creating life.
The equation would still keep going with no end.
Yes, I've never stated there's zero chance, not until science can disprove a god, which I doubt ever happens.
However I think the chance of a creator is very, VERY, VERY slim.
Since science cannot prove or disprove the existance of God why doesn't scincecall it the God Theory instead of just saying God does not exist?
After all isn't that what all theory's in science about, all theory's?
Who come up with the idea of a God in the first place?
Because science needs evidence, read up on what scientific theory is. A scientific theory isn't just a question with nothing behind it, I know that's what you evolution-deniers want to think but that simply isn't and has never been the case.
Some uneducated people from thousands of years ago.
I dunno how to say this nicely, but I dunno how to dumb it down enough. It's basic middle school level science that teaches us about plate tectonics and how the ground is shifted and levels are moved.
If you want to say it's the devil punching the ground from his lair in Hell that's fine, but just please don't try to pretend there's any science backing any of your crazy theories.
I dunno why it's so important for you to try and mesh science in with your dogma, when someone states a scientific principle you say "nuh uh, that's wrong cuz the Bible says so" and move along. I dunno why you get into the discussion at all.
Look educate yourself.
Continental Drift & Plate Tectonics
Here's your kooky author being completely shredded apart.
http://greengabbro.net/2005/02/14/fun-with-creationist-plate-tectonics/
Green Gabbro
rock out to the apparatus
Fun with Creationist Plate Tectonics
From Left2Right to Pharyngula to you and me: High-Speed Plate Tectonics and Young Earth Creationism. Yow! Before we indulge ourselves in pointless nitpicking, let us address one misconception that seems to have come up among even the reality-based participants in this discussion:
Whatever Wegener might have thought, Pangaea was not primordial. Before there was Pangaea (c. 250 million years ago) there was Rodinia (c. 1 billion years ago). Before that, there may or may not have been other supercontinents, Columbia or Pangaea: Episode I or what have you its hard to tell when most of the evidence has been swallowed back into the mantle. But its generally accepted that the continents have been stuck together and pulled apart at least twice. Since Genesis only allows for mentions one such event, its silly to claim that the modern story of multiple supercontinents was a Biblical hypothesis.*
But we shant let that ruin our fun with Do-While Jones, a hammer, and our trusty lumps of silly putty. Oh, no.
Mr. Jones begins with a basic introduction to plate tectonics, which is pretty much accurate. Possibly this is because he cribbed it from Schmidt and Harbert. When he is done being sad that geology textbooks use metaphors (which he calls New Age) as a pedagogical device, and fail to credit the not-at-all metaphorical Bible as the progenitor of all knowledge, we see some of his independent assessments of plate tectonics. Theyre not awe-inspiring.
Also, independent means pulled out of context from a freshman geology text:
The three differences between modern theory of Plate Tectonics and the ancient theory of the division of land during the time of Peleg are (1) how it happened, (2) when it happened, and (3) how long it took to happen.
Come to think of it, there are really only two differences. The explanation of how it happened is basically the same for both theories. In the creationist theory, the land was divided by some mysterious forces that nobody can adequately explain scientifically. In the Plate Tectonic theory, the plates are moved by some mysterious forces that nobody can adequately explain scientifically. According to one college geology textbook,
Some geologists believe that plate-tectonic movements can be explained by convection in the upper mantle. Other geologists believe that convection occurs in the entire mantle. Thus convection in the mantle is indeed possible and prompts geologists to debate some key questions: Is convection an important process by which heat is transferred in the Earth? Is convection occurring now? Has it occurred any time in the past?
The college geology textbook he mentions is Press and Sievers Understanding Earth, which we happen to have handy (though its the second edition, from 1998, not 1994). It was my first geology textbook ever awwww! In my copy, the two ellipses in that quote cover a section-break and a full paragraph, and must be read upside-down and backwards for those sentences to occur in the order in which they are quoted. Heres the quote in situ:
[... an analogy to Silly Putty, to explain how seemingly rigid rock can flow over long timescales.] at conditions of high pressure and temperature, the mantle behaves as an extremely viscous fluid and creeps or flows. Thus, convection in the mantle is indeed possible and prompts geologists to debate some key questions: Is convection an important process by which heat is transferred within the Earth? Is convection occurring now? Has it occurred at any time in the past?
Effects of Convection It turns out that seafloor spreading and plate tectonics are direct evidence of convection at work. The rising hot matter under mid-ocean ridges builds new lithosphere, which cools as it spreads away; eventually, it sinks back into the mantle, where it is resorbed. This is convection; heat is carried from the interior to the surface by the motion of matter.
Some geologists believe that only the upper few hundred kilometers of the mantle are subject to the convection that drives plates, as in Figure 19.10. This would imply that the upper and lower mantles do not mix. Others think that the whole mantle is involved. [...] Regardless of the specifics, geologists now believe that the movement of heat from the interior to the surface as the seafloor spreads is an important mechanism by which Earth has cooled over geologic time.
So maybe there were some changes between editions. But after we strip away disingenuous pull-quotes (why were they from the section on heat flow from the earths interior, and not the section on the driving mechanism of plate tectonics?) we see that in the creationist theory, the land is divided by some mysterious force that can never be adequately explained scientifically, while in plate tectonic theory the plates are moved by a not-so-mysterious force which we are understanding better and better every day. Which is basically the same thing as not understanding at all.
The real fun, though, comes when we examine Mr. Joness central claim, that plate tectonics happened really really fast. Nows the time to bring out the Silly Putty and the hammer! Take a lump of Silly Putty and whack it real good with a hammer if you do it right, the normally pliable putty will shatter. This is the funnest illustration EVAR of the way materials respond very differently to forces applied at short time scales than they do to force applied steadily over time.**
When youre done playing, take a look at these fabulous folded limestone beds in Pennsylvania and the Palmdale road cut. Try to duplicate those shapes by hitting your silly putty with a hammer (we know you werent really done playing).
We could go on to make snarky remarks about the way Do-While Jones confuses the Pacific and Farallon plates. But its Valentines Day and we have chocolate chips to melt into a lazy persons fondue. Young-earther fish will still be in their barrels for shooting another day.
* Compatible with Genesis? Plausibly, if youre willing to play fast and loose with the timescale. Predicted by it? Not so much.
**A less fun illustration occurs in woodworking: when youre bending wood, you need to use steady pressure and a great deal of patience, or the wood will break. I could go on, but why?
Yes, I've never stated there's zero chance, not until science can disprove a god, which I doubt ever happens.
However I think the chance of a creator is very, VERY, VERY slim.
Since science cannot prove or disprove the existance of God why doesn't scincecall it the God Theory instead of just saying God does not exist?
After all isn't that what all theory's in science about, all theory's?
Who come up with the idea of a God in the first place?
Because science needs evidence, read up on what scientific theory is. A scientific theory isn't just a question with nothing behind it, I know that's what you evolution-deniers want to think but that simply isn't and has never been the case.
Some uneducated people from thousands of years ago.
There's no science explanation or mathematical equation that ends in god(s).
Nor is there one for non-living matter creating life.
The equation would still keep going with no end.
1.) Yes there is, but there's no certainty, that's why we're still studying ambiogenesis.
2.) Maybe, maybe not. This is another instance where the religious fundamentalist claims certainty, with zero science backing their certainty, hence why I don't know why you fundamentalist types worry about science when you don't take it seriously.
I dunno how to say this nicely, but I dunno how to dumb it down enough. It's basic middle school level science that teaches us about plate tectonics and how the ground is shifted and levels are moved.
If you want to say it's the devil punching the ground from his lair in Hell that's fine, but just please don't try to pretend there's any science backing any of your crazy theories.
I dunno why it's so important for you to try and mesh science in with your dogma, when someone states a scientific principle you say "nuh uh, that's wrong cuz the Bible says so" and move along. I dunno why you get into the discussion at all.
Look educate yourself.
Continental Drift & Plate Tectonics
Here's your kooky author being completely shredded apart.
http://greengabbro.net/2005/02/14/fun-with-creationist-plate-tectonics/
Green Gabbro
rock out to the apparatus
Fun with Creationist Plate Tectonics
From Left2Right to Pharyngula to you and me: High-Speed Plate Tectonics and Young Earth Creationism. Yow! Before we indulge ourselves in pointless nitpicking, let us address one misconception that seems to have come up among even the reality-based participants in this discussion:
Whatever Wegener might have thought, Pangaea was not primordial. Before there was Pangaea (c. 250 million years ago) there was Rodinia (c. 1 billion years ago). Before that, there may or may not have been other supercontinents, Columbia or Pangaea: Episode I or what have you its hard to tell when most of the evidence has been swallowed back into the mantle. But its generally accepted that the continents have been stuck together and pulled apart at least twice. Since Genesis only allows for mentions one such event, its silly to claim that the modern story of multiple supercontinents was a Biblical hypothesis.*
But we shant let that ruin our fun with Do-While Jones, a hammer, and our trusty lumps of silly putty. Oh, no.
Mr. Jones begins with a basic introduction to plate tectonics, which is pretty much accurate. Possibly this is because he cribbed it from Schmidt and Harbert. When he is done being sad that geology textbooks use metaphors (which he calls New Age) as a pedagogical device, and fail to credit the not-at-all metaphorical Bible as the progenitor of all knowledge, we see some of his independent assessments of plate tectonics. Theyre not awe-inspiring.
Also, independent means pulled out of context from a freshman geology text:
The three differences between modern theory of Plate Tectonics and the ancient theory of the division of land during the time of Peleg are (1) how it happened, (2) when it happened, and (3) how long it took to happen.
Come to think of it, there are really only two differences. The explanation of how it happened is basically the same for both theories. In the creationist theory, the land was divided by some mysterious forces that nobody can adequately explain scientifically. In the Plate Tectonic theory, the plates are moved by some mysterious forces that nobody can adequately explain scientifically. According to one college geology textbook,
Some geologists believe that plate-tectonic movements can be explained by convection in the upper mantle. Other geologists believe that convection occurs in the entire mantle. Thus convection in the mantle is indeed possible and prompts geologists to debate some key questions: Is convection an important process by which heat is transferred in the Earth? Is convection occurring now? Has it occurred any time in the past?
The college geology textbook he mentions is Press and Sievers Understanding Earth, which we happen to have handy (though its the second edition, from 1998, not 1994). It was my first geology textbook ever awwww! In my copy, the two ellipses in that quote cover a section-break and a full paragraph, and must be read upside-down and backwards for those sentences to occur in the order in which they are quoted. Heres the quote in situ:
[... an analogy to Silly Putty, to explain how seemingly rigid rock can flow over long timescales.] at conditions of high pressure and temperature, the mantle behaves as an extremely viscous fluid and creeps or flows. Thus, convection in the mantle is indeed possible and prompts geologists to debate some key questions: Is convection an important process by which heat is transferred within the Earth? Is convection occurring now? Has it occurred at any time in the past?
Effects of Convection It turns out that seafloor spreading and plate tectonics are direct evidence of convection at work. The rising hot matter under mid-ocean ridges builds new lithosphere, which cools as it spreads away; eventually, it sinks back into the mantle, where it is resorbed. This is convection; heat is carried from the interior to the surface by the motion of matter.
Some geologists believe that only the upper few hundred kilometers of the mantle are subject to the convection that drives plates, as in Figure 19.10. This would imply that the upper and lower mantles do not mix. Others think that the whole mantle is involved. [...] Regardless of the specifics, geologists now believe that the movement of heat from the interior to the surface as the seafloor spreads is an important mechanism by which Earth has cooled over geologic time.
So maybe there were some changes between editions. But after we strip away disingenuous pull-quotes (why were they from the section on heat flow from the earths interior, and not the section on the driving mechanism of plate tectonics?) we see that in the creationist theory, the land is divided by some mysterious force that can never be adequately explained scientifically, while in plate tectonic theory the plates are moved by a not-so-mysterious force which we are understanding better and better every day. Which is basically the same thing as not understanding at all.
The real fun, though, comes when we examine Mr. Joness central claim, that plate tectonics happened really really fast. Nows the time to bring out the Silly Putty and the hammer! Take a lump of Silly Putty and whack it real good with a hammer if you do it right, the normally pliable putty will shatter. This is the funnest illustration EVAR of the way materials respond very differently to forces applied at short time scales than they do to force applied steadily over time.**
When youre done playing, take a look at these fabulous folded limestone beds in Pennsylvania and the Palmdale road cut. Try to duplicate those shapes by hitting your silly putty with a hammer (we know you werent really done playing).
We could go on to make snarky remarks about the way Do-While Jones confuses the Pacific and Farallon plates. But its Valentines Day and we have chocolate chips to melt into a lazy persons fondue. Young-earther fish will still be in their barrels for shooting another day.
* Compatible with Genesis? Plausibly, if youre willing to play fast and loose with the timescale. Predicted by it? Not so much.
**A less fun illustration occurs in woodworking: when youre bending wood, you need to use steady pressure and a great deal of patience, or the wood will break. I could go on, but why?
Why ?
Science+Math
If you used science +math you would see the impossibility of everything we see happening by chance.
Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, "This is an interesting world I find myself in an interesting hole I find myself in fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!" This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for. We all know that at some point in the future the Universe will come to an end and at some other point, considerably in advance from that but still not immediately pressing, the sun will explode. We feel there's plenty of time to worry about that, but on the other hand that's a very dangerous thing to say.
Science+Math
If you used science +math you would see the impossibility of everything we see happening by chance.
No one said anything happens by chance, it's all probability. If you stopped rejecting science and substituting your own internal reality you might see that.
Excellent quote by Douglas Adams here.
Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, "This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!" This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for. We all know that at some point in the future the Universe will come to an end and at some other point, considerably in advance from that but still not immediately pressing, the sun will explode. We feel there's plenty of time to worry about that, but on the other hand that's a very dangerous thing to say.
If you used science +math you would see the impossibility of everything we see happening by chance.
No one said anything happens by chance, it's all probability. If you stopped rejecting science and substituting your own internal reality you might see that.
Excellent quote by Douglas Adams here.
Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, "This is an interesting world I find myself in an interesting hole I find myself in fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!" This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for. We all know that at some point in the future the Universe will come to an end and at some other point, considerably in advance from that but still not immediately pressing, the sun will explode. We feel there's plenty of time to worry about that, but on the other hand that's a very dangerous thing to say.
The Big Bang was bound to happen ?
Life was bound to happen ?
Animals were bound to change into some kind of new animal ?
No one said anything happens by chance, it's all probability. If you stopped rejecting science and substituting your own internal reality you might see that.
Excellent quote by Douglas Adams here.
The Big Bang was bound to happen ?
Life was bound to happen ?
Animals were bound to change into some kind of new animal ?
Did you understand the premise of what he said?
Science+Math
If you used science +math you would see the impossibility of everything we see happening by chance.
No one said anything happens by chance, it's all probability. If you stopped rejecting science and substituting your own internal reality you might see that.
Excellent quote by Douglas Adams here.
Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, "This is an interesting world I find myself in an interesting hole I find myself in fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!" This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for. We all know that at some point in the future the Universe will come to an end and at some other point, considerably in advance from that but still not immediately pressing, the sun will explode. We feel there's plenty of time to worry about that, but on the other hand that's a very dangerous thing to say.
If you used science +math you would see the impossibility of everything we see happening by chance.
No one said anything happens by chance, it's all probability. If you stopped rejecting science and substituting your own internal reality you might see that.
Excellent quote by Douglas Adams here.
Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, "This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!" This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for. We all know that at some point in the future the Universe will come to an end and at some other point, considerably in advance from that but still not immediately pressing, the sun will explode. We feel there's plenty of time to worry about that, but on the other hand that's a very dangerous thing to say.
It's a hard sell to think a person would ever think that a puddle could think. Kind of childish if you ask me.
If you used science +math you would see the impossibility of everything we see happening by chance.
No one said anything happens by chance, it's all probability. If you stopped rejecting science and substituting your own internal reality you might see that.
Excellent quote by Douglas Adams here.
Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, "This is an interesting world I find myself in an interesting hole I find myself in fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!" This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for. We all know that at some point in the future the Universe will come to an end and at some other point, considerably in advance from that but still not immediately pressing, the sun will explode. We feel there's plenty of time to worry about that, but on the other hand that's a very dangerous thing to say.
It's a hard sell to think a person would ever think that a puddle could think. Kind of childish if you ask me.
