A question for old earth believers

[Foster Zygote]

Or what peer review means?

Or what mathematics is?

 

[Hagrok]

Once again, Creeping Jesus posts and then "Dustin" takes over. It's too soon to say that there's a pattern here, but it makes me wonder.

Hey, it's Friday. Somebody tell me to relax.

Relax! It's Friday!

 

[Foster Zygote]

Because frequently people on this forum have habit of simply linking to other websites opposed to answering questions asked of them directly and explaining them in their own words. When I said people would "invent a way to weasel out of it" I meant inventing a way not to directly answer the question in their own words, rather link to some website to do the explaining for them.

Ironic.

 

[kellyb]

Any other questions for the Old Earthists, JF?

I would ask if we could ask the Young Earthists a question at this point, but I know there's no point, because you guys can cheat. I'd ask "So what's up with how the light we see in the night sky from stars has to have been traveling for millions or billions of years?"
But you'll (I'm assuming...correct me if I'm wrong) just say something about how god created the universe as though it was really old like that.
Now, if our answer to your moon/distance question had been "Perhaps there is a giant pink unicorn behind the moon who leaned against it for several hundred million years, and slowed down the movement of the moon away from the Earth?"
What would you have thought about such an answer?

ETA:
I do commend you for asking your question, though. Asking questions is never a bad thing, as long as you are willing to seriously consider the given answers.

 

[wollery]

We should start a new dictionary, the Shorter Kesselberg Dictionary. We have a couple of new definitions to begin with.

BTW, Good question. Watch them invent some way to weasel out of it.

(Bolding mine)
Good question, noun - a ridiculous question based on an obviously flawed analysis of incorrect data which would never have been asked if the questioner had taken any more than a nanosecond to actually think seriously about it or do some research of their own.

Because frequently people on this forum have habit of simply linking to other websites opposed to answering questions asked of them directly and explaining them in their own words. When I said people would "invent a way to weasel out of it" I meant inventing a way not to directly answer the question in their own words, rather link to some website to do the explaining for them.

Weasel out, verb - to conduct sensible research, find authoritative, intelligent, well reasoned academic resources and link to them in support of one's response.

 

[Hellbound]

I will use the same rules as in the question for evolutionst thread here.

Q: If the moon is moving away from the earth at about 3 inches a year, that would mean that 4.5 billion years ago the moon was ,if my math is correct and at this time of night I promise nothing...do it for yourself, 1.125 billion miles closer than it is now...fyi the moon is currently about 240,000 miles from earth.?.?.?

No. You are wrong.

Thanks for playing.

 

[rymdman]

You shouldn't judge peoples beliefs based on the "tone" of their responses. Especially since texts don't have tones...

If I may recommend a very enjoyable altough thin (equals enjoyable) anthology wich examines the "tone" in philosophy, and in philosophers texts. Here's a short review of some of the content:

This work contains the first English translations--very readable ones, too--of two later Kant essays, "On a Newly Raised Superior Tone in Philosophy" and "Announcement of a Near Conclusion for a Treaty of Eternal Peace in Philosophy." In his lengthy introduction, Fenves examines the concept of tone in philosophy and analyzes relations between some of Kant's writing and that of Derrida. The book concludes with Derrida's "On a Newly Arisen Apocalyptic Tone in Philosophy" (translated by John Leavey Jr.), in which he examines tone in Kant's writings as a means of revealing unspoken elements of discourse. A challenging book; recommended for graduate students and scholars in the field.

http://www.amazon.com/Raising-Tone-Philosophy-Immanuel-Transformative/dp/0801861012

 

[Wowbagger]

In a scientific debate, one's arguments must be judged by the quality of evidence presented.
Judge not the source, but the carefulness of the measurements, and the repeatability of the testing.

That is all I wish to add.

 

[Tony]

How brave you are over the internet. If you were as rude and insulting in person as you are online you would probably have an indefinitely sore nose or busted jaw.

I've noticed that a lot of christians turn to violence when they can't defend their views.

 

[Hellbound]

I've noticed that a lot of christians turn to violence when they can't defend their views.

Not to mention that there seems a direct correlation between their fanatacism and how big a smile they get when they tell you you'll be burning in HELLFIREfor all eternity.

 

[aggle-rithm]

I will use the same rules as in the question for evolutionst thread here.

Q: If the moon is moving away from the earth at about 3 inches a year, that would mean that 4.5 billion years ago the moon was ,if my math is correct and at this time of night I promise nothing...do it for yourself, 1.125 billion miles closer than it is now...fyi the moon is currently about 240,000 miles from earth.?.?.?

You may use the same response for any question of this nature: "Unwarranted extrapolation. Next question."

No need to thank me, just trying to save everybody some time.

 

[I less than three logic]

You shouldn't judge peoples beliefs based on the "tone" of their responses. Especially since texts don't have tones...

Tone - 6 : style or manner of expression in speaking or writing <seemed wise to adopt a conciliatory tone>

Just felt like pointing out the obvious.

 

[andyandy]

Tone - 6 : style or manner of expression in speaking or writing <seemed wise to adopt a conciliatory tone>

Just felt like pointing out the obvious.

ah! You've found Dustin's Kryptonite - refutation by dictionary

 

[Madalch]

I'm surprised nobody pointed out the relevant passage from Mark Twain:

In the space of one hundred and seventy-six years the Lower Mississippi has shortened itself two hundred and forty-two miles. That is an average of a trifle over one mile and a third per year. Therefore, any calm person, who is not blind or idiotic, can see that in the Old Oolitic Silurian Period, just a million years ago next November, the Lower Mississippi River was upwards of one million three hundred thousand miles long, and stuck out over the Gulf of Mexico like a fishing-rod. And by the same token any person can see that seven hundred and forty-two years from now the Lower Mississippi will be only a mile and three-quarters long, and Cairo and New Orleans will have joined their streets together, and be plodding comfortably along under a single mayor and a mutual board of aldermen. There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.
- Life on the Mississippi

 

[-Fran-]

It's reputable. It's peer reviewed as well and publishes numerous world renowned scientists including many noble laureates.

Nobel! Alfred Nobel!

 

[Cainkane1]

I will use the same rules as in the question for evolutionst thread here.

Q: If the moon is moving away from the earth at about 3 inches a year, that would mean that 4.5 billion years ago the moon was ,if my math is correct and at this time of night I promise nothing...do it for yourself, 1.125 billion miles closer than it is now...fyi the moon is currently about 240,000 miles from earth.?.?.?

I wonder if an informed atheist could ask Creationists a question they had difficulty answering? Creationists do have the advantage of the term goddidit that atheists don't have. Scientists work with facts not an emotional need to prove everything they say is right. Science isn't confined to a static book like the bible. Scientific knowledge changes as facts arrive and are tested to be true or false. Could the bible stand up to the same type of questions that you Creationists are tossing into the lap of science? All living things evolved and that can be proven beyond a shadow of a reasonable doubt as you will soon find out if you haven't already and the universe including the earth is billions of years old. Sorry Creationists. We have facts on our side and you don't. I personally am not a scientist so I can't answer your questions readily but there are those in here who can. You might as well wake up but you won't. I mean wouldn't that piss off the big hairy thunderer in the sky?

 

[thaiboxerken]

I don't believe the earth is very old, I know it for a fact.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

I wonder if an informed atheist could ask Creationists a question they had difficulty answering? Creationists do have the advantage of the term goddidit that atheists don't have.

Sorry to snip, but I just wanted to address this misconception. Not all people opposed to Creationism are atheists. There are loads of religious people of all stripes who accept standard biology, geology, astrophysics, etc. A lot of these religious people believe Goddidit, but not through miracles or supernatural intervention, but through the laws of physics and chemistry put into place during the creation. They can also be some of the most vociferous critics of Creationism on the Internet.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Sorry to snip, but I just wanted to address this misconception. Not all people opposed to Creationism are atheists. There are loads of religious people of all stripes who accept standard biology, geology, astrophysics, etc. A lot of these religious people believe Goddidit, but not through miracles or supernatural intervention, but through the laws of physics and chemistry put into place during the creation. They can also be some of the most vociferous critics of Creationism on the Internet.

I even know evangelical Christians who accept evolutionary theory as fact.

 

[Achán hiNidráne]

lot of these religious people believe Goddidit, but not through miracles or supernatural intervention, but through the laws of physics and chemistry put into place during the creation.

How is God, a being who is supposed to be supernatural, creating "the laws of physics and chemistry put into place during the creation" NOT an example of "supernatural intervention?"