Religions > Atheism > Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com?
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Jim Spaza" |
| Date: |
10 Jun 2005 04:20:04 PM |
| Object: |
Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
This challenge was issued by GlennGlenn (655321) -- aa#825.
What is wrong with the Christian apologetic website
www.answersingenesis.com ???
Please be courteous and specific.
.
|
|
| User: "Jim Spaza" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
18 Aug 2005 07:43:37 PM |
|
|
John Harshman wrote:
Jim Spaza wrote:
David Jensen wrote:
On 8 Aug 2005 14:50:07 -0700, in talk.origins
"Jim Spaza" <spaza9@yahoo.com> wrote in
<1123537806.819910.17860@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>:
David Jensen wrote:
On 5 Aug 2005 06:46:37 -0700, in talk.origins
"Jim Spaza" <spaza9@yahoo.com> wrote in
<1123249597.249070.5320@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>:
Von R. Smith wrote:
...
Why? Why not apply a reasonable explanation that would work just as
satisfactorily for a non-biblical passage, one doesn't require special
pleading?
Because the Biblical account, with its supernatural aspects, must be
taken into account when asking exactly what happened. You used the
terms "reasonable" and "special pleading" when criticizing the Biblical
account because you don't believe that this account could ever possibly
occur.
Why? Doesn't your interpretation of the Bible make it less believable?
...
Not at all. I believe that the supernatural entities and events in the
Bible are as real as anything that can be tested under controlled
conditions.
Yet there is no evidence to support these claims and plenty of evidence
that shows that such claims are false. Why would you believe that a
story is literally true when physical evidence shows that it did not
happen.
The physical evidence does not refute a flood. I believe that it
supports the flood.
You're going to have to reconcile that claim with your belief in the
accuracy of geological dates. If there was a flood in the last few
thousand years, not only did it leave no traces, but all of what you are
probably thinking of as evidence for it predates any such event by
millions of years.
Now, as to another's belief? My interpretation of the Bible makes it
seemingly more difficult for a skeptic to believe it.
It makes it more difficult for someone who is reality-based to accept.
I believe that the Biblical accounts must be considered as well because
the Bible has been shown to be accurate in its natural-based verses.
NO IT HAS NOT. Your have repeated this claim again and again and I have
called you on it a number of times. You are wrong. Which account would
you like to have discussed? The Flood?
The flood has been discussed back and forth already. Let's try another
example.
How about the order of creation, in which we get all plants on the 3rd
day, the sun, moon, and stars on the 4th day, sea creatures and birds on
the 5th day, and all land animals on the 6th day? In reality, the sun is
a bit older than the earth, and many stars are much, much older.
Different sorts of plants and animals trickle in at different times, but
animals as a group are definitely older than plants. Birds are clearly
much younger than land animals as a group, and do not appear until over
300 million years after the first sea creatures.
1) How does anyone really know how old the sun or any star is? Because
they have guessed that all stars must have a similar cycle of birth,
life, and death? How does anyone really know that this theoretical
cycle is accurate?
2) Did you really say that animals, as a group, are older than plants?
Does radiometric dating on the fossil record really support this?
3) Birds are much younger than land animals?
4) Given that each "day" in Genesis refers to a period of time which
could be 500 million years, having birds appear 300 million years after
sea creatures would not conflict with Genesis. God created sea life
and let it propagate. 300 Million years later, God drops in the bird
ancestors.
[snip]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ernest Major" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
19 Aug 2005 12:54:55 PM |
|
|
In message <1124412217.484685.93680@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, Jim
Spaza <spaza9@yahoo.com> writes
John Harshman wrote:
Jim Spaza wrote:
David Jensen wrote:
On 8 Aug 2005 14:50:07 -0700, in talk.origins
"Jim Spaza" <spaza9@yahoo.com> wrote in
<1123537806.819910.17860@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>:
David Jensen wrote:
On 5 Aug 2005 06:46:37 -0700, in talk.origins
"Jim Spaza" <spaza9@yahoo.com> wrote in
<1123249597.249070.5320@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>:
Von R. Smith wrote:
...
Why? Why not apply a reasonable explanation that would work just as
satisfactorily for a non-biblical passage, one doesn't require special
pleading?
Because the Biblical account, with its supernatural aspects, must be
taken into account when asking exactly what happened. You used the
terms "reasonable" and "special pleading" when criticizing the Biblical
account because you don't believe that this account could ever possibly
occur.
Why? Doesn't your interpretation of the Bible make it less believable?
...
Not at all. I believe that the supernatural entities and events in the
Bible are as real as anything that can be tested under controlled
conditions.
Yet there is no evidence to support these claims and plenty of evidence
that shows that such claims are false. Why would you believe that a
story is literally true when physical evidence shows that it did not
happen.
The physical evidence does not refute a flood. I believe that it
supports the flood.
You're going to have to reconcile that claim with your belief in the
accuracy of geological dates. If there was a flood in the last few
thousand years, not only did it leave no traces, but all of what you are
probably thinking of as evidence for it predates any such event by
millions of years.
Now, as to another's belief? My interpretation of the Bible makes it
seemingly more difficult for a skeptic to believe it.
It makes it more difficult for someone who is reality-based to accept.
I believe that the Biblical accounts must be considered as well because
the Bible has been shown to be accurate in its natural-based verses.
NO IT HAS NOT. Your have repeated this claim again and again and I have
called you on it a number of times. You are wrong. Which account would
you like to have discussed? The Flood?
The flood has been discussed back and forth already. Let's try another
example.
How about the order of creation, in which we get all plants on the 3rd
day, the sun, moon, and stars on the 4th day, sea creatures and birds on
the 5th day, and all land animals on the 6th day? In reality, the sun is
a bit older than the earth, and many stars are much, much older.
Different sorts of plants and animals trickle in at different times, but
animals as a group are definitely older than plants. Birds are clearly
much younger than land animals as a group, and do not appear until over
300 million years after the first sea creatures.
1) How does anyone really know how old the sun or any star is? Because
they have guessed that all stars must have a similar cycle of birth,
life, and death? How does anyone really know that this theoretical
cycle is accurate?
Please stop using words like "guessed" when you should be using words
like "inferred".
As for the age of the sun, apart from the estimates made from
theoretical models (based on observations of the behaviour of gases, and
of nuclear fusion, and probably other stuff) we have successively older
radio-dates for terrestrial rocks, terrestrial crystals, lunar rocks and
meteorites. The last match the estimated age of the sun.
BTW, all stars have a similar cycle of birth, life and death only for
small values of similar. Some stars end up as supernovae and thence
neutron stars or black holes, others as planetary nebulae and white
dwarfs (some of which later become a second type of supernova). Some
stars last 10 million years; others 10 billion years.
2) Did you really say that animals, as a group, are older than plants?
Does radiometric dating on the fossil record really support this?
Yes. The current conception of plants consists of a grade which are
primarily land organisms, with a few that have reverted back to
freshwater and marine habitats. Off the top of my head, they date back
to the Silurian. Animals date back to at least the Lower Cambrian
(Burgess fauna) - even if one doesn't accept the Precambrian Ediacara
fauna as containing animals. If one includes cyanobacteria and algae in
plants things are different, but ...
3) Birds are much younger than land animals?
Chez watt. Birds are descended from (are) theropod dinosaurs. Birds are
first found in the Jurassic (but see the disputed Protavis). Land
animals go a long way further back.
4) Given that each "day" in Genesis refers to a period of time which
could be 500 million years, having birds appear 300 million years after
sea creatures would not conflict with Genesis. God created sea life
and let it propagate. 300 Million years later, God drops in the bird
ancestors.
That doesn't help you. Birds still occur after land animals, so the
order doesn't agree with Genesis.
[snip]
--
alias Ernest Major
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.10/73 - Release Date: 15/08/2005
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cyde Weys" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
19 Aug 2005 01:07:59 PM |
|
|
Ernest Major wrote:
In message <1124412217.484685.93680@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, Jim
Spaza <spaza9@yahoo.com> writes
John Harshman wrote:
How about the order of creation, in which we get all plants on the 3rd
day, the sun, moon, and stars on the 4th day, sea creatures and birds on
the 5th day, and all land animals on the 6th day? In reality, the sun is
a bit older than the earth, and many stars are much, much older.
Different sorts of plants and animals trickle in at different times, but
animals as a group are definitely older than plants. Birds are clearly
much younger than land animals as a group, and do not appear until over
300 million years after the first sea creatures.
1) How does anyone really know how old the sun or any star is? Because
they have guessed that all stars must have a similar cycle of birth,
life, and death? How does anyone really know that this theoretical
cycle is accurate?
Please stop using words like "guessed" when you should be using words
like "inferred".
As for the age of the sun, apart from the estimates made from
theoretical models (based on observations of the behaviour of gases, and
of nuclear fusion, and probably other stuff) we have successively older
radio-dates for terrestrial rocks, terrestrial crystals, lunar rocks and
meteorites. The last match the estimated age of the sun.
BTW, all stars have a similar cycle of birth, life and death only for
small values of similar. Some stars end up as supernovae and thence
neutron stars or black holes, others as planetary nebulae and white
dwarfs (some of which later become a second type of supernova). Some
stars last 10 million years; others 10 billion years.
You're totally mis-stating it. The stars that only live for 10 million
years are about 100 times as massive as our Sun. Scientists definitely
know that the larger the star is the shorter its lifetime; there is
actually a nice little equation, the lifetime of any star in solar
lifetimes (~10^10 years) equals the star's mass in solar masses
(~2x10^30kg) to the -2.5 power. So while your statement that some
stars live longer than others is true, you are deliberately ignoring
the major factor that we are well aware of. Stars that are around one
solar mass will live for about one solar lifetime, period. Metallicity
is involved too, but that is VERY easy to calculate from a simple
spectrum of the star in question and can be adjusted for accordingly.
Whether a star will end its life as a supernova, white dwarf, red
giant, neutron star, or black hole is dependent mainly on its mass and
metallicity, and by giving these two values to an astrophysicist he can
tell you with high certainty what the eventual outcome of that star
will be.
2) Did you really say that animals, as a group, are older than plants?
Does radiometric dating on the fossil record really support this?
Yes. The current conception of plants consists of a grade which are
primarily land organisms, with a few that have reverted back to
freshwater and marine habitats. Off the top of my head, they date back
to the Silurian. Animals date back to at least the Lower Cambrian
(Burgess fauna) - even if one doesn't accept the Precambrian Ediacara
fauna as containing animals. If one includes cyanobacteria and algae in
plants things are different, but ...
Then you don't know what a "plant" is if you think it's older than
animals. HINT: Plants originated UNDERWATER.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Harshman" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
19 Aug 2005 02:03:48 PM |
|
|
Cyde Weys wrote:
Ernest Major wrote:
[snip]
2) Did you really say that animals, as a group, are older than plants?
Does radiometric dating on the fossil record really support this?
Yes. The current conception of plants consists of a grade which are
primarily land organisms, with a few that have reverted back to
freshwater and marine habitats. Off the top of my head, they date back
to the Silurian. Animals date back to at least the Lower Cambrian
(Burgess fauna) - even if one doesn't accept the Precambrian Ediacara
fauna as containing animals. If one includes cyanobacteria and algae in
plants things are different, but ...
Then you don't know what a "plant" is if you think it's older than
animals. HINT: Plants originated UNDERWATER.
Have you considered that you may not know what a plant is? Ernest
defined them for you: land plants. You may prefer a different
definition, but which one? Of course "plant" is not a formal taxonomic
term. Ernest attached it to the node formally called Embryophyta, and
that's what I would do too. You might prefer to add some of the "green
algae" (a paraphyletic bunch) to get Charophyta or Streptephyta, or all
of them to get Viridophyta. Or you may like to add other colors of algae
and the odd protist to get some other group I don't currently summon up
a name for, and which is probably polyphyletic anyway. Or you may want
to include "blue-green algae" or Cyanobacteria, in which case plants are
about as polyphyletic as you can get. What did you have in mind, and why
do you think plants by your definition, whatever it is, are older than
animals?
I think that since we're talking about Genesis, we should see what
Genesis is talking about. Fortunately, it gives examples, and all the
examples are angiosperms. The criteria for recognition that are given
seem to require seeds, so perhaps spermatophytes would be a good choice.
But you can't really go wrong by the conservative position that they
meant to include ferns and mosses, but were confused about their life
cycles.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ernest Major" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
19 Aug 2005 01:41:03 PM |
|
|
In message <1124474878.992827.20170@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Cyde
Weys <cyde@umd.edu> writes
Ernest Major wrote:
In message <1124412217.484685.93680@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, Jim
Spaza <spaza9@yahoo.com> writes
John Harshman wrote:
How about the order of creation, in which we get all plants on the 3rd
day, the sun, moon, and stars on the 4th day, sea creatures and birds on
the 5th day, and all land animals on the 6th day? In reality, the sun is
a bit older than the earth, and many stars are much, much older.
Different sorts of plants and animals trickle in at different times, but
animals as a group are definitely older than plants. Birds are clearly
much younger than land animals as a group, and do not appear until over
300 million years after the first sea creatures.
1) How does anyone really know how old the sun or any star is? Because
they have guessed that all stars must have a similar cycle of birth,
life, and death? How does anyone really know that this theoretical
cycle is accurate?
Please stop using words like "guessed" when you should be using words
like "inferred".
As for the age of the sun, apart from the estimates made from
theoretical models (based on observations of the behaviour of gases, and
of nuclear fusion, and probably other stuff) we have successively older
radio-dates for terrestrial rocks, terrestrial crystals, lunar rocks and
meteorites. The last match the estimated age of the sun.
BTW, all stars have a similar cycle of birth, life and death only for
small values of similar. Some stars end up as supernovae and thence
neutron stars or black holes, others as planetary nebulae and white
dwarfs (some of which later become a second type of supernova). Some
stars last 10 million years; others 10 billion years.
You're totally mis-stating it. The stars that only live for 10 million
years are about 100 times as massive as our Sun. Scientists definitely
know that the larger the star is the shorter its lifetime; there is
actually a nice little equation, the lifetime of any star in solar
lifetimes (~10^10 years) equals the star's mass in solar masses
(~2x10^30kg) to the -2.5 power. So while your statement that some
stars live longer than others is true, you are deliberately ignoring
the major factor that we are well aware of. Stars that are around one
solar mass will live for about one solar lifetime, period. Metallicity
is involved too, but that is VERY easy to calculate from a simple
spectrum of the star in question and can be adjusted for accordingly.
Whether a star will end its life as a supernova, white dwarf, red
giant, neutron star, or black hole is dependent mainly on its mass and
metallicity, and by giving these two values to an astrophysicist he can
tell you with high certainty what the eventual outcome of that star
will be.
I don't see any misstatement. I was correcting Mr. Spaza's apparent
ignorance of the variety of stellar life histories, and was given an
overview of their variety, not explaining the cause of this variety,
which as you say includes mass and composition. (You omitted the effects
of mass transfer in binary systems.)
2) Did you really say that animals, as a group, are older than plants?
Does radiometric dating on the fossil record really support this?
Yes. The current conception of plants consists of a grade which are
primarily land organisms, with a few that have reverted back to
freshwater and marine habitats. Off the top of my head, they date back
to the Silurian. Animals date back to at least the Lower Cambrian
(Burgess fauna) - even if one doesn't accept the Precambrian Ediacara
fauna as containing animals. If one includes cyanobacteria and algae in
plants things are different, but ...
Then you don't know what a "plant" is if you think it's older than
animals. HINT: Plants originated UNDERWATER.
Considering that I was explaining that plants are younger than animals
you're not making much sense here. Whether plants originated underwater
depends on what clade you associate the name plant with.
--
alias Ernest Major
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.10/73 - Release Date: 15/08/2005
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Harshman" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
19 Aug 2005 01:45:24 PM |
|
|
Ernest Major wrote:
In message <1124412217.484685.93680@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, Jim
Spaza <spaza9@yahoo.com> writes
John Harshman wrote:
Jim Spaza wrote:
David Jensen wrote:
On 8 Aug 2005 14:50:07 -0700, in talk.origins
"Jim Spaza" <spaza9@yahoo.com> wrote in
<1123537806.819910.17860@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>:
David Jensen wrote:
On 5 Aug 2005 06:46:37 -0700, in talk.origins
"Jim Spaza" <spaza9@yahoo.com> wrote in
<1123249597.249070.5320@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>:
Von R. Smith wrote:
...
Why? Why not apply a reasonable explanation that would work just as
satisfactorily for a non-biblical passage, one doesn't require special
pleading?
Because the Biblical account, with its supernatural aspects, must be
taken into account when asking exactly what happened. You used the
terms "reasonable" and "special pleading" when criticizing the Biblical
account because you don't believe that this account could ever possibly
occur.
Why? Doesn't your interpretation of the Bible make it less believable?
...
Not at all. I believe that the supernatural entities and events in the
Bible are as real as anything that can be tested under controlled
conditions.
Yet there is no evidence to support these claims and plenty of evidence
that shows that such claims are false. Why would you believe that a
story is literally true when physical evidence shows that it did not
happen.
The physical evidence does not refute a flood. I believe that it
supports the flood.
You're going to have to reconcile that claim with your belief in the
accuracy of geological dates. If there was a flood in the last few
thousand years, not only did it leave no traces, but all of what you are
probably thinking of as evidence for it predates any such event by
millions of years.
Now, as to another's belief? My interpretation of the Bible makes it
seemingly more difficult for a skeptic to believe it.
It makes it more difficult for someone who is reality-based to accept.
I believe that the Biblical accounts must be considered as well because
the Bible has been shown to be accurate in its natural-based verses.
NO IT HAS NOT. Your have repeated this claim again and again and I have
called you on it a number of times. You are wrong. Which account would
you like to have discussed? The Flood?
The flood has been discussed back and forth already. Let's try another
example.
How about the order of creation, in which we get all plants on the 3rd
day, the sun, moon, and stars on the 4th day, sea creatures and birds on
the 5th day, and all land animals on the 6th day? In reality, the sun is
a bit older than the earth, and many stars are much, much older.
Different sorts of plants and animals trickle in at different times, but
animals as a group are definitely older than plants. Birds are clearly
much younger than land animals as a group, and do not appear until over
300 million years after the first sea creatures.
1) How does anyone really know how old the sun or any star is? Because
they have guessed that all stars must have a similar cycle of birth,
life, and death? How does anyone really know that this theoretical
cycle is accurate?
Please stop using words like "guessed" when you should be using words
like "inferred".
As for the age of the sun, apart from the estimates made from
theoretical models (based on observations of the behaviour of gases, and
of nuclear fusion, and probably other stuff) we have successively older
radio-dates for terrestrial rocks, terrestrial crystals, lunar rocks and
meteorites. The last match the estimated age of the sun.
BTW, all stars have a similar cycle of birth, life and death only for
small values of similar. Some stars end up as supernovae and thence
neutron stars or black holes, others as planetary nebulae and white
dwarfs (some of which later become a second type of supernova). Some
stars last 10 million years; others 10 billion years.
2) Did you really say that animals, as a group, are older than plants?
Does radiometric dating on the fossil record really support this?
Yes. The current conception of plants consists of a grade
And a clade too.
which are
primarily land organisms, with a few that have reverted back to
freshwater and marine habitats. Off the top of my head, they date back
to the Silurian.
Body fossils, yes. There are spores from the late Ordovician.
Animals date back to at least the Lower Cambrian
(Burgess fauna)
Quibble: Burgess is Middle Cambrian. But of course there are similar
Lower Cambrian lagerstatten, like Chengjiang.
- even if one doesn't accept the Precambrian Ediacara
fauna as containing animals. If one includes cyanobacteria and algae in
plants things are different, but ...
I think you have to accept the Precambrian phosphatized embryos as
metazoans; sponges at a minimum. Also presumably the Late Precambrian
trace fossils would have to be bilaterians of some kind. And some of the
Ediacarans just don't make any sense as other than metazoans;
Tribrachidium, for example.
3) Birds are much younger than land animals?
Chez watt. Birds are descended from (are) theropod dinosaurs. Birds are
first found in the Jurassic (but see the disputed Protavis). Land
animals go a long way further back.
4) Given that each "day" in Genesis refers to a period of time which
could be 500 million years, having birds appear 300 million years after
sea creatures would not conflict with Genesis. God created sea life
and let it propagate. 300 Million years later, God drops in the bird
ancestors.
That doesn't help you. Birds still occur after land animals, so the
order doesn't agree with Genesis.
[snip]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ernest Major" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
19 Aug 2005 02:13:24 PM |
|
|
In message <8NpNe.577$GV7.399@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>, John Harshman
<jharshman.diespamdie@pacbell.net> writes
Yes. The current conception of plants consists of a grade
And a clade too.
I'm not sure what happened here - I was thinking clade as I wrote the
above.
--
alias Ernest Major
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.10/73 - Release Date: 15/08/2005
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Harshman" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
19 Aug 2005 02:28:51 PM |
|
|
Ernest Major wrote:
In message <8NpNe.577$GV7.399@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>, John Harshman
<jharshman.diespamdie@pacbell.net> writes
Yes. The current conception of plants consists of a grade
And a clade too.
I'm not sure what happened here - I was thinking clade as I wrote the
above.
No problem. It's possible to be both at once.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Harshman" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
18 Aug 2005 08:25:44 PM |
|
|
Jim Spaza wrote:
John Harshman wrote:
Jim Spaza wrote:
David Jensen wrote:
On 8 Aug 2005 14:50:07 -0700, in talk.origins
"Jim Spaza" <spaza9@yahoo.com> wrote in
<1123537806.819910.17860@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>:
David Jensen wrote:
On 5 Aug 2005 06:46:37 -0700, in talk.origins
"Jim Spaza" <spaza9@yahoo.com> wrote in
<1123249597.249070.5320@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>:
Von R. Smith wrote:
...
Why? Why not apply a reasonable explanation that would work just as
satisfactorily for a non-biblical passage, one doesn't require special
pleading?
Because the Biblical account, with its supernatural aspects, must be
taken into account when asking exactly what happened. You used the
terms "reasonable" and "special pleading" when criticizing the Biblical
account because you don't believe that this account could ever possibly
occur.
Why? Doesn't your interpretation of the Bible make it less believable?
...
Not at all. I believe that the supernatural entities and events in the
Bible are as real as anything that can be tested under controlled
conditions.
Yet there is no evidence to support these claims and plenty of evidence
that shows that such claims are false. Why would you believe that a
story is literally true when physical evidence shows that it did not
happen.
The physical evidence does not refute a flood. I believe that it
supports the flood.
You're going to have to reconcile that claim with your belief in the
accuracy of geological dates. If there was a flood in the last few
thousand years, not only did it leave no traces, but all of what you are
probably thinking of as evidence for it predates any such event by
millions of years.
Now, as to another's belief? My interpretation of the Bible makes it
seemingly more difficult for a skeptic to believe it.
It makes it more difficult for someone who is reality-based to accept.
I believe that the Biblical accounts must be considered as well because
the Bible has been shown to be accurate in its natural-based verses.
NO IT HAS NOT. Your have repeated this claim again and again and I have
called you on it a number of times. You are wrong. Which account would
you like to have discussed? The Flood?
The flood has been discussed back and forth already. Let's try another
example.
How about the order of creation, in which we get all plants on the 3rd
day, the sun, moon, and stars on the 4th day, sea creatures and birds on
the 5th day, and all land animals on the 6th day? In reality, the sun is
a bit older than the earth, and many stars are much, much older.
Different sorts of plants and animals trickle in at different times, but
animals as a group are definitely older than plants. Birds are clearly
much younger than land animals as a group, and do not appear until over
300 million years after the first sea creatures.
1) How does anyone really know how old the sun or any star is? Because
they have guessed that all stars must have a similar cycle of birth,
life, and death? How does anyone really know that this theoretical
cycle is accurate?
Are you being serious here? Are you actually proposing that plants are
older than the sun? That the earth itself is older than the sun?
In fact we have no actual measurement of the age of the sun. We suppose
that it must be at least as old as the rest of the solar system. It's
conceivable that, by magic, one or more planets could have been formed
before the sun existed. But how is it even conceivable for life to exist
on earth before the sun formed, especially plant life?
2) Did you really say that animals, as a group, are older than plants?
Does radiometric dating on the fossil record really support this?
Yes. The known fossil record of animals extends to the Early Cambrian,
with arguable cases into the Late Precambrian. The known fossil record
of plants (meaning land plants, and excluding algae and cyanobacteria)
extends only into the Late Ordovician. Even better, the fossil record of
angiosperms (the only sort of plant specifically mentioned in Gensesis)
extends only to the Early Cretaceous. And better than that, grasses are
mentioned specifically, and their fossil record extends only to the
Mid-Tertiary. You might suppose that the record is faulty, and that all
these plants existed before animals but didn't happen to fossilize. The
problem with that is that pollen is preserved in massive amounts in many
deposits all over the world, and we can recognize plant groups by their
pollen. Wind-pollinated plants, grasses among them, make massive
amounts, and this is spread far and wide by the winds. It would be
extremely difficult for grasses to hide from the fossil record for the
necessary 400 million years without leaving any trace.
3) Birds are much younger than land animals?
Definitely. The earliest bird is Late Jurassic. The earliest land
animals are Late Devonian.
4) Given that each "day" in Genesis refers to a period of time which
could be 500 million years, having birds appear 300 million years after
sea creatures would not conflict with Genesis. God created sea life
and let it propagate. 300 Million years later, God drops in the bird
ancestors.
Agreed. Given "days" of indeterminate length, differences in timing
among things that appear on the same day is not a problem. It's
differences among things that are supposed to appear on different days
that's the problem. There are no boundaries you can set on the various
days that will put them in agreement with the fossil record. Things that
are supposed to appear on the various days dribble in throughout the
record, mixed freely. There is ordering as far as "the first" of any
group is concerned, but beyond that there is nothing. If you claim there
are many different kinds, then all the kinds attributed to any one day
should appear before any of the kinds attributed to a subsequent day.
This just doesn't happen.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Harshman" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
19 Aug 2005 11:02:47 AM |
|
|
John Harshman wrote:
[snip]
Jim Spaza wrote:
3) Birds are much younger than land animals?
Definitely. The earliest bird is Late Jurassic. The earliest land
animals are Late Devonian.
Correction: for some reason I was only thinking about vertebrates here.
The earliest known land animals are insects and other arthropods, from
the Early Devonian.
[snip]
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
18 Aug 2005 11:24:20 PM |
|
|
On 18 Aug 2005 17:43:37 -0700,
Jim Spaza <spaza9@yahoo.com> wrote:
John Harshman wrote:
Jim Spaza wrote:
David Jensen wrote:
On 8 Aug 2005 14:50:07 -0700, in talk.origins
"Jim Spaza" <spaza9@yahoo.com> wrote in
<1123537806.819910.17860@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>:
David Jensen wrote:
On 5 Aug 2005 06:46:37 -0700, in talk.origins
"Jim Spaza" <spaza9@yahoo.com> wrote in
<1123249597.249070.5320@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>:
Von R. Smith wrote:
...
Why? Why not apply a reasonable explanation that would work just as
satisfactorily for a non-biblical passage, one doesn't require special
pleading?
Because the Biblical account, with its supernatural aspects, must be
taken into account when asking exactly what happened. You used the
terms "reasonable" and "special pleading" when criticizing the Biblical
account because you don't believe that this account could ever possibly
occur.
Why? Doesn't your interpretation of the Bible make it less believable?
...
Not at all. I believe that the supernatural entities and events in the
Bible are as real as anything that can be tested under controlled
conditions.
Yet there is no evidence to support these claims and plenty of evidence
that shows that such claims are false. Why would you believe that a
story is literally true when physical evidence shows that it did not
happen.
The physical evidence does not refute a flood. I believe that it
supports the flood.
You're going to have to reconcile that claim with your belief in the
accuracy of geological dates. If there was a flood in the last few
thousand years, not only did it leave no traces, but all of what you are
probably thinking of as evidence for it predates any such event by
millions of years.
Now, as to another's belief? My interpretation of the Bible makes it
seemingly more difficult for a skeptic to believe it.
It makes it more difficult for someone who is reality-based to accept.
I believe that the Biblical accounts must be considered as well because
the Bible has been shown to be accurate in its natural-based verses.
NO IT HAS NOT. Your have repeated this claim again and again and I have
called you on it a number of times. You are wrong. Which account would
you like to have discussed? The Flood?
The flood has been discussed back and forth already. Let's try another
example.
How about the order of creation, in which we get all plants on the 3rd
day, the sun, moon, and stars on the 4th day, sea creatures and birds on
the 5th day, and all land animals on the 6th day? In reality, the sun is
a bit older than the earth, and many stars are much, much older.
Different sorts of plants and animals trickle in at different times, but
animals as a group are definitely older than plants. Birds are clearly
much younger than land animals as a group, and do not appear until over
300 million years after the first sea creatures.
1) How does anyone really know how old the sun or any star is? Because
they have guessed that all stars must have a similar cycle of birth,
life, and death? How does anyone really know that this theoretical
cycle is accurate?
The laws of physics put limits upon the age of stars and allow us to
estimate the age of stars. Again we see you trying to justify a Biblical
passage's fault by rejecting a branch of science. Are you really willing to
go on record and call into question our understanding of the properties of
matter and energy to prop up a Biblical passage?
2) Did you really say that animals, as a group, are older than plants?
Does radiometric dating on the fossil record really support this?
My understanding is, as John says, that animals are older.
3) Birds are much younger than land animals?
A good deal younger.
4) Given that each "day" in Genesis refers to a period of time which
could be 500 million years, having birds appear 300 million years after
sea creatures would not conflict with Genesis. God created sea life
and let it propagate. 300 Million years later, God drops in the bird
ancestors.
Can you point me to the passage that permits you to say a creative day is
300 million years? Here we now see a non-literal interpretation, and yet
above you essentially call into question our ability to measure and predict
physical forces in a star.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
18 Aug 2005 09:03:48 PM |
|
|
On 18 Aug 2005 17:43:37 -0700, "Jim Spaza" <spaza9@yahoo.com> wrote:
1) How does anyone really know how old the sun or any star is? Because
they have guessed that all stars must have a similar cycle of birth,
life, and death? How does anyone really know that this theoretical
cycle is accurate?
because it's based on the same principles that the H bomb is based.
and that works.
---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cyde Weys" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
19 Aug 2005 12:50:22 PM |
|
|
Bob wrote:
On 18 Aug 2005 17:43:37 -0700, "Jim Spaza" <spaza9@yahoo.com> wrote:
1) How does anyone really know how old the sun or any star is? Because
they have guessed that all stars must have a similar cycle of birth,
life, and death? How does anyone really know that this theoretical
cycle is accurate?
because it's based on the same principles that the H bomb is based.
and that works.
To really stick in the knife and twist it, do the following ...
Because it's based on the same principles that the H bomb is based.
Are you going to tell the grieving relatives of those who died in the
Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings that nobody really died, that fission
doesn't work? You want to just ***** on their graves now, or later?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
19 Aug 2005 01:11:19 PM |
|
|
On 19 Aug 2005 10:50:22 -0700, in talk.origins , "Cyde Weys"
<cyde@umd.edu> in
<1124473822.743635.136330@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Bob wrote:
On 18 Aug 2005 17:43:37 -0700, "Jim Spaza" <spaza9@yahoo.com> wrote:
1) How does anyone really know how old the sun or any star is? Because
they have guessed that all stars must have a similar cycle of birth,
life, and death? How does anyone really know that this theoretical
cycle is accurate?
because it's based on the same principles that the H bomb is based.
and that works.
To really stick in the knife and twist it, do the following ...
Because it's based on the same principles that the H bomb is based.
Are you going to tell the grieving relatives of those who died in the
Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings that nobody really died, that fission
doesn't work? You want to just ***** on their graves now, or later?
Wrong kind of bomb. Fat Boy and Thin Man were fission bombs, the Sun
uses fusion.
--
Matt Silberstein
And now our bodies are oh so close and tight
It never felt so good, it never felt so right
And we're glowing like the metal on the edge of a knife
C'mon! Hold on tight!
C'mon! Hold on tight!
Though it's cold and lonley in the deep dark night
I can see paradise by the dashboard light
Paradise by the dashboard light
Jim Steinman
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com? |
17 Aug 2005 02:00:32 PM |
|
|
On 16 Aug 2005 12:16:43 -0700,
Jim Spaza <spaza9@yahoo.com> wrote:
David Jensen wrote:
On 8 Aug 2005 14:50:07 -0700, in talk.origins
"Jim Spaza" <spaza9@yahoo.com> wrote in
<1123537806.819910.17860@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>:
David Jensen wrote:
On 5 Aug 2005 06:46:37 -0700, in talk.origins
"Jim Spaza" <spaza9@yahoo.com> wrote in
<1123249597.249070.5320@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>:
Von R. Smith wrote:
...
Why? Why not apply a reasonable explanation that would work just as
satisfactorily for a non-biblical passage, one doesn't require special
pleading?
Because the Biblical account, with its supernatural aspects, must be
taken into account when asking exactly what happened. You used the
terms "reasonable" and "special pleading" when criticizing the Biblical
account | |
