Jump to content

Clodhopper

Community Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    495

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Clodhopper

    The Geologic Column

    in Hall of Intellectuals

    Posted · Edited by Clodhopper

    I know this is a double post, but I am continuing my previous post. Tim said that the limit per post is something like a megabyte, and if my posts are too long, the quote option doesn't work for me. So I'm trying to get my quotes to work. This is also On Topic, and, like I said, a continuation of my previous post. So, I hope this is a good enough reason for a double post.

    Yiuel:

    It has a lot of interesting details, and my brains keep on learning, thinking and applying, oh such marvel

    Are you really? Do you question what you read?

    Lord Zorinthrox:

    First of all, order appears from disorder all the time in nature -- look at the Solar System. It was formed fromt he unorganized material left over from the formation of the Sun, and even with most of the orbital bodies in the Solar System not having life, it is highly organized. Well, if you listen to science, that is.

    Excuse me... information never comes from disorder.

    And you can completely forgret about using Thermodynamics here, Clodhopper. That law of Thermodynamics that states a closed system will fall into entropy apllies to only that, closed systems, that is, system that have no exterrior input of energy. If you notice, Earth is far from a closed system, what with several trillion trillion trilllion cubic meters of Hydrogen gas fusing into helium just one astrnomical unit away. So just don't bother.

    Who's to say the universe isn't?

    By the by, here's an article on the Origin of Life according to us "evolutionists." A good read, that is, if you actually read it.

    Oh, and could you quote or point out the explanations for how life began in that article, please? Unless I'm mistaken, it doesn't address that issue...only how nonliving molecules and stuff can be formed by certain circumstances.

    AK_Thug AMish:

    Any time you see something like "Sir Arthur Keith, evolutionist", you should immediately question the credibility of the source. I normally don't simply attack the authority of quotations, but creationists are particularly bad with properly quoting/understanding the context of 'evolutionist' quotes.

    Why? Is it because he said: "Evolution is unproved and unprovable;

    we believe it only because the alternative is the belief in God and creation,

    and THAT is unthinkable!"? Or "The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution."?

    but 99% of creationist arguments are simply based on misunderstandings of biology.

    Like... what?

    Eken132:

    I think this link pertains to the topic at hand quite well:

    http://www.theonion.com/history/index.php?issue=4129

    That's "The Onion", Eken. Does anybody know what "The Onion" is? Here is "The Onion" It's not a very good news source at all. You guys will soon see, IF you check it out...

    The Geologic Column

    in Hall of Intellectuals

    Posted · Edited by Clodhopper

    Mythos Ruler:

    You know the answer I am going to give, Clod, and it is much more complex than "life sprang from a rock." You've obviously put at least a little research into the question so you know current scientific theories to be more complex than that. Ask a specific question and stop setting up a strawman argument (clicky) just so you can knock it down.

    Since obviously I was wrong in my presumption, I asked "Where did life come from then?." I don't know how you interpret that to be a strawman argument.

    Let me ask you a specific question: What part of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics refers to "disorganization?"

    When did I say disorganization?

    Klaas:

    I never heard of evolutionist scientists. What I do know are two types of scientists: those who practice and research science in order to seek a system or understand nature better and those who're looking only for a career. The latter indeed rather don't believe anything but the theory they "invented", but you're missing out the former. It's not about a conspiracy of atheist scientists against creationism, for most what matters is that they can get as close to the "truth" as possible.

    I never said it was a conspiracy, Klaas. I believe this is what Mythos would call a "strawman argument." (clicky) By the way, the "Evolution v Creation" issue needs to be correctly called "Naturalism v Theism", not "Science v Religion."

    Pretty strange if there are no homo sapiens sapiens remains as old as for example the remains of Australopithecus Anamensis.

    That's a very wild claim, Klaas. So, you've searched everywhere on earth for these remains, or you know someone who's searched everywhere on earth for these remains, or you know a collection of people who have searched everywhere on earth for these remains?

    But then we come back to carbon-14 dating and other comparable methods of dating

    Let's take a quote from Yiuel here:

    This proportion can be tested on our own bones, on bones of people or animals just deseased, and this proportion is fairly the same.
    And try to reconcile it to the website you suggested: here. It says, and I quote:
    Anything that dies after the 1940s, when Nuclear bombs, nuclear reactors and open-air nuclear tests started changing things, will be harder to date precisely.
    Now you can also say that since radioactivity is such a problem, guess where all the lead can from? We have lost almost half of our uranium deposits to radioactive decay, and that is quite a bit of radioactive material, and it probably affects Carbon dating, if anything does.

    Now we can also take this one here, from the site that Mythos Ruler gave us, which can be found here:

    The young-Earth argument: the dipole component of the magnetic field has decreased slightly over the time that it has been measured. Assuming the generally accepted "dynamo theory" for the existence of the Earth's magnetic field is wrong, the mechanism might instead be an initially created field which has been losing strength ever since the creation event. An exponential fit (assuming a half-life of 1400 years on 130 years' worth of measurements) yields an impossibly high magnetic field even 8000 years ago, therefore the Earth must be young. The main proponent of this argument was Thomas Barnes.

    There are several things wrong with this "dating" mechanism. It's hard to just list them all. The primary four are:

    1. While there is no complete model to the geodynamo (certain key properties of the core are unknown), there are reasonable starts and there are no good reasons for rejecting such an entity out of hand. If it is possible for energy to be added to the field, then the extrapolation is useless.

    2. There is overwhelming evidence that the magnetic field has reversed itself, rendering any unidirectional extrapolation on field strength useless. Even some young-Earthers admit to that these days -- e.g., Humphreys (1988) .

    3. Much of the energy in the field is probably locked in toroidal fields that are not even visible external to the core. This means that the extrapolation rests on the assumption that fluctuations in the observable portion of the field accurately represent fluctuations in its total energy.

    4. Barnes' extrapolation completely ignores the nondipole component of the field. Even if we grant that it is permissible to ignore portions of the field that are internal to the core, Barnes' extrapolation also ignores portions of the field which are visible and instead rests on extrapolation of a theoretical entity.

    Nevertheless, even if earth's magnetic field is not decreasing, they claim it is fluctuating. This means that Carbon-14 production is also fluctuating!

    Black Holes

    in Hall of Intellectuals

    Posted

    Ummm... according to this here:Black holes No information can come out of a black hole. Since it is impossible to see a black hole, because it even sucks in light, how can one be sure that there is such a thing? So when this site says

    The existence of black holes in the universe is well supported by astronomical observation
    , how is that possible?
×
×
  • Create New...