Re: Need some assistance

On Jun 28, 7:21 pm, r norman <r_s_norman@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 10:31:20 -0700, "Feather Forestwalker"



<feat...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I need information from either side of
the ongoing (over 100 year) debate

. . .my pastor has put me on the trail of some articles relating to the
study of Deep Time.

His old school buddy, recently found, is a scientist at an extremely
well-accredited University here in the states. He is a geologic evolutionist
and is asking my pastor to intelligently debate the topic of Deep Time
(ancient planet theory) vs. Creationism, (younger planet theory).

We are looking for links to articles - I have Googled some. I am not seeking
debate on the subject; merely information from various locations which would
support the theory as well as debunk it, without heated debate, anger or
name-calling. Just a good few articles on the subjects from both sides.

Thanks in advance; I will be checking back regularly.

Feather

You indicated you have already googled, but here is just a single
instance of many on the age of the universe:
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/age.html

One of the most important concepts in this kind of science is that
there are a tremendous number of ways of knowing that the universe,
our solar system, and our planet is billions of years old (the exact
number of billions depending on which system you look at). The age of
material samples on earth is generally now determined by various
techniques of radioactive dating. The age of the universe is based on
various theories of star formation and evolution (yes, I used the word
deliberately; there are kinds of evolution other than biological).
And there are cosmological theories. And there are all sorts of
validation for the theories other than the circular argument based on
age. But most important of all is the extremely important concept
that many very different types of measurement of age, all totally
independent of each other, tend to agree quite accurately on the
result. Yes, there have been arguments about the exact age and the
number has changed over time because of refinements in technique and
theory. But those arguments and adjustments are minor; whether the
earth is 13 billion or 14 billion or 13.7 billion or exactly what is
not the argument. The argument is whether it is over 10 billion or
under 10 thousand and that is a million-fold difference.

Yes but when proven wrong, they ignore the evidence and continue to
preach their theory, as if it hadn't been falsified at all.

They continue to build on theories which are proven false, such as
attractive gravity, gravitons, and the like, never proven to exist at
all.

How many people here were taught in school, that gravitons exist raise
your hand.

Well they have never been proven. What if I said that fairy folk were
doing it. And didn't bother to prove that either, but insisted on it
as fact and said it was from authority, with a white lab coat and got
the Nobel prize. Would that make it fact?

What about charge? What is charge?

Is that magic dust?

Invisible magic dust that acts at a distance?

If something has a negative charge, and something has a positive
charge, what is charge exactly? What makes charge negative and charge
positive? Magic?

You see right there the only answer possible in science, is that it is
a fundamental property of nature.

I say no it isn't. It is a fundamental property of fundamentalist
scientists who make stuff up, and preach it in schools, and do not
feel it necessary to provide proof of their assertions, but rather not
unlike the pope himself, make decrees, and insist that people believe
them.

Science is based on belief as much as religion is based on belief.

Science has lost its way and will not admit when it has been proven
wrong. It just ignores it.

How many people here are familiar with Stephen Hawking and black
holes?

Well he was the one who said that first, nothing escapes a black hole.

Then well radiation escapes a black hole, and we call that Hawking
radiation, well now we found a black hole that exploded.
The largest ever explosion in the universe, was a black hole that
exploded.

So what does that alone do to alllll that theory on black holes?

It falsifies all of it.

And will it be falsified or will they continue to preach that same
science for the next hundred years like they have continued to preach
an attractive gravity 100 years after Einstein falsified it?

Science does what an Evangelist preacher does. Where a preacher will
give interpretations on the Bible to fit his paradigm, a scientist
interprets the data to fit his or her paradigm.
Where is truth?
Did man walk on the moon? We don't even know if that is true! There is
a wealth of evidence that it was all a fraud.



It really is hard to give you specific details. Any elementary
geology or astronomy or cosmology book will have a lot of details. But
the evidence is so widespread, so consistent, so overwhelming, that
all of modern science simply goes with the multi-billion year fact.
There is nowhere I know where you can find a "discussion" or
"alternatives" because there is nothing to discuss. On one hand, you
accept science, in a form which is also perfectly consistent with a
liberal interpretation of scripture and with the belief of most modern
religions. On the other, you reject reason, evidence, and
"materialistic reductionism" outright and accept purely on faith a
literal interpretation of translations of texts that are then claimed
to be the literal, unalterable, words of God. So-called "scientific"
claims for a young earth are simply untenable by all accepted science.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Re: Need some assistance
    ... and is asking my pastor to intelligently debate the topic of Deep Time ... instance of many on the age of the universe: ... there are a tremendous number of ways of knowing that the universe, ... all of modern science simply goes with the multi-billion year fact. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: OT Some Thought On Intelligent Design - WAS: OT Is George Bush Drinking?
    ... | whether or not it *ought to become* a part of science. ... because the debate process itself has already been tainted. ... In a nutshell, irreducable complexity argues ... matter-mechanical view of the Universe and I welcome the discussion to ...
    (rec.woodworking)
  • Re: "creationism has no place in classroom science"
    ... there is a way of knowing Creationism is wrong. ... If creationism means that the universe was created with all the ... intervention of supernatural beings with infinite powers, science can ... This isn't a debate about science, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Why do you believe?
    ... Flawless Bridge between 'Science' and 'Religion' ... creation of the universe and its multifarious processes. ...
    (soc.religion.islam)
  • Re: Texas: Board Set to Vote on Challenge to Evolution
    ... Science does the same thing. ... You clearly haven't been around scientists much. ... A pre-Big-Bang universe. ... Bang, you can't just say that there was no "before" and expect to be taken ...
    (talk.origins)