Butch Jones embraces team chaplain Tim Miller

#651
#651
Believers have no shortage of crazy reasons why they don't want to accept carbon dating and evolution--they are always tying themselves up in knots. Anybody who questions established science but aggressively asserts his belief in a nonexistent psychological crutch named "god" cannot be taken seriously. The bible is stories for children. Noah's Ark--seriously? People believe not because there is a scintilla of evidence--there isn't--but because they want to. Whatever floats your boat--Noah!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#652
#652
armchair said:
Believers have no shortage of crazy reasons why they don't want to accept carbon dating and evolution--they are always tying themselves up in knots.
Click to expand...
So you are claiming that assumptions are not made before radiometric samples are tested? How is saying that fossils frequently appear where they should not be according to evolution "crazy"? They either do or they don't... and as far as I know scientists do not dispute that they do.

I don't "accept it" because I don't see a convincing argument once I take away the metaphysical assumption of naturalism... and moreover because those who think they do... answer as you have.

Anybody who questions established science but aggressively asserts his belief in a nonexistent psychological crutch named "god" cannot be taken seriously.
Click to expand...
What "established" science are you referring to? Why do you believe God is a "nonexistent psychological crutch"?

The bible is stories for children. Noah's Ark--seriously? People believe not because there is a scintilla of evidence--there isn't--but because they want to. Whatever floats your boat--Noah!
Click to expand...

Much of the layering of the earth's surface can be explained by flood models. Even some non-creationists have acknowledged that.

Evolution is certain a "story"... and the "evidence" is hammered into conformity even when it doesn't fit very well.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#653
#653
sjt18 said:
Assumptions are made to date dinosaurs. You won't like it but those used by evolutionists are ultimately based on circular reasoning.

There are no chemical dating methods that precisely date something 10's of millions of years old. Assumptions are made regarding the conditions impacting decay over long periods. Uniformitarian assumptions are preferred but often rejected... because they date fossils to time periods that do not fit the evolutionary time line. Added to that, any chemical dating depends on assumptions about the presence of mother/daughter elements when the organic material was first covered. IIRC, samples are sent in with an expected date range based on their position in the geologic column.

Again working off memory, I believe the boundaries for the geologic column are influenced by what fossils are found in a particular place. The problem with this is that fossils appear together in unexpected ways and orders.

Most dating is based on where fossils appear in the geologic table. If you read a textbook you would think that the geologic table is the order of the earth under our feet anywhere in the world. That is not true. There are only a handful of places in the world where all of the layers exist in the "correct" order. In none those are those layers the right thickness. Sometimes the column is side ways or upside down.

Dating is not "precise" and depends heavily on assumptions... that ultimately lead back to assuming your conclusion to interpret the data.
Click to expand...

That's sorta what I said earlier..though not nearly as well.
 
#654
#654
sjt18 said:
What was "negative" in that post? I asked some fundamental questions about where your notions of right and wrong come from.

If your view is true and atheists can produce a rational reason for an objective moral standard, I would like to know how you believe that is done.
Click to expand...

My notions of right and wrong come from myself man. I don't have a book that tells me what's morally correct and wrong. I find basing your beliefs off of a book to be irrational since I don't believe in the book. At the end of the day it's all a matter of opinion. What you think is morally correct may be different than what I think. More than likely though we both have some similarities in what we think. However I get my opinion on morals from what I think is right.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#656
#656
Dude is just throwing around terms like "naturalism" and "metaphysical" with, at best, a cursory understanding of those ideas probably gathered from Wikipedia. get back to us when you have read the complete works of Nagel, Dewey, and Sellars (naturalism) and Plato, Kant, Nietzsche (metaphysics); although neither schools of philosophy have anything to do with the lack of evidence for the absurd bull$**** in the Bible.

It is very simple: Can you prove God exists? You can't? Well then i don't believe you then.

Evolution is no longer a theory, and the Big Bang is close to being in the same category even though the vast majority of serious scientists already consider it to be 100% true.

signed, philosophy major from Princeton and TA to Elizabeth Harman
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#657
#657
ellisjb0 said:
Dude is just throwing around terms like "naturalism" and "metaphysical" with, at best, a cursory understanding of those ideas probably gathered from Wikipedia. get back to us when you have read the complete works of Nagel, Dewey, and Sellars (naturalism) and Plato, Kant, Nietzsche (metaphysics); although neither schools of philosophy have anything to do with the lack of evidence for the absurd bull$**** in the Bible.

It is very simple: Can you prove God exists? You can't? Well then i don't believe you then.

Evolution is no longer a theory, and the Big Bang is close to being in the same category even though the vast majority of serious scientists already consider it to be 100% true.

signed, philosophy major from Princeton and TA to Elizabeth Harman
Click to expand...
Wow, you are really smart.
 
#666
#666
BaldBiker said:
I question a lot of things, so take this for exactly what it is. A question. In what year did stop being a theory? Or rather when did it become a law?
Click to expand...

well the laws of physics are always subject to change. any scientist or philosopher worth his salt will readily admit that. that's the beauty of science.

evolution has been overwhelmingly accepted for at least 30 yrs.

even Pope John Paul II accepted Evolution as fact in 1996:
Evolution: Pope Says Evolution More than a Hypothesis | Christianity Today

and that ^^ is a very biased source
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#668
#668
BaldBiker said:
I question a lot of things, so take this for exactly what it is. A question. In what year did stop being a theory? Or rather when did it become a law?
Click to expand...

I accepted the theory that a letter factory exploded and over the course of millions of years the letters fell into place to form what we now know to be Websters dictionary, a long time ago.
 
#669
#669
ellisjb0 said:
well the laws of physics are always subject to change. any scientist or philosopher worth his salt will readily admit that. that's the beauty of science.

evolution has been overwhelmingly accepted for at least 30 yrs.

even Pope John Paul II accepted Evolution as fact in 1996:
Evolution: Pope Says Evolution More than a Hypothesis | Christianity Today

and that ^^ is a very biased source
Click to expand...

Could they not both still be correct though? I think even christians understand the fact that humans have evolved. Not even over thousands of years, but over the last 100-200 years.

Being overwhelmingly accepted for the past 30 years does not in any way mean that it is not still just a theory.

The only thing I've seen, to even in a round about way, support what you are saying is scientist a couple of years ago just coming out and saying "Let's stop calling it a theory. We're not going to call it a law either though. From now on let's just call it a fact". Telling everyone to call it a fact does not make something a fact.

Like I said before. I question everything. I question the bible side of things just as much as the evolution side of things. There are gaps and holes in both. Hell Alien Theorist have as much of an argument as either side battling it out in here, and have just as much proof.

That's my 21+ years Marine Corps education. It's not Princeton, but I did alright by it.
 
#670
#670
ellisjb0 said:
well the laws of physics are always subject to change. any scientist or philosopher worth his salt will readily admit that. that's the beauty of science.
Click to expand...

The beauty of science is that it's all a big guesswork? I don't think so.

ellisjb0 said:
evolution has been overwhelmingly accepted for at least 30 yrs.

. . .
Click to expand...

And how long has Christianity been overwhelmingly accepted?
 
#671
#671
BaldBiker said:
Could they not both still be correct though? I think even christians understand the fact that humans have evolved. Not even over thousands of years, but over the last 100-200 years.

Being overwhelmingly accepted for the past 30 years does not in any way mean that it is not still just a theory.

The only thing I've seen, to even in a round about way, support what you are saying is scientist a couple of years ago just coming out and saying "Let's stop calling it a theory. We're not going to call it a law either though. From now on let's just call it a fact". Telling everyone to call it a fact does not make something a fact.

Like I said before. I question everything. I question the bible side of things just as much as the evolution side of things. There are gaps and holes in both. Hell Alien Theorist have as much of an argument as either side battling it out in here, and have just as much proof.

That's my 21+ years Marine Corps education. It's not Princeton, but I did alright by it.
Click to expand...

I too attended the prestigious University of Parris Island. I think the word is more adaptation, rather than evolution. Humans have always adapted over time to better equipt them for their living environment.
However, humans have not continued to evolve into a more superior being.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#675
#675
ellisjb0 said:
bc you are not being genuine
Click to expand...

You took me as not being genuine, all i said was you are really smart.

You atheist types are a hard bunch to reason. So quick to show everyone your brilliance and ivy league degree and show how stupid everyone else is, yet become defensive when someone compliments the brilliance displayed. Its really confusing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top