The Anti-theist Thread

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Khadrane


I think I said somewhere back that radiocarbon dating isn't always accurate. It's not accurate past 5,000(?) years. I would tell you the details, but as I also said before, I left my science book at home, at I won't be able to get it for awhile.

You are correct in assuming that carbon dating can not be used to date the oldest earth ROCKS (inorganic), because A) it can only used on organic matter, and B) because it only goes back 60,000 years BP. However:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq...rth.html#howold

This link explains a dating method that can go back earlier than 60,000 years. Also, at the beginning of either this thread, or the theist one, I posted other dating methods that could go back earlier.

[Rána Eressëa]

Originally posted by Khadrane
I think I said somewhere back that radiocarbon dating isn't always accurate. It's not accurate past 5,000(?) years. I would tell you the details, but as I also said before, I left my science book at home, at I won't be able to get it for awhile.

Incorrect. Radiocarbon dating is accurate past 5,000 years, but it cannot give you an exact point-on date. Radiocarbon dating can only be misread if it is contaminated. However, when dating how old something is, it is impossible to be over a few thousand years off. In other words, it is impossible for the dating to be even a million years off, and a million years isn't even close to half of a billion. Therefore, dating the Earth about 4.5 billion years old is as accurate as you're going to get.

[Khadrane]

I wish I had my science book! (I never thought I'd say that! ) Or maybe I just should have paid more attention. After spring break, I'll be back, and better than ever!!! (Sorry. I went a little insane there.)

[BeardofPants]

Hey, Khadrane, thanks for bearing with us, at any rate.

Check out this site, it is a discussion of religion vs science, on the premise that God started life somewhere else, and it came to earth, and so forth. Interesting read, interesting possibilities.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq...rth.html#howold

That's about as middle ground as I'm going to get, I'm afraid

[Wayfarer]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Science is a constantly changing paradigm.

As if it matters.

Science will accept something until a more exact prediction comes along. It still relies on a belief that things can be predicted.

Newton had a system that predicted how the universe worked-up to a point.
Einstein's syste made the same predictions, but went a ways past where newton got stuck.
Quantum theory goes even further, and makes predictions that the previous two could not.

None of these systems would have worked at all if there was not a fundamental order to the universe.

Something that intrigues me is that you keep attacking my statement that there is a fundamental order to the universe. It's funny because this, in itself, does not prove the existance of God. It simply shows that there is something from which everything is, whether that is God, gods, or Nature.

[Khadrane]

That's about as middle ground as I'm going to get, I'm afraid

Better than nothing, I guess. Oh yah, and all you people I was attempting to debate with, you won't hold it against me, will you? I won't hold it against you. I will check out that site to. (But it won't make me believe any differently )

Never mind. I won't check it out. The link doesn't work.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Wayfarer
Something that intrigues me is that you keep attacking my statement that there is a fundamental order to the universe. It's funny because this, in itself, does not prove the existance of God. It simply shows that there is something from which everything is, whether that is God, gods, or Nature.

No, I haven't.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Khadrane
Never mind. I won't check it out. The link doesn't work.

Lucky I'm so kind, I'll cut and paste for you


"Evolution / Religion


I recently heard an argument between a creationist, and an evolutionist. The creationist rationalized that their must be some small chance that a supreme being created life. For thousands of years, man thought the earth was flat. And up until about fifty years ago man was certain that the atom was the smallest building- block in the universe. Man was wrong about those things, so couldn't there be a slight possibility that man is wrong about evolution as well?
Unfortunately, the evolutionist caved. They stated that there was a very small possibility that there wasn't evolution, but creation. Despite the issue being confused entirely in this argument, the evolutionist did the scientific community a disservice.
From the beginning of time, humans have had a habit of attributing that which they don't understand to the workings of beings infinitely more powerful than themselves. Man was incapable of comprehending a spherical earth, gravity, and astro-physics, so they invented an infinitely strong, immortal, giant, who held the world upon his shoulders, to rationalize what held the earth in place.
Religions have institutionalized this habit. They capitalize on the ideas that humans prefer to believe in the fantastical and spiritual, than in the cold harsh realities of science. In religion, no one dies permanently. There is some form of life after death: a heaven, reincarnation, spectral being, etc.
In science, we admit that we are not sure of what might happen to a person's consciousness at the point of death, so we must surmise that when you die, you die. You're worm-food, and that's it.
People want to believe in something more. They're afraid of losing their self-awareness, their mind, their motivations, their soul, if you will.
Religions prey on this for simple worldly gains. They extract money and power from their believers, and in turn promise things that no human being could possibly promise.
When it was first surmised and proved that the world was round, and the earth revolved around the sun; it seriously threatened everything that priests had woven into the minds of their believers. In the face of scientific fact, they executed astronomers, and hid the truth from their followers. All out of the fear that their herd might become enlightened.
Likewise, when carbon-dating came about, and it was surmised that we were far, far removed from the original forms of life to slither across the earth's surface, the religious leaders attacked science. They carbon-dated a live mullosk, and received the results that carbon- dating claimed it was over 3000 years old.
Even if this were true, simply consider the situation. Carbon-dating is an approximation of the age of a cell, by measuring the rate of radioactive decay of carbon in the cell. Carbon-dating a living being doesn't make sense. A living being recirculates all sorts of gases and nutrients constantly. Furthermore, carbon dating is an estimate. And when you are estimating periods of time that occurred over 65 billion years ago - it's good to remember that 3000 years of error in a 65,000,000,000 year result, yields less than 0.00000461539 % error. (approximately 4 and a half millionths of a percent) That is nearly more accurate than any measuring tool in the history of man.
Religious leaders use false logic repeatedly to try to hide scientific truths from their congregations eyes. Why? What sounds more spectacular to you: God created man, made woman from a rib bone, and populated the earth for our dominion; or, God created life, perhaps billions of light-years away, and that life found its way to earth, and evolved into what we now call human beings?
More impressive is my God I believe. One who could truly be that omnipotent, and that removed from time, that he'd plan 65 billion years of evolution in advance, so that man might live in his image.
The arguement of the aformentioned creationist hinged delicately upon one logically false idea. That idea, was that the more man learns scientifically, the more he disproves what the religious leaders tell him, he cannot discount the horrible fabrications those leaders gave him.
Despite that science proved the world was round, when the Pope said it was flat; despite science proving that man was not created into the form we currently possess, and that we must've evolved; despite everything we've learned - we must believe that there's a possibility that we've been wrong this whole time. That the earth is flat, that the sun revolves around us, that God created the universe, as we know it, in 6 days - merely 30,000 years ago.

Perhaps I'm the one in error, but I'd rather think that the universe was formed, with a little more forethought and patience. I believe that if there is a creator, perhaps he began the universe with a Big Bang — or perhaps for Him, it was just a gentle puff of air."

[Wayfarer]

Interesting.

Parts of it are wrong, but other parts are good.

Thanks for the read, BoP.

[afro-elf]

[

[afro-elf]

SORRY TO THIS


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Faith:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)Confident belief in the truth
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Facts do not need FAITH


I NYC is in America. That is a fact not a belief.





quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My supposition was that any Order which can be shown to be the result of Disorder is invalid
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



HMMM ever see a snow flake



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unless there has always been some order, no order is valid.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




WHY? So going from a state of anarchy to a civil governement invalidates the latter?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Having read through the entirity of your first link, I have concluded that it has absolutely nothing to do with my arguement.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




You seemed to suggest that it was necessary for a creator by looking at the Universe or how is there order out of chaos



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In other words, the global conservation "laws" are exactly what one expects for an isolated universe with no outside agent acting. Only a violation of these laws would imply an outside agent. The data so far are consistent with no agent.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




it seem that you think that the universe is ordered IE needs god to do it




quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Broken symmetry is actually very common at the everyday scale. Not all cars travel in straight lines at constant speed. They roll to a stop when the engine cuts off, as energy is lost to friction. Neither are the material structures we see around us fully symmetric. The earth is not a sphere but a flattened spheroid. A tree looks different from different angles. Our faces look different in a mirror. Mirror symmetry is broken when a system is not precisely left-right or mirror symmetric, like our faces. That is no surprise, and indeed we can view much of what we call material structure as a combination of broken and unbroken symmetries. Again, think of a snowflake. Structure and beauty seem to be combinations of both unbroken and broken symmetries, of both order and randomness
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------





again


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The most powerful "laws of physics," the conservation laws, were shown to be evidence against design rather than for it. They are directly related to the "symmetries of nothing" that would exist in the absence of design. Furthermore, the observed forces, particles, and other structure in our universe are consistent with the accidental, or spontaneous, breaking of symmetries at local points in spacetime. This also mitigates against design or creation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------





quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Or do atoms react differently to true beleivers than to non-beleivers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



don't know about atoms but maybe web sites do


__________________
I am a star in my own universe, shining brightly, but when you put me next to everyone else, I look quite dim. Does anyone have any polish?
- By fellow mooter Starr Polish

Last edited by afro-elf on 03-26-2002 at 02:07 AM

[afro-elf]

Originally posted by Wayfarer
Interesting.

Parts of it are wrong, but other parts are good.

Thanks for the read, BoP.

which parts do you feel are wrong

[Wayfarer]

Originally posted by afro-elf
which parts do you feel are wrong

For thousands of years, man thought the earth was flat. And up until about fifty years ago man was certain that the atom was the smallest building- block in the universe. Man was wrong about those things, so couldn't there be a slight possibility that man is wrong about evolution as well?

I don't see how this is at all unreasonable. Do You? Yet the author claims that the evolutionist, in admitting that it is reasonable, is 'betraying science'.

When it was first surmised and proved that the world was round, and the earth revolved around the sun; it seriously threatened everything that priests had woven into the minds of their believers. In the face of scientific fact, they executed astronomers, and hid the truth from their followers. All out of the fear that their herd might become enlightened.

In actuality, the roman catholic church accepted and sponsored astronomers until it was urged to decry them by the scientific aristolian league. They did so not because of what thier religion taught, but because the intellectuals of hte day (who were usually priests or otherwise privilidged) didn't want to accept that the classical greek and roman philosophies (i.e. heliocentricism) were wrong.

Religious leaders use false logic repeatedly to try to hide scientific truths from their congregations eyes. Why? What sounds more spectacular to you: God created man, made woman from a rib bone, and populated the earth for our dominion; or, God created life, perhaps billions of light-years away, and that life found its way to earth, and evolved into what we now call human beings?

Religious leaders are no more guilty of this than scientific leaders.

The arguement of the aformentioned creationist hinged delicately upon one logically false idea. That idea, was that the more man learns scientifically, the more he disproves what the religious leaders tell him, he cannot discount the horrible fabrications those leaders gave him.

That's not a logical idea at all. False yes. But it's not what he was saying. Throughout history, man has accepted what the intellectual institutions tell him, and he's usually been wrong. The church was one such institution, the university is another.

You also make a false assumption that creationism can and has been disproved. I submit once more that if it has in fact been disproved, then you should be able to convince me. It is not the facts which disagree with christianity, merely conjecture and hypothesis, and the sensibilities of many institutions.

Despite that science proved the world was round, when the Pope said it was flat; despite science proving that man was not created into the form we currently possess, and that we must've evolved; despite everything we've learned - we must believe that there's a possibility that we've been wrong this whole time. That the earth is flat, that the sun revolves around us, that God created the universe, as we know it, in 6 days - merely 30,000 years ago.

1) I addressed it before. The pope was acting on behalf of the current scientific elite. He had no justification from Christianity in saying this.
2)This is still unproved. You expect me to accept your word for it despite the lack of evidence.
3)Flat earth and heliocentricism are not christian ideas.
4)Please answer me this: If there is a god powerful enought to create all the matter and energy in the universe, from nothing, why could he not do it in six days? Furthermore, the christian God exists outside of linear time, and thus could take as long or as short as he wants to.
5)The belief in an old earth is the result of gradualism. It cannot account for what might happen if things have not always been exactly the way they are. Tell me, do you think thignsa have always been exactly the way they are?

This is what I disagree with. I'll answer you now.

[Wayfarer]

[/quote]Facts do not need FAITH
I NYC is in America. That is a fact not a belief.[/quote]

Correct. I believe (have faith) that the sun will come up tomorrow. It may not, but i am still perfectly justified in believing it will.

HMMM ever see a snow flake

the snowflake forms because of ordered principles governing how water molecules work. Read my reply to cirdan on the subject.

WHY? So going from a state of anarchy to a civil governement invalidates the latter?

The anarcy is not the source of the order. The civil government results from people who see that anarchy isn't working and do something about it.

You seemed to suggest that it was necessary for a creator by looking at the Universe or how is there order out of chaos

Ok, I get it.
I'm not using the arguments he refuted, though. I understand how you don't accept them.

don't know about atoms but maybe web sites do

heheh...

I've got something to do... so please don't hate me for leaving your other two quotes unanswered. I'll be thinking about them.

]: )

[afro-elf]

no problem I need a break

its 6:00 am here


catch you on the next train

[Khadrane]

Lucky I'm so kind, I'll cut and paste for you

Thank you. You are kind.

Thanks, Wayfarer, for coming. An eighth grader trying to debate against about 500 other people is pretty hard.

[Rána Eressëa]

Hrrmm...didn't this start as a "why are you an anti-theist" thread? I don't see why theists starting posting in it and saying what they are - the topic didn't ask that, did it, afro-elf? It was just asking anti-theists why they are anti-theist.

Just trying to find the original topic beneath the mess of it all.

[emplynx]

Originally posted by Rogue Elf
Evolutionists believe everything came from something before, hence the term "evolve".

Impossible. Aristotle said that everything has to come from an unmoved mover. Infinite Regression is 100% impossible. It had to start somewhere with someone.

Originally posted by Khadrane
Thanks, Wayfarer, for coming. An eighth grader trying to debate against about 500 other people is pretty hard.

Enter EMPLYNX (hey, I can try. :-))

[emplynx]

A couple copy-pastes on the age of the earth

World War II Airplanes Under the Ice
The Greenland Society of Atlanta has recently attempted to excavate a 10-foot diameter shaft in the Greenland ice pack to remove two B-17 Flying Fortresses and six P-38 Lightning fighters trapped under an estimated 250 feet of ice for almost 50 years (Bloomberg, 1989). Aside from the fascination with salvaging several vintage aircraft for parts and movie rights, the fact that these aircraft were buried so deeply in such a short time focuses attention on the time scales used to estimate the chronologies of ice.

If the aircraft were buried under about 250 feet of ice and snow in about 50 years, this means the ice sheet has been accumulating at an average rate of five feet per year. The Greenland ice sheet averages almost 4000 feet thick. If we were to assume the ice sheet has been accumulating at this rate since its beginning, it would take less than 1000 years for it to form and the recent-creation model might seem to be vindicated.

Lunar Dust Depth

The prelunar landing predictions of evolutionary scientists gave great concern to the astronauts. Their predictions were that due to a presumed 4.5 billion year age of the moon and the rate of influx of dust and the lunar physical processes of rock break-up, the astronauts might be lost in a great depth of dust on the moon.4 Fortunately the evolutionary predictions of great dust depth were wrong. Our astronauts were not lost in the predicted "quicksand" of age-accumulated dust on the moon. The creationist predictions of only a thin layer of dust were correct.

[Rána Eressëa]

Originally posted by emplynx
Impossible. Aristotle said that everything has to come from an unmoved mover. Infinite Regression is 100% impossible. It had to start somewhere with someone.

That's just what you believe because you have no other definite answer. That alone is not a definite answer. And, as I've mentioned before, I don't want to know the "inner workings" or "how it all began". I'm quite content with the present and the future to not mind anything else. So, technically, you cannot prove it impossible because you alone cannot even prove the existance of your own god to the rest of us.

I believe in circles, not lines that have a beginning, but lack an ending.