My Condolences to the People of Kansas

[worm]

blocking temp?

i take it to mean the temperature at which you start losing the daughter nuclide from the sample. for the K-Ar dating...argon's a gas which normally just floats around happy and free, but here it's trapped inside this rock. now, when you heat up the rock, all the atoms in it get excited and start moving faster and it kinda loosens the net. the argon's going faster, too, and all of this combined provides opportunity for the argon to escape and "diffuse" into the atmosphere outside of the rock. out there, it's hard to say where it came from.

the easiest of the radiometric systems to attack is carbon dating, but even with that there are ways of cross-checking and calibrating against other dating methods (like tree rings). you can call that circular reasoning, but that's just the way trees come

re Occam's razor...these evolution threads have been my introduction to it. sounds like a good rule of thumb...using it as a proof or even evidence seems dubious, though.

[Leptonn]

Jedo, I am saying that I will put no thought towards intelligent design as a scientific theory (which it is technically not) until there is evidence in favour of it. Evidence against the current paradigm doesn't count; it must be something unique to ID.

Oh yeah, and I 'll reiterate my thoughts on Occam's Razor on page two: it suxors!

[extro...]

[Leptonn]

Allow me to respond in reverse order:

Intelligent Design is Evolution+Designer. The evidence in the matter says that Evolution is (roughly) correct. Therefore, Evolution and ID are both conceivable explanations of the evidence. extro suggests that choosing Evolution over ID requires an implicit application of Occam's Razor, but I disagree. Since I regard the Designer as an extra feature, and since there is no evidence for this add-on, I conclude that ID contains unsupported concepts and is thus an inferior scientific idea.

In the more general case that extro addresses in his first paragraph, I must say that I have been exceptionally lucky. In large part, the scientific theories that I encounter can either be derived from previous ideas, inferred from experimentation, or semi-justified using intuition about the science of a given circumstance. When I encounter a new theory of physics, I most often use my intuition: if the author suggests that zero-state energy can be harnessed with an EM field, I can safely reject the idea. Similarly, if I hear a new idea that sounds interesting and it jives with my intuition, I read more and look for experimental evidence.

I try to do the same with other fields beyond physics, and I think that my peers do something similar. I think that it is very dangerous to give any credence to an idea simply because of its apparent structure or simplicity.

[worm]

[Jedo the Jedi]

Actually, he was using Lepton's Razor in those sentences.

ID = Evolution + Designer is much of what I believe, though not to the extent that evolution itself proposes. I think that God created everything, then set it in evolutionary motion. Not that monkeys turned into humans and what not, but that we do evolve over time, adapting to our surroundings and whatnot.

[extro...]

So you believe God created man directly - that there were a human "Adam and Eve" that were not born, but were personally created by God?

[Jedo the Jedi]

Should I not?

[extro...]

You should not.

Do you believe the first humans were created after the dinosaurs became extinct? Or were they alive simultaneously at some point?

[Jedo the Jedi]

I am undecided on that point. My initial thought, based on the Bible, would be that yes, they were alive simultaneously at some point. Upon further consideration, I think that God created them both, but at different times. After all, a day to God is like a thousand years to us. I think he could have created them, then wiped them out a thousand years later and created humans.

I do not agree with the millions and billions of years, but technically it could have happened that way. However, that is not what I believe.

[Dread Pirate Westley]

[Jedo the Jedi]

[extro...]

Well, you seem to already accept some scientific evidence that Genesis isn't literally correct. For instance, "a day to God is like a thousand years to us". The Bible says a day. A day is a day. If a day to God is like a longer period of time to us, why should it not be an eternity, or a bazillion eons at least? What is a "day" to God? Is there a night? Does he sleep?

Doesn't Genesis say the Sun and Moon were created the day after the plants were created? Do you take this literally too? That the earth, with plants and fruit trees, existed before the Sun did?

[extro...]

Yet another Vatican Official Refutes Intelligent Design

[Omega Centauri]

Pope John Paul II- "Evolution is more than just a hypothesis."

Snap.

[Neo]

Jedo, if all you have to offer in support of ID is the Bible and some bashing of well-accepted scientific principles, then this Kansan tells you to fark off. Take an Atomic Phys course, radioactive decay should make sense then.

Why yes, I am bitter, thank you. The only good thing to come out of all this is nearly every science teacher in the state telling the majority members of the KBOE where exactly they may insert their new standards, and what they may do with them upon reaching the appropriate insertion depth.
_________________
_{Ad Astra}

[Samadhi]

They should put these stickers on the books.
_________________
And he lived happily ever after. Except for the dieing at the end and the heartbreak in between.

[inHimshallibe]

Mark me down as a Christian Creationist. Pick my brain and try and convince me otherwise. Or, rather, has this been covered in the Christianity thread? If not, ask in there, I suppose.

[casinopete]

This thread seems fine.

so... Why?

[Mackay]

I am interested to hear a Creationist's view on Intelligent Design, also.

[extro...]

[casinopete]

The word for "rib" actually means something more like "side."

[Jedo the Jedi]

I thought it had to do with the two becoming one flesh or something. Symbolic.

[Naboo.]

[casinopete]

Way to go, Naboo!

No better way to assert your superiority than by letting the newcomer know that it doesn't even matter what beliefs they may hold - you're perfectly willing and able to belittle whatever they happen to be!

[Mackay]

http://paranormal.about.com/library/weekly/aa011402a.htm?1

Just 'cuz it's interesting.

[Naboo.]

[casinopete]

Everything about your post was condescending. Reread it. Pay special attention to all of your italicized words, and to the phrases you repeat several times, like: "[and/but] nowhere else?" Your tone is violent, and your words drip with sarcasm.

Also take note of phrases like: "I first need to ascertain precisely which..." and "those questions will suffice for the time being." Your tone is arrogant and superior, and I know you're not such a remarkable moron that you did that accidently.

Further, count the number of questions you asked. Nevermind. I'll count them for you. You asked ten questions. All rapid-fire-like. That is not how one begins any kind of honest conversation. That is an attack.

Yet further, re-examine this little gem: "At the very least, we've been able to prove it's a lot older than 10,000 years." Are you still going to try to maintain that you were interested in Inhim's answers to your questions? You think it is a matter of honest and open exchange of ideas to begin with "Are you sure you believe that... even after we've already proven you wrong?!" You've already completely dismissed anything he might have to say.

Finally, your closing was not a matter of reciprocation. Assuming someone doesn't understand evolution is about on par with assuming they don't understand algebra. You are declaring that someone must be lacking a high school education to be a creationist? Nothing at all belittling about that.

[Samadhi]

*bows to CP's wisdom* no BS, that was brilliant!
_________________
And he lived happily ever after. Except for the dieing at the end and the heartbreak in between.

[Leptonn]

Kirk Durston is one of the leading researchers into Intelligent Design (the science). He is also the national director of the (Canadian) New Scholars Society, one of the leading advocacy groups for ID in my country. His work on Functional Sequence Complexity is key to one of the two pivotal arguments in favour of Intelligent Design. In an interview with the grassroots Dose daily,

[GH]

[Naboo.]

[austinap]

[casinopete]

First... what has happened thus far: You made a condescending post. I made a sarcastic post noting that, because I think you went a bit over the top. You replied, telling me you weren't being condescending, and asked me, "How on earth did I belittle anything?" I replied to your question with a list of the reasons I concluded you were being condescending.

[Mackay]

Not to interfere in the snarking competition or nothin', but I keep violently giggling when I read Naboo's outburst of "Jesus Christ!"

It just seems like the worst possible thing to say in an argument in which one is defending oneself against a Christian, in a thread full of Christians who (whether you believe it or not, Naboo) have already been alienated by the condescending tone of one's post. I mean, heck, I believe in evolution and the original post from Naboo made me uncomfortable.

Just sayin', is all.

[casinopete]

I was not offended, and was not and am not upset toward Naboo. I would have enjoyed that kind of post in the middle of a debate or something. It was the ... preemptiveness of it that made me react.

Everything about it seems to work together to say, "No matter what argument you think you might make, I have already won." with a hint of, "I can't believe you don't realize that yet."

[Mackay]

Is that directed at me? I didn't think anyone here was offended or upset.

Certainly I know you better than that. =)

[worm]

i didn't really think anything bad about naboo's post at first, but i think that's b/c so many of his arguments have been used recently in some form or another in this thread and others that it almost seemed like it was the middle of an argument and sorta reasonable.

but, i see what cp is talking about in his most recent post. that first post by naboo seems like he wanted to stomp down the opposition in one fell swoop rather than debate the points or have a conversation. if i were an early or old earth creationist, i wouldn't bother entering a conversation w/ naboo on this. it would be like trying to convince someone to change their stance on abortion.

austinap brought up a very good point, naboo. what about the large number of folks who believe in a creator, but accept evolution and an old earth?

[austinap]

[inHim]

I have been very busy (and will be through this weekend), and just now popped in since my previous visit (obviously?). I will answer your questions, Naboo, although it might be a couple of days .

To start off, I'll say that I don't think it matters if one is a Young or Old Earth Creationist, since this is something I'll not know for sure until I ask God Himself at a much later date. It is most important to myself that I believe in the Creationism part of the deal.

I'll leave my response to that at the moment. I need sleep.