noah's ark

Originally posted by @moonbus
Durations orders of magnitude longer than thousands of years. Like hundreds of millions of years, billions of years, etc.

That doesn't help any of the issues with abiogenesis even a little bit in my estimation. It would never be length of time instead it would always boil down to small windows of opportunity. For example if life had a shot of forming some place eternal time would never help if the conditions never were proper, to hot or cold would ruin it. If that was good then only during that time frame can we look for the next window like are all the required ingredients there, are they in the proper state and quality. So many ducks need to be in a row, that window can be ruined by small changes in several ways with big things or minute.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
That doesn't help any of the issues with abiogenesis even a little bit in my estimation. It would never be length of time instead it would always boil down to small windows of opportunity. For example if life had a shot of forming some place eternal time would never help if the conditions never were proper, to hot or cold would ruin it. If that was good th ...[text shortened]... in a row, that window can be ruined by small changes in several ways with big things or minute.

We are getting derailed here. One thing at a time.

Do you or do you not accept that billions of years have elapsed since our sun started glowing? Irrespective whether God created it in one day or it congealed by wholly natural processes.

Originally posted by @moonbus
We are getting derailed here. One thing at a time.

Do you or do you not accept that billions of years have elapsed since our sun started glowing? Irrespective whether God created it in one day or it congealed by wholly natural processes.

I don't know is my honest answer.

I lean towards a young universe, but except it possibly much older.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
That doesn't help any of the issues with abiogenesis even a little bit in my estimation. It would never be length of time instead it would always boil down to small windows of opportunity. For example if life had a shot of forming some place eternal time would never help if the conditions never were proper, to hot or cold would ruin it. If that was good th ...[text shortened]... in a row, that window can be ruined by small changes in several ways with big things or minute.

What would happen to your world view if life were discovered elsewhere in the solar system, or say in ten places around the solar system. For instance, there is speculation about Venus, not on the planet proper but high up in the atmosphere where conditions may be conducive to life, there are dark areas, dark in UV light that has no obvious explanation, but one possibility is a cloud of perhaps bacteria living up above the hell of the planet below, plenty of sunlight to power metabolism and light enough to float around up there carried forever on winds.

Also thought possible is life under the surface of outer moons like Europa or Ceres where water is spurting out into space, liquid water, where there are underground oceans with more water total than all of Earth heated by tidal interactions with the parent planet and that heat perhaps letting life form like around the fumerals deep in the ocean, vents from volcanic activity pumping out water at nearly 1000 degrees F and that energy we KNOW has life forms living around it powered by that energy but thousands of feet underwater where no light from the surface gets there.

http://ocean.si.edu/ocean-videos/hydrothermal-vent-creatures

This is here and now on our planet and the same effect could be happening on some of the outer moons.

What would that say about creationism as spoken about in the bible?

Originally posted by @sonhouse
What would happen to your world view if life were discovered elsewhere in the solar system, or say in ten places around the solar system. For instance, there is speculation about Venus, not on the planet proper but high up in the atmosphere where conditions may be conducive to life, there are dark areas, dark in UV light that has no obvious explanation, bu ...[text shortened]... some of the outer moons.

What would that say about creationism as spoken about in the bible?

What if...we could both bring up things for the other. Let us stick with what we have,

Originally posted by @kellyjay
I don't know is my honest answer.

I lean towards a young universe, but except it possibly much older.

Well, that is a start anyway. Now, you said in an earlier post here that you accept that evolution really happened, it is not just a theory. Evolution requires millions of years, even hundreds of millions, not thousands. It simply does not fit with the young Earth hypothesis and cannot be made to fit by any amount of jiggling. This is very definitely an either / or, not both, issue. Either one accepts that evolution really happened and that the Earth is billions of years old, or one believes (against massively coherent evidence to the contrary) that not only the Earth but the entire universe is a few thousand years old and that evolution never happened. One cannot have it both ways, young Earth and evolution.

The same goes for pushing up mountain ranges. It may indeed be that the landscape was once flatter than it is today, but never in the last few thousand years. If the land was once much flatter, then it was hundreds of millions of years ago, and certainly before any humans, let alone Noah, walked this Earth.

Originally posted by @moonbus
Well, that is a start anyway. Now, you said in an earlier post here that you accept that evolution really happened, it is not just a theory. Evolution requires millions of years, even hundreds of millions, not thousands. It simply does not fit with the young Earth hypothesis and cannot be made to fit by any amount of jiggling. This is very definitely an eit ...[text shortened]... ds of millions of years ago, and certainly before any humans, let alone Noah, walked this Earth.

Why would it take millions of years if as I said it only occurred in all ready established lifeforms?

Originally posted by @kellyjay
Why would it take millions of years if as I said it only occurred in all ready established lifeforms?

Because that amounts to last-Thursday-ism. If you think that God created the universe 6,000 years ago with fossils in it which appear to be hundreds of millions of years old but aren't really, and light from distant galaxies which appears to have travelled billions of years to get here by now but hasn't really, and species which did not evolve over millions of years but which popped into existence fully formed from nothing in one day, then you might as well believe that you popped into existence fully grown last Thursday with apparent memories of events which never really happened. You think you remember high school ten or twenty years ago but it never really happened, and you think you remember your grandfather's funeral two months ago but it never really happened, because God made everything including all your false memories last Thursday. Oh, and the Bible was created last Thursday, too. It's deception on such a fantastic scale that it beggars imagination.

Let me give you a couple of examples.

Uranium has a half life of 4.46 billion years. How do we know this? Obviously, no one ever sat down and watched a piece of uranium for 4.46 billion years to see how long it takes for it to decay and turn into lead. We know this because a) the atomic processes underlying radioactivity are well understood, and b) the laws of nature do not change. We do not have to watch something for 4.46 billion years to know that this process goes on and that it takes that long.

It takes hundreds of millions of years for a river to carve a valley out of a flat plain. The Grand Canyon, for example. How do we know this? Obviously, no one sat down in what are now seven U.S. states and watched what is now called the Colorado River transport sand and grit into the Gulf of California. So how do we know it takes hundreds of millions of years? We know this because a) geological processes are well understood (we can observe what quantity of water is required to hollow out stone and then transport x-tons of grit x-thousand miles away), and b) the laws of nature do not change.

Light travels 5,878,625,373,200 miles in one year. If an object emits light in our direction, we see it only when the light arrives at our position, not when the light leaves the object. Light arrives at Earth from objects which are very far away in terms of light years, billions and billions of years away. How do we know this? Obviously, no one was watching for billions and billions of years as that light travelled towards us. We know this because a) we observe how light behaves now and b) the laws of nature do not change.

Examples could be multiplied indefinitely, but you get the idea.

Now, if you want to say that God made all those things already old even when they were new … If you want to say that God made the Grand Canyon already cut, even when it was new … If you want to say that God made uranium already half-dead and half-decayed, even when it was new … If you want to say that God made the light from distant stars travelling towards us already almost arrived at the Earth 6,000 years ago, then all of these processes which I mentioned, and literally millions and millions of other processes (including evolution and genetic drift, and the pushing up of mountain ranges etc. etc.), point to a past which never really happened. Which would imply that laws of nature are not laws of nature at all, they are pure fiction, and we are not living in a universe at all, we are living in a schizoverse in which you might as well have been created fully grown last Thursday with false memories of a childhood you never lived through. It's a mad, completely mad, scenario. Not irrefutable, of course ….

Originally posted by @kellyjay
Why would it take millions of years if as I said it only occurred in all ready established lifeforms?

This kind of answer is very much alike MrFreaks answers why the Earth is flat.
Same rhetoric, same ignorance.

Originally posted by @fabianfnas
This kind of answer is very much alike MrFreaks answers why the Earth is flat.
Same rhetoric, same ignorance.

One has to keep reminding oneself that it is not lack of intelligence, but something else. In Freaky's case, trolling. In others, an extreme degree of compartmentalisation. In others, cognitive dissonance. In others, captivity to an ideology. Etc.

Originally posted by @moonbus
One has to keep reminding oneself that it is not lack of intelligence, but something else. In Freaky's case, trolling. In others, an extreme degree of compartmentalisation. In others, cognitive dissonance. In others, captivity to an ideology. Etc.

Believing in a flat earth has not anything to do with intelligence, nor lack of it. I'm very interesting of what it is that makes people believing in such a stupid theory.

Believing in a young earth has not anything to do with intelligence either, nor lack of it. I'm very interesting of what it is that makes people believing in such a stupid theory.

The evidence of a round and old earth has so many evidences, why deny these? This is what I am interested in.

Originally posted by @fabianfnas
Believing in a flat earth has not anything to do with intelligence, nor lack of it. I'm very interesting of what it is that makes people believing in such a stupid theory.

Believing in a young earth has not anything to do with intelligence either, nor lack of it. I'm very interesting of what it is that makes people believing in such a stupid theory.
...[text shortened]... of a round and old earth has so many evidences, why deny these? This is what I am interested in.

Why deny obvious facts and evidence? Because these facts and the evidence for them conflict, or at any rate appear to conflict, with something else which one holds dear. For example, a firm desire for and belief in eternal salvation, which might be put at risk if one began to doubt a sacred text in which the idea of a young Earth created at the centre of a universe made for man is laid out. In Freaky's case, I think he does not genuinely believe the Earth to be flat; I think he's a troll. In Kelly's case, I think he genuinely wants to find a truth that is compatible with his faith, and he struggles with it, as have generations of Christians since the Renaissance and the rise of systematic evidence-based scientific research. It was extraordinarily difficult for medieval Christians to accept that the Earth moved round the sun, that the Earth is not the centre of the universe, because this seemed to contradict the Bible. If the Earth is not literally the centre of the universe, then the doubt creeps in, maybe the rest of story is not true either, maybe the universe was not created for man either, maybe it was not created at all, maybe there is no Creator. It snowballs into an existential issue for them.

Accepting the reality of evolution and deep time is the another step on that same road.

Originally posted by @moonbus
Why deny obvious facts and evidence? Because these facts and the evidence for them conflict, or at any rate appear to conflict, with something else which one holds dear. For example, a firm desire for and belief in eternal salvation, which might be put at risk if one began to doubt a sacred text in which the idea of a young Earth created at the centre of a ...[text shortened]... them.

Accepting the reality of evolution and deep time is the another step on that same road.

Exactly what MrFreaky would answer: "Why deny obvious facts and evidence?".

So where are the undisputable facts? I haven't seen any! Whenever you, KellyJay, and this MrFreaky have any, please present them. Perhaps we rationals can dispute them, perhaps not. And if we cannot refute them, then you're right! Or else you're wrong.

But "Goddidit" is not evidence. Neither is"I'am right and you're wrong". Or, "You lose, loser! Halleluja!" plus the usual insults.

Originally posted by @moonbus
Because that amounts to last-Thursday-ism. If you think that God created the universe 6,000 years ago with fossils in it which appear to be hundreds of millions of years old but aren't really, and light from distant galaxies which appears to have travelled billions of years to get here by now but hasn't really, and species which did not evolve over millions ...[text shortened]... ood you never lived through. It's a mad, completely mad, scenario. Not irrefutable, of course ….

You asked me not to change the subject, so I'm going to do it here too. We can come
back to dating, but right now we were talking about process of change not dates. Millions
of years are not required if the general populace of life was started fully formed, do you
agree? All of the changes after that would simply amount to change within the variety of
life there at the beginning. If life started with male and females, cold blooded, warm
blooded, plants, jelly fish, dogs, birds, and so on much of the work would be already done.

Originally posted by @fabianfnas
Exactly what MrFreaky would answer: "Why deny obvious facts and evidence?".

So where are the undisputable facts? I haven't seen any! Whenever you, KellyJay, and this MrFreaky have any, please present them. Perhaps we rationals can dispute them, perhaps not. And if we cannot refute them, then you're right! Or else you're wrong.

But "Goddidit" is not ...[text shortened]... ither is"I'am right and you're wrong". Or, "You lose, loser! Halleluja!" plus the usual insults.

Why accept everything too, not all of people's facts are true, and we can be very mistaken
about what evidence means.