Demo question flies hugely OT and gets moved.

[Muzer]

Now that it's May, have U got enee exact dates for the demo?











I Can't wait much longer!!!!!!!!!!! times infinate

[K^2]

Indeed. Time is infinite.

And photons can age, regardless of what Einstein might have been telliing you. Such is the topology of space.

[jb.jones]

Indeed. Time is infinite.

And photons can age, regardless of what Einstein might have been telliing you. Such is the topology of space.

Good topic. Tag

[Luther]

But do old photons look at young photons and find them lacking in discipline and comon manners? Do older photons move slower and have to stop and catch their breath every now and them? Do young photons think they will live for ever?

K2, how do I measure the age of a photon?

[Horigan]

Actually, the law of entropy states that all things are tending toward disorder and randomness, unless some outside force interferes(sp?). Therefore, I think everything left by itself (which essentially the entire universe is unless you believe in God, which I do) is aging whether we can detect it or not.

How did a thread on demo release of Worms 4 get here?! :-/

(Particularly since I already asked this question in the existing demo release thread)

[Tuke_Kid]

But do old photons look at young photons and find them lacking in discipline and comon manners? Do older photons move slower and have to stop and catch their breath every now and them? Do young photons think they will live for ever?

in a word, yes...
Story of your life eh luther?

[thomasp]

But do old photons look at young photons and find them lacking in discipline and comon manners? Do older photons move slower and have to stop and catch their breath every now and them? Do young photons think they will live for ever?

:rolleyes: Yet another thread turned into a physics discussion, and not helped by Luther ;)


K2, how do I measure the age of a photon?

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=how+do+I+measure+the+age+of+a+photon%3F


Trying to steer this thread back on topic, any idea if the demo release is near or far away?

[pinoocho]

Trying to steer this thread back on topic, any idea if the demo release is near or far away?
Is incredible how the members of this forum goes off topic... or perhaps, they wanted it to be offtopic :eek:

[bonz]

How did a thread on demo release of Worms 4 get here?!
it got here on March 2nd 2003! ;)

[pilot62]

Indeed. Time is infinite.IIRC time is only infinite if the universe will go on for infinite time, which not all scientists believe.

[Horigan]

*looks up* :rolleyes: That's trying to get on topic?!

Hopefully next Monday, that's close to the middle of the month, and it would fit with some other stuff I've heard about in coming out on some Monday (no idea which). But really I don't know.

[EP_Guy]

I wonder is you can preorder the demo free, or relese another game with a Worms 4 Mayhem demo?

[pinoocho]

Next monday would be cool, but I dont think so. maybe in 2 weeks (hopefully)

[Horigan]

Well, last we heard was mid-May, but if it was going to be released so soon I would think they would have said something, so it may be more like late-MAy like you said.

[twoapenny]

I wonder is you can preorder the demo free, or relese another game with a Worms 4 Mayhem demo?
it wouldnt come with another game because they havnt developed anything to put on the market.... unless you mean putting them in existing games which they dont normally do...

[FatWhitey]

I heard mid-May for the Worms4 demo

[pinoocho]

I heard mid-May for the Worms4 demo
Mid-may is 15-20? If we have luck, we only need to wait 10 days!

[K^2]

*Checks for any on-topic discussion.* *Finds nothing usefull.*
K2, how do I measure the age of a photon?
By the measuring difference between theoretical and actual red shift.

[pinoocho]

*Checks for any on-topic discussion.* *Finds nothing usefull.*
You are right :rolleyes:

[The Necro]

A desperate try to go On-topic:

I think it will be released in Mid-May even if they havn't said anything about it yet.

[Star Worms]

There's a playable Worms 4 demo in the next edition of The Official Xbox Magazine:)

[FatWhitey]

There's a playable Worms 4 demo in the next edition of The Official Xbox Magazine:)

What magazine is that?

Not familar with the official one, plus there's too many different Xbox magazines here.

[SargeMcCluck]

What magazine is that?

Not familar with the official one, plus there's too many different Xbox magazines here.

It's the one called "The Official XBox Magazine". Hence him writing it in capitals.

[Horigan]

Where'd you hear that? If that's true then the PC demo can't be far off...

[K^2]

What magazine is that?

Not familar with the official one, plus there's too many different Xbox magazines here.
You have to remember that you're on different continents. I doubt that the PS2/XBox demos will be in the North American magazines, since there is no North American publisher yet.

[twoapenny]

how about england? must be a demo soon in england... for pc i mean, i dont have an x-box.

[MrBunsy]

how about england? must be a demo soon in england... for pc i mean, i dont have an x-box.
I'd imagine it'd be released at the same time. It's not often only an Xbox demo is released.

[Star Worms]

Where'd you hear that? If that's true then the PC demo can't be far off...The May edition of the magazine.

"Next Month
Official Xbox Magazine

PLAY!
Worms 4: Mayhem
Play three incredible levels as the Cowboys, Funky Dudes, Spacemen or the Scots. Alternatively, create a unique team from scratch using the customise option. There's even a multiplayer mode for one to four players."

There will also be a review in next month's (June) edition, and there's a preview in the May edition which I have.

I don't know if there's any difference, but I'm talking about the UK version, if there are versions.

[Dimworm]

I think it will be released in Mid-May even if they havn't said anything about it yet.

That'll be because Spadge is on a press tour in Europe. Although I'm sure Luther could find out if he really wanted *hint* :p

[Horigan]

Sounds great, if I had to guess I'd guess the PC demo would be released online before that magazine hit's store shelves, so it can't be long now. Nice to here it'll have three levels, instead of just one like the Worms 3D demos. Glad to hear 'bout the multiplayer too, I think I know how me and my brother will be spending our weekends for the next few weeks... (we must have played the Worms 3D multiplayer demo at least a hundred times before the game's release)

[thomasp]

The May edition of the magazine.

"Next Month
Official Xbox Magazine

PLAY!
Worms 4: Mayhem
Play three incredible levels as the Cowboys, Funky Dudes, Spacemen or the Scots. Alternatively, create a unique team from scratch using the customise option. There's even a multiplayer mode for one to four players."

There will also be a review in next month's (June) edition, and there's a preview in the May edition which I have.

I don't know if there's any difference, but I'm talking about the UK version, if there are versions.

Star Worms: If you buy that magazine and it has the demo on, let me know so as I can go out and buy it :)

[EP_Guy]

*cries*

Xbox fans are lucky!!!! Grrr! I have a PS2 and PC! Please god, please let Worms 4 Demo come out this week/month!

[Mr.cosmico]

Well well well, looks like the demo is coming first to the only console i dont have! :confused: :p

[EP_Guy]

Maybe there is gonna be a delay, or something!

wait a second, PSW gives me a demo on disc...
*checks*
Argh! IT WAS ONLY A PREVIEW!

[pinoocho]

When I think in the demo from W4:M, I only think that it will have the map wormtanic, a preety disapointing cluster bomb and a single map for playing 1 vs 1

If the xbox demo is so good, I wish the pc demo will be the same. There must be a way to get the xbox demo without the magazine (or not?)

[Spadge]

Since the released slipped to July (instead of May) the demo for PC will now come out during June, as will the console demos. A further PC online demo is currently pencilled in for 1-2 weeks before release.

There's a fair bit of replay value in the demo, but obviously nothing like the final game - which we're still working on polishing up.

It was well recieved on the Euro press tour.

[Horigan]

I'm guessing they'll all come out at once. XBox in it's magazine, PS2 in it's the PC probably in PC Gaming MOnthly, and online. I highly doubt anyone will get it "first", or if anyone does it will be the PC demo as it will be posted online.

<edit>
(looks at Spadges post) Rats, I was afraid of that. Oh well, at least it will be bug-free, and worth the wait.


Hey I'm trying to keep a little optimism here

[K^2]

Any chance of PC demo "accidentaly" leaking after E3?

[Spadge]

None, sorry.

Actually theres been a lot of minor improvements to both PS2 and Xbox since the demos, particularly with controls/cameras - and still a few bits & pieces to do..

[thomasp]

Spadge: Would it be possible, at some time, to have a list of magazines that will be giving the demo out on cover discs, for all versions?

[Spadge]

Spadge: Would it be possible, at some time, to have a list of magazines that will be giving the demo out on cover discs, for all versions?

Not from me, I'm afraid - I have no idea.. we just supply the demo to Codies.

[pinoocho]

Since the released slipped to July (instead of May) the demo for PC will now come out during June, as will the console demos. A further PC online demo is currently pencilled in for 1-2 weeks before release.

There's a fair bit of replay value in the demo, but obviously nothing like the final game - which we're still working on polishing up.

It was well recieved on the Euro press tour.
Oh man... can you at least bring something to us for enjoying? A video with shows a normal game, like you did in worms 3D or more photos? This is getting slower and slower. But I can wait.

[Me!!!]

i could wait for w4 forever, but i hope it will be released at least at summer/autumn and the demo before that.

[AndrewTaylor]

By the measuring difference between theoretical and actual red shift.
I was going to say "slice it in half and count the rings". Is that wrong?

[K^2]

If I say that it is wrong, you are going to suggest radio carbon dating, aren't you?

[Horigan]

If I say that it is wrong, you are going to suggest radio carbon dating, aren't you?

Radio Carbon dating doesn't work (leastways if you mean C-14 carbon dating.) After all, it assumes that the C-14 levels in the atmosphere are in equilibrium and they aren't. (trivia point: How long is it estimated to take, starting with a new earth and atmosphere, to reach equilibrium? Answer: approximately 100,000 years. Meaning? Proof that the Earth is a young earth and evalutionist had better start examining their evidence a little more closely. More info on carbon dating here (http://www.drdino.com:8080/QandA/index.jsp?varFolder=CreationEvolution&varPage=CarbonPotassiumargondating.jsp))

Now how in the world did a thread on a Worms 4 demo get here?!?!?! Only on the team17 forums...

[AndrewTaylor]

Two points:

1. The article you linked states 30,000 years where you state 100,000.
2. Any website, journal, magaine, book, documentary, or other source with the phrase "creation science" in it is almost automatically untrustworthy. Creationists are wrong. They are not entitled to their beliefs any more than I would be if I chose to believe that you are a walrus. Their beliefs are demonstrably wrong, and they enjoy nothing more than warping scientific method to try and defend -- or even "prove" -- their increasingly preposterous claims.

Pollution, natural fluctuations, rainforest felling, global warming, and/or volcanic activity could all change the amount of C14 in the atmosphere -- it's stupid to claim that there is any evidence at all that the earth is less than 30,000 years old.

Carbon dating works pretty well. Besides, we should be able to trace levels of atmospheric C14 using polar ice bores. That'd tell us the trends and we could work things out from there.

[Horigan]

Two points:

1. The article you linked states 30,000 years where you state 100,000.
2. Any website, journal, magaine, book, documentary, or other source with the phrase "creation science" in it is almost automatically untrustworthy. Creationists are wrong. They are not entitled to their beliefs any more than I would be if I chose to believe that you are a walrus. Their beliefs are demonstrably wrong, and they enjoy nothing more than warping scientific method to try and defend -- or even "prove" -- their increasingly preposterous claims.

Pollution, natural fluctuations, rainforest felling, global warming, and/or volcanic activity could all change the amount of C14 in the atmosphere -- it's stupid to claim that there is any evidence at all that the earth is less than 30,000 years old.

Carbon dating works pretty well. Besides, we should be able to trace levels of atmospheric C14 using polar ice bores. That'd tell us the trends and we could work things out from there.

Your second paragraph is wonderful, says everything I think, or would if you made two small changes. replace "Creation science" with evolution, and replace "creationists" with evolutionists.

I think though that we should probably either drop this subject, or move it to an off-topic area of the forums.

[AndrewTaylor]

replace "creationists" with evolutionists.
Good idea.

(Edit: If you want to bicker about creationists vs. evolutionaries (which is a word i made up) then feel free to post a thread on my shiny new forum at andrewt.freeownhost.com/forum)

[The Necro]

After reading the post above (which I almost don't understand anything from) I start to long for study more advanced Physichs that I do now. I'm still only 15 but I think that the Physichs we study now is way too easy :-/

[K^2]

Radio Carbon dating doesn't work (leastways if you mean C-14 carbon dating.) After all, it assumes that the C-14 levels in the atmosphere are in equilibrium and they aren't.
Actually, nothing is assumed. The C14 dates are calibrated, and C14 dating gives you a date ±50 years in over 95% of the cases for all dates between present and 50,000 years in the past. I know enough archaeology, geology, and most importantly, nuclear physics to state this as a fact.

The reason why there is no equilibrium is because the sollar radiation, which powers the C12->C13->C14 conversion is constantly changing due to the changes in Sun's activity. Also changing is the Earth's magnetic field wich in turn changes the ammount of radiation that reaches atmosphere. As a result, at different times in history the rate of C14 production is different.

Finaly, there are other dating techniques. Potasium-Argon dating, for example, can be used to date remains of animals over a million years old. Unless the remains were created with a specific purpose of fooling the 20th century scientists, that is sufficient evidence for existance of life on Earth over a million years ago. Furthermore, there is sufficient geological evidence to suggest that Earth is well over a billion years old, and the Sun is estimated to be arround 5 billion years old.

Don't forget that there is some serious Chemistry and Physics behind that, and if you don't believe in these sciences, I suggest you throw away your computer, all other electronics in your house, get rid of your clothes, and start hunting your own food with rocks and sticks and cook it on open fire.

[Spadge]

Actually, nothing is assumed. The C14 dates are calibrated, and C14 dating gives you a date ±50 years in over 95% of the cases for all dates between present and 50,000 years in the past. I know enough archaeology, geology, and most importantly, nuclear physics to state this as a fact.

The reason why there is no equilibrium is because the sollar radiation, which powers the C12->C13->C14 conversion is constantly changing due to the changes in Sun's activity. Also changing is the Earth's magnetic field wich in turn changes the ammount of radiation that reaches atmosphere. As a result, at different times in history the rate of C14 production is different.

Finaly, there are other dating techniques. Potasium-Argon dating, for example, can be used to date remains of animals over a million years old. Unless the remains were created with a specific purpose of fooling the 20th century scientists, that is sufficient evidence for existance of life on Earth over a million years ago. Furthermore, there is sufficient geological evidence to suggest that Earth is well over a billion years old, and the Sun is estimated to be arround 5 billion years old.

Don't forget that there is some serious Chemistry and Physics behind that, and if you don't believe in these sciences, I suggest you throw away your computer, all other electronics in your house, get rid of your clothes, and start hunting your own food with rocks and sticks and cook it on open fire.

K^2, man, you need to get out more.

[bonz]

K^2, man, you need to get out more.
nah, we need a few think tanks so that other scientists like me can go out boozing more often! :D

replace "Creation science" with evolution, and replace "creationists" with evolutionists
i suggest you read something about the -->scientific method (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method) before you talk big like that again!

science is based on physical evidence & most important empirical knowledge!
furthermore, all the scientific theories are in fact theories! (hypothetical possibilities)
no scientist can really say (and doesn't dare to dogmatically claim) what happened back then!

on the other hand, most of the "evidence" of all the creationists & bible freaks is solely based on one book written by human!

and, btw, throw away your computer now!

[K^2]

K^2, man, you need to get out more.
I usualy do, but this is exams week, and I just had an Archaeology exam, for which I needed to know most of this, a few days ago. I'm officially on break now, though, so my scientific ramblilngs should become signifficantly less common. In fact, all of my ramblings and visitations to the forum should become less common. Better things to do during the Summer. :)

[AndrewTaylor]

I usualy do, but this is exams week, and I just had an Archaeology exam,
I thought you studied physics?

[K^2]

I still do study Physics, but someone had this bright idea that everyone should spend an average of 3 hours a week in classes that have nothing to do with that person's major. They call it "Liberal Education Requirement." That's how I ended up taking classes in Archaeology, Geography, Architecture, Politics, and some other junk that I don't even want to remember.

[AndrewTaylor]

Oh, I see. We get Offered electives, but we aren't actually given any free time in which to take them.

[WormGod]

An XBox demo coming before the PC one? Blimey.

[Horigan]

Actually, nothing is assumed. The C14 dates are calibrated, and C14 dating gives you a date ±50 years in over 95% of the cases for all dates between present and 50,000 years in the past. I know enough archaeology, geology, and most importantly, nuclear physics to state this as a fact.

The reason why there is no equilibrium is because the sollar radiation, which powers the C12->C13->C14 conversion is constantly changing due to the changes in Sun's activity. Also changing is the Earth's magnetic field wich in turn changes the ammount of radiation that reaches atmosphere. As a result, at different times in history the rate of C14 production is different.

Finaly, there are other dating techniques. Potasium-Argon dating, for example, can be used to date remains of animals over a million years old. Unless the remains were created with a specific purpose of fooling the 20th century scientists, that is sufficient evidence for existance of life on Earth over a million years ago. Furthermore, there is sufficient geological evidence to suggest that Earth is well over a billion years old, and the Sun is estimated to be arround 5 billion years old.

Don't forget that there is some serious Chemistry and Physics behind that, and if you don't believe in these sciences, I suggest you throw away your computer, all other electronics in your house, get rid of your clothes, and start hunting your own food with rocks and sticks and cook it on open fire.

Someone here needs to re-examine how C-14 dating works. (Yes, I know you'll say it's me, beleive me I have) That statement there, that I highlighted, disproves c-14 dating. Things are assumed, one of them being that the c-14 levels have been the same throughout history.

And +- 50 years? Maybe in some cases but not others, let's just have a look at some of scientific examples. In Science magazine vol. 141 it was recorded that living mollusk shells were carbon dated at 23,000 years old. In 1975 a baby mammoth was found frozen. One part was dated 40,000 years old another part 26,000 years, it doesn’t work! There are dozens more such examples found throughout the years. If you want mnore examples you can follow the link I posted above and scroll down the page a bit for a list. Robert Lee in the Anthropological Journal of Canada Vol 19 said “the accepted dates are actually selected dates. This whole blessed thing is nothing but 13th-century alchemy, and it all depends upon which funny paper you read."

[AndrewTaylor]

It's the leap from there to "Therefore the Earth was created less than 30,000 years ago" that puzzles me. The way I see it, either these techniques work, in which case the Earth must be at least a million years old because otherwise the animals that were alive before then must have just been floating in space, or else they don't work, in which case you can't claim to have any idea at all how old the Earth is.

Edit: I love how we're having this discussion in a thread whose title uses the phrase "exact dates".

[Paul.Power]

I'm gonna sit back on this one, if you don't mind. Apart from anything else, my preferred discussion point of evolutionary theory has yet to crop up - radiological dating isn't one of my strong points. Nevertheless, I'll warm up The Blind Watchmaker for if you guys need it.

[Horigan]

It's the leap from there to "Therefore the Earth was created less than 30,000 years ago" that puzzles me. The way I see it, either these techniques work, in which case the Earth must be at least a million years old because otherwise the animals that were alive before then must have just been floating in space, or else they don't work, in which case you can't claim to have any idea at all how old the Earth is.

Edit: I love how we're having this discussion in a thread whose title uses the phrase "exact dates".

We don't have any idea at all how old the Earth is from radiocarbon dating, but there are other ways to know. There are so many, I wouldn't know where to begin, so I'll ask what's you're strong point? Biology, geology, astronomy, history, or anthropology. Tell me, and I'll se if I can find an evidence in one of those areas, that either proves or indicates the Earth might be as old as the Christian Bible indicates, namely, approximately 6,000 years old.

[pilot62]

I am a christian, but for gods sake the world isn't just 6,000 years old!

Genesis is the written down version of the creation story of ancient jewish farmers. Now, if you were to try to explain to an ancint middle eastern farmer the advanced scientific theories about how the world came into being you wouldn't have much success. So some people believe to explain to these simple people god , used an analogy to describe it, its the same principal as when scientists describe things saying at 1Oclock, 2 Oclock ect. People who believe this can believe in evolution ecetera, but believe god is the driving force behind it. Whereas people who take genesis literaly are obviously complete crackpots wo have been living in a hole for the last 200 years.

Before you say anything let me take an agnostic philosophy and say we can't proove either way. No, there's no proof god is the driving force behind the universe but there's no poofe he isn't. Religion is having faith in things that cannot be prooven. God is a mystery, and no mortal minds will ever be able to understand him or even proove he exists. This works in the same way that we can't comprehend infinity, we know what it means by defenition, but our minds can't actualy fathom that something could go on forever.

[AndrewTaylor]

Biology, geology, astronomy, history, or anthropology
Alas, my strong points are grammar, computer programming, physics, mathematics, karaoke, sarcasm, and pictionary. But this page (click here) (http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/rossuk/AgeEarth.htm) has lots of evidence, complete with relevant references, for an earth at least 50,000 years old, and as I understand it we have pretty good evidence of human culture from more than 6000 years ago. Start by debunking all of that and then we'll try your flipping through the Bible and counting backwards from now method.

[pilot62]

I think I rambled on a bit in my last post, scientific theories can be prooven, god and the bible can't, so the arguments a bit one sided, but thats only fair considering evolution is right. Hell, you can even see evolution happen when dogs are bred or children look the same as thier parents, god knows why people needed darwin to tell them about it.

[MrBunsy]

I think I rambled on a bit in my last post, scientific theories can be prooven, god and the bible can't, so the arguments a bit one sided, but thats only fair considering evolution is right. Hell, you can even see evolution happen when dogs are bred or children look the same as thier parents, god knows why people needed darwin to tell them about it.
Ah, no. Thats natural selection, which is indeed proven. But what I don't get is how that can lead to evolution. Surely its impossible for, lets say, a fish to mutate enough in one generation to survive outside the water. It would take many mnay many generations, and until it had got far enough to survive out of the water it woiulnd't have an advantage over the others of the speices, so surely it would loose it's small mutation after a few generations again? I don't know if there's a major flaw in this argument, no doubt someone will come up with it, but at the moment evolution is still a theory.

And there is of course the other major question; why have only humans developed and improved? You don't see any other speices with an internal combustion engine, yeah sure monkeys/apes use twigs. Big wow, but they've used twigs for thousands of years whereas we found firtst flint and then metal.

[Horigan]

Okay okay, one at at time, first: pilot62

I understand where you're coming from. The majority of Christians probably beleive as you do, and both of us can serve God and follow Him and lead others to Christ. And from what you've said, we might just see each other in heaven.

However, think about what you are saying. First Genesis is not written by jewish farmers, it was probably written by at least ten different authors, everytime it says "these are the generations of" I THINK, don't know, it's a change of authors. Like when it says "these are the generations of Adam" the previous part was probably written by Adam himself. Later, Moses took these records and edited them together into one volume, called Genesis. What's more, I assume you beleive God used evalution to create beings. Well think about what you beleive. You beleive that God used and/or permitted countless generations of animals, plants, and pre-humans to suffer and die before arriving at the current creation? You beleive that God would do that? Evolution is a religion of death! (And before you get on me about calling Evolution a religion, it is not proven, it takes faith to beleive) Evolution effectively teaches that death brought man into the world. But Genesis teaches that Man brought death into the world. If there was death before man's sin, then why the curse? If there was killing and suffering before Adam, why did Christ have to die? Jesus qouted Genesis many times, he apparently beleived it. Give me some time, and if you want, I'll get some references. Was He wrong? Was he ignorant of the Earth's history? Or was He right? Additionally, Evolution makes Man into just another animal. Does that sound like a description fitting of "God's most precious creation" that is made in "His own image?" Finally, I believe science proves Creation. I'm not surprised by your views, as even many preachers beleive so, but I do think you are mistaken.

AndrewTaylor, I'll look at that site, give it some thought, and get back to you.

Pilot62 and AT, thank you for posting actual evidences, many people on other forums don't. Many make broad generalizations. I applaud you. A couple more things though. The information for the various breads of dogs were, I think, already there from the two dogs that left the Ark after the Flood. The information was already there, it's merely diverged over time. They are still dogs. God did not tell Noah to bring two of every species on the ark, but two of every kind. Why, I even beleive that the house-dog and the coyote and the wolf all have a common ancestor: a dog. Finally, How are children looking like their parents evidence of change from one kind of animal into another kind?

[pilot62]

IIRC evolution incorporates natural selection and animals differing from thier parents in small ways. This in time can lead to animals becoming different species from thier ancestors.Then of course when you separate two groups of the same species they won't breed together so thier changes and adaptions are not shared, once again boecoming different species

Look at whales, they were originaly land dwelling carnivores, but then they started to hunt near water and became adapted to swimming. Then its a relatively small step towards spending alot of time in the water and at one stage, if I remember walking with beasts correctly, they became very similar to crocodiles, lieing in wait underwater hunting animals while they drank.
Further on the evolutionary chain some would have swam out into deaper waters, then deaper, and coming back to land less and less often untill they became fully aquatic animals. Then they continues to evolve and change around abit into various different species .

double post edit

Okay okay, one at at time, first: pilot62

I understand where you're coming from. The majority of Christians probably beleive as you do, and both of us can serve God and follow Him and lead others to Christ. And from what you've said, we might just see each other in heaven.

However, think about what you are saying. First Genesis is not written by jewish farmers, it was probably written by at least ten different authors, everytime it says "these are the generations of" I THINK, don't know, it's a change of authors. Like when it says "these are the generations of Adam" the previous part was probably written by Adam himself. Later, Moses took these records and edited them together into one volume, called Genesis. What's more, I assume you beleive God used evalution to create beings. Well think about what you beleive. You beleive that God used and/or permitted countless generations of animals, plants, and pre-humans to suffer and die before arriving at the current creation? You beleive that God would do that? Evolution is a religion of death! (And before you get on me about calling Evolution a religion, it is not proven, it takes faith to beleive) Evolution effectively teaches that death brought man into the world. But Genesis teaches that Man brought death into the world. If there was death before man's sin, then why the curse? If there was killing and suffering before Adam, why did Christ have to die? Jesus qouted Genesis many times, he apparently beleived it. Give me some time, and if you want, I'll get some references. Was He wrong? Was he ignorant of the Earth's history? Or was He right? Additionally, Evolution makes Man into just another animal. Does that sound like a description fitting of "God's most precious creation" that is made in "His own image?" Finally, I believe science proves Creation. I'm not surprised by your views, as even many preachers beleive so, but I do think you are mistaken.

AndrewTaylor, I'll look at that site, give it some thought, and get back to you.

Pilot62 and AT, thank you for posting actual evidences, many people on other forums don't. Many make broad generalizations. I applaud you. A couple more things though. The information for the various breads of dogs were, I think, already there from the two dogs that left the Ark after the Flood. The information was already there, it's merely diverged over time. They are still dogs. God did not tell Noah to bring two of every species on the ark, but two of every kind. Why, I even beleive that the house-dog and the coyote and the wolf all have a common ancestor: a dog. Finally, How are children looking like their parents evidence of change from one kind of animal into another kind?Firstly, I never said it was the farmers who wrote them down, but that is where the stories originated.

Seconly, you are talking about god as if he is just a powerful human, he isn't. God is the power tat made the world but he is not a human, and we cannot aply such philosophies to him. We cannot comprehend why god acts like this.

Death happens, saying we brought death to the world is bollocks, just emphasisng that there are consequences to dissobeying god. Death is part of life, what goes up must come down etcetera, and I'm sorry but that is the way god works, it may seem cruel but thats how he works. I ask you not to take the bible so literaly.

Also, I may belive in god but I doubt I'll get into heaven.

[AndrewTaylor]

The trouble is with evolution, that it's necessarily true. You couldn't construct a universe with life in that didn't have evolution in it somewhere. Things that survive breed. Things that don't survive don't breed because they're dead. Changes that make an animal more likely to survive are therefore passed on. There's no alternative to this. You can't just say it doesn't happen, because it does and we've actually seen it happen in creatures with short life cycles -- there was an example a few years back where a species of bat split into two because the females liked a particularly high or low pitched call and one species got each. That was evolution. That happened. It happened in the 1990's, as well, and we didn't need C14 or geology to see it. You just needed a TV set; it was on Horizon or someting.

The only question is whether evolution is responsible for all the biodiversity in the world. And as far as I can see it's the only near-complete explanation we've got. (I take the idea of "God Made It" wholly incomplete because it raises a lot more, even more difficult questions such as "Where did God come from", "Why is there evil in the world", and usually "Isn't that just 'turtles all the way down'?")

The information for the various breads of dogs were, I think, already there from the two dogs that left the Ark after the Flood. The information was already there, it's merely diverged over time. They are still dogs. God did not tell Noah to bring two of every species on the ark, but two of every kind. Why, I even beleive that the house-dog and the coyote and the wolf all have a common ancestor: a dog.Sorry, but I have no idea at all what any of that meant.

It might be worth clearing up at this point that I'm wholly convinced there was no ark, either, and while I'm aware Jesus was real I'm not convinced he was the son of God because that would necessitate a God and I'm not convinced He exists either. It seems like a rather big assumption that doesn't really answer any questions.

[Horigan]

The only evidence of whale evolution that I'm familiar with is a few small bones in the pelvic area. Some scientists say that these bones are vestigal structures left over from when the whale was a quadreped that walked on land. This is commonly cited and even taught in the public schools here in America. However, if you care to research your whale anatomy you'll see that there are several muscles attached to those bones that are very necessary for a certain function known as "giving birth" Kind of hard for the whale species to live long without those bones ain't it? (Vestigal...riiiiight)

I beleive that death didn't happen before the fall. We live in a fallen, cursed by God, sin-stricken world. I'm sorry but man did bring sin into the world, which brought God's curse, which brought death.

You say you may beleive in God but don't think you'll get into heaven? Then you have my pity.

@AT The first part of what you said refers to natural selection, not changes in kinds. Ther est of what you say is the same as the dog breed argument, sorry but those two species of bats were still, get this, bats! It was not a new kind but merely a variation. I beleive there are genetic variables, but there are also limits to the changes that can happen. Breed fruit flies, you'll get flies with short wings, flys with long wings, flys with no wings, flys with various color eyes, but their all flies.

As far as the ark argument, that wasn't meant for you, and I think I could prove the flood, but their are bigger things to worry about now I think, for now let's agree to disagree on that point.

[AndrewTaylor]

Breed fruit flies, you'll get flies with short wings, flys with long wings, flys with no wings, flys with various color eyes, but their all flies.
That's not true. The one with no wings is a Walk.

[Horigan]

That's not true. The one with no wings is a Walk.

Very funny, though I beleive Dr. Hovind calls it a crawl... whatever. :)

[The Necro]

´Will you be able to make a custom weapon in the demo?

[WeXzuZ]

´Will you be able to make a custom weapon in the demo?
I think I read somewhere from Spadge that there will be no Weapon Factory and a few Team Designs, but im not sure.. *waiting for Team17's confirmation*

[pilot62]

The only evidence of whale evolution that I'm familiar with is a few small bones in the pelvic area. Some scientists say that these bones are vestigal structures left over from when the whale was a quadreped that walked on land. This is commonly cited and even taught in the public schools here in America. However, if you care to research your whale anatomy you'll see that there are several muscles attached to those bones that are very necessary for a certain function known as "giving birth" Kind of hard for the whale species to live long without those bones ain't it? (Vestigal...riiiiight)

I beleive that death didn't happen before the fall. We live in a fallen, cursed by God, sin-stricken world. I'm sorry but man did bring sin into the world, which brought God's curse, which brought death.

You say you may beleive in God but don't think you'll get into heaven? Then you have my pity.

@AT The first part of what you said refers to natural selection, not changes in kinds. Ther est of what you say is the same as the dog breed argument, sorry but those two species of bats were still, get this, bats! It was not a new kind but merely a variation. I beleive there are genetic variables, but there are also limits to the changes that can happen. Breed fruit flies, you'll get flies with short wings, flys with long wings, flys with no wings, flys with various color eyes, but their all flies.

As far as the ark argument, that wasn't meant for you, and I think I could prove the flood, but their are bigger things to worry about now I think, for now let's agree to disagree on that point.OK now I'm convinced your either insane, locked up in a monastry, or both.

Just because somethings written down in the bible dosn't mean its true, the people who wrote the old testemnt often took ancient legends and myths which may or may not have any basis of truth in. The story of noah I believe, was taken from a bablylonian legend because it carried an important moral message, dissobey god and you will be punished. Like a fable in many ways.

The phallasies (I think thats what they were called) were not infallable. Far from it, look what they did to Jesus! :rolleyes:

AT, as I said before, we cannot comprehend god so the question, 'why is there evil in the world' is one we cannot answer, but it might have something to do with this. God created humans in his own image, that dosn't mean god has eight fingers and two thumbs for he is a spirit and has no physical form, but it means that he gave us the ability to think, to make our own choises, free will. And to be fair Giving humans free will was an odd thing to do for it means we have the ability to choose either the path of good or of evil, and many of us have turned to the latter due to selfishness/greed/ect.

God wanted friends not puppets, and that means he gave us the ability to make our own choises and dosn't make them for us, thats why there's evil in the world.

My views arn't actualy as extreem as my posts so far, but my RE teacher who is a complete papist reject has been drumming this into us all year

[Horigan]

I agree just because it's in the Bible does ot make something true. Someone I know once said :I beleive in Creation because I beleive the Bible." I personally think that's a rather stupid and naive thing to say. I don't beleive Creation because that's what the Bible says, I beleive Creation because that's what science says, according to my observations and investigations. Look at the surface, like an egg-shell, and it looks like Evelution is the truth. Go deeper, crack the shell, and you see it's Creationism all the way. The trouble is or kids are indoctrinated in school that Evalution is science, and Creation is religion. But they are both religious! These kids though are taught for 12+ years that Evalution is true, so what are they gonna beleive? That Creationists are insane, extremely sheltered, or both. Look, I'm a Creationist Christian because of science, not in spite of it.

Actually Babylonians aren't the only one with a worldwide-fFlood legend, so do the Mayans, the Hawains, the Incas, the Chinese, and maybe others do to. Just as you would expect if it really did happen. I beleive the Biblical account was written first and is the most accurate, but others have also been recorded.

I never said the pharacies (not phallasies) were infallible, no man is. But the Bible was written by the God thorugh men. He told them what to record, and they wrote it in their own words, but retaining accuracy. I cannot prove this, that is where faith comes in. I do beleive it can be proved that God created the world approximately 6,000 years ago and covered it in Flood waters approximately 4,000 years ago.

[Paul.Power]

Ah, no. Thats natural selection, which is indeed proven. But what I don't get is how that can lead to evolution. Surely its impossible for, lets say, a fish to mutate enough in one generation to survive outside the water. It would take many mnay many generations, and until it had got far enough to survive out of the water it woiulnd't have an advantage over the others of the speices, so surely it would loose it's small mutation after a few generations again? I don't know if there's a major flaw in this argument, no doubt someone will come up with it, but at the moment evolution is still a theory.

And there is of course the other major question; why have only humans developed and improved? You don't see any other speices with an internal combustion engine, yeah sure monkeys/apes use twigs. Big wow, but they've used twigs for thousands of years whereas we found firtst flint and then metal.Ah, right, time to wheel out TBW. Excellent book. I'd recommend it to anyone with a brain.

You've brought up the particular example of the development of lungs. Now, for starters, you'll notice that there is an interesting continuum in lung configuration throughout most modern vertebrates. Mammals have lungs that are, in effect, giant sponges. Amphibian lungs, in contrast, are like little balloons. What's particularly interesting here though is a particular group of fish called mudskippers. Mudskippers have rudimentary lungs that allow them to come out of the water for a short period of time.

Dawkins' argument is that any tiny improvement in lung capacity (or eye acuteness, or whatever) leads to favour from natural selection. 1% of a lung is better than no lung at all, 2% of a lung better than 1% (I'm using percentage points as an example, but substitute whatever fraction you like. We have millions of generations to play with). As far as I understand it, the lungs origins are from fishes' swim-bladders. A tweak that brings the blood vessels closer to the surface area of the swim bladder, and you've got something that can pick up oxygen. Now, any fish that finds itself near the shore has a possibility that it will get washed up. Whether it can survive this depends on how long it can live on oxygen from the air - hopefully long enough that another wave will wash it back in - which depends on how efficient its "lungs" are. Any improvement in "lung" capacity leads to the ability to stay ashore for longer periods of time, and a greater chance of survival, and thus it will be selected for. Eventually you get creatures like the mudskippers, who come ashore of their own volition, to see if they can make a living in this strange new world. Some of them do. All the while, there is selection pressure for increased lung capacity

[AndrewTaylor]

I cannot prove this, that is where faith comes in. I do beleive it can be proved that God created the world approximately 6,000 years ago and covered it in Flood waters approximately 4,000 years ago.
*buzzer sound* No, that right there, not a matter of faith.

You can't believe you can prove something and claim it as a Belief. You can believe it, by all means, but you can't claim Faith on it. (I'm using the capital letters to denote the "I'm entitled to my beliefs and you can't say they're wrong" argument here.)

There is not enough water in the world to flood the whole world, because it would be doing so right now. Where else would it go? It can't have gone into the polar ice caps, because we've measured their ages (as I've shown in the link earlier) and they're hundreds of thousands of years old.

Besides which, to pluck a country at random, Egypt was in full swing 4000 years ago. I think they'd have written down somewhere if there'd been a big flood that wiped them all out, don't you?

Also,I do beleive it can be proved that God created the worldObligatory Babel Fish Joke

[Paul.Power]

A nice, simple counterargument against creationism.

1. Life, the universe and everything is a system of highly organised complexity.
2. We cannot accept the posit that this system has always been there, or that it has arrived by random chance.
3. We therefore have two main explanations for where this system comes from
a) by being slowly built up from smaller and smaller systems (the basic argument of evolution, astronomy, atomic theory and most orthodox scientific theory) until we reach something so small it is self-intuitively obvious (such as Douglas Adams' "everything that happens, happens")
b) by being designed from scratch by some sort of creator.
4. Leaving aside (a), we look at (b). Such a creator must be capable of designing from scratch such a system of highly organised complexity.
5. Therefore, such a creator must itself be a system of highly organised complexity.
6. So we have conceived a system of highly organised complexity to explain another system of highly organised complexity.
7. If we play by our own rules, then we cannot accept that this creator either spontaneously appeared or has always been there.
8. So it has either been "evolved", in which case we apply Occam's Razor and remove it in favour of (a), or the creator had a creator, which must have had a creator... leading to a variant of the "Turtles All The Way Down" absurdity.

Conclusion: (b) is false, (a) is true.

I dislike arguments from pure philosophy, but it is at least a way to get your point across.

[AndrewTaylor]

1. Life, the universe and everything
I don't think it's possible (or at least not correct) to have this discussion without Douglas Adams cropping up at least a couple of times. And you know why?

Because the man was a damn genius, that's why. He was opinionated, eloquent, and almost always right*, atheism/religion and technological gadgettery being his main areas of rightness.

Some Douglas musings:
http://www.americanatheist.org/win98-99/T2/silverman.html
http://www.toomuchsexy.org/adams/

______________________________
*By which I suppose I really mean that I almost always agree with him, or when I haven't formed an opinion convinces me that his is the Correct opinion and then I adopt it and we inevitably agree. In retrospect that could simply mean that he's persuasive, but let's pretend that's not true.

[Paul.Power]

Very true, very true. I've seen both of those already (The Salmon of Doubt's a great book), but yeah.

It's no surprise that the first column I read on Adams' death was by Richard Dawkins, either.

[K^2]

Someone here needs to re-examine how C-14 dating works. (Yes, I know you'll say it's me, beleive me I have) That statement there, that I highlighted, disproves c-14 dating. Things are assumed, one of them being that the c-14 levels have been the same throughout history.
I know how the C14 dating works. I know more about nuclear reactions than anybody else on this forum. I know how the C14 decays, and I know how its sources are replentished. I know exactly how the date is established in C14 dating.

And no, no such thing is assumed. People who do C14 dating are not idiots. They do not assume that the C14 levels are constant. There are special calibration tables that have been created over the decades of various tests. C14 dates of up to 4K years back are EXTREMELY precise, because they were calibrated using the tree rings. C14 dates of up to 50K years back are still sufficiently precise to get a date within a century. Yes, the misstakes are made occasionaly. I have heard a story about the C14 date being messed up by about 10K years because someone on the floor bellow the testing lab left some uranium unshielded. These things happen, but most of the time they do not.

Horrigan, I can see at least 3 people, counting myself, with twice your intelect and 4 times the education, on average, telling you that you are wrong. There is Faith, and then there is ignorance. Don't fall to the level of the later.

[Wiglworm]

Wasn't this thread about the demo?

cause you guys are WAY off topic.

[Paul.Power]

Wasn't this thread about the demo?

cause you guys are WAY off topic.
Welcome home, son :rolleyes: .

[Wiglworm]

i mean This is REALLY anoying . :(

[K^2]

Staying on topic in this thread would mean the end of it. Spadge allready said that the demos have been pushed due to a dellay in the release of W4, but there are no exact dates yet. And keeping all of the off topic discussions in one place is the best anti-spam strategy.

[Wiglworm]

yea um ok...

[MrBunsy]

Ah, right, time to wheel out TBW. Excellent book. I'd recommend it to anyone with a brain.

You've brought up the particular example of the development of lungs. Now, for starters, you'll notice that there is an interesting continuum in lung configuration throughout most modern vertebrates. Mammals have lungs that are, in effect, giant sponges. Amphibian lungs, in contrast, are like little balloons. What's particularly interesting here though is a particular group of fish called mudskippers. Mudskippers have rudimentary lungs that allow them to come out of the water for a short period of time.

Dawkins' argument is that any tiny improvement in lung capacity (or eye acuteness, or whatever) leads to favour from natural selection. 1% of a lung is better than no lung at all, 2% of a lung better than 1% (I'm using percentage points as an example, but substitute whatever fraction you like. We have millions of generations to play with). As far as I understand it, the lungs origins are from fishes' swim-bladders. A tweak that brings the blood vessels closer to the surface area of the swim bladder, and you've got something that can pick up oxygen. Now, any fish that finds itself near the shore has a possibility that it will get washed up. Whether it can survive this depends on how long it can live on oxygen from the air - hopefully long enough that another wave will wash it back in - which depends on how efficient its "lungs" are. Any improvement in "lung" capacity leads to the ability to stay ashore for longer periods of time, and a greater chance of survival, and thus it will be selected for. Eventually you get creatures like the mudskippers, who come ashore of their own volition, to see if they can make a living in this strange new world. Some of them do. All the while, there is selection pressure for increased lung capacity
Okay, I do understand what you mean there, I said someone would probably rip the idea to shreds.

I've got a question to anyone with the information to answer it: Is there any proof that civilisation has existed for more than 6000 years?

[K^2]

Depends on what exactly you mean by civilization. Some simple stone tools have been made by early humans over 2 million years ago. Highly specialized bone and wooden tools have existed over 20,000 years ago. Rise of agriculture occured arround 10,000 years ago. But if by civilization you mean cities under some form of government with written rules, then 6,000 years ago is about the time when such civilizations have started to rise.

[Horigan]

To be honest, I don't know where to start, so I'll just take 'em as I see them.

@AT You misunderstood me. It can be proved that the Earth can't be more than about 10,000 years old, and is probably younger than that. It can also be proved that the Earth was covered in torrential flood waters. The Faith portion is beleiving that God did this, and that the rest of the Christian Bible is accurate.

Not enough water you say? There is enough to cover the Earth quite deep. I forget how deep, I think something like a mile and a half deep or something, not sure. All you have to do is smooth the Earth out in one smooth globe. Raise the ocean levels, lower the mountains, and the ocean waters will cover the Earth. This flood explains such anomalies as clam shells on Mt. Everest (geologic column indeed!), and whale's buried tail down in sediment, and rock layers bent over on top of one another, and fossil graveyards, and other oddities.

K^2, you said (speaking of C14 dates) "up to 4K years back are EXTREMELY precise, because they were calibrated using the tree rings" as far as I know the oldest known living tree is a bristlecone pine tree ring dated back to about 4,000 years give or take a few centuries., not 4,000 years old or even close.

Egypt in full swing 4,000 years ago? Yes the Manetho's list does indicate this, but many think it dealt with two dynasties that extsted simultaneously. Also Egyptians are known to exaggurate. I think it can be discredited as evidence for either side.

Paul.Power I have not read the Blind Watchmaker, now I wish I had. Anyway though, say a fish got 1%, or even 5% of a functional atmospheric lung, or whatever it's called, what's to keep that trait from being bread back into the main population.

Also, the philosphical argument is good, you say it has to be Evolution because it can't be Creation. That is a valid argument. My whole point is that it has to be Creation because it can't be Evolution, Evolution just can't happen on a scale of thousands of years. (I don't think it can happen on as scale of trillione either but that's a whole nother issue) What made God? Nothing. Can I explain this, can I even comprehend this? No, I cannot. I cannot explain it, that takes faith. Can you explain where the matter came from at the start of the universe? No. Basically I beleive "In the beginning God..." and you beleive "In the beginning matter (specifically hydrogen and helium at the start of the Big Bang I beleive) ..."

I'm tired of constantly being on the defensive hear, I'm gonna pose some question for you to answer, see how you fair.

1. How was the Grand Canyon formed? By the Colorado river, a river whose mouth is hundreds of feet below the top of the canyon? What happened did the river flow uphill?!

2. How do you explain the numerous archeological findings everywhere from the Inca indians to Roman vases to American Indian artifacts, depicting dinosaurs and people living together?

3. How do you explain the formation of vast numbers of animal fossils jumbled together in great pits?

4. How do you explain petrified trees standing straight up through numerous strata layers? What happenned did they stand that way for millions of years?

5. Since 1835 global magnetism has decreased by 14%. Further study shows the Earth's magnetic field to have a half-life of about 1,400 years. This means that just 20,000 years ago the Joule heat would be enough to liquify the Earth. And you ask me to beleive that the Earth is billions of years old?!?!?!

I want some answers, maybe you can give them to me.

@AT, I'm still researching that website you posted, I'll probably respond to it later today.

[Paul.Power]

Aaaand they're off. Let's start with the dead easy one first.

5. Since 1835 global magnetism has decreased by 14%. Further study shows the Earth's magnetic field to have a half-life of about 1,400 years. This means that just 20,000 years ago the Joule heat would be enough to liquify the Earth. And you ask me to beleive that the Earth is billions of years old?!?!?!You may be interested to know that the Earth's magnetic field is far more complicated than it first appears. It waxes and wanes, and occasionally flips over completely. Ironically, one of the best bits of evidence for this is also one of the best bits of evidence for continental drift and plate tectonics, and between them give us some cast-iron evidence that the Earth really is very, very old. Let me break it down for you.

You know the Mid-Atlantic Ridge? Either side of that, stretching away to the coasts of the Americas in one direction, and Europe and Africa in the other, are bands of rock with alternating magnetic polarisations. The accepted theory is that as new lava wells up from the Mid-Atlantic ridge, it becomes aligned with the Earth's magnetic field, before solidifying and preserving the alignment. The fact that this alignment keeps switching suggests that the Earth's magnetic field keeps switching. This switch is, on a geological timescale, quite abrupt (approximately thousand of years). We are currently not that far away from such a switch. This is why the magnetic field is declining.

2. How do you explain the numerous archeological findings everywhere from the Inca indians to Roman vases to American Indian artifacts, depicting dinosaurs and people living together?*goes searching*. Mmm. Something doesn't quite ring true about that. It looks far too well preserved. *goes searching a bit harder* Ah, excellent:

Unfortunately, some initially plausible evidences for man’s contemporaneity with dinosaurs have later turned out to be mistaken. The controversial ‘Ica stones’—allegedly genuine pre-Inca engravings of dinosaurs from Peru—have since been shown to be a fraud. Creation 24(2) featured these with the cautionary label, ‘Too good to be true?’ In fact, it turns out that an unscrupulous Peruvian surgeon had purchased the stones from a local artist and installed them in his museum, claiming them to be ancient artefacts; the artist himself makes these stones for tourists and never claims them to be ancient. The Institute of Geological Sciences in London has since examined one of the stones and confirmed its modern origin. The fraud was exposed on a Nova television documentary in 2002, entitled ‘The Case of the Ancient Astronauts’.Can't find out on the Roman vases as of yet.

3. How do you explain the formation of vast numbers of animal fossils jumbled together in great pits?Earthquakes and other geological events. You can't claim they don't happen.

1. How was the Grand Canyon formed? By the Colorado river, a river whose mouth is hundreds of feet below the top of the canyon? What happened did the river flow uphill?!Right, here's what we've got: http://www.kaibab.org/geology/canform.htm. Typing in Grand Canyon Formation into Google should probably give you some other stuff, too.

4. How do you explain petrified trees standing straight up through numerous strata layers? What happenned did they stand that way for millions of years?I imagine some sort of geological upheaval. The precise detail of this one I'll leave to my colleagues.

as far as I know the oldest known living tree is a bristlecone pine tree ring dated back to about 4,000 years give or take a few centuries., not 4,000 years old or even close.I'm assuming there's some sort of typo there, but I can't think what. Maybe your brain fried.

This flood explains such anomalies as clam shells on Mt. Everest (geologic column indeed!)Why, when we have the much simpler explanation that the Indian Subcontinent plate is colliding with the Eurasian plate, pushing up the land and raising what used to be sea-beds up into mountains? Occam's Razor, guys.

It can be proved that the Earth can't be more than about 10,000 years old, and is probably younger than thatI'd like to see you try that. I've already smashed the magnetism one, let's see what else there is (Speaking of which, it looks like I'm going to need Bad Astronomy, an excellent book/website when you're dealing with Young Earth Creationists)

I must admit I'm enjoying this. It's nice to have a good old righteously indignant rant once in a while.

[AndrewTaylor]

K^2, you said (speaking of C14 dates) "up to 4K years back are EXTREMELY precise, because they were calibrated using the tree rings" as far as I know the oldest known living tree is a bristlecone pine tree ring dated back to about 4,000 years give or take a few centuries., not 4,000 years old or even close.
I'm going to assume you made a typing error and that you didn't actually intend to assert that 4,000 years was nowhere near 4,000 years.

Who said the trees had to be alive?

You could find a 1000 year old tree, correlate its oldest rings with the newest ones on an older, dead tree, and then correlate those with a still older tree. I think there's a 6000-year tree chronology mentioned somewhere on that website I linked.

Also, the philosphical argument is good, you say it has to be Evolution because it can't be Creation. That is a valid argument. My whole point is that it has to be Creation because it can't be Evolution, Evolution just can't happen on a scale of thousands of years.
Evolution can and does happen over periods of a few months. It can even happen over periods of seconds, though not in biological cases -- it's used, say, in computing sometimes. But the main evolution of the species took millions of years, not thousamds, I quite agree.
1. How was the Grand Canyon formed? By the Colorado river, a river whose mouth is hundreds of feet below the top of the canyon? What happened did the river flow uphill?!The water flows downhill. It starts at the top, at the source of the river, flows down into the canyon, then down into the mouth and into the sea. What would be strange would be if the mouth were above the river.
2. How do you explain the numerous archeological findings everywhere from the Inca indians to Roman vases to American Indian artifacts, depicting dinosaurs and people living together?
We know that didn't happen and still The Flinstones depicts just that. Besides, if you're suggesting that the Romans -- who existed between 2758 and 552 years ago* -- were plagued by dinosaurs, where have all the dinosaurs gone? Are you telling me they were completely and selectively wiped out in the last 2500 or so years, and chose not to leave much by way of remains? Hardly seems likely compared to "The Romans and Indians liked to draw big scary monsters".
4. How do you explain petrified trees standing straight up through numerous strata layers? What happenned did they stand that way for millions of years?Well, yes. What else would they do? Get bored and walk away?
5. Since 1835 global magnetism has decreased by 14%. Further study shows the Earth's magnetic field to have a half-life of about 1,400 years. This means that just 20,000 years ago the Joule heat would be enough to liquify the Earth. And you ask me to beleive that the Earth is billions of years old?!?!?!Well that's stupid. Even you should know that the Earth's magnetism is decreasing. But before then it was increasing. And before then it was decreasing. It oscillates and the poles flip. We're overdue for a flip, so no wonder it's decreasing fast.

We have evidence of this behaviour. The ocean floors form in ridges along the middle of the ocean and are destroyed at the edges when the continents push them into the mantle. As the new rock forms in the middle of the ocean the earth's magnetic field is recorded in the iron contained in the rock. It essentially magnetises the seabed. This can be measuerd, and the result is a stripy pattern of north and south magnetisations. As I understand it the record dates back over a million years, and have magnetic flips that take about 1000 years roughly every 200,000 years (though this is very erratic). I'll readily admit to not knowing how these dates are calculated, but claiming the decreasing magnetic field suggest a young Earth is like claiming that since the pendulum on your clock has been swinging left for the last second it was swinging left forever and therefore must have started off a long way to the right, and that since it's connected my a metal beam to your clock, the clock can't have existed for more than four seconds.

Edit: Here's a more scientific reference: http://www.newgeology.us/presentation25.html

____________________
*These dates are exact. The Romans and Greeks were studious astronomers and meticulous note-takers. We know most of their history almost to the hour.

[Preasure]

What really gets me is how a question about the demo got so offtopic. And why the mods are joining in.

[AndrewTaylor]

And why the mods are joining in.
Well, this is more interesting to me than the original topic. I'm always intruiged by creationism marketed as a science.

[Horigan]

@AT: the following remarks may be considered a little insulting, but you've called me an insane idiot so I think I'm justified.

I think all but the last part of your post requires a little more thought on your part. To be perfectly honest I'm beginning to wonder if you're ignorant, or stupid. Right now I'm leaning toward the stupid end (see signature if you didn't get that.)

Paul.Power: Yes, I agree this is getting interesting, a worthy opponent you are.

1. The magnetic reversals eh? I've heard of those sure. Dig deeper into the study, beyond what the average evolutionary biased textbook will teach you, and see the actual records, you'll see that it is actually areas of stronger and weaker magnetism on the ocean floor. There are areas above average, and areas below average, but nowhere is it actually reversed. The so-called reversals are merely areas of below-average intensity.

2. I've heard that the inca stones have been claimed to be frauds, I hadn't heard of any proof of them being frauds though. The Roman vase is mentioned in "The Great Dinosaur Mystery" by Paul Taylor and by Dr. Hovind in his seminar part 3, other than that I don't know, I don't own the book and the seminar references the book.

Also where are the dinosaurs? They were probably hunted down. I don't know where you live, but at least around here there grizzly bears were numerous. Are there any now? No, they were hunted down as dangerous animals. Most dinosaurs could probably be considered dangerous animals, additionally they were designed for a pre-flood EArth which I beleive had a higher concentration of oxygen, a greater atmospheric preasure, and a more temperate climate globablly. Many probably couldn't adjust to a post-flood world. Others again might still be alive, particularly amphibous reptiles (which I know aren't dinosaurs but similar point. Nessie? maybe Champ? perhaps. Don't forget Mkole-Mbimbi either. It supposedly lives in the heart of AFrica in a huge swamp larger than most American states and many European countries. Larger than Great Britain for one. Much of the world is actually unexplored.

3. The trees, I'm talking whole groups of them all over standing straight up through many layers that Evolutionists would have us beleive represent millions of years!

4. Yes that was a typo, sorry I was in a hurry. The point is that yes it can be accurate that far back, if you know how to calibrate it. But beyond that... it's all guess work.

Enough defense, back to offense again:

1. Look at the planets in our solar system, including Earth but particularly Jupiter. The planet's are cooling down. Things can't just keep cooling, before long their the same temperature as their surroundings. Given the rate the planets are cooling, and extrappollating back from that, then the Earth was a hot molten mass when the dinosaurs were allegedly alive according to Evolutionists.

2. Look at the Sahara desert, It is expanding, surely you've heard of desertification. The Sahara is growing. Extrapolate back and you'll find that the Sahara is only about 4000 years old. If the Earth is as old as you calim, why don't we have a bigger desert someplace?

3. Look at the human population growth curve. Anthropologists tend to agree that about 2,000 years ago the population of the Earth was a 1/4 billion. Extrapolate back and we find that human began reproducing around 4,000 years ago. Which fits just fine with the idea of 8 people coming of the Ark after the world-wide flood. How do you explain why there are so few people though, if we've been around so long?

There's more where that came from, but I'll let you chew on that a little before continuing.

[AndrewTaylor]

1. Look at the planets in our solar system, including Earth but particularly Jupiter. The planet's are cooling down. Things can't just keep cooling, before long their the same temperature as their surroundings. Given the rate the planets are cooling, and extrappollating back from that, then the Earth was a hot molten mass when the dinosaurs were allegedly alive according to Evolutionists.

2. Look at the Sahara desert, It is expanding, surely you've heard of desertification. The Sahara is growing. Extrapolate back and you'll find that the Sahara is only about 4000 years old. If the Earth is as old as you calim, why don't we have a bigger desert someplace?

3. Look at the human population growth curve. Anthropologists tend to agree that about 2,000 years ago the population of the Earth was a 1/4 billion. Extrapolate back and we find that human began reproducing around 4,000 years ago. Which fits just fine with the idea of 8 people coming of the Ark after the world-wide flood. How do you explain why there are so few people though, if we've been around so long?

There's more where that came from, but I'll let you chew on that a little before continuing.
Oh, so us C14 dating is crazy, but extrapolations assuming constant rates of desert growth, birth rates, death rates, etc, are prefectly sensible?

Today it is sunny. Five weeks ago it was snowing. Extrapolating back from that, last year the Earth was in an ice age, and in 1991 the Earth was at absolute zero. Therefore the Earth was created back in the early nineties. Spot the logical flaw.

[Paul.Power]

1. The magnetic reversals eh? I've heard of those sure. Dig deeper into the study, beyond what the average evolutionary biased textbook will teach you, and see the actual records, you'll see that it is actually areas of stronger and weaker magnetism on the ocean floor. There are areas above average, and areas below average, but nowhere is it actually reversed. The so-called reversals are merely areas of below-average intensity.Source, please. And even if there aren't reversals that, it's still good evidence that a) the strength of the Earth's magnetic field waxes and wanes periodically, rather than decreasing at a constant rate, and b) continental drift occurs, and has been occurring for hundreds of millions of years.

2. I've heard that the inca stones have been claimed to be frauds, I hadn't heard of any proof of them being frauds though.What? I just gave you a source, from a creationist website of all places, saying that "unfortunately , some initially plausible evidences for man’s contemporaneity with dinosaurs have later turned out to be mistaken. The controversial ‘Ica stones’—allegedly genuine pre-Inca engravings of dinosaurs from Peru—have since been shown to be a fraud". Here, I'll get the damn link for you: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i4/bishop.asp#r17

The Roman vase is mentioned in "The Great Dinosaur Mystery" by Paul Taylor and by Dr. Hovind in his seminar part 3, other than that I don't know, I don't own the book and the seminar references the book.Yes, well I'll reserve judgement on that until I see it.

Also where are the dinosaurs? They were probably hunted down. I don't know where you live, but at least around here there grizzly bears were numerous. Are there any now? No, they were hunted down as dangerous animals. Most dinosaurs could probably be considered dangerous animals, additionally they were designed for a pre-flood EArth which I beleive had a higher concentration of oxygen, a greater atmospheric preasure, and a more temperate climate globablly. Many probably couldn't adjust to a post-flood world. Others again might still be alive, particularly amphibous reptiles (which I know aren't dinosaurs but similar point. Nessie? maybe Champ? perhaps. Don't forget Mkole-Mbimbi either. It supposedly lives in the heart of AFrica in a huge swamp larger than most American states and many European countries. Larger than Great Britain for one. Much of the world is actually unexplored.

3. The trees, I'm talking whole groups of them all over standing straight up through many layers that Evolutionists would have us beleive represent millions of years!Source?


1. Look at the planets in our solar system, including Earth but particularly Jupiter. The planet's are cooling down. Things can't just keep cooling, before long their the same temperature as their surroundings. Given the rate the planets are cooling, and extrappollating back from that, then the Earth was a hot molten mass when the dinosaurs were allegedly alive according to Evolutionists.
.One uses a very similar argument to my magnetism here. The rate at which all these things occur. Extrapolating is a very dangerous thing to do. Planets heat up and cool down in cycles - why should the Earth be the only one to have ice ages? Funnily enough, we're expecting another ice age soonish anyway. I'm not quite sure what you mean by "particularly Jupiter". Could you give me a little more info there, please?


2. Look at the Sahara desert, It is expanding, surely you've heard of desertification. The Sahara is growing. Extrapolate back and you'll find that the Sahara is only about 4000 years old. If the Earth is as old as you calim, why don't we have a bigger desert someplace?

3. Look at the human population growth curve. Anthropologists tend to agree that about 2,000 years ago the population of the Earth was a 1/4 billion. Extrapolate back and we find that human began reproducing around 4,000 years ago. Which fits just fine with the idea of 8 people coming of the Ark after the world-wide flood. How do you explain why there are so few people though, if we've been around so long?

There's more where that came from, but I'll let you chew on that a little before continuing I love the internet. Let's see what I've just unearthed...

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-yea2.html#proof23

23.The present Sahara Desert really is only a few thousand years old. About 7 or 8 thousand years ago the area underwent a pronounced wet phase and portions of it were habitable parkland where cattle could be grazed (The Times Atlas of World History, 1978). More than 10,000 years ago, during the last glaciation, lakes and streams were present in the Sahara, and elephants, giraffes, and other animals roamed the grasslands and forests which covered much of the region. Not long ago radar was used to discover a fossil river which once flowed across the Sahara; the river bed is now buried beneath the desert sands. By the way, what does any of this have to do with the age of the earth?

On the same page, #25 is a refutation of point 3.

EDIT: In fact, that website gives us a very handy and adaptable argument against any theory based on a specific geographical location. The Sahara Desert, the Niagra Falls, you name it. Just because it only took, say, 10,000 years to form, [i]doesn't mean that the Earth is that young. After all, why should it be? If anything, we've just imposed a lower limit on the age of the Earth, not an upper one.

EDIT 2: You must all read this website. It's excellent. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood.html

[bonz]

phew!
i just read through the whole thread since my last post!
and i still recommend you, horigan, to learn about the -->scientific method (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method)!
at, paul power, k^2 and the other guys have posted numerous links to substantiate their theories!
you, horigan, on the other hand just linked to a page of a creationist...

come up with some reasonable evidence, not with one-sided crap!

i suggest you to make a large bow around science, as you are not working scientifically correct!


a funny coincidence:
20 meters from my students hostel is a catholic church, which is having a 4-day "feast for jesus"!
that's rather bad for me, as i can't open my windows to have a smoke without cranking my winamp to the max to drown out that annoying music.
(not to talk about that anti-abortion propaganda stuff that's flying around)
i'm thinking of arranging a death-metal concert next year... :D

edit:
speaking about evolution, it can happen in biological system in very small amounts of time!
for example in yeast, which has a generation time of 20min (if you put it in the right incubator! hehehe!)!
that means 3 generations in one hour, 72 generations per day, 26280 generations per year from one yeast cell! that's enough to find some evolution in action!
-->http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2003,%20NRG,%20Elena%20&%20Lenski.pdf (http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2003,%20NRG,%20Elena%20&%20Lenski.pdf)

[Horigan]

1. I never said that magnetic fields waxes and wanes. I said that their are areas with stronger magnetism and areas with weaker magnetism, that says nothing about continental drift to me.

2. I'm willingly to accept that the Inca stones might be frauds, but I don't change my overall position on the subject

3. Such things as these trees are numerous, do a search for polystrate fossils will probably pull plenty. If you want to see some yourself one of the best plaes is Specimen Ridge in Yellowstone Park, Montana.

4. It would take a long time to refute every point on that website, but just the quick skimming I've done unearth's several logic errors. The most common being the one they use to refute extrapolation. Extrapolation is the same thing often used by Evolutionist, they say sediment builds at this X rate so the layers Y deep must be Z years old. Extrapolating everything willy nillie doesn't work, but the concept holds true in some cases. For instance, the desert argument, the question was why there is no bigger desert, that was not answered. I'd also like to know what proof they have of the state of the Sahara before it was a desert. Also, you say planets have been known to warm up in the past? When I ask? Finally the ice age was probably a result of a cataclysmic disastor. See this ebstite for more details: http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-168.htm

double post edit

@Bonz Oh so they can link to the site of Evolutionist scientists but I can't link to the sites of creationist scientists huh? Is that really fair?

from the site you directed me to: "A scientific method or process is considered fundamental to the scientific investigation and acquisition of new knowledge based upon physical evidence. Scientists use observations, hypotheses and deductions to propose explanations for natural phenomena in the form of theories. Predictions from these theories are tested by experiment. If a prediction turns out to be correct, the theory survives. Any theory which is cogent enough to make predictions can then be tested reproducibly in this way. The method is commonly taken as the underlying logic of scientific practice. A scientific method is essentially an extremely cautious means of building a supportable, evidenced understanding of our natural world."

Evolution does not fit that description. Creation does not fit that description. Neither can be conclusively proven, as neither can be recreated. Science can indicate one over the other, which is what we are trying to do here, but neither can be proven. Can either be repeated? No. That yeast argument, just read the title: adaption, not creation. Can bacteria gain resistance to antibiotics certainly. Are they still a bacteria? Yes. All that is is natural selection bringing out traitsd that were alredy there, or copying existing traits. There are such things as two headed turtles, five legged cows, is this new information, such as is required by Evolution? No, it is only copying of existing information.

Finally, you want the closest thing to an end all beat all site that even I haven't fully explored? Alright here ya go: http://www.evolution-facts.org/Cruncher%20TOC.htm (http://www.evolution-facts.org/Cruncher%20TOC.htm)

<edit> That site contains many qoutes from Evolutionist scientists, if that's the only kind of "science" you accept.

[SargeMcCluck]

Finally, you want the closest thing to an end all beat all site that even I haven't fully explored? Alright here ya go: http://www.evolution-facts.org/Cruncher%20TOC.htm (http://www.evolution-facts.org/Cruncher%20TOC.htm)

<edit> That site contains many qoutes from Evolutionist scientists, if that's the only kind of "science" you accept.

I started looking at that site and then cracked up. On the "THE AGE OF THE EARTH" bit they say "xxx can't happen/be true because of yyy" with NO proof. They just state it and then go onto the next "proof".

e.g. "On the hydrogen basis of stellar energy, they could not have contained enough hydrogen to radiate at such fast rates for long ages, because their initial mass would have had to be far too gigantic."

No equations? I mean come on, the least they could do is show the equations they had to use to be able to state that. But they didn't.


So again, I shall laugh at that site.

[AndrewTaylor]

1. I never said that magnetic fields waxes and wanes. I said that their are areas with stronger magnetism and areas with weaker magnetism, that says nothing about continental drift to me.Aha! Physics! At last, my strong suit!

Magnetic fields obey certain laws, specifically Msxwell's Equations. The upshot of this is that there cannot just be "areas with stronger magnetism and areas with weaker magnetism" in the same way that some places are warmer than others or recieve more rainfall. You'd need a variation in the internal currents of rock inside the Earth, and I can't for a second imagine what could cause that on the scale of the oceanic stripes. But that's by-the-by.

The point is that when rock is molten in the mantle the iron in it is free to point any way it likes, and will preferentially align with the Earth's field. If the rock then solidifies into crust, then it preserves this magnetisation. Then it's locked in place and can't change (well, it can, but it takes some doing). Therefore, we know what magnetic field the rocks were in when they were formed. So we can assume that either (a) The rocks were formed all at once and the magnetic field varies with space or (b) the rocks were formed at different times and magnetic field varies with time. And we think the rocks were formed at different times because they're all slowly moving from the presumed point of creation (the ridge) to the presumed point of destruction (offshore). That proves that the magnetic field changes with time, and not in a simple linear way and that disproves your argument. And we've known all this since the 60's.

[pilot62]

Evolution happens, you can't deny that, if god created man on the 6th day then what are all those ancient hominids lying around. Lets ignore time for the monent and when they got there, but the fact that there is a clear line of species going from apes to humans. Do you suggest that god created all these species at once?

If you wan't proof of evolution, bacteria and viruses are prime examples as they mutate and evolve so quickly. New bacteria evolve all the time, proof enough to show evolution is right and creationism is wrong.

Damn you, the planets warming up now, and contrary to popular belief 99.9% isn't our fault and nothing can be done to stop it. The planets temperature changes back and fourth all the time and has done for billions of years. Yes, at the time of the dinosaurs it was hotter than it is now, that dosn't mean it always has been.

If the ice age was caused by some cataclymic disater, then the same thing must have happend quite a few times at regular intevals. For there was not just one Ice age, but 4 or 5. The planets temperature has fluctuated quite extreemly in the last several thousand years. Going from an Ice age, warming up into a warm period, then cooling down again and ectcetera. If you wan't to be technical were still in the Great Ice age, just in one of the warmer periods between the cold spells.

[bonz]

http://www.evolution-facts.org/Cruncher%20TOC.htm (http://www.evolution-facts.org/Cruncher%20TOC.htm)
it seems to me, that this site is only a collection of various, mostly out of context, arguments, why evolution is wrong!
when it comes to prove that creation is right it instantly falls back to vague assumptions and, again, out of context, arguments!

i happened to be raised in a non-religous family (though my mother was roman catholic & my father is a muslim), i was never baptised, i never attented any religious "education", nor did i go to any church!
i'd say that's the optimum prerequisite for an unbiased point of view of the world!
i'm now 23 years old & lived damn well without any believe & faith!

edit:
why is that site even entitled "evolution-facts.org"?
why not "creation-facts.org"?
are they trying to lure people into something?
highly suspicious to me!

[yappydog]

...Shouldn't someone re-name this thread? This is getting a little daft...

[AndrewTaylor]

Flipping through that website and your posts I've noticed a repeated fallacy which to my knowledge has no name (but probably does somewhere):

"The oldest desert is 4000 years old, therefore the Earth is 4000 years old"
"There are stars 1,000,000 years old, therefore (we imply) the universe is 1,000,000 years old"
(My example: My website if four days old. Therefore I am four days old.)

As well as the old standbys, Proof By Lack Of Evidence:

"There's no evidence to suggest that the Earth is more than 6,000 years old, therefore God made it in 4000BC and every word of the Bible is true".
"We don't know how comets form. Therefore they don't."
(My example: There is no evidence to suggest Paul.Power is human. Therefore he is a highly trained labradoodle.)

(Of course, the above can be combined for even greater effect:
"Saturn's rings are young. Therefore God made the entire universe, as is, some time in the recent past.")

and, Extrapolation Based On Nothing:

"The Sun is shrinking. Therefore it has always been shrinking, presumably at the same speed. Therefore it used to be enormous and engulf the Earth."
(My example: The pendulum thing earlier)

And now, my favourite quote:
If all four moons of Jupiter’s "Galilean moons" evolved
Hahaha. Evolving planets.

One of the things you learn in a physics education is that just because something appears to contravene the rules of the universe doesn't mean that it actually does. If you have a gyroscope I can prove this to you:

Take the gyroscope and tie a string to the base. Set the flywheel in motion. Hold the other end of the string so the gyroscope is hanging in the air, and position the gyroscope so its axis of rotation is horizontal. By rights and most people's quaintly naive view of the world it should, by rights, fall down. It doesn't. It rotates in the horizontal plane so that the axis of rotation rotates about the string. That is non-intuitive and extremely puzzling, but if you go back and reexamine the equations you can prove rigirously that this is exactly what should be happening. (You can get an even better effect if you come to the physics labs at Leeds; we have a turntable you can stand on and a bicycle wheel you can hold out in front of you so it will spin you around.) This sort of thing happens all the time in science; someone goes back and corrects a mistake someone made, or changes the assumptions slightly, or uses more modern mathematics, and suddenly the predictions change from the wrong answer to the right answer. The point is that just because something is odd and unexpected doesn't always mean that it disproves anything. It might mean that we just haven't studied it closely enough.

Edit: I may have to do an entry on my website about this site. There's some fantastically silly quotes and it would take too long to list them all here. At one point it uses the phrase, I swear it says this: "Regardless of what the evolutionists may claim, Creation is not a theory; it is a proven scientific fact.". That one sentence instantly dispels any pretence it has to be a non-biased, even handed, or in any way reputable or trustworthy source. I find it hard to believe that somebody can write such a website without seeing that they're wrong.

[Paul.Power]

Extrapolation is the same thing often used by Evolutionist, they say sediment builds at this X rate so the layers Y deep must be Z years old.What actual proof do you have that evolutionists don't use more refined techniques? (We have plenty of proof already that creationists clearly don't) Have you ever read a serious, peer-reviewed scientific document where such basic techniques are used?

Regarding "why aren't there any deserts covering the whole world", well duh. Climates change: yesterday's deserts can become tomorrow's grassland's; yesterdays grasslands, tomorrow's deserts (obviously, before you pull me up on this, I'm using "yesterday" and "tomorrow" figuratively).

Evolution does not fit that description. Creation does not fit that description. Neither can be conclusively proven, as neither can be recreated.Okay, I'll give you an example of "repeatable evidence" in evolution. Convergent species. Species from completely different branches of the evolutionary tree, ending up in similar habitats, and developing similar behaviour patterns. Flight - birds, bats, insects, even fish. Streamlining - fish, mammals (whales and dolphins). Rapid escape from predators, rapid chasing of pray. Arms races as predator and prey get more and more efficient at their jobs. Evolutionary explosions in sexual selection. Too much to list here. Read The Blind Watchmaker, dammit, Dawkins explains it a lot better than I do.

That site contains many qoutes from Evolutionist scientists, if that's the only kind of "science" you accept.So... that'll be taking quotes out of context, distorting what people say, and (oh yes, those brass studs) the advice of transformed cladists. Flippin' heck, if you take what they say as part of the scientific orthodoxy, then you're having a laugh.

[wormsfan77]

Oh.... Is this a Demo-thread or a scientific-biologic-physics-and-other Thread? :mad:

[pilot62]

Duh. :p

[Horigan]

I could answer you're arguments, easier than I'm guessing you realize, but if I do that you'll come with more and more and more and... there will be no end to this. Therefore in an interest to preserve everyone sanity, I'll just say this: Neither can be proved, I've been saying that. But which is more probable? Step back a moment, does this universe show evidence of order? If you now anything about physics you will HAVE to say yes. Without order, there would be no way to tell what the acceleraition of an object in Earth's atmosphere is, just as an example. All scientific laws testify to order. Is their design? Yes, life is highly complex and I don't think a truly unbiased person would think for a second that it came by it's own regardless of the Earth's age. If you don't beleive in God, I think you are either blind, or willingly ignorant. Mind you ignorance can be corrected, and I hope your's will be one day. But I've stated my position, and have defended it. But my time is better spent on those who want to hear, rather than trying to convince those who have made up their minds. No love lost guys, and I hope we can carry on as normal in the rest of the forum. I've made my position asx clear as I know how, and I stand by my beleifs, but I see no point in continuing this debate. You've defended your position well, but I still beleive you are mistaken. See ya around guys, but I'm leaving this fight, not defeated, but in the interest of preserving peace and sanity.

I know you'll say I'm out of arguments, but I'm not. I just don't want a never-ending cycle to start. Neither has won, neither has lost, but I'm leaving as gracefully as I know how.

[Paul.Power]

Yes, life is highly complex and I don't think a truly unbiased person would think for a second that it came by it's own regardless of the Earth's age. If you don't beleive in God, I think you are either blind, or willingly ignorant.Everyone loves the Argument from Personal Incredulity... :rolleyes:. If you ask me, I don't think a truly unbiased person would take up your point of view that the Earth was created 6000 years ago, either. But there we are.

[FutureWorm]

Without order, there would be no way to tell what the acceleraition of an object in Earth's atmosphere is, just as an example. All scientific laws testify to order.
Unfortunately, Chaos Theory is always there to throw a wrench in the machine.
If you don't beleive in God, I think you are either blind, or willingly ignorant.
No, there is plenty of logic to the contrary, which has cropped up in this thread.
I see no point in continuing this debate. You've defended your position well, but I still beleive you are mistaken. See ya around guys, but I'm leaving this fight, not defeated, but in the interest of preserving peace and sanity. I know you'll say I'm out of arguments, but I'm not. I just don't want a never-ending cycle to start. Neither has won, neither has lost, but I'm leaving as gracefully as I know how.
In giving up, you forfeit. To forfeit is to lose. Therefore, you lose.

[MtlAngelus]

If you don't beleive in God, I think you are either blind, or willingly ignorant..
There is more evidence to proove the evolution than to proove the existance of god.
Also, you say that the way life is designed should be enough to proove the existance of god, but it would just evidence that we were designed. You can't say who did it tough, it could just as well have been done by aliens.

People believe in god because they need to believe in him, or because they've been taught that way.

[philby4000]

If you don't beleive in God, I think you are either blind, or willingly ignorant.
Calling us ingnorant won't win your argument.

While the theory of evolution has it's flaws it at least holds some water, creationism is based on blind faith.

Faith is just an excuse to ignore reason.

If unbiased people would chose to beleive in creationism based on the "evidence" you've provided why do the majority of people beleive in evolution?

Considering that Evolution is the newer theory, surely the evidence must have changed a lot of people's opinions away from creationism. People who where certainly biased towards creationism in a far more religious age chose to beleive in the theory of evolution.

I can see how arguing your points could make you insane.

[AndrewTaylor]

Is their design? Yes
That's rather begging the question.

[Run]

Whoever moved this thread to OD forgot to say "Yoink"

[OldSkoolCrazy]

Yoink.






:p

[AndrewTaylor]

Whoever moved this thread to OD forgot to say "Yoink"
I'm slightly more concerned that he left a redirect. I don't know what happens if it's a redirect to a forum nobody else can see...

[SupSuper]

I'm slightly more concerned that he left a redirect. I don't know what happens if it's a redirect to a forum nobody else can see...you get the typical "You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page." message.

to add to the concern, the edited title is visible. so ppl will ponder where was it moved to, since they won't find the thread anywhere else.

[AndrewTaylor]

I'll kill the redirect just incase.

If it turns out it should be there, I suppose someone can move it back and back again.

[K^2]

But now Horigan can't see this thread, which completely ruins the discussion.

[MtlAngelus]

I say you edit his arguments to l33t sp33k and move it back :rolleyes:

"L0Lz D4 3v01u710N 43R WR4uN6!!!11!11!1"
Or not.

[AndrewTaylor]

Yes, that would look great, with last edited by AndrewTaylor plastered across them.

[PinkWorm]

by the way, this thread was moved to open discussion while you noobies weren't looking and we added a ton of stuff.

and now andrew taylor will have to edit my post.

[FutureWorm]

[will be deleted]A better way to put it would be as follows:[/will be deleted]
This is a good example of Run's concept...

[MtlAngelus]

Yes, that would look great, with last edited by AndrewTaylor plastered across them.
Would still be funny :p

You mods should be able to edit stuff without it telling you edited it.

[AndrewTaylor]

Would still be funny :p

You mods should be able to edit stuff without it telling you edited it.
Oddly enough I spent a good while hacking phpbb to remove that exact same feature yesterday.

From Sel's point of view it's a useful tag to have when you have user mods.

[K^2]

Oddly enough I spent a good while hacking phpbb to remove that exact same feature yesterday.
Remind me to be carefull of what I write and what I don't write on your boards.

[AndrewTaylor]

Remind me to be carefull of what I write and what I don't write on your boards.
Well I just didn't want the Anarchy Board to let people edit each other's posts without leaving a tag. The old way someone could have put anything on my forum and I'd have been powerless to work out who and ban them or alert whichever authorities were appropriate.

Besides, you're not even registered on the new boards yet...

[K^2]

Good point. *Puts a note to self to register on the new forum.*

[Paul.Power]

Y'know what's funny? I went into town today and bought The Science of Discworld III: Darwin's Watch. What I've read so far has pretty much been along the same lines as what we've all been debating about here.

[FutureWorm]

jesus created the universe in seven literal 24-hour days. the same amount of time it takes the earth to spin on its axis in a complete rotation times 7. deal w/ it.

[CyberShadow]

jesus created the universe
That was his dad. (or did I miss an obscure joke?)

Why are you bumping 6-week-old threads?

[GrimOswald]

Why are you bumping 6-week-old threads?

It was 2005 six weeks ago??? DAMN IT you guys always leave me out of the loop. :mad:

[bonz]

Why are you bumping 6-week-old threads?
Because we are stuck in a 4 year time loop and time continues in May 2005 now.

So, CyberShadow, when will beta update 3.6.25.1b get released?
Wait... Will you have had been gotten recruited by Deadcode yet?

[CyberShadow]

Sorry, I'm busy hacking a Gunbound copy-pasta, getting banned from it and writing a drama story about it (http://thecybershadow.net/zollaz/).

[Alien King]

jesus created the universe in seven literal 24-hour days. the same amount of time it takes the earth to spin on its axis in a complete rotation times 7. deal w/ it.

I would like to thank you for bumping this thread. I never actually read any of Horigan's posts when he was around.
Kind of reminds of this guy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind), who he mentioned once or twice.

And does CyberShadow actually exist on these forums yet?

[MtlAngelus]

Sorry, I'm busy hacking a Gunbound copy-pasta, getting banned from it and writing a drama story about it (http://thecybershadow.net/zollaz/).
I just read all that. :(

[SupSuper]

Sorry, I'm busy hacking a Gunbound copy-pasta, getting banned from it and writing a drama story about it (http://thecybershadow.net/zollaz/).Geez louise son.

[CyberShadow]

Geez louise son.
I have no regrets. It was fun times and I learned a lot :p

[MrBunsy]

0.o I remember coming across that and a few years ago and reading through it! I had no idea it was you, and can't remember how on earth I came across it.

[CyberShadow]

I posted a link to it on this forum (not OD) a few years ago. Of course by then I was a nobody so it's no surprise that you didn't remember :)

[worMatty]

Moving this thread reminds me of when in Torchwood someone dies and they 'box' their life by moving it in to a garage for easy reference. Everything you owned is removed from the world and locked away in storage.

R.I.P. Muzer.