Google Ads

Google Ads

Bible Wheel Book

Google Ads

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 5 of 5
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,564

    The Moon - New Dating

    https://uk.news.yahoo.com/scientists...0.html#gM6gxJy
    ITN 1:01
    The Moon was formed about 95 million years after the birth of our Solar System, in a collision that also settled the structure of Earth as we know it, according to the latest attempt at dating that impact.
    A study in the journal Nature said the crash between an early, proto-Earth and a Mars-sized object that dislodged what would become the Moon, happened some 4.470 billion years ago -- give or take 32 million years.
    Apart from creating our satellite, the event is also believed to have marked the final phase of Earth's core formation from molten metals sinking to the centre from a superhot surface.

    Previous estimates had ranged from an "early" impact about 30 million years after the start of the Solar System, to a later one as much as 200 million years after.

    The Solar System itself is known to be 4.567 billion years old thanks to accurate dating of some components of meteorites -- the oldest materials to be found on our planet.
    Earth is believed to have formed at some time during the first 150 million years.

    Many earlier age estimates had been based on measuring the rate of radioactive decay of atomic nuclei found in rocks.
    For the new study published in the journal Nature, a team of planetary scientists from France, Germany and the United States created a computer model of how dust and rock accumulated in the early Solar System to form tiny planets called planetesimals.

    These grew into "planetary embryos" that ended up as the rocky planets we know today -- Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars -- through a succession of giant impacts, according to the new model.
    Each massive collision allowed the planets to "accrete" or accumulate matter. In Earth's case, the lunar impact would have marked its final major growth event.

    The team also looked at the chemical composition of the Earth's mantle to trace the amount of material the planet accumulated after the impact -- only about 0.5 percent of its total mass.
    If the impact had happened early in the Solar System's history, there would still have been many free-floating planetesimals for the Earth to sweep up, and if it was later, fewer.
    The evidence suggested Earth took 95 million years to form, "which confirms it as the planet in our Solar System that took the longest to form," study co-author Alessandro Morbidelli told AFP by email.
    Creating computer models to support their beliefs seems like rigging the evidence. "is believed" is on a par with those that believe God Created the Universe. Evolution is as just as much as a religion as those that believe in Creation.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Creating computer models to support their beliefs seems like rigging the evidence. "is believed" is on a par with those that believe God Created the Universe. Evolution is as just as much as a religion as those that believe in Creation.
    Computer models are not created to "support" any beliefs. On the contrary, they are created to TEST the predictions of the theory. If the output from the computer model observable evidence then it does not support the "beliefs."

    And your highlighting of the word "belief" is utterly absurd. In a scientific context, the word "belief" does not have the same meaning as when used in a religious context. In science, "belief" means "opinion based on evidence" whereas in a religious context it means "accepting statements from a religious text without evidence." In other words, religious "belief" is the opposite of scientific "belief."

    Nothing could be more absurd than to assert that science based on logic and demonstrable facts is like religion which is based on blind belief that not only lacks evidence, but is often contrary to the evidence.
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Computer models are not created to "support" any beliefs. On the contrary, they are created to TEST the predictions of the theory. If the output from the computer model observable evidence then it does not support the "beliefs."
    I understand how models can be used to represent things we cannot see or might not be exactly as the model in practice.

    Modelling by computer programs to derive dates, is not science. Dating millions or billions of years ago, scientists are either making assumptions, or best guessing based on the flimsy evidence they have.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    And your highlighting of the word "belief" is utterly absurd. In a scientific context, the word "belief" does not have the same meaning as when used in a religious context. In science, "belief" means "opinion based on evidence" whereas in a religious context it means "accepting statements from a religious text without evidence." In other words, religious "belief" is the opposite of scientific "belief."
    When are you going to stop using the word "absurd". I know you think everything I say is absurd, so you need not say it.
    My beliefs are based on evidence. I know it is not evidence you accept. You should give me the same latitude as you expect me to accept from you. I do not accept as evidence things claimed by science, that are not proven. The theory of Evolution I should refer to as a hypothesis. The fact that it is the establishment that want to brainwash us into accepting it as theory is not working on me.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Nothing could be more absurd than to assert that science based on logic and demonstrable facts is like religion which is based on blind belief that not only lacks evidence, but is often contrary to the evidence.
    I do not have blind belief. As I have said, I have evidence that you do not accept. You think I should accept as fact evidence of things not proved by science. You make your false assertions as much as you accuse everyone else of doing the same. I am so turned off by hearing the same old unfounded comments from you.

    Stick to the facts instead of unfounded accusations.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    I understand how models can be used to represent things we cannot see or might not be exactly as the model in practice.

    Modelling by computer programs to derive dates, is not science. Dating millions or billions of years ago, scientists are either making assumptions, or best guessing based on the flimsy evidence they have.
    Wrong again. We use computer models to compute the dates of all the eclipses over the span of thousands of years. The computer models are extremely trustworthy because they are based on established science.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    When are you going to stop using the word "absurd".
    When you stop asserting absurdities. If your beliefs were based on facts, I would admit them instantly.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    My beliefs are based on evidence. I know it is not evidence you accept. You should give me the same latitude as you expect me to accept from you. I do not accept as evidence things claimed by science, that are not proven. The theory of Evolution I should refer to as a hypothesis. The fact that it is the establishment that want to brainwash us into accepting it as theory is not working on me.
    I give you plenty of "latitude." I don't expect you to simply "accept" evidence on anyone's authority. Indeed, I see that as the root cause of all the delusion in religion. The problem though is that you reject evidence when you are totally ignorant of the evidence. As far as I know, you have never read a SINGLE BOOK that explains the evidence for evolution. Not one. That means that you are like an ignorant hill billy who can't add 1 + 2 thinking to refute calculus! It's ABSURD. That's why I use that word - it describes the reality. If you choose to be ignorant of science, fine. Just don't go around asserting that you have "evidence" it is false when the truth is that you are utterly ignorant of the actual evidence and the reason that it is considered to be one of the most well established scientific theories in existence.

    I accept all evidence that can be demonstrated to be true. That's the nature of evidence. You have nothing like any "demonstrable evidence" for your claims. If you did, you would be the most famous person on the planet because Christians have been looking for evidence to prove the Bible for centuries. If you had any evidence, you would not have quit the conversation when I asked for it. Take a look at my article Two Thousand Reasons Reasons to Believe Dr. Hugh Ross Might Not Be Entirely Credible if you want to see how ridiculous are the Christian claims concerning fulfilled prophecy. He claimed that about 2000 prophecies have been fulfilled perfectly, to the letter with no errors, but then when he listed the top thirteen best examples, they were all false. It was absurd. Utterly absurd. (Why do I use that word so much? Because people make so many ridiculous assertions and refuse to deal with the evidence.)

    Your assertion that the theory of evolution should be called a "hypothesis" indicates once again that you have no idea what you are talking about. Do you know anything about the science? Have you read a single book explaining the evidence? If not, then you are IGNORANT of the science and it would be ABSURD for you to think that you can say anything about it at all.

    Countless Christians accept the evidence for evolution as rock solid, just like other broadly accepted scientific theoreis. Even the Catholic Church - which famously opposes science (e.g. Galileo) - accepts it as a scientific fact. You need to join us here in the 21st century.

    It is particularly ironic that you speak of "brainwashing" since that is what religions have been doing to children for centuries. It is SCIENCE that breaks the spell and frees the mind to see reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    I do not have blind belief. As I have said, I have evidence that you do not accept. You think I should accept as fact evidence of things not proved by science. You make your false assertions as much as you accuse everyone else of doing the same. I am so turned off by hearing the same old unfounded comments from you.

    Stick to the facts instead of unfounded accusations.
    It would be absolutely wonderful if you were to "stick to the facts" rather than the Biblical assertions that can not be proven.

    Your assertion that I am making "false assertions" is absurd. I base my assertions on demonstrable facts and logic. And unlike you, I will actually ANSWER every bit of evidence anyone presents to me. That's the difference between you and me. I do not run and hide and ignore evidence and then LIE about having answered when in fact you never did. You have been doing this for two solid years on this forum. I wish we could have rational conversations but you refuse. When I present the evidence, you ignore it and then when I present it again, you falsely assert that you already answered! It is insane David. It is ABSURD.
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Wrong again. We use computer models to compute the dates of all the eclipses over the span of thousands of years. The computer models are extremely trustworthy because they are based on established science.
    I am not doubting all models; computer models or physical models, do give us a good way of picturing things we cannot see or know precisely. The physical models of atoms forming molecules works very well, even though the model of the atom might not be as simple as we show it.

    Computer results are only as good as the computer program and the reliability of the information put in the program.


    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    When you stop asserting absurdities. If your beliefs were based on facts, I would admit them instantly.
    Not all your scientific beliefs are based on facts. So you can stop spouting things that I consider are absurdities from you until you come up with the facts that cannot be disputed.


    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    I give you plenty of "latitude." I don't expect you to simply "accept" evidence on anyone's authority. Indeed, I see that as the root cause of all the delusion in religion. The problem though is that you reject evidence when you are totally ignorant of the evidence. As far as I know, you have never read a SINGLE BOOK that explains the evidence for evolution. Not one. That means that you are like an ignorant hill billy who can't add 1 + 2 thinking to refute calculus! It's ABSURD. That's why I use that word - it describes the reality. If you choose to be ignorant of science, fine. Just don't go around asserting that you have "evidence" it is false when the truth is that you are utterly ignorant of the actual evidence and the reason that it is considered to be one of the most well established scientific theories in existence.
    I might not have read the specific books you mention, but I am hearing the evidence as it gets presented elsewhere. You have read the Bible and now you do not believe it. Why should you think that reading a book on Evolution Theory is going to make me believe it?

    Is there one single argument that will resolve whether God exists or not? If there is a single argument to support God's existence, then we can accept God is the designer and creator of the Universe. We are on opposite sides of the fence and I reckon that is where we will stay.


    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    I accept all evidence that can be demonstrated to be true. That's the nature of evidence. You have nothing like any "demonstrable evidence" for your claims. If you did, you would be the most famous person on the planet because Christians have been looking for evidence to prove the Bible for centuries. If you had any evidence, you would not have quit the conversation when I asked for it. Take a look at my article Two Thousand Reasons Reasons to Believe Dr. Hugh Ross Might Not Be Entirely Credible if you want to see how ridiculous are the Christian claims concerning fulfilled prophecy. He claimed that about 2000 prophecies have been fulfilled perfectly, to the letter with no errors, but then when he listed the top thirteen best examples, they were all false. It was absurd. Utterly absurd. (Why do I use that word so much? Because people make so many ridiculous assertions and refuse to deal with the evidence.)
    I do not follow all the claims made by Hugh Ross. I am not interested in what Hugh Ross has to say, when there are others I can cite.

    I do not find anyone that understands when every prophecy fulfillment will occur. That does not say that prophecy that is still future, is not true. There is only one original word of God. The fact that the word has been corrupted by additions, subtractions, mistranslations does not alter that fact that God has given his word and we have to understand it. We have too many arguments to settle and I guess we will not settle one. Until we have the same objective to understand the word or God and consider all interpretations until all the evidence is in and been considered, we are just going to keep arguing the same points.

    The only thing we can do is examine the evidence in science and in the word of God afresh and forget people like Hugh Ross. I could find some scientist to criticize and that is not reason to doubt all scientists. We both know there is good and bad people in all walks of life.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Your assertion that the theory of evolution should be called a "hypothesis" indicates once again that you have no idea what you are talking about. Do you know anything about the science? Have you read a single book explaining the evidence? If not, then you are IGNORANT of the science and it would be ABSURD for you to think that you can say anything about it at all.
    What if I know a man who has done what you say and I follow his arguments? Why should I waste my time doing the same and coming to the same conclusion?

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Countless Christians accept the evidence for evolution as rock solid, just like other broadly accepted scientific theoreis. Even the Catholic Church - which famously opposes science (e.g. Galileo) - accepts it as a scientific fact. You need to join us here in the 21st century.
    That says it all. You accepted the Trinity, you give the example of the Pope and that says a lot. The "many" Christians you are referring to could be the same "many" that are on the broad road that leads to destruction. When are you going to answer the question and give the criteria by which "few will be saved"?

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    It is particularly ironic that you speak of "brainwashing" since that is what religions have been doing to children for centuries. It is SCIENCE that breaks the spell and frees the mind to see reality.
    True science, I agree, but we have rogue science that has to rejected.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    It would be absolutely wonderful if you were to "stick to the facts" rather than the Biblical assertions that can not be proven.
    It would also be wonderful if you examined the fact that verses can be interpreted differently and that we both might be holding an interpretation that is not true. I am putting forward the alternative interpretations, yet you simply reject them before all the evidence is in. With only part evidence, we do not establish the truth.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Your assertion that I am making "false assertions" is absurd. I base my assertions on demonstrable facts and logic. And unlike you, I will actually ANSWER every bit of evidence anyone presents to me. That's the difference between you and me. I do not run and hide and ignore evidence and then LIE about having answered when in fact you never did. You have been doing this for two solid years on this forum. I wish we could have rational conversations but you refuse. When I present the evidence, you ignore it and then when I present it again, you falsely assert that you already answered! It is insane David. It is ABSURD.
    I have not done it "solidly". You are making your own false accusations.
    When you accused me of that and when I admitted that I might have missed some things and also I delayed before finally answering questions I genuinely think I have answered among the many post and threads I had replied to, it was then I bowed to your request and answered all the questions up to that point. You thanked me for doing so, therefore you should not keep saying I have not answered your questions. I know for a fact there are posts in which you have not answered all my questions. It is a sheer waste of my time searching out those posts and the questions to prove my point. It is a waste of your time trying to prove me wrong on that point also. Whenever there is a question mark and the question is directed at me, I am answering the question. I do not get all my questions answered, whether that is you or anyone else.
    Like politicians, we might be accused of the same. Politicians give their answer and say that they have answered, when to the person asking the question the answer is not what they expect or in the way they expect the question to be answered.

    Now I await to get your answers to the questions I have asked you in this post.
    Last edited by David M; 04-07-2014 at 04:58 AM.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •