Can the charts keep up?

[skipmac]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Oh my.

All I can say is that it seems illogical to challenge the "religion" of science with the religion of religion.

Science isn't a religion; it's a system.

And the two are not incompatible.

[skipmac]

Originally Posted by Benz

This is unfair: I did respond, to say that I didn't know what caused the magnetic anomalies, and that it's OK not to know some things.

But since you insist on the citation of published sources, I will tell you that it is impossible for ANYTHING to have happened Choose-your-favorite-amount-of-millions of years ago, because the universe is not more than 10,000 years old.

This has been published in the Book of Genesis, by Moses, who's genealogy gives a timeline for the age of the universe. Discount it if you like, but it's published data that has been widely accepted (peer reviewed), and has at least, at the very least, as much validity as the guesses of scientists postulating unrepeatable events.

I will say it again: I have no problem with legitimate science: the science that learns by repeatable experiment. But the science that guesses at the age of fossils by their location in the sediment column, then turns around and judges the age of the sediment column by the fossils found in it, is completely specious. And it is this sort of science, this fallacy of uniformitarianism that nevertheless credits all sorts of violations of the laws of thermodynamics to explain the origin of the universe that I object to.

No doubt you'll find some cause to doubt my citation, but it is published material, and it is the only explanation of origins and Universal age that's not full of gaping holes.

I did not see a response to my question directed to me, perhaps I missed it or it was in another post. Regardless sorry if I missed your answer.

And I'm told quite positively by some friends that the universe is only 6,000 years old so seems like you may have some lack of agreement on that point. Regarding peer reviewed, one has to look at the credentials and bias of the peers. Since this doesn't relate to boating I'll not address it further online.

[AKA-None]

Hmmm as an admittedly poor amateur astronomer I have doubts as to a universe only 10,000 light years in size

[Jim Cate]

But since you insist on the citation of published sources, I will tell you that it is impossible for ANYTHING to have happened Choose-your-favorite-amount-of-millions of years ago, because the universe is not more than 10,000 years old.

This has been published in the Book of Genesis, by Moses, who's genealogy gives a timeline for the age of the universe. Discount it if you like, but it's published data that has been widely accepted (peer reviewed), and has at least, at the very least, as much validity as the guesses of scientists postulating unrepeatable events.

Ahhh... now I understand where you are coming from, Benz.

With this mind set, it is not possible for me to have a meaningful conversation with you on subjects such as science. I must regretfully withdraw from the discussion.

Jim

[Don C L]

Originally Posted by Benz

With apologies to all parties who took offense; I'd forgotten how insecure people get when the religion they call Science is questioned. It's ironic that there's another thread going on right now about pole reversal where published work is being absolutely derided, and no one is over there moaning about being beyond insulted, and another really long thread about the prevalence of fraud in the scientific community, but it's my small question here that's made everyone eat sour grapes.
I have explained several times that my statement was not meant as a personal affront to any one member, but now several of you have insisted on getting your panties in a bunch. If you all can't put on your big boy pants and learn how to be disagreed with without coming all to pieces, this forum will become nothing more than a chorus of agreement. Which is perhaps what you all want. Good luck with it.

Let me get this straight, you insult us and then it turns out this whole thing has been about your belief that a literal interpretation of Genesis is the final word? I don't think God ever required me to abandon my ability for rational thought in order to prove my allegiance.

[boatpoker]

Who wrote Genesis ? I'd like to question him.

[AKA-None]

You can’t because no one alive has seen that individual for some time. So I guess you can’t prove they existed or that what they wrote is true.
If you didn’t see it happen then it’s only a guess.

[skipmac]

Originally Posted by Don C L

Let me get this straight, you insult us and then it turns out this whole thing has been about your belief that a literal interpretation of Genesis is the final word? I don't think God ever required me to abandon my ability for rational thought in order to prove my allegiance.

[Jim Cate]

[QUOTE]but it's published data that has been widely accepted (peer reviewed)[/QUOTEI

I lied! Back in briefly:

You seem to not understand what a "peer" is in the review process. Doesn't mean lots of likes on Facebook, nor the acceptance of the unwashed multitude... it means review by persons of similar training and expertise, ones who are accepted in the community of folks engaged in similar works.

So, who are these peers who reviewed Moses's writings? Can we question them as to their proficiency in writing commandments or parting waters? See their published work?

These are the sorts of questions that peer review panels must answer. From some experience, this makes many of them kinda cranky and they take it out on the work being reviewed... it's no whitewash job with arguments like "it is so because God told me and I'm just passing it on down the line".

So, your peer reviewed time line is less than convincing to me, and to many. I accept that you believe it, but as a refutation of modern science it is sadly inadequate.

Jim

[Benz]

Originally Posted by Don C L

Let me get this straight, you insult us and then it turns out this whole thing has been about your belief that a literal interpretation of Genesis is the final word? I don't think God ever required me to abandon my ability for rational thought in order to prove my allegiance.

No, this whole thing has been about why the poles are not going to reverse. I'm not afraid of the poles reversing because the data they are misreading to say that the poles reversed millions of years ago cannot mean what they think it means, because the earth is not more than 10,000 years old. It's simple logic.
When you get insulted, you also are misreading the data. I'm not out bend people out of shape, and if I respond derisively at times, surely it is with due provocation, and with great restraint.

[Don C L]

The need for great restraint; now that is something we can both agree on.

[boatpoker]

Originally Posted by Benz

because the earth is not more than 10,000 years old. It's simple logic.

You guys are deluding yourselves if you think you can get past this mindset.
Game, set, match

it's been interesting.

[Benz]

Originally Posted by boatpoker

Who wrote Genesis ? I'd like to question him.

Moses wrote it, but he's dead. There's plenty of written record to confirm his authorship, though.

[Benz]

[QUOTE=Jim Cate;2804328]

but it's published data that has been widely accepted (peer reviewed)[/QUOTEI

I lied! Back in briefly:

You seem to not understand what a "peer" is in the review process. Doesn't mean lots of likes on Facebook, nor the acceptance of the unwashed multitude... it means review by persons of similar training and expertise, ones who are accepted in the community of folks engaged in similar works.

So, who are these peers who reviewed Moses's writings? Can we question them as to their proficiency in writing commandments or parting waters? See their published work?

These are the sorts of questions that peer review panels must answer. From some experience, this makes many of them kinda cranky and they take it out on the work being reviewed... it's no whitewash job with arguments like "it is so because God told me and I'm just passing it on down the line".

So, your peer reviewed time line is less than convincing to me, and to many. I accept that you believe it, but as a refutation of modern science it is sadly inadequate.

Jim

Moses' peers were not primarily water-parters nor commandment-writers: they were the Hebrew prophets who followed after: Samuel, David, Solomon, Isaiah, etc., and confirmed what he wrote. I know there's no hope of convincing you all with logic; I'm pointing out that there exists written testimony from multiple sources, just like science seems to demand, and none of it requires the wild card of reaching further and further back into the mists of imaginary time.
Again, not with any hope of convincing you, but just demonstrating that your theories are not qualitatively better than mine, just arrived at from a different starting point.

[Benz]

Originally Posted by AKA-None

You can’t because no one alive has seen that individual for some time. So I guess you can’t prove they existed or that what they wrote is true.
If you didn’t see it happen then it’s only a guess.

But there's a written record, and archeological evidence. I don't personally need to see something happen to believe it--enough that someone saw it and credibly recorded it. The point for this thread is that no human has testified to experiencing a pole reversal, so to assert that for sure it happened in some imaginary past is absurd.
But if you only believe the things you see for yourself, I sure admire your chutzpah!