Author Topic: Atheism/Agnosticism in the Philippines  (Read 84700 times)

0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline aHobbit

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • DVD Guru
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,256
  • Think HARDER - HOLLOW Heads! No FO0Ls Please!
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Atheism/Agnosticism in the Philippines
« Reply #120 on: Oct 16, 2009 at 12:34 PM »
 
For example, Einstein's theory of relativity is listed and referred to as a "theory" yet experiments and observations on it probably amount to millions of pages of documentation.


Einstein theory at least can be reproduced and be proven using REPRODUCIBLE small models so it can be an acceptable science thingie ... though not to its full extent ... evolution and big bang can not be proven even a bit ... because it is premised on the wrong ground ..


Btw, "HAKA-HAKA", translated into English means opinion and/or assumption.

exaggeration ko lang yon sir  ;D

« Last Edit: Oct 16, 2009 at 12:36 PM by aHobbit »
Anti PDVD Malware (STUP1Ds & F0OLs)

Offline allanmandy

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • PinoyDVD Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,497
  • Mathematical!
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Atheism/Agnosticism in the Philippines
« Reply #121 on: Oct 16, 2009 at 12:56 PM »
Einstein theory at least can be reproduced and be proven using REPRODUCIBLE small models so it can be an acceptable science thingie ... though not to its full extent ... evolution and big bang can not be proven even a bit ... because it is premised on the wrong ground ..

Just curious, on what "incorrect" grounds do you think are these theories based?


Offline aHobbit

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • DVD Guru
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,256
  • Think HARDER - HOLLOW Heads! No FO0Ls Please!
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Atheism/Agnosticism in the Philippines
« Reply #122 on: Oct 16, 2009 at 01:13 PM »
Just curious, on what "incorrect" grounds do you think are these theories based?



on BLACK MAGIC  ;)

I will not quote verbatim ...

But the start of the big bang theory is like this:

SUDDENLY THERE WAS A CELL!
- then blah blah blah evolved blah blah blah
CONCLUSION: We evolved from apes!  ;D

Science will require you to determine the source of the first cell ... since the intent of the big bang theory is to articulate the beginning & development of life.

My note: The big bang theory - as opposed to science - believed in magic. They assumed a cell SUDDENLY appeared from nowhere, from where all organism evolved from. This is not science ... more of a folklore to me.


Sir Isaac Newton also tried hard to convince his atheist colleagues by proving the flaw in Big Bang/Evolution.

He made a very beautiful model of solar system in his house. And when his colleagues saw it, they were all praised to it.
One of them ask Isaac: How did you do that?  ???  
Isaac said: I did not! It just appeared there!  ;D  
His colleagues replied: That's impossible!  :P  
Then Isaac delivered the punchline: So does your Big Bang/Evolution theory!  8)
« Last Edit: Oct 16, 2009 at 01:32 PM by aHobbit »
Anti PDVD Malware (STUP1Ds & F0OLs)

Offline sardaukar

  • Kagawad
  • Trade Count: (+12)
  • DVD Guru
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,776
  • Don't Panic!
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Atheism/Agnosticism in the Philippines
« Reply #123 on: Oct 16, 2009 at 01:50 PM »
In all these years that they touted, not a single organism is conclusively presented as missing link ... in fact evolution can not categorically says when did evolution stopped ... and if it did not stop, how come how come the missing link is nowhere to be found ... In fact it should abound by this time of ours!!!

Why should the missing link abound by this time? I don't know what you think the missing link is.


Einstein theory at least can be reproduced and be proven using REPRODUCIBLE small models so it can be an acceptable science thingie ... though not to its full extent ... evolution and big bang can not be proven even a bit ... because it is premised on the wrong ground ..


Not even a bit? If that were true it would have and should have been abandoned as a theory long ago. It hasn't been and there's a good reason for it.


Quote
Sori about this ... though I resented classifying big bang and evolution as science which they are not! ... If I make a hypothesis today (the first portion of scientific reasoning) - will I call it science if I can not still validate my hypothesis? even after so many years it has been debated?

It might help to define terms:

Scientific laws are similar to scientific theories in that they are principles that can be used to predict the behavior of the natural world. Both scientific laws and scientific theories are typically well-supported by observations and/or experimental evidence. Usually scientific laws refer to rules for how nature will behave under certain conditions. Scientific theories are more overarching explanations of how nature works and why it exhibits certain characteristics.

A common misconception is that scientific theories are rudimentary ideas that will eventually graduate into scientific laws when enough data and evidence has been accumulated. A theory does not change into a scientific law with the accumulation of new or better evidence. A theory will always remain a theory, a law will always remain a law.


Offline sardaukar

  • Kagawad
  • Trade Count: (+12)
  • DVD Guru
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,776
  • Don't Panic!
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Atheism/Agnosticism in the Philippines
« Reply #124 on: Oct 16, 2009 at 01:58 PM »
@aHobbit

Let's please differentiate and not lump things together. The big bang does not and has never claimed to explain the existence of life. It tries to explain the origin of the universe.

Now since you've talked at length about how evolution is a flight of fancy, may I ask you what I asked a previous member as well, how do you believe we (the human race) got here? Do you believe in the bible origin story of Adam and Eve?

Offline aHobbit

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • DVD Guru
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,256
  • Think HARDER - HOLLOW Heads! No FO0Ls Please!
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Atheism/Agnosticism in the Philippines
« Reply #125 on: Oct 16, 2009 at 02:21 PM »
Why should the missing link abound by this time? I don't know what you think the missing link is.

well ... if evolution is still continuing (or had it stopped?) ... you should have your half man and half ape thingie and so on ... excuse me, when is my wings coming to sprout?  ;D



Not even a bit? If that were true it would have and should have been abandoned as a theory long ago. It hasn't been and there's a good reason for it.


mismo ... can you show the archive of their missing links? ... what has been proven by theory that started from black magic? ... The fact is, Big Bang and Evolution is not part of science nor of philosophy ... it is more of a religion - that is - regardless of what the evidence will point out on the contrary - people will believe on it blindly.




It might help to define terms:

Scientific laws are similar to scientific theories in that they are principles that can be used to predict the behavior of the natural world. Both scientific laws and scientific theories are typically well-supported by observations and/or experimental evidence. Usually scientific laws refer to rules for how nature will behave under certain conditions. Scientific theories are more overarching explanations of how nature works and why it exhibits certain characteristics.

A common misconception is that scientific theories are rudimentary ideas that will eventually graduate into scientific laws when enough data and evidence has been accumulated. A theory does not change into a scientific law with the accumulation of new or better evidence. A theory will always remain a theory, a law will always remain a law.



Big Bang & Evolution did not observed anything - they just assumed thing. It can not show nor predict the behavior of the natural world - they are not even considered scientific laws! Which observation and experimental evidences proved their theories?

You are just trying to lump theories as science. Semantics!

What is scientific about the Big Bang magic? What is scientific in theories not reproducible? It started with a magic, discusses at length assumptions, and made conclusions! Even with quantifiable evidences (which do not exists), those theories can not be regarded as scientific? It even failed philosophically to warrant it as a good religion!



Lastly, a theory proven ceases to be a theory! A hypothesis proven ceases to be a hypothesis!
« Last Edit: Oct 16, 2009 at 02:36 PM by aHobbit »
Anti PDVD Malware (STUP1Ds & F0OLs)

Offline allanmandy

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • PinoyDVD Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,497
  • Mathematical!
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Atheism/Agnosticism in the Philippines
« Reply #126 on: Oct 16, 2009 at 02:50 PM »
Sir Isaac Newton also tried hard to convince his atheist colleagues by proving the flaw in Big Bang/Evolution.

He made a very beautiful model of solar system in his house. And when his colleagues saw it, they were all praised to it.
One of them ask Isaac: How did you do that?  ???  
Isaac said: I did not! It just appeared there!  ;D  
His colleagues replied: That's impossible!  :P  
Then Isaac delivered the punchline: So does your Big Bang/Evolution theory!  8)


Umm, is this even a true story? Because if history serves me right, Isaac Newton predated the formulation of those theories.


Offline tigkal

  • Trade Count: (+15)
  • Collector
  • **
  • Posts: 373
  • 9 going 10
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 24
Re: Atheism/Agnosticism in the Philippines
« Reply #127 on: Oct 16, 2009 at 03:51 PM »
Evolution kicks in because of necessity. And there is a master gene which decides which can evolve or not. And if ever we evolve and not allowed as per master gene, then it will stop on the next generation. That is why we see people with 11 fingers, but does not go on to the next generation.

Regarding things to just appear, di ba same din with a God Creator, it just appears?

Offline aHobbit

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • DVD Guru
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,256
  • Think HARDER - HOLLOW Heads! No FO0Ls Please!
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Atheism/Agnosticism in the Philippines
« Reply #128 on: Oct 16, 2009 at 04:21 PM »

Umm, is this even a true story? Because if history serves me right, Isaac Newton predated the formulation of those theories.



I don't know ... I also read that in my documents  :) ... but I think it is irrelevant because one can see the flaw of the reasoning


Evolution kicks in because of necessity. And there is a master gene which decides which can evolve or not. And if ever we evolve and not allowed as per master gene, then it will stop on the next generation. That is why we see people with 11 fingers, but does not go on to the next generation.

Regarding things to just appear, di ba same din with a God Creator, it just appears?

if we evolve ... evolution tells you everything evolve (living things) ... then not only us should have those missing links - half frog half crocodile thingie  :D ... and they should be around us if it is still continuing ... unless evolution will again assume we all started to evolve at the same time , and then stop evolving at the same time  ;D ... sounds more like creation to me ...

as to that 11th finger, I think that is not evolution  ;)


As to the magic in case of the creator, as JT posted it, this living organism in our world was caused by an eternal "something" ... and the creation reasoning stops at that ... while the evolutionist stop short at recognizing the source of that single cell (if ever it existed) ...

For other people to justify their evolution belief, they tried to make a hybrid - creation is the first step while evolution is the process - but still will not acknowledge the eternal source of that created cell! ... at least they acknowledge, creation took place!  :D ... now if creation took place, why should it just start with a single cell?  ???
« Last Edit: Oct 16, 2009 at 04:36 PM by aHobbit »
Anti PDVD Malware (STUP1Ds & F0OLs)

Offline dana

  • Trade Count: (+16)
  • DVD Addict
  • ***
  • Posts: 697
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 71
Re: Atheism/Agnosticism in the Philippines
« Reply #129 on: Oct 16, 2009 at 04:49 PM »
But the start of the big bang theory is like this:

SUDDENLY THERE WAS A CELL!
- then blah blah blah evolved blah blah blah
CONCLUSION: We evolved from apes!  ;D



If we evolved from apes, how come they are still around, including monkeys & gorillas?   ;D ;D ;D

Offline Clondalkin

  • Trade Count: (+46)
  • PinoyDVD Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,142
  • Tea the gift of life...
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Atheism/Agnosticism in the Philippines
« Reply #130 on: Oct 16, 2009 at 04:58 PM »
If we evolved from apes, how come they are still around, including monkeys & gorillas?   ;D ;D ;D

Y


Offline Clondalkin

  • Trade Count: (+46)
  • PinoyDVD Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,142
  • Tea the gift of life...
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Atheism/Agnosticism in the Philippines
« Reply #131 on: Oct 16, 2009 at 05:00 PM »
Richard Dawkins is open to the idea of Intelligent Design - basta hindi lang Godly creation - like seeding by ETs na mala Knowing - then those ETs were seeded by higher knowledge Extra ETs daw - then you just go on with the progression of Extra Extra Extra.


Offline Clondalkin

  • Trade Count: (+46)
  • PinoyDVD Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,142
  • Tea the gift of life...
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Atheism/Agnosticism in the Philippines
« Reply #132 on: Oct 16, 2009 at 05:07 PM »

if we evolve ... evolution tells you everything evolve (living things) ... then not only us should have those missing links - half frog half crocodile thingie  :D ... and they should be around us if it is still continuing ... unless evolution will again assume we all started to evolve at the same time , and then stop evolving at the same time  ;D ... sounds more like creation to me ...


Have you considered the concept of evolution with time? 

I forgot what I read/watched but I recall something like, if we are to plot the entire history of the universe on a clock, then the existence of men started from the last few minutes?    Someone help me out please.   :)

Offline allanmandy

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • PinoyDVD Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,497
  • Mathematical!
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Atheism/Agnosticism in the Philippines
« Reply #133 on: Oct 16, 2009 at 05:25 PM »
if we evolve ... evolution tells you everything evolve (living things) ... then not only us should have those missing links - half frog half crocodile thingie  :D ... and they should be around us if it is still continuing ... unless evolution will again assume we all started to evolve at the same time , and then stop evolving at the same time  ;D ... sounds more like creation to me ...

Evolution is a continuing process. If you fail to recognize this, take for example the mutations of viruses. We read from news how new strains of harmful viruses immune to viral suppressors arise. That's also evolution, in microscopic scale.


Offline allanmandy

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • PinoyDVD Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,497
  • Mathematical!
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Atheism/Agnosticism in the Philippines
« Reply #134 on: Oct 16, 2009 at 05:29 PM »
Have you considered the concept of evolution with time? 

I forgot what I read/watched but I recall something like, if we are to plot the entire history of the universe on a clock, then the existence of men started from the last few minutes?    Someone help me out please.   :)


This is true. If the geologic time scale (4.7 billion years) is compressed to the scale of one day, the birth of human civilization (10,000 years ago) would be represented by the last second before the stroke of midnight.


Offline barrister

  • Trade Count: (+7)
  • PinoyDVD Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,028
  • cessante ratione legis, cessat ipsa lex
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Atheism/Agnosticism in the Philippines
« Reply #135 on: Oct 16, 2009 at 05:36 PM »
The sheer complexity of the cell argues in favor of intelligent design rather than random chance.

Two-minute clip from Expelled documentary:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yibucli2drc

Believing that the cell's complexity can appear by chance is like believing that you can throw a box of scrabble tiles in the air, and when they land on the floor, the scrabble tiles will spell a volume of the Encyclopedia Britannica.  

That's the concept of Romans 1:19-20, which says:

19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:


« Last Edit: Oct 16, 2009 at 06:29 PM by barrister »

Offline sardaukar

  • Kagawad
  • Trade Count: (+12)
  • DVD Guru
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,776
  • Don't Panic!
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Atheism/Agnosticism in the Philippines
« Reply #136 on: Oct 16, 2009 at 06:04 PM »
well ... if evolution is still continuing (or had it stopped?) ... you should have your half man and half ape thingie and so on ... excuse me, when is my wings coming to sprout?  ;D

Your view on the theory of evolution is so grossly inaccurate that I'm not even sure where to begin.

Evolution happens all around us all the time. The time scales are just too long for us to see it happen.

Evolution happens only out of necessity. For survival. Fish were running out of food in the ocean so some of them evolved into animals that could survive on land where there was plenty of food. Predators got faster. Then prey got faster. Got stronger legs, and so on.

Yes you do have your "half-man half-ape" thing. They just don't exist anymore because they have died out. From australopithecus to homo, fossils have been found tracking the gradual changes that brought about modern man. Your wings will sprout when you have need of them. And it won't happen in your lifetime unfortunately. If it did, then that, believe it or not, is an argument against evolution!

Oh and to dana the apes are still here because it's fallacious to say we evolved from apes. Rather man and the apes share a common ancestor. That ancestor split into two and gave rise to apes and man.


Quote
Big Bang & Evolution did not observed anything - they just assumed thing. It can not show nor predict the behavior of the natural world - they are not even considered scientific laws! Which observation and experimental evidences proved their theories?

You are just trying to lump theories as science. Semantics!

What is scientific about the Big Bang magic? What is scientific in theories not reproducible? It started with a magic, discusses at length assumptions, and made conclusions! Even with quantifiable evidences (which do not exists), those theories can not be regarded as scientific? It even failed philosophically to warrant it as a good religion!

Lastly, a theory proven ceases to be a theory! A hypothesis proven ceases to be a hypothesis!

Theories as used by the scientific community is an integral part of science. They do not use this word the way we would use it as, say, "I have a theory on how this murder occurred." There are scientific laws, theories and hypotheses. A theory (in the context of a scientific community) is proven again and again through observable data and experiments otherwise it is abandoned.

I know I'm repeating myself here so that will be the last of that.

Evidence for Big Bang:

The universe, as observed through telescopes, is expanding. It is then logical to suppose that if we wind time backwards, the universe will start shrinking. Therefore there must have been some time in the past when all matter was contracted to a single point.

I would get into it more but there are too many facts, too many examples.



I find it really funny arguing religion and science and it's the advocate of religion calling science as magic. Isn't that my argument? :D

"Now since you've talked at length about how evolution is a flight of fancy, may I ask you what I asked a previous member as well, how do you believe we (the human race) got here? Do you believe in the bible origin story of Adam and Eve?"
« Last Edit: Oct 16, 2009 at 06:33 PM by sardaukar »

Offline aHobbit

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • DVD Guru
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,256
  • Think HARDER - HOLLOW Heads! No FO0Ls Please!
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Atheism/Agnosticism in the Philippines
« Reply #137 on: Oct 16, 2009 at 11:30 PM »
Have you considered the concept of evolution with time?  

I forgot what I read/watched but I recall something like, if we are to plot the entire history of the universe on a clock, then the existence of men started from the last few minutes?    Someone help me out please.   :)


I think his conclusion is merely based on the rock formation where the last image trace was that of man ... some scientist dates those rock starting from the top ... younger years .. to the bottom, older years ... but then ... contrary findings also showed the articulation of evidence is not consistent with different dating devices.


Evolution is a continuing process. If you fail to recognize this, take for example the mutations of viruses. We read from news how new strains of harmful viruses immune to viral suppressors arise. That's also evolution, in microscopic scale.



I think the right word there is not evolution ... but rather mutation ... it is like your body if you abuse antibiotic medicines ... sooner, that antibiotic will not have any impact on your body and the disease that is addressed by that medicine will not react to that medicine ...




This is true. If the geologic time scale (4.7 billion years) is compressed to the scale of one day, the birth of human civilization (10,000 years ago) would be represented by the last second before the stroke of midnight.



Yeah , I guess the geologic here means the sequence by which scientist dates some rock formation ... but 4.7 billion years is dependent on your dating device ... and again, nobody can really attest which one of the dating device is really accurate. I read each dating device have been tested and have not arrive at conclusive data when the specimen's origin is kept secret until the dating data is released.

I think if I remember right, the most baffling to the evolutionist is that when they saw human fossils side by side a creature believed to be million of years before man existed! How is that?
« Last Edit: Oct 17, 2009 at 12:04 AM by aHobbit »
Anti PDVD Malware (STUP1Ds & F0OLs)

Offline aHobbit

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • DVD Guru
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,256
  • Think HARDER - HOLLOW Heads! No FO0Ls Please!
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Atheism/Agnosticism in the Philippines
« Reply #138 on: Oct 16, 2009 at 11:57 PM »
Your view on the theory of evolution is so grossly inaccurate that I'm not even sure where to begin.

Evolution happens all around us all the time. The time scales are just too long for us to see it happen.

Evolution happens only out of necessity. For survival. Fish were running out of food in the ocean so some of them evolved into animals that could survive on land where there was plenty of food. Predators got faster. Then prey got faster. Got stronger legs, and so on.


I think you're the one who obscure the meaning of evolution ... evolution means a new specie is developing from a different specie ... example, an ape becoming a man  :) ... but what you are stating above is just adaptation ... in the same way, some alaskan people has to adapt with their environment and african has to adapt to theirs! It is like telling us that overtime, a crocodile place in a dessert will grow wings just to survive.



Yes you do have your "half-man half-ape" thing. They just don't exist anymore because they have died out. From australopithecus to homo, fossils have been found tracking the gradual changes that brought about modern man. Your wings will sprout when you have need of them. And it won't happen in your lifetime unfortunately. If it did, then that, believe it or not, is an argument against evolution!

Oh and to dana the apes are still here because it's fallacious to say we evolved from apes. Rather man and the apes share a common ancestor. That ancestor split into two and gave rise to apes and man.


The documented half man half ape fossils were found ... and again I say fossil ... and none living ... those are their missing links ... but think again, why are they all fossils? or probably the most logical explanation is that ... their fossils are also dubious ... will try to give you findings on this! and again I would reiterate, where are the rest of the missing links?

Now you are saying we have common ancestor as the apes - hmmn ... that is not science ... are we able to reproduce such assumption (theory) ... ah sorry ... they all died nga pala! ... is that difficult to understand?



Theories as used by the scientific community is an integral part of science. They do not use this word the way we would use it as, say, "I have a theory on how this murder occurred." There are scientific laws, theories and hypotheses. A theory (in the context of a scientific community) is proven again and again through observable data and experiments otherwise it is abandoned.

I know I'm repeating myself here so that will be the last of that.

Evidence for Big Bang:

The universe, as observed through telescopes, is expanding. It is then logical to suppose that if we wind time backwards, the universe will start shrinking. Therefore there must have been some time in the past when all matter was contracted to a single point.


I will not even go through the body of evolution thing ... well, my reason is simple, it violates the very principle of science CAUSE AND EFFECT as its foundation ... sell that to the intelligent philosophers ... it will just be dumped as well ... its starting logic is weak ... and no matter how strong your body of assumptions are, coupled with your "evidences" which I am sure does not exist ... it will remain as weak proposition, because the very foundation is weak (flawed)



I find it really funny arguing religion and science and it's the advocate of religion calling science as magic. Isn't that my argument?

"Now since you've talked at length about how evolution is a flight of fancy, may I ask you what I asked a previous member as well, how do you believe we (the human race) got here? Do you believe in the bible origin story of Adam and Eve?"


Again, you are obscuring the point ... I did not call science magic ... I call Big Bang theory THE MAGIC ... and being built on MAGIC, it can not be part of science. I am not even defending a specific religion IMO - and the one I branded religion here is the BIG BANG / EVOLUTION theory.

Of course, I came from them ... My ancestor is very human ... Now may I ask you, do you believe that your ancestors are apes? or lesser than apes for that matter - perhaps a monkey?

« Last Edit: Oct 17, 2009 at 12:10 AM by aHobbit »
Anti PDVD Malware (STUP1Ds & F0OLs)

Offline allanmandy

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • PinoyDVD Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,497
  • Mathematical!
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Atheism/Agnosticism in the Philippines
« Reply #139 on: Oct 17, 2009 at 12:08 AM »

I think his conclusion is merely based on the rock formation where the last image trace was that of man ... some scientist dates those rock starting from the top ... younger years .. to the bottom, older years ... but then ... contrary findings also showed the articulation of evidence is not consistent with different dating devices.


Let me refute you here. The age of the earth is measured from the oldest existing rocks found on the planet's surface, as well as meteorite samples. This is done through stable isotope dating. Aside from these, the earth's geologic history is recorded in fossils. Fossils embedded in rocks have corresponding age ranges, derived also from isotope dating and from correlation with similar rock units. It is not inconsistent, as you claim. The different dating techniques, though they have different accuracies, are in general agreement with each other. In geology, giving out an exact age will make you the laughing stock of the community.

Human civilization, generally thought to have begun 10,000 years ago, is 0.00000212 parts (or 0.000212%) of the total age of the earth (around 4.7 billion years). When you bring that down to a scale represented by a 24-hour clock (there are 86,400 seconds in a day), it gives us 0.18 seconds, or less than a second before the stroke of midnight. The oldest age of Homo sapiens' appearance in the fossil record is 130,000 years. On that 24-hour clock, this period represents only the last 2.4 seconds on that scale.


Offline aHobbit

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • DVD Guru
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,256
  • Think HARDER - HOLLOW Heads! No FO0Ls Please!
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Atheism/Agnosticism in the Philippines
« Reply #140 on: Oct 17, 2009 at 12:20 AM »

Let me refute you here. The age of the earth is measured from the oldest existing rocks found on the planet's surface, as well as meteorite samples. This is done through stable isotope dating. Aside from these, the earth's geologic history is recorded in fossils. Fossils embedded in rocks have corresponding age ranges, derived also from isotope dating and from correlation with similar rock units. It is not inconsistent, as you claim. The different dating techniques, though they have different accuracies, are in general agreement with each other. In geology, giving out an exact age will make you the laughing stock of the community.

Human civilization, generally thought to have begun 10,000 years ago, is 0.00000212 parts (or 0.000212%) of the total age of the earth (around 4.7 billion years). When you bring that down to a scale represented by a 24-hour clock (there are 86,400 seconds in a day), it gives us 0.18 seconds, or less than a second before the stroke of midnight. The oldest age of Homo sapiens' appearance in the fossil record is 130,000 years. On that 24-hour clock, this period represents only the last 2.4 seconds on that scale.



Yes ... and when you found fossils of human side by side with creature million years before human ... what do you call that?

So if nobody can give an exact age ... then how accurate is the dating device they are being referred to above? The device of man's creation have been programmed to detect according to what he thought should be detected. So the reading of your dating device is just compared to another reading (a reference point) which they believe to be of so million years. So it is just like your computer - tell it what you want it to do for you, and it will do it for you! That's why different dating device will not really agree with each other. Of course, if you want a conspiracy, that's also easy to do.

But again, regardless of these items - evolution and BIG bang can not stand on itself because it started on the wrong premise - or siguro, para di masakit sa tenga, me iniwan na isang stage - that is before the first cell - CREATION!

But when you start in creation ... then it is easy to see, the whole body of evolution becomes doubtful!


an excerpt:
Probably more geology is exposed and has been studied in the Grand Canyon than in any other place on earth. Therefore, the Grand Canyon is an excellent laboratory for testing the methods and explanations geologists have taught for the last century.

What is the verdict?

In words that few geologists would dispute, the Grand Canyon is a “hazy mystery, cloaked in intrigue, and filled with enigmatic puzzles.” Despite a century of concentrated effort by so many, their methods have produced recognized contradictions, and they have left much evidence completely unexplained.

What’s wrong?

a.   evolutionary geology has been largely based on two faulty “principles,” which are actually assumptions—uniformitarianism and superposition.

b.   The global flood has been rejected out of hand as a possibility.
« Last Edit: Oct 17, 2009 at 12:47 AM by aHobbit »
Anti PDVD Malware (STUP1Ds & F0OLs)

Offline aHobbit

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • DVD Guru
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,256
  • Think HARDER - HOLLOW Heads! No FO0Ls Please!
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Atheism/Agnosticism in the Philippines
« Reply #141 on: Oct 17, 2009 at 12:26 AM »

That's the concept of Romans 1:19-20, which says:

19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:





Yep ... the very body of evolutionists will stand against them in the judgment day ... for the evidence of the creator rests on their body - even for a single tiny body cell, the creator can not be doubted ... let alone the vast "proofs" of the theory ...
Anti PDVD Malware (STUP1Ds & F0OLs)

Offline allanmandy

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • PinoyDVD Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,497
  • Mathematical!
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Atheism/Agnosticism in the Philippines
« Reply #142 on: Oct 17, 2009 at 12:36 AM »
I think you're the one who obscure the meaning of evolution ... evolution means a new specie is developing from a different specie ... example, an ape becoming a man  :) ... but what you are stating above is just adaptation ... in the same way, some alaskan people has to adapt with their environment and african has to adapt to theirs! It is like telling us that overtime, a crocodile place in a dessert will grow wings just to survive.

Oh, but adaptation is part of evolution. It's natural selection at work. The survival of the fittest. Mother Nature won't be too kind to short necked giraffes in a world of tall lush trees. That's why today's giraffes have long necks, because the short ones couldn't compete.

And yes, if developing wings would be favorable to the survival of a certain species, nature will find a way to make that happen, by mutation or natural selection.


The documented half man half ape fossils were found ... and again I say fossil ... and none living ... those are their missing links ... but think again, why are they all fossils? or probably the most logical explanation is that ... their fossils are also dubious ... will try to give you findings on this! and again I would reiterate, where are the rest of the missing links?

I'm quite lost here. What other missing links are you looking for?


Now you are saying we have common ancestor as the apes - hmmn ... that is not science ... are we able to reproduce such assumption (theory) ... ah sorry ... they all died nga pala! ... is that difficult to understand?

Again, lost. What form of reproduction are you asking for as evidence? That man should devise genetic experiments so that he could produce a pseudo-man descendant from a lab monkey? Is this the proof you're looking for? I'm sorry, but the theory of evolution does not work that way. The evidence for evolution can not be found by transforming one species into another in a lab. Evolutionary evidence is basically by similarity of physiology. Dogs and wolves have similar body forms, therefore they must be closely related. Humans and birds both have spines, so they must belong to the same taxonomic kingdom. This is the backbone of the theory, not freak lab experiments.


Offline allanmandy

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • PinoyDVD Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,497
  • Mathematical!
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Atheism/Agnosticism in the Philippines
« Reply #143 on: Oct 17, 2009 at 01:08 AM »
Yes ... and when you found fossils of human side by side with creature million years before human ... what do you call that?


I call that a human buried within a dinosaur graveyard.

What are you trying to get at? That it is impossible for species of different ages to be buried alongside each other? How does that refute evolution, pray tell?


So if nobody can give an exact age ... then how accurate is the dating device they are being referred to above? The device of man's creation have been programmed to detect according to what he thought should be detected. So the reading of your dating device is just compared to another reading (a reference point) which they believe to be of so million years. So it is just like your computer - tell it what you want it to do for you, and it will do it for you! That's why different dating device will not really agree with each other. Of course, if you want a conspiracy, that's also easy to do.

I'm baffled how you come up with those statements. On the contrary, scientists are finding ways to make the undetected, detectable. To measure the minutest details. Of course technology can do only as much. But to say that these inventions were meant only to "detect what should be detected" is preposterous! It's like saying scientists intentionally deceive other people. And if you are in the scientific community, one of the most important ethical lessons you learn is that "you work for your data, don't let your data work for you". Meaning, you do not fabricate results only because they do not fit your model or hypothesis. Rather, you modify your ideas based on the observations/data you have.

Accuracy is different for various fields of science. For particle physicists, every nanosecond could be vital. For geologists (and this also varies), ages of rocks don't have to be dated to the exact year. It depends on the scope of your study. Those modeling the tectonic upheavals on the earth's surface do not need to bother themselves with ages that are accurate down to (let's say) 10 years because tectonic plates move very very very very very very slowly. It's like trying to check every pixel of a giant billboard that will be mounted on a hillside and is meant to be seen from afar.


Offline indie boi

  • Kapitan
  • Trade Count: (+31)
  • PinoyDVD Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 6,807
  • Twitter: @indieboi
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Atheism/Agnosticism in the Philippines
« Reply #144 on: Oct 17, 2009 at 01:10 AM »
Ahobbit, your posts are giving me a headache. Can you help me by giving me a Cliff's notes version of what you believe in?

Since you don't believe in the Big Bang Theory and Evolution, can you tell me what ideas you subscribe to with regards to the origins of the universe and the origins of the species?

Offline aHobbit

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • DVD Guru
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,256
  • Think HARDER - HOLLOW Heads! No FO0Ls Please!
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Atheism/Agnosticism in the Philippines
« Reply #145 on: Oct 17, 2009 at 01:21 AM »



... It's like saying scientists intentionally deceive other people. And if you are in the scientific community, one of the most important ethical lessons you learn is that "you work for your data, don't let your data work for you".


it is not right to make a sweeping generalizations sir ... but don't be too naive either!

QUOTE
dinosaurs, as other evolutionists assert, evolved into birds. Evolutionists claim thatArchaeopteryx (ark-ee-OP-ta-riks) is a feathered dinosaur, a transition between dinosaurs (or reptiles) and birds. Of the relatively few claimed intermediate fossils, Archaeopteryx is the one most frequently cited by evolutionists and shown in most biology textbooks.

...

The two fossils with feathers were “found” and sold for high prices by Karl Häberlein (in 1861 for 700 pounds) and his son, Ernst (in 1877 for 20,000 gold marks), just as Darwin’s theory and book, The Origin of Species(1859), were gaining popularity. While some German experts thought that the new (1861) fossil was a forgery, the British Museum (Natural History) bought it sight unseen. (In the preceding century, fossil forgeries from limestone quarries were common in that region of Germany.7)


—T. H. Huxley (Darwin’s so-called bulldog) and Gavin deBeer. As Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe stated,
It was somewhat unwise for the forgers to endow Compsognathus with a furcula, because a cavity had to be cut in the counterslab, with at least some semblance to providing a fit to the added bone. This would have to be done crudely with a chisel, which could not produce a degree of smoothness in cutting the rock similar to a true sedimentation cavity.9  


Honest disagreement as to whether Archaeopteryx was or was not a forgery was possible until 1986, when a definitive test was performed. An x-ray resonance spectrograph of the British Museum fossil … raise suspicions

When the media popularize an evolutionist claim that is later shown to be false, retractions are seldom made.

One refreshing exception is provided byNational Geographic, which originally, and incorrectly, reported the discovery in China of “a true missing link in the complex chain that connects dinosaurs to birds.” … Details were explained on a few back pages of National Geographic by an independent investigator at the request of National Geographic’s editor. The report was summarized as follows:

It’s a tale of misguided secrecy and misplaced confidence, of rampant egos clashing, self-aggrandizement, wishful thinking, naive assumptions, human error, stubbornness, manipulation, backbiting, lying, corruption, and, most of all, abysmal communication.18

Such fiascoes are common among those seeking rewards and prestige for finding fossils of missing links. The media that popularize these stories mislead the public.

Archaeopteryx’s fame seems assured, not as a transitional fossil between dinosaurs (or reptiles) and birds, but as a forgery.

Unlike the Piltdown hoax, which fooled leading scientists for more than 40 years, the Archaeopteryx hoax has lasted for 125 years.

Because the apparent motive for the Archaeopteryx deception was money, Archaeopteryx should be labeled as a fraud. The British Museum (Natural History) gave life to both deceptions and must assume much of the blame. Those scientists who were too willing to fit Archaeopteryx into their evolutionary framework also helped spread the deception. Piltdown man may soon be replaced as the most famous hoax in all of science.
« Last Edit: Oct 17, 2009 at 02:44 AM by aHobbit »
Anti PDVD Malware (STUP1Ds & F0OLs)

Offline aHobbit

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • DVD Guru
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,256
  • Think HARDER - HOLLOW Heads! No FO0Ls Please!
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Atheism/Agnosticism in the Philippines
« Reply #146 on: Oct 17, 2009 at 01:39 AM »

Oh, but adaptation is part of evolution. It's natural selection at work. The survival of the fittest. Mother Nature won't be too kind to short necked giraffes in a world of tall lush trees. That's why today's giraffes have long necks, because the short ones couldn't compete.



Yes it is ... but the controversy of Big Bang is not what you are refering to ... adaptation will not produce a different form nor breeding dogs will make another un-dog animal ... I want to highlight this with a picture (dont know how to upload pix  ;D )

The picture shows a lizard in the horizontal ... can change its appearance to adapt ... but it is still a lizard. The vertical change is that this lizard will slowly change until perfect wings are developed at its back (this is the evolutionist contention - and missing links are nowhere to be found - nor reproducible).


QUOTED
first understand the term “organic evolution.” Organic evolution, as theorized, is a naturally occurring, beneficial change that produces increasing and inheritable complexity. Increased complexity would be shown if the offspring of one form of life had a different and improved set of vital organs. This is sometimes called the molecules-to-man theory—or macroevolution.

Microevolution, on the other hand, does not involve increasing complexity. It involves changes only in size, shape, or color, or minor genetic alterations caused by a few mutations.

Macroevolution requires thousands of “just right” mutations.

Microevolution can be thought of as “horizontal” (or even downward) change, whereas macroevolution, if it were ever observed, would involve an “upward,” beneficial change in complexity. 

Notice that microevolution plus time will not produce macroevolution.  (micro + time  ≠  macro)

Creationists and evolutionists agree that microevolution (and natural selection) occur. Minor change has been observed since history began. But notice how often evolutionists give evidence for microevolution to support macroevolution. It is macroevolution—which requires new abilities and increasing complexity, resulting from new genetic information—that is at the center of the creation-evolution controversy.



I'm quite lost here. What other missing links are you looking for?


Again, lost. What form of reproduction are you asking for as evidence? That man should devise genetic experiments so that he could produce a pseudo-man descendant from a lab monkey? Is this the proof you're looking for? I'm sorry, but the theory of evolution does not work that way. The evidence for evolution can not be found by transforming one species into another in a lab. Evolutionary evidence is basically by similarity of physiology. Dogs and wolves have similar body forms, therefore they must be closely related. Humans and birds both have spines, so they must belong to the same taxonomic kingdom. This is the backbone of the theory, not freak lab experiments.




Not that they should be reproducible in the lab - but that they should exist today reproducing their own kind being the in-between of what you are refering to ... unless of course you are saying apes just remained ape and man just remain man, and anything in between (the evolution stages from ape to man) died! ... and this goes for the rest of living beings that are being transformed to another different being ...


Anti PDVD Malware (STUP1Ds & F0OLs)

Offline allanmandy

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • PinoyDVD Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,497
  • Mathematical!
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Atheism/Agnosticism in the Philippines
« Reply #147 on: Oct 17, 2009 at 01:39 AM »
an excerpt:
Probably more geology is exposed and has been studied in the Grand Canyon than in any other place on earth. Therefore, the Grand Canyon is an excellent laboratory for testing the methods and explanations geologists have taught for the last century.

What is the verdict?

In words that few geologists would dispute, the Grand Canyon is a “hazy mystery, cloaked in intrigue, and filled with enigmatic puzzles.” Despite a century of concentrated effort by so many, their methods have produced recognized contradictions, and they have left much evidence completely unexplained.

What’s wrong?

a.   evolutionary geology has been largely based on two faulty “principles,” which are actually assumptions—uniformitarianism and superposition.

b.   The global flood has been rejected out of hand as a possibility.


I will be straightforward. I am a geologist and I'm not too familiar with the geology of the Grand Canyon because that is not my field of study. Other than that, I cannot give you my thoughts on those so-called geologic inconsistencies because they are way too vague. You did not even say what particular aspects of the Grand Canyon geology are mysterious and contradicting. And then you have the guts to come up with a "verdict" when the evidence was not even clearly presented?

Yes, during the early days of evolutionary geology, those two principles were the backbone of this emerging science. But that is sooooo 1800's! Science has drastically evolved since the days of Darwin. Modern paleontologists do not solely rely on those principles. The discovery of radioactivity opened the doors for absolute dating methods, which have been utilized by paleontologists. Developments in molecular biology has also allowed scientists to observe evolution at a microscopic scale, and more importantly in the scale of human lifetime.

I will not even comment on your global flood statement.


Offline aHobbit

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • DVD Guru
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,256
  • Think HARDER - HOLLOW Heads! No FO0Ls Please!
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Atheism/Agnosticism in the Philippines
« Reply #148 on: Oct 17, 2009 at 01:51 AM »
Ahobbit, your posts are giving me a headache. Can you help me by giving me a Cliff's notes version of what you believe in?

Since you don't believe in the Big Bang Theory and Evolution, can you tell me what ideas you subscribe to with regards to the origins of the universe and the origins of the species?


"Now since you've talked at length about how evolution is a flight of fancy, may I ask you what I asked a previous member as well, how do you believe we (the human race) got here? Do you believe in the bible origin story of Adam and Eve?"


Of course, I came from them ... My ancestor is very human ... Now may I ask you, do you believe that your ancestors are apes? or lesser than apes for that matter - perhaps a monkey?

FYI ... am not putting a pun in the above question ... it is a test to those who really believe in evolution to categorically declare as they believe ...

« Last Edit: Oct 17, 2009 at 01:55 AM by aHobbit »
Anti PDVD Malware (STUP1Ds & F0OLs)

Offline indie boi

  • Kapitan
  • Trade Count: (+31)
  • PinoyDVD Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 6,807
  • Twitter: @indieboi
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Atheism/Agnosticism in the Philippines
« Reply #149 on: Oct 17, 2009 at 01:57 AM »
You still haven't answered my simple question. What theory/belief/law do you subscribe in?