Creationists and dynamo theory

[Darth Wong]

Gotta love those creationist morons, eh? Check this out (it's from some kind of Transformers fansite forum). It's another creationist trying to refute my entire website based on a couple of nitpicks and bizarre strawman arguments:

OK I'm going to laugh REALLY HARD now!

OH yes I'm reading this. I'm reading it really good. A lot of what this guy is doing is knocking down a few straw men. I'll get into that later; however this is the part that's making me LMAO:

Snails and lava flows are no mystery at all. Mollusks absorb minerals from certain types of sedimentary rock into their bodies, and those rocks can be very old, hence the erroneous dates. Since most creatures don't do this, it's a situation that's unique to mollusks and their unusual anatomy, and so it can hardly be used to explain carbon-dating of every other plant and animal species on Earth.

Ok now who's the pseudoscientist here?! Molluscs absorbing minerals has 3/5 of F.A. to do with the amount of Carbon 14 in them!!!!!!!! I am surprised you didn't catch this! Absorbing old rocks...which don't have Carbon-14 in them anyway?! That DOESN'T CHANGE the amount of Carbon-14 that was in the mollusc when it died! Now if we were talking about some other dating method, like U-Pb and the snails, this guy MIGHT have a point. But it's a totally different situation. Either there's Carbon-14 there or there ISN'T! No amount of absorbing of OLD rocks is going to change that! And in addition to that, he totally ignores the fact that fresh sealskins and wood from LIVING trees has also dated out as having been dead for hundreds or thousands of years. So his argument does not wash. It also does not explain how dead snails that NEVER touched old rocks also date out as being dead for hundreds or thousands of years.

As for the criticism of people who doubt some of the figures coming from Astronomy, he acts like people are ignoring proper math when the fact is that "proper math" is NOT used when it comes to the Geometry aspect! Instead of Euclidian Geometry (where two parallel lines NEVER intersect at any point), a different kind of geometry is used--one where two parallel lines CAN intersect. That doesn't seem very scientific to me.

And that bit about the trees getting buried slowly yet being still standing up...obviously this guy's no certified arborist. There were some trees around here -- cottonwoods -- that were in an area that got filled and levelled with soil. The soil came so far up the trunk that my brother-in-law, a certified Arborist, told me that every one of those trees was going to die of root-rot. That was four years ago. And it came to pass. Not one of those trees lived. Dead trees ROT very quickly, and tend to blow down in strong winds. How do evolutionists explain how trees can survive with their trunks having too much soil up around them? Huh?

This business about the Earth's magnetic field--well I got some recent stuff here. When grains of magnetite in volcanic ash or lava-flows cool below its Curie point of 570 degrees Celcius (1060 degrees Fairenheit), the magnetic domains partly align themselves in the direction of the earth's magnetic field at that time. Once the rock has fully cooled, the magnetite's alignment is fixed. Thus we have a permanent record of the earth's field through time. Although evolutionists have no good explanations for the reversals, they maintain that because of them the straightforward decay assumed by Dr. Barnes is invalid.

However, nuclear physicist Dr. Russell Humphreys believed that Dr. Barnes had the right idea, and also accepted that reversals were real. He modified Dr. Barnes' model to account for special effects of a liquid conductior, like the molten metal of the earth's core. If the liquid flowed upwards (due to convection--hot fluids rise, cold fluild sink) this could sometimes make the field reverse quickly.

Dr. John Baumgardner proposes that the plunging of the tectonic plates was a cause of the Flood. Dr. Humphreys says that these plates would have sharply cooled the outer parts of the core, driving the convection. This means that most of the reversals took place in the Flood year, every week or two. And after the Flood, there would be large fluctuations due to residual motion. But the reversals and fluctuations could not halt the overall decay pattern--rather, the total field energy would decay even faster. This model also explains why the Sun reverses its magnetic field every 11 years. The sun is a gigantic ball of hot, energetically moving, electrically conducting gas. Contrary to the dynamo model, the overall field energy of the sun is decreasing.

Dr Humphreys also proposed a test for his model: magnetic reversals should be found in rocks known to have cooled in days or weeks. For example, in a thin lava flow, the outside would cool first, and record earth's magnetic field in one direction; the inside would cool later, and record the field in another direction. Three years after this prediction, leading researchers Robert Coe and Michel Prevot found a thin lava layer that must have cooled within 15 days, and had 90 degrees of reversal recorded continuously in it. And it was no fluke--8 years later, they reported an even faster reversal.

Dr. Humphreys also proposed that God first created the earth out of water. He based that on several Scriptures (eg. 2Peter 3:5) After the Earth was made out of water, God would have transformed much of the water into other substances like rock minerals. Now water contains hydrogen atoms, and the nucleus of a hydrogen atom is a tiny magnet. Normally these magnets candel out as a whole so whater as a whole is almost non-magnetic. But Humphreys proposed that God created the water with the nuclear magnets aligned. Immediately after creation, they would form a more random arrangement, which would cause the Earth's magnetic field to decay.

This would generate current in the core, which then would decay according to Barnes' model, apart from many reversals in the Flood year as Humphrey's model states. Lest anyone accuse Dr. Humphreys of being pseudoscientific, please take note that he calculated the fields of other planets and the sun based on his model. The important factors are mass of the object, size of the core, and how well it conducts electricity, plus the assumption that their original material was water. His model explains features which are a deep puzzle to dynamo theorists.

For example, the evolutionists refer to the "enigma of lunar magnetism" -- the moon once had a strong magnetic field, although it only rotates once a month. Also, according to evolutionary models of its origin, it never had a molten core necessary for a dynamo to work. Also, Mercury has a far stronger magnetic field than dynamo theory expects from a planet rotating 59 times slower than Earth. Even more importantly, in 1984, Dr. Humphreys made some predictions of the field strengths of Uranus and Neptune. His predictions were 100,000 times the evolutionary dynamo predictions. The two rival models were inadvertently put to the test when Voyager 2 flew past Uranus and Neptune in '86 and '89. The fields for both planets were just as Humphreys predicted!

Yet many anti-creationists call creation "unscientific" because it supposedly makes no predicitions! Humphrey's model also explains why the moons of Jupiter that have cores have magnetic fields, while Callisto, which lacks a core, also lacks a field.

[Wicked Pilot]

Wow, eleven paragraphs. Just because of the sheer length of his rebuttal, I will take at face value his assertion that your one paragraph on mollusk is wrong.

That being said, I guess the earth is 6000 years old.

[Darth Wong]

Note that I was sent the link to the above from someone (not the author) who wanted input, so I sent the following:

OK I'm going to laugh REALLY HARD now!

OH yes I'm reading this. I'm reading it really good. A lot of what this guy is doing is knocking down a few straw men. I'll get into that later; however this is the part that's making me LMAO:

Snails and lava flows are no mystery at all. Mollusks absorb minerals from certain types of sedimentary rock into their bodies, and those rocks can be very old, hence the erroneous dates. Since most creatures don't do this, it's a situation that's unique to mollusks and their unusual anatomy, and so it can hardly be used to explain carbon-dating of every other plant and animal species on Earth.

Ok now who's the pseudoscientist here?! Molluscs absorbing minerals has 3/5 of F.A. to do with the amount of Carbon 14 in them!!!!!!!! I am surprised you didn't catch this! Absorbing old rocks...which don't have Carbon-14 in them anyway?!

Actually, mineral ores do have C-14 in them. Anything which can contain carbon can have C-14 in it. However, this is not particularly important in this context; it is worth noting merely because he is obviously bluffing knowledge he does not have.

That DOESN'T CHANGE the amount of Carbon-14 that was in the mollusc when it died!

It changes the concentration. If you take a slice of mollusc which happens to contain significant quantities of mineral (which generally has very little C-14), the ratio of C-14 to C will be much lower than it would be otherwise.

Now if we were talking about some other dating method, like U-Pb and the snails, this guy MIGHT have a point. But it's a totally different situation. Either there's Carbon-14 there or there ISN'T! No amount of absorbing of OLD rocks is going to change that!

It's not an on/off situation. C-14 dating is a matter of concentrations, not "either there's Carbon-14 there or there isn't". This person bluffs and blusters as if he is quite an expert on radiometric dating, but it would appear that he hasn't even bothered to take a cursory look on the subject.

And in addition to that, he totally ignores the fact that fresh sealskins and wood from LIVING trees has also dated out as having been dead for hundreds or thousands of years. So his argument does not wash. It also does not explain how dead snails that NEVER touched old rocks also date out as being dead for hundreds or thousands of years.

What is the source of his confusion? Materials which have been "contaminated" by old carbon will show an anomalously low C-14 count for their age. Unless one proposes that EVERYTHING is contaminated, which implies massive continual
exchange of matter between all objects on Earth, these are mere outliers. Yes, it is possible for a contaminated object to date wrong. So what? If we are to determine the age of the Earth, we should be asking ourselves why tens of
thousands of radiometric measurements are in line with geologic predictions, not seizing upon a couple of anomalous, obviously contaminated examples and using them as an excuse to ignore the overwhelming majority of measurements.

The consistency of agreement between geological predictions and radiometric dating demand an explanation. According to creationists, it is mere coincidence! Tell me, what is harder to swallow? That a few examples out of THOUSANDS might have been contaminated, or that THOUSANDS of measurements are just COINCIDENTALLY consistent with predictions from geology?

As for the criticism of people who doubt some of the figures coming from Astronomy, he acts like people are ignoring proper math when the fact is that "proper math" is NOT used when it comes to the Geometry aspect! Instead of Euclidian Geometry (where two parallel lines NEVER intersect at any point), a different kind of geometry is used--one where two parallel lines CAN intersect. That doesn't seem very scientific to me.

Where on Earth does this person get the idea that astronomers violate the rules of Euclidian geometry? It seems more likely to me that this person is confusing the curvature of space-time predicted by Einstein's theory of
relativity for a "straight lines aren't straight" abuse of Euclidian geometry.

And that bit about the trees getting buried slowly yet being still standing up...obviously this guy's no certified arborist. There were some trees around here--cottonwoods--that were in an area that got filled and levelled with soil. The soil came so far up the trunk that my brother-in-law, a certified Arborist, told me that every one of those trees was going to die of root-rot. That was four years ago. And it came to pass. Not one of those trees lived. Dead trees ROT very quickly, and tend to blow down in strong winds. How do evolutionists explain how trees can survive with their trunks having too much soil up around them? Huh?

Interesting use of rhetorical techniques and logical fallacies. First, he dismisses everything I say because I'm not an arborist like his brother-in-law; I was not aware that one needed to be an arborist in order to notice trees standing despite being buried in swamps and bogs. Then, he claims that since trees buried in soil will eventually die, they cannot be fossilized upright. Tell me, why can't a tree die and then be fossilized so that at least part of its trunk remains upright? If you cut down a tree at the three foot mark, does the three-foot stump not remain upright, even though the tree is dead? If you buried it in peat, and allowed it to fossilize, would it magically force itself to lay down sideways?

This is a good example of how one must be on the lookout for logical fallacies when debating creationists. Unable to refute the fact that a tree-trunk can be fossilized upright, he simply decided to distort that into "trees can survive indefinite burial", as if the tree has to be ALIVE when it's
fossilized.

This business about the Earth's magnetic field--well I got some recent stuff here. When grains of magnetite in volcanic ash or lava-flows cool below its Curie point of 570 degrees Celcius (1060 degrees Fairenheit), the magnetic domains partly align themselves in the direction of the earth's magnetic field at that time. Once the rock has fully cooled, the magnetite's alignment is fixed. Thus we have a permanent record of the earth's field through time. Although evolutionists have no good explanations for the reversals, they maintain that because of them the straightforward decay assumed by Dr. Barnes is invalid.

The Earth's magnetic field reversals have nothing to do with evolution, so I don't know why he EXPECTS "evolutionists" to have an explanation for them. They are a geological phenomenon. And magnetic field reversals DO destroy any
claims of the Earth being young based on extrapolation of its rate of "decay" (or more accurately, realignment). A linear decay pattern is incompatible with reversals by definition.

However, nuclear physicist Dr. Russell Humphreys believed that Dr. Barnes had the right idea, and also accepted that reversals were real. He modified Dr. Barnes' model to account for special effects of a liquid conductior, like the molten metal of the earth's core. If the liquid flowed upwards (due to convection--hot fluids rise, cold fluild sink) this could sometimes make the field reverse quickly.

Nice bit of spin-doctoring! Instead of conceding that the "Earth's magnetic field is a linear decay line" argument is total nonsense because of known field reversals, he tries to argue that if it reverses QUICKLY, it is somehow NOT total nonsense. Sorry, but the fact that the field can reverse itself, regardless of whether it happens slowly or quickly, means that the progressive one-directional decay described by Barnes is clearly wrong. He can't have his cake and eat it too.

Dr. John Baumgardner proposes that the plunging of the tectonic plates was a cause of the Flood.

The release of energy in such an event would have killed everything on Earth, including Noah and his little boat. I am consistently amazed at the way creationists will argue with a perfectly straight face that enormously energetic events such as tectonic plates "plunging" to release clouds of steam, or billions of cubic kilometres of water falling from an extra-atmospheric "vapour canopy", or the mountains being distorted upwards or downwarwds by many kilometres within a period of a few months, would take place WITHOUT releasing all of the energy involved.

Dr. Humphreys says that these plates would have sharply cooled the outer parts of the core, driving the convection.

There is no reason for a sudden drop of tectonic plates to cool the core (movement toward the planet's centre represents a decrease in gravitational potential energy, which will be released as heat), nor is there any reason for this "drop" to occur in the first place.

This means that most of the reversals took place in the Flood year, every week or two. And after the Flood, there would be large fluctuations due to residual motion. But the reversals and fluctuations could not halt the overall decay pattern--rather, the total field energy would decay even faster.

So he figures it takes a break from its steady one-dimensional march and not only fluctuates, but actually REVERSES itself, then returns to where it left off on its steady one-dimensional march? That's simply hilarious. And
why, pray tell, should we accept this interpretation?

This model also explains why the Sun reverses its magnetic field every 11 years. The sun is a gigantic ball of hot, energetically moving, electrically conducting gas. Contrary to the dynamo model, the overall field energy of
the sun is decreasing. Dr Humphreys also proposed a test for his model: magnetic reversals should be found in rocks known to have cooled in days or weeks. For example, in a thin lava flow, the outside would cool first, and record earth's magnetic field in one direction; the inside would cool later, and record the field in another direction. Three years after this prediction, leading researchers Robert Coe and Michel Prevot found a thin lava layer that must have cooled within 15 days, and had 90 degrees of reversal recorded continuously in it. And it was no fluke--8 years later, they reported an even faster reversal.

Three points:

1. Humphreys was pilloried in the press for mistaking a diagram of varying intensities as a diagram of phase and thus reversal. This is not the conduct of a competent professional in his area of expertise.
2. Not surprisingly, Humphreys is NOT operating in his area of expertise, which is sadly typical for creationist "experts".
3. Localized field intensity variations are not necessarily global field intensity variations. Many environmental conditions could cause localized magnetic field anomalies, but a global magnetic field anomaly would ONLY be supported of these patterns are found in lava flows all around the world. What your creationist friend "forgets" to mention is that they are NOT found in lava flows all over the world.

One of the predictions of Humphreys' theory would be GLOBAL presence of these effects. The fact that they are few and far between, in fact, is clear DISPROOF of his theory; they are not only being exaggerated by him, but they are obviously caused by local phenomena rather than the global magnetic field, which is in effect everywhere on Earth.

Simple logic: if a phenomenon is found only in a few isolated spots, would you conclude that it is caused by a local phenomenon, or by a global phenomenon that mysteriously fails to affect most of the world?

Dr. Humphreys also proposed that God first created the earth out of water. He based that on several Scriptures (eg. 2Peter 3:5) After the Earth was made out of water, God would have transformed much of the water into other substances like rock minerals.

Now THIS is funny. Rocks from water? Ah, I see. And this person aims to DISPROVE my claims that creationism is unscientific?

Spontaneous transition of H2O into heavier elements requires nuclear fusion, and in the case of heavier elements, neutron absorption followed by beta decay. The conditions on primordial Earth were totally inadequate to achieve this; you need a supernova.

Now water contains hydrogen atoms, and the nucleus of a hydrogen atom is a tiny magnet. Normally these magnets candel out as a whole so whater as a whole is almost non-magnetic. But Humphreys proposed that God created the
> water with the nuclear magnets aligned. Immediately after creation, they would form a more random arrangement, which would cause the Earth's magnetic field to decay.

Nitpick: a hydrogen nucleus is a neutron, not a "tiny magnet". Hydrogen is neutral because of the electron, not because the nuclear "tiny magnets" cancel out.

Anyway, this model would produce a magnetic field which immediately drops to nothing. There would be no smooth decay.

This would generate current in the core, which then would decay according to Barnes' model, apart from many reversals in the Flood year as Humphrey's model states.

Any model which requires magical transmutation of water into rocks and minerals is honestly too laughable to take seriously as a scientific theory.

He can wax poetic over Humphrey's credentials and appeal to their authority all he likes, but he is asking us to accept a theory based on WATER TURNING INTO IRON. What more need be said?

Lest anyone accuse Dr. Humphreys of being pseudoscientific, please take note that he calculated the fields of other planets and the sun based on his model.

Not surprising, since it doesn't sound like the model relies on an empirical basis for its mechanism (how could it; it relies upon magical transmutation of water to iron, which cannot even be duplicated in the laboratory), so he can simply plug in arbitrary variables and custom-fit its predictions to the facts as he pleases.

The important factors are mass of the object, size of the core, and how well it conducts electricity, plus the assumption that their original material was water.

An assumption which is proof of its pseudoscientific nature. Please ask him to describe the physical mechanisms through which the Earth (which is 78% iron by mass) formed from 100% water.

His model explains features which are a deep puzzle to dynamo theorists.

His mechanism is unknown, and based upon an assumption of an impossible mechanism through which the Earth formed. Dynamo theory, on the other hand, is based on a known mechanism. Does this person realize that dynamo theory in electromagnetism is the basis behind all of the electromotive devices we use today?

For example, the evolutionists refer to the "enigma of lunar magnetism"--the moon once had a strong magnetic field, although it only rotates once a month.

I am unaware of any evolution texts which discuss the "enigma of lunar magnetism", especially since that would deal with astrophysics, not evolution. And why would it be so incomprehensible for the moon to have had a strong magnetic field at one time, since it was molten?

Also, according to evolutionary models of its origin, it never had a molten core necessary for a dynamo to work.

Evolution theory has nothing to say about the origins of the moon. As for astrophysical theories, everything in this solar system was gaseous and then molten at one time, before becoming solid. It is ridiculous of him to claim that the Moon was never molten. What model of moon origins is he referring to, anyway?

Also, Mercury has a far stronger magnetic field than dynamo theory expects from a planet rotating 59 times slower than Earth.

Where does he get his data regarding the "expectations" of dynamo theory? Since dynamo theory is still subject to uncertainties about the composition and internal processes in the core and unpredictable convective movement of molten material in the interior of the planet, I would be very interested in how he generates precise predictions of all the planets' magnetic fields. It seems more likely to me that he has grossly oversimplified dynamo theory in order to generate predictions that are easily knocked down. In fact, I am virtually certain that the predictions are based on the assumption that the Earth's magnetic field is generated solely by its bulk rate of rotation, completely ignoring the fact that interior movement is at different rates for different layers.

In other words, strawman fallacy.

Even more importantly, in 1984, Dr. Humphreys made some predictions of the field strengths of Uranus and Neptune. His predictions were 100,000 times the evolutionary dynamo predictions.

Find me a source of these "evolutionary dynamo predictions". Since the behaviour of a planet's interior is difficult to determine from a distance, astronomical texts prior to the flyby did not claim any kind of reliable estimate of the magnetic field strength of Uranus and Neptune.

The two rival models were inadvertently put to the test when Voyager 2 flew past Uranus and Neptune in '86 and '89. The fields for both planets were just as Humphreys predicted!

Not surprising, since he chose a number that anyone could have guessed by simply comparing their SIZE relative to Earth, and then back-fitting his theory to it in order to project a number which was vague, but had a good probability of being "close enough". Not an unreasonable way to get a
ballpark estimate, particularly when his estimate covered two orders of magnitude. Note the following quote: "Because of the uncertainty about the interiors of those planets, I widened my prediction to "on the order of' 1024 A m2, by which I meant that the magnetic moments would be between 1 x 1023 and 1 x 1025 A m2"- R. Humphreys.

That quote is particularly funny because there should be no real uncertainty about the interior of the planet given his model of water-to-iron transmutation. The dynamo theory is the only one which is heavily affected by uncertainties about the interior flow of planets, since it is based on the
movement of molten material, not the goofy "residual current" being described in this bizarre argument.

Imagine that you have two cars, one of which is twice the size of the other one. Now imagine the following dialogue between two characters:

Russell: "What do you think the second car weighs?"
Keith: "I'm not sure; I'd prefer to measure it directly."
Russell: "well, I say it's about twice the weight of the first car."
Keith: *after measuring* "Yeah, it's about twice the weight of the first car".
Russell: "Ha ha!! I'm right! And you predicted that it would weigh only ten pounds!"
Keith: "What?"

Yet many anti-creationists call creation "unscientific" because it supposedly makes no predicitions! Humphrey's model also explains why the moons of Jupiter that have cores have magnetic fields, while Callisto, which lacks a core, also lacks a field.

This confirms that he's employing a grotesque strawman distortion of dynamo theory. Geodynamo theory employs a molten planetary interior. A solid rotating mass is not expected to exhibit core dynamo effects, much as a solid
rotating chunk of iron does not act like a generator here on Earth.

It is utterly ludicrous for someone to tout a theory in which all of the planets were made of water and then magically transmuted to rocks and minerals as a "scientific" theory, or to tout ballpark predictions with a huge margin of error, an obvious correlation to simple mass, and no
experimental proof of mechanism as proof of superior predictive power. Tell me, how does Humphrey's theory predict the fact that Uranus' magnetic field is off-centre and is tilted at almost 60 degrees to the axis of rotation?
Shallow movement of interior molten material is an obvious hypothesis for the geodynamo, but what about his ridiculous uniform water-to-iron transition theory?

I can't believe this person is seriously a proposing a spontaneous terrestrial water-to-iron transmutation theory as being scientific in nature. It simply boggles the mind.

[Falcon]

Religion is about faith more than science, although some historical things do support parts of religion. If God can create the universe, then it makes sense that he could set it in motion to look like it had lasted any number of years. I guess my point is that science can't prove religion, but it cannot disprove it either.

[Exonerate]

There was another guy on a forum using the Magnetic Fields arguments... I can't post the URL without compromising the security of the AIIF, but if Wong wants it, I can PM it... Might help if he uses the same arguments. Not that you can't take care of yourself

[J]

I guess my point is that science can't prove religion, but it cannot disprove it either.

For a religious fundie that statement couldn't be more true, and it seems more & more that it's the one thing they cling to above all others. For a non-religious person a little bit of science & logic's all that's needed to completely debunk the fairytales of religion and the bible, for the way I see it that's all the bible is, a collection of fairytales.

[Darth Wong]

Religion is about faith more than science, although some historical things do support parts of religion. If God can create the universe, then it makes sense that he could set it in motion to look like it had lasted any number of years. I guess my point is that science can't prove religion, but it cannot disprove it either.

Replace "religion" with "Santa Claus", and interestingly enough, the "logic" of the tautology remains.

[DPDarkPrimus]

Religion is about faith more than science, although some historical things do support parts of religion. If God can create the universe, then it makes sense that he could set it in motion to look like it had lasted any number of years. I guess my point is that science can't prove religion, but it cannot disprove it either.

Replace "religion" with "Santa Claus", and interestingly enough, the "logic" of the tautology remains.

That's pretty funny.

[Falcon]

Religion is about faith more than science, although some historical things do support parts of religion. If God can create the universe, then it makes sense that he could set it in motion to look like it had lasted any number of years. I guess my point is that science can't prove religion, but it cannot disprove it either.

Replace "religion" with "Santa Claus", and interestingly enough, the "logic" of the tautology remains.

Oh I think we can go to the North Pole and check for elves. Unfortunately there is no time machine handy to go back 2000 years and check for miracles...

[Lagmonster]

Religion is about faith more than science, although some historical things do support parts of religion. If God can create the universe, then it makes sense that he could set it in motion to look like it had lasted any number of years. I guess my point is that science can't prove religion, but it cannot disprove it either.

Replace "religion" with "Santa Claus", and interestingly enough, the "logic" of the tautology remains.

Oh I think we can go to the North Pole and check for elves. Unfortunately there is no time machine handy to go back 2000 years and check for miracles...

As long as you're missing the point, might as well miss it by a mile, huh? He was saying that your statement is illogical. A popular and often-heard rebuttal to the statement you made is: "You can't prove that there is an invisible, incorporeal monster in my closet, but you can't disprove it either."

[Zoink]

Oh I think we can go to the North Pole and check for elves.

The elves are invisible, so is the workshop.... can't disprove this, can you?

Unfortunately there is no time machine handy to go back 2000 years and check for miracles..

But we have a book called "The Bible" which says what God is and what he has done. We can verify the accuracy of many of the statements. For example, we can show that a flood did not cover the world, and show genetically that everyone is not descendant from Noah. We can show that all languages didn't originate in ancient Babylon. etc,etc,etc.

The Bible is clearly wrong in many cases, and trusting it as a source of truth is folly. Believing in its creation myth, or Jesus' claims of divinity is not rational by any means.

Science *HAS* shown that God of the Bible did not exist. Basic logic and observation shows any God made from your own knowledge, based and what you "think feels right" has no basis for any real existance.

[Darth Wong]

Oh I think we can go to the North Pole and check for elves. Unfortunately there is no time machine handy to go back 2000 years and check for miracles...

Wow, a knee-jerk Israel-apologist who just happens to spout standard-issue Christian apologist tripe in an effort to prove that religious faith is not irrational. What a shock

Here's a hint: if Biblical scientific absurdities can be explained away by miracles, then guess what: the absence of a visible workshop at the North Pole can also be explained away by miracles (they're invisible, they exist on a higher plane, whatever). As I said before, replace "religion" with "Santa Claus" in an apologist's argument and the logic is invariably the same.

[Wicked Pilot]

You people forgot the fire breathing dragon that lives in my garage.

[kojikun]

Now, is that the typical bastard dragon from middle ages britain or the kick ass dragon kind from asia? My dragon actually neither, its kinda furry, almost feline. Tho it doesnt breath fire, it just flies. Really fast. And its big too! Like twenty feet high.

[Exonerate]

Now, is that the typical bastard dragon from middle ages britain or the kick ass dragon kind from asia? My dragon actually neither, its kinda furry, almost feline. Tho it doesnt breath fire, it just flies. Really fast. And its big too! Like twenty feet high.

Smaug, the evil dragon, lived by the sea...

[Darth Wong]

Sean Connery's dragon in "DragonHeart" lived beneath a waterfall. To use religionist "logic", since people have written about dragons all over the world, they must be real. And since dragons always look the same, they must be real. And if we just take an old book with dragons in it and call it "Scripture", we can quote from it to prove yet again that they must be real.

[The Apologist]

Science *HAS* shown that God of the Bible did not exist. Basic logic and observation shows any God made from your own knowledge, based and what you "think feels right" has no basis for any real existance.

And yet, logic and observation themselves, being based on our own knowledge and what we "think feels right," do have basis for real existence?

Tell me something which has a "basis for any real existence" apart from your own knowledge and what you think feels right.

Get a clue guys - even if science were to show that the God of the Bible did not exist, how would science then validate itself as corresponding to truth? Suppose I said that "the Bible *HAS* shown that God does exist." Would you believe it without a reason to believe the Bible? No? No, because the Bible cannot justify itself by its own means (God exists because the Bible says so, and Bible must be true because it is the Word of God; circular reasoning, right?).

Then why should we believe that God does not exist when this has been shown by a methodology which cannot justify itself by its own means? (God does not exist because Science says so, and Science must be true because it is assumed to be true).

...Circular reasoning, right?

[IDMR]

Science *HAS* shown that God of the Bible did not exist. Basic logic and observation shows any God made from your own knowledge, based and what you "think feels right" has no basis for any real existance.

And yet, logic and observation themselves, being based on our own knowledge and what we "think feels right," do have basis for real existence?

Tell me something which has a "basis for any real existence" apart from your own knowledge and what you think feels right.

Get a clue guys - even if science were to show that the God of the Bible did not exist, how would science then validate itself as corresponding to truth? Suppose I said that "the Bible *HAS* shown that God does exist." Would you believe it without a reason to believe the Bible? No? No, because the Bible cannot justify itself by its own means (God exists because the Bible says so, and Bible must be true because it is the Word of God; circular reasoning, right?).

Then why should we believe that God does not exist when this has been shown by a methodology which cannot justify itself by its own means? (God does not exist because Science says so, and Science must be true because it is assumed to be true).

...Circular reasoning, right?

Science has nothing to do with truth. Science is about finding a good approximation.

[Vympel]

Then why should we believe that God does not exist when this has been shown by a methodology which cannot justify itself by its own means? (God does not exist because Science says so, and Science must be true because it is assumed to be true).

...Circular reasoning, right?

Wow, another bullshit equation of science and religion, you're so original Apologist!

Do you even know the fucking difference?

[Sir Sirius]

Then why should we believe that God does not exist when this has been shown by a methodology which cannot justify itself by its own means? (God does not exist because Science says so, and Science must be true because it is assumed to be true).

Excluding the crucial difference between science and religion:
"Because it is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true.
-- Bertrand Arthur William Russell

[Darth Wong]

...Circular reasoning, right?

No, idiotic strawman fallacy. You have now demonstrated yourself to be an idiot of the highest order. Science does not "assume itself true" as proof of all its claims.

There are two crucial differences between science and Judeo-Christian-Muslim religion:

1) Science employs logic. Judeo-Christian-Muslim religion does not.

2) Science observes objective reality in order to prove/support its claims. Judeo-Christian-Muslim religion references its own claims (ie- scriptures) in order to prove/support its claims.

Sorry, but the only circular logic around here is yours.

[Falcon]

Oh I think we can go to the North Pole and check for elves. Unfortunately there is no time machine handy to go back 2000 years and check for miracles...

Wow, a knee-jerk Israel-apologist who just happens to spout standard-issue Christian apologist tripe in an effort to prove that religious faith is not irrational. What a shock

Here's a hint: if Biblical scientific absurdities can be explained away by miracles, then guess what: the absence of a visible workshop at the North Pole can also be explained away by miracles (they're invisible, they exist on a higher plane, whatever). As I said before, replace "religion" with "Santa Claus" in an apologist's argument and the logic is invariably the same.

I can see the creation of God all around me, but I have yet to ever get 1 present from Santa. Also, we can trace the myth of Santa back to where it started and disprove it that way, you can't trace the Bible back and disprove it in a like mannor. Your analogies sound nice on the surface, but they don't add up...

[Colonel Olrik]

I can see the creation of God all around me

? Where? What exactly has God created? The Big Bang? The Sun? Earth? Man? Oh, please, tell me you're a creationist. I'm looking forwards for a quick debate.

but I have yet to ever get 1 present from Santa.

That's because you don't believe him hard enough. It's a known fact that only true believers, who follow the douctrines explained in the Santa Book, can see and be touched by Him, and thus receive his Presents.

Also, we can trace the myth of Santa back to where it started and disprove it that way, you can't trace the Bible back and disprove it in a like mannor. Your analogies sound nice on the surface, but they don't add up.

You can't? Then please tell, what parts of the Bible are confirmed as truth and are proof of God? The Flood? The description of Creation?

[aerius]

I can see the creation of God all around me, but I have yet to ever get 1 present from Santa. Also, we can trace the myth of Santa back to where it started and disprove it that way, you can't trace the Bible back and disprove it in a like mannor. Your analogies sound nice on the surface, but they don't add up...

That's cause you've been a naughty kid, everyone who's good gets a present from Santa, even an atheist like myself. Granted I never saw him come down the chimney, but he left me the presents I wished for and everything was consistent with the Santa stories, he even drank the milk and ate the cookies! NORAD has a site where you can track Santa on his gift-giving flight, is that not evidence enough for you?

[Falcon]

I can see the creation of God all around me, but I have yet to ever get 1 present from Santa. Also, we can trace the myth of Santa back to where it started and disprove it that way, you can't trace the Bible back and disprove it in a like mannor. Your analogies sound nice on the surface, but they don't add up...

That's cause you've been a naughty kid, everyone who's good gets a present from Santa, even an atheist like myself. Granted I never saw him come down the chimney, but he left me the presents I wished for and everything was consistent with the Santa stories, he even drank the milk and ate the cookies! NORAD has a site where you can track Santa on his gift-giving flight, is that not evidence enough for you?

No, since this is something thats currently going on its something that research should be able to prove or disprove...