[quote]sufiandy wrote:
Now I’m confused to how the legitimacy of the bible is confirmed if there is no reliable method to date its origins.[/quote]
The legitimacy of the Bible is not really dependent on it’s actual age. There are some great stories in the bible and some great lessons to learn. There are also some not so great things in there too, but that’s life. There are certainly worse things to read.
[quote]Christine wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
Explosive.[/quote]
Bowel movements?[/quote]
D-Aspartic Acid. I posted a few pages back.[/quote]
Rats, I thought we were going to make poop jokes.
:([/quote]
The thread did start with jokes about young earth creationists…[/quote]
rimshot
[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
…Columbus was never warned that the earth was flat, he was warned that the earth might be a lot bigger than he thought it was and that he simply might starve on the way to Asia, WHICH IT WAS AND HE WOULD HAVE IF HE HAD NOT STUMBLED OVER THE AMERICAS BY SHEER UNADULTERATED LUCK.[/quote]
Stumbled… luck?
Hell, he wouldn’t have been able to avoid hitting them, as he was heading west.
[/quote]
But he did not know that it was there.
Nobody did.
And he was already pretty low on supplies and would have had to sail across the whole landmass of America and then cross the Pacific, all on rainwater and half a cracker a day.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
…Columbus was never warned that the earth was flat, he was warned that the earth might be a lot bigger than he thought it was and that he simply might starve on the way to Asia, WHICH IT WAS AND HE WOULD HAVE IF HE HAD NOT STUMBLED OVER THE AMERICAS BY SHEER UNADULTERATED LUCK.[/quote]
Stumbled… luck?
Hell, he wouldn’t have been able to avoid hitting them, as he was heading west.
[/quote]
LOL…as if America jumped in his way right before he passed it.[/quote]
Dont make me facepalm you.
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
And again:
Galileo was not prosecuted for teaching that the earth revolved around the sun.
That was taught, as a theory, all over Europe by lots of people, even in Christian colleges and universities.
What he has prosecuted for was being an obnoxious asshole that made as many enemies as he possibly could just because he was lucky and hit paydirt with this new “telescope” thingy he, um, appropriated from a Dutchman and demanding that the church reinterpreted scripture so as to fit his theory WHICH HE COULD NOT PROVE.
When he then, finally, also directly attacked one of his long lasting allies which just so happened to be THE FUCKING POPE, then he got… house arrest.
[/quote]
Heliocentrism was allowed to be taught as a theory as long as it remained one. Galileo’s asshole rep was earned in part because he was the first to state it as fact. He was prosecuted by the church, but was opposed by a large portion of the scientific community of the day who held true to the idea that the Earth was the center of the known universe. That’s why he met opposition on all sides. It was about far more than which orbited which.
He stood trial for heresy, but it wasn’t because he attacked the Pope: his Popeishness asked Galileo to add his views to his newly completed book. Galileo complied and put the Pope’s words in the mouth of a character called Simplicio. Simplicio was supposed to be named after an Aristotelian philosopher and Galileo mentioned this in his preface. The character represents the argument for geocentrism.
Unfortunately for Galileo, the name ‘Simplicio’ had negative connotations and his enemies in court suggested to the Pope that Galileo was trying to make a fool of him. That didn’t help, but the court record shows that Galileo was directly accused of opposing scripture by way of his support of heliocentrism.
Galileo was initially sentenced to indefinite imprisonment. This was shortly after reduced to house arrest, but the initial sentence is what it is.
None of this really matters: he was right.[/quote]
That was the Wikipedia version.
It fails to mention that the CC readily accepted the discovery of Jupiters moons, which existence was impossible according to the Ptolemaen model.
It also fails to mention that he could not prove his model, the EVIDENCE was on the side of the Inquisition. Like in, we develop a modell and then look for proof; evidence which just so happened to support the Ptolemaeic version of things. More or less.
Also, this whole Simplicio thing would carry much more water if there werent letters he wrote to his colleagues were he was quite a dick, if he had not spoken Italian and if Simplicio had not bought up the exact same arguments the Pope had. This guy had a history.
Finally, the wars between Protestants and Catholics were very recent at that point and the one thing nobody needed was another issue to fight over.
As for him being right… yeah, he got lucky. Despite the best available evidence at that time he was right.
Does not change that this episode in no way, shape or form demonstrates that the CC was not on the side of reason or were against science. The one insisting on faith based evidence in this case was Galileo and he was able to do that for decades until he finally managed to go one step to far.
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
BTW, Pushharder has a fundamentally spot-on perspective for questioning dating methods (and questioning certain aspects of Evolution Theory while I’m at it) that gives him the potential to make quite a good scientist – at least as an editor in peer reviewed journals anyway 
[/quote]
You think?
I looked into this, and young earthers insist on is that not only did the rate of radioactive decay slow down significantly (meaning, it started out so fast and hit the brakes so hard that something might look like it was a few hundred million years old but really isnt) but also that the speed of light has done the same thing which is why we see stars that are hundreds if not thousands of light years away can all be seen now, even though this planet has only existed a few thousand years.
I like a good story as much as the next guy but suspension of disbelief only goes so far.
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
Age of the rock is the least interesting thing about it.[/quote]
This! Exactly Steely. We should feel excitement at what’s to be found within this discovery and what implications it will have on our understanding of the prehistoric era.
Maybe there really WERE epic battles between great white otters and saber-toothed panda mounted woolly roaches!!! 
At first I thought it was a landshark…
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]roybot wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
And again:
Galileo was not prosecuted for teaching that the earth revolved around the sun.
That was taught, as a theory, all over Europe by lots of people, even in Christian colleges and universities.
What he has prosecuted for was being an obnoxious asshole that made as many enemies as he possibly could just because he was lucky and hit paydirt with this new “telescope” thingy he, um, appropriated from a Dutchman and demanding that the church reinterpreted scripture so as to fit his theory WHICH HE COULD NOT PROVE.
When he then, finally, also directly attacked one of his long lasting allies which just so happened to be THE FUCKING POPE, then he got… house arrest.
[/quote]
Heliocentrism was allowed to be taught as a theory as long as it remained one. Galileo’s asshole rep was earned in part because he was the first to state it as fact. He was prosecuted by the church, but was opposed by a large portion of the scientific community of the day who held true to the idea that the Earth was the center of the known universe. That’s why he met opposition on all sides. It was about far more than which orbited which.
He stood trial for heresy, but it wasn’t because he attacked the Pope: his Popeishness asked Galileo to add his views to his newly completed book. Galileo complied and put the Pope’s words in the mouth of a character called Simplicio. Simplicio was supposed to be named after an Aristotelian philosopher and Galileo mentioned this in his preface. The character represents the argument for geocentrism.
Unfortunately for Galileo, the name ‘Simplicio’ had negative connotations and his enemies in court suggested to the Pope that Galileo was trying to make a fool of him. That didn’t help, but the court record shows that Galileo was directly accused of opposing scripture by way of his support of heliocentrism.
Galileo was initially sentenced to indefinite imprisonment. This was shortly after reduced to house arrest, but the initial sentence is what it is.
None of this really matters: he was right.[/quote]
That was the Wikipedia version.
It fails to mention that the CC readily accepted the discovery of Jupiters moons, which existence was impossible according to the Ptolemaen model.
It also fails to mention that he could not prove his model, the EVIDENCE was on the side of the Inquisition. Like in, we develop a modell and then look for proof evidence which just so happened to support the Ptolemaeic version of things. More or less.
Also, this whole Simplicio thing would carry much more water if there werent letters he wrote to his colleagues were he was quite a dick, if he had not spoken Italian and if Simplicio had not bought up the exact same arguments the Pope had. This guy had a history.
Finally, the wars between Protestants and Catholics were very recent at that point and the one thing nobody needed was another issue to fight over.
As for him being right… yeah, he got lucky. Despite the best available evidence at that time he was right.
Does not change that this episode in no way, shape or form demonstrates that the CC was not on the side of reason or were against science. The one insisting on faith based evidence in this case was Galileo and he was able to do that for decades until he finally managed to go one step to far. [/quote]
Well, no, it wasn’t the Wikipedia version. It was a summarized version of events to save pages of back-and-forth. What I said was not “complete nonsense”. The discovery of Jupiter’s moon did not undermine the idea that the Earth was the center of the universe; heliocentrism would have, so of course the former would have been more readily accepted. It wasn’t a case of “oh, Galileo has a tidbit of information that will challenge what we know about the known universe…let’s hear what he had to say with an objective ear”…far from it.
Simplicio brought up the exact same arguments as the Pope because Urban requested that his views be featured in Galileo’s book. As the Pope was aligned with the Ptolemean view of the cosmos, his views were naturally integreted into a character who embodied those views.
It just so happens that the Italianization of Urban’s given pseudonym denoted an individual of low intelligence. It was Galileo’s word against theirs, and he was shouted down by the majority (as usual when someone takes a stand).
If Galileo was such an outspoken ass (and being one doesn’t preclude being right or competent), he would have presented Simplicio as a flat-out idiot and there would have been evidence of his plan to humiliate the Pope in his letters, and he wouldn’t have mentioned in his preface who inspired the name in the first place.
He was not on trial for being a dick; he was on trial for heresy.
Not a hearing: a trial. His character and conduct were under review for writing about Copernican theory, not his findings. Galileo had proof. It was in his book in the form of a dialogue. The same book that was banned by the Inquisition and led to his charge in the first place.
If you want to discuss the nature of proof and evidence, maybe you should look to those who held to geocentrism. There was no proof of that, yet they still believed it even though they were utterly wrong…
The Inquistion did not have evidence or reason on their side. They were wrong. We know this.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
BTW, Pushharder has a fundamentally spot-on perspective for questioning dating methods (and questioning certain aspects of Evolution Theory while I’m at it) that gives him the potential to make quite a good scientist – at least as an editor in peer reviewed journals anyway
[/quote]
You think?
I looked into this, and young earthers insist on is that not only did the rate of radioactive decay slow down significantly (meaning, it started out so fast and hit the brakes so hard that something might look like it was a few hundred million years old but really isnt) but also that the speed of light has done the same thing which is why we see stars that are hundreds if not thousands of light years away can all be seen now, even though this planet has only existed a few thousand years.
I like a good story as much as the next guy but suspension of disbelief only goes so far.[/quote]
Yes, I do think the skepticism and points PH makes for both geochronology and evolution are valid and healthy debate, especially the evolution pieces. I obviously don’t agree that the Earth is on the order of thousands of years old.
Look, the same math we use to build nuclear reactors, particle accelerators, and rockets 'n shit is the same math that’s used to calculate radioactive half-lives. Based on relative dating and consistency in the methods, even with outliers, bad data, etc, the orders of magnitude work. It works.
Something that dates at 298 million years old using K/Ar could cause a lot of debate if a Megazostrodon was found in the rock (I’ll leave it to the initiated to figure out why). What WOULDN’T be in debate was that the rock might be 6000 years old. Even the wildest variations and poor methods wouldn’t yield that.
Point? There are problems with all forms of absolute and relative geochronological dating methods(that’s what keeps geochemists employed). Those problems however don’t span 6 orders of magnitude in the measurements.
“Young Earth” theory stems back to Bishop Ussher in the 16th or 17th century- Google him for details. There’s nothing inherently scientific about what he did. His conclusions were accepted as ‘fact’ and it still persists to this day. Cool story bro. It’s neither science, nor religion.
In the end, still none of this even remotely touches on how science/religion can’t co-exist.
[quote]Stern wrote:
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
Age of the rock is the least interesting thing about it.[/quote]
This! Exactly Steely. We should feel excitement at what’s to be found within this discovery and what implications it will have on our understanding of the prehistoric era.
Maybe there really WERE epic battles between great white otters and saber-toothed panda mounted woolly roaches!!!
[/quote]
BEWARE THE PLEISTOCENE BEAVERS!!!
^^^ I jumped into this thread after 14 pages and with PimpBot5000’s name on the end and thought it would be far gone into screwy funnyness but only found this.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Christine wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
Explosive.[/quote]
Bowel movements?[/quote]
D-Aspartic Acid. I posted a few pages back.[/quote]
Rats, I thought we were going to make poop jokes.
:([/quote]
The thread did start with jokes about young earth creationists…[/quote]
rimshot[/quote]
Rusty rimshot
[quote]Stern wrote:
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
Age of the rock is the least interesting thing about it.[/quote]
This! Exactly Steely. We should feel excitement at what’s to be found within this discovery and what implications it will have on our understanding of the prehistoric era.
Maybe there really WERE epic battles between great white otters and saber-toothed panda mounted woolly roaches!!!
[/quote]
Fucking hilarious.
[quote]Nards wrote:
^^^ I jumped into this thread after 14 pages and with PimpBot5000’s name on the end and thought it would be far gone into screwy funnyness but only found this.[/quote]
“Only”?? Dude, it’s a freaking MEGA-SLOTH!!
Mega-Sloth vs. Power Loader from “Aliens”…who wins?
[quote]PimpBot5000 wrote:
[quote]Nards wrote:
^^^ I jumped into this thread after 14 pages and with PimpBot5000’s name on the end and thought it would be far gone into screwy funnyness but only found this.[/quote]
“Only”?? Dude, it’s a freaking MEGA-SLOTH!!
Mega-Sloth vs. Power Loader from “Aliens”…who wins?[/quote]
The sabertooth panda of course! He’ll kill everybody!
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
[quote]Stern wrote:
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
Age of the rock is the least interesting thing about it.[/quote]
This! Exactly Steely. We should feel excitement at what’s to be found within this discovery and what implications it will have on our understanding of the prehistoric era.
Maybe there really WERE epic battles between great white otters and saber-toothed panda mounted woolly roaches!!!
[/quote]
BEWARE THE PLEISTOCENE BEAVERS!!![/quote]
HOLY SHIT! That’s one bad-ass beaver!
[quote]Stern wrote:
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
[quote]Stern wrote:
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
Age of the rock is the least interesting thing about it.[/quote]
This! Exactly Steely. We should feel excitement at what’s to be found within this discovery and what implications it will have on our understanding of the prehistoric era.
Maybe there really WERE epic battles between great white otters and saber-toothed panda mounted woolly roaches!!!
[/quote]
BEWARE THE PLEISTOCENE BEAVERS!!![/quote]
HOLY SHIT! That’s one bad-ass beaver!
[/quote]
Stern, I sent you a pm.
