Noah's Ark Encounter Opens In Kentucky

[hog88]

I have no problem with people spending money on whatever they f*** they want but that money could've been used in such a better way. Kentucky ranks 4th highest in the nation for poverty, 17th in household food insecurity and 28th in child food insecurity. About 1 out 4 kids in Kentucky aren't getting enough food for a healthy active lifestyle. If Christians really wanted to make a difference in their community, put that money towards feeding kids and helping those who could truly use there help. I'd be willing to bet 99% of people going to that are Christians already and if they're really worried about reaching nonbelievers, there's much better ways of doing so.

poorly educated folks will do poorly educated things... :zeitung_lesen:

So is it better to give these poorly educated starving people handouts or jobs? Like it or not this attraction requires employees.

 

[joevol320]

yep, they refuse to have an open mind when it comes to their religion.

 

[marcusluvsvols]

I will definitely check deeper into the wiggle curve. What I've seen of it doesn't negate the effect of variable environmental C-content. But I'll read up on it some more.

Radiometric dating. I still don't think it's a slam dunk as, since the 90s, tests have been showing that the radiometric decay rates aren't constant. Things like earth rotation, atmospheric conditions, and distance between the earth and sun effect the decay rate of various radio-isotope decay.

Personally, I've said all along that I'm not firmly in any camp on the age of the earth. I'm a "dunno-earther". I just take issue when the old-earthers mock the young-earthers as though they have a rock solid, proven case. They generally have that argument by holding creationists to a higher standard than they hold themselves, as shown in the closing comments of the article I quoted earlier.

After posting his own circular reasoning that still left a big ? about the age of the earth, he said:



So, after listing the reasons for his own assumptions per the C-content of earth's atmosphere, he negates the creationists because their beliefs are based on assumptions about the C-content of the atmosphere. High hypocrisy.

Personally, I believe both camps are making assumptions, so refuse to make objective claims either way.

:hi:

I absolutely dont care how old the earth is. I find things like the multiverse, string theory, dark matter and dark energy fascinating. Love science and always have...other than AP chemistry in 11th grade. Hated it...with a passion. Physics AP was a great time though. While i enjoy contemplating the newer theories that come about...they dont and never will have any effect on my faith, family, or day to day life. I have read the book, i know how the story ends. I see the God who created all these trillions of galaxies manifest Himself in my worthless little life and it never fails to humble me and make me praise Him. He has worked miracles in my life and i will never deserve his grace. Those who earnestly seek Him will find Him, every man is exactly as close to the Lord as he truly desires to be. I should be much closer myself, i have not yet been able to truly die to my self and get my own desires of the flesh out of the way long enough to walk hand in hand with Christ like some do. I have known a few people in my life who are there...my pastor is one of them. It is amazing to behold what a person who is 100% sold out for Christ can do. Hope to make it there myself one day.

 

[VolsSportsFan]

anything that i post from any scientist that is pro-creation, you're not going to bother to read.

Assumptions are cool, because it lets you keep hiding behind that victim curtain.

 

[joevol320]

Assumptions are cool, because it lets you keep hiding behind that victim curtain.

i'm not assuming anything.

 

[joevol320]

I absolutely dont care how old the earth is. I find things like the multiverse, string theory, dark matter and dark energy fascinating. Love science and always have...other than AP chemistry in 11th grade. Hated it...with a passion. Physics AP was a great time though. While i enjoy contemplating the newer theories that come about...they dont and never will have any effect on my faith, family, or day to day life. I have read the book, i know how the story ends. I see the God who created all these trillions of galaxies manifest Himself in my worthless little life and it never fails to humble me and make me praise Him. He has worked miracles in my life and i will never deserve his grace. Those who earnestly seek Him will find Him, every man is exactly as close to the Lord as he truly desires to be. I should be much closer myself, i have not yet been able to truly die to my self and get my own desires of the flesh out of the way long enough to walk hand in hand with Christ like some do. I have known a few people in my life who are there...my pastor is one of them. It is amazing to behold what a person who is 100% sold out for Christ can do. Hope to make it there myself one day.

good post, but i believe that Gods wants Christians to defend the Bible from the world's attacks. if the world can put doubt in people's mind concerning how the earth was created, then it can be don concerning Christ's death, burial and resurrection.

 

[marcusluvsvols]

good post, but i believe that Gods wants Christians to defend the Bible from the world's attacks. if the world can put doubt in people's mind concerning how the earth was created, then it can be don concerning Christ's death, burial and resurrection.

I think that there is a time to stand up certainly, but as OC said the other day...the Bible is an anvil that has withstood innumerable hammers...it has never and will never be destroyed. Most printed book in history, and as you know, the Word is a living entity, the divine revelation of Gods character. I do believe that Christians should stand up for our beliefs, but in a Christlike manner. That is the tricky part.

 

[rjd970]

Because of the context of the conversation. i.e. abiogenesis, and by extension the ToE.

And because the simplest definition of 'evolution' is change over time--the two things that you claim are illusion.



They are illusion, according to you. What utility is there in proposing that things change over time while simultaneously claiming that change/time doesn't exist? What utility is there in telling me that when change/time doesn't exist? Are you expecting me to change my mind and agree with you after hearing your argument? lol

You're a quandary to me. Seriously. You propose the theory that breaks the scientific method (without time and change, there are no laws of causation) while claiming to be staunchly empiricist and scientific.

No biggie. Just pointing out the self-conflicting nature of your various viewpoints. :hi:

Perhaps incomplete is a better word than wrong.

I'm simply saying there is a lot going on we don't know. The non existence of time helps explain a lot as it pertains to quantum mechanics and physics. Evidence suggests our understanding of time to be incomplete, and maybe even causation. None of that states that the fundamental scientific theory is wrong. Like everything, it has its place where it works. In relativity and quantum mechanics, something else is obviously going on.

Time is no different than space. Getting in your car and driving to Knoxville does not bring Knoxville into existence. Knoxville was always there. Like space, you simply displaced yourself in time. You didn't bring about change to bring Knoxville into existence. This is basic Eimteinian physics.

We experience time as a series of passing moments. In that context, we use it to explain any number of phenomenon. What the hell is wrong with that? It's the best way to explain what we are experiencing.

And if you really understand what I'm saying as breaking the scientific theory, then this is a hopeless exercise to debate. Time and change are happening as we see it on any stage other than macro time-space or at the quantum level.

Pick up any 3rd semester college Physics textbook If you want to know more. It's not my responsibility to explain your ignorance to you.

Or just continue believing what you want, it matters not to me. But your arrogance here is bordering on comical.

 

[PKT_VOL]

"There Is No Such Thing As Time" | Popular Science

Yep. Time is an illusion, as is change. There simply is no "before" or "after". The bird hit by the baseball or life arising are simple instances in the solution space that can happen. As we displace ourselves through this solution space we will inevitably see these things.

Time or the "flow" of time. There is a difference.

 

[PKT_VOL]

You are appealing to statistical improbabilities (magic) with simpleton analogies.
Life is information, not just material. There is nothing logical here. In fact, it's fallacious reasoning and an Odds of the gaps argument.

Improbability =/= Impossibility.

Impossibility = Magic.

Improbability =/= Magic.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Perhaps incomplete is a better word than wrong.

I'm simply saying there is a lot going on we don't know. The non existence of time helps explain a lot as it pertains to quantum mechanics and physics. Evidence suggests our understanding of time to be incomplete, and maybe even causation. None of that states that the fundamental scientific theory is wrong. Like everything, it has its place where it works. In relativity and quantum mechanics, something else is obviously going on.

Time is no different than space. Getting in your car and driving to Knoxville does not bring Knoxville into existence. Knoxville was always there. Like space, you simply displaced yourself in time. You didn't bring about change to bring Knoxville into existence. This is basic Eimteinian physics.

We experience time as a series of passing moments. In that context, we use it to explain any number of phenomenon. What the hell is wrong with that? It's the best way to explain what we are experiencing.

And if you really understand what I'm saying as breaking the scientific theory, then this is a hopeless exercise to debate. Time and change are happening as we see it on any stage other than macro time-space or at the quantum level.

Pick up any 3rd semester college Physics textbook If you want to know more. It's not my responsibility to explain your ignorance to you.

Or just continue believing what you want, it matters not to me. But your arrogance here is bordering on comical.

I didn't mean to hit such a sore spot, rjt. But you're saying much more than "simply that there is a lot going on that we don't understand". A lot more than that. I could agree with that statement.

I'm open to being wrong on this. So, just explain to me how evolution (change over time) is true while the nonexistence of change and time are also true.

Explain to me how science works if the laws of causation don't hold true. Or, explain how the laws of causation hold true if change and time do not exist.

You've used the nonexistence of time and change to prop up the statistical possibility/probability of life springing from non-life. It is not arrogance to point out the logical problems with using both arguments together.

 

[MercyPercy]

How do you know the fish is that old?
-Because the rock is that old.
How do you know the rock is that old?
-Duh, becausebecause the fish is that old.

You're smarter than this, man.

I hope.

 

[rjd970]

I didn't mean to hit such a sore spot, rjt. But you're saying much more than "simply that there is a lot going on that we don't understand". A lot more than that. I could agree with that statement.

I'm open to being wrong on this. So, just explain to me how evolution (change over time) is true while the nonexistence of change and time are also true.

Explain to me how science works if the laws of causation don't hold true. Or, explain how the laws of causation hold true if change and time do not exist.

You've used the nonexistence of time and change to prop up the statistical possibility/probability of life springing from non-life. It is not arrogance to point out the logical problems with using both arguments together.

No sore spot hit. While causation is a scientific principle, I know not of this "Law of Causation" you keep referring to, at least not in the scientific sense. Also, please point out where I have used the non existence of time as some prop for the beginning of life.

Think of it like this. Time is not moving along as a series of moments passing from the future, to the present, to the past...and we are along for the ride. That view of time and change does not in fact exist, and is in fact an illusion.

On the contrary, we are traveling through time, not time traveling by us. Much like we get in a car and travel through space by driving down the road....like space, time is just there, we are displacing ourselves through it. The road isn't "changing", we are just getting to different parts of it by displacing ourselves through it. The road is just there. Time is just there. This is what is meant by space-time. They are both the same thing.

Just as rocks change, we age, evolution happens...its not the passage of time, its US passing through time. So change is in fact an illusion....the passage of time is in fact an illusion...we just ARE and everything just IS, but we are displacing ourselves through time to get to these different points.

None of that disproves any scientific theory.

EDIT:

And since you like to harp on words and argue verbiage when all else fails...I meant the "non-existence of the flow of time". I'm not going down another rabbit hole of arguing the meaning of words with you.

 

[rjd970]

Time or the "flow" of time. There is a difference.

From a space-time point of view, time no more "flows" or "moves" than space does. This is what I mean by non-existence of time. You are probably right, maybe if I say the non-existence of the flow of time it is more correct.

 

[Orange_Crush]

No sore spot hit. While causation is a scientific principle, I know not of this "Law of Causation" you keep referring to, at least not in the scientific sense. Also, please point out where I have used the non existence of time as some prop for the beginning of life.

Definition of law of causation
: a principle in philosophy: every change in nature is produced by some cause

Think of it like this. Time is not moving along as a series of moments passing from the future, to the present, to the past...and we are along for the ride. That view of time and change does not in fact exist, and is in fact an illusion.

On the contrary, we are traveling through time, not time traveling by us. Much like we get in a car and travel through space by driving down the road....like space, time is just there, we are displacing ourselves through it. The road isn't "changing", we are just getting to different parts of it by displacing ourselves through it. The road is just there. Time is just there. This is what is meant by space-time. They are both the same thing.

Just as rocks change, we age, evolution happens...its not the passage of time, its US passing through time. So change is in fact an illusion....the passage of time is in fact an illusion...we just ARE and everything just IS, but we are displacing ourselves through time to get to these different points.

None of that disproves any scientific theory.

EDIT:

And since you like to harp on words and argue verbiage when all else fails...I meant the "non-existence of the flow of time". I'm not going down another rabbit hole of arguing the meaning of words with you.

Rjt, the meaning of words is important. If you don't want to have discussions where it's important to clearly convey what you mean, and give clarity when needed, then I don't know how you expect to ever have fruitful discussions.

Having said, "time/change" are illusions, you can't imagine how I would take that and superimpose that claim over the other various beliefs that you claim to have? I mean, I can demonstrate that you do not actually believe that statement. You're alive. You've eaten when you get hungry. You've drank when you were thirsty. And you will again. You obviously believe that time exists and change exists. You obviously believe that food satiates hunger and keeps you alive, and you obviously believe that there will be a time in the future that you die if you don't eat/drink.

You obviously believe that change occurs and is more than just your disconnected travel through unchanging space.

(TLDR version at end)

Are you trying to describe Julian Barbour's philosophical treatise about time? If so, I personally think that you are misrepresenting him. In his philosophy, we do not 'travel' through time because time does not exist. Basically there are an (almost) infinite amount of 'universes" that are un-connected but by the relationship that our minds somehow give them to give the impression of time flow/travel/whatever. Each "moment" is not a tick of the clock that proceeds from the previous, they are each individual and un-connected universes. He calls them "nows/time capsules".

Again, they are unconnected but by our conscious arrangement of them. They are all quantum probabilities and we have somehow evolved to connect those which are most probable.

Scrodinger's cat is two different cats, and the acid did not kill one of them. No universe caused any other universe. There is no cause. There is no effect. There is no change. Just innumerable unchanging universes that we piece together somehow to give the impression of time, change, motion, cause an effect.

If this is the case, then there is no connection between a universe where life does not exist, and a universe where life exists. There were no causes that led to life beginning, because life did not begin. It just existed in that universe all along. Again, each universe is a disconnected, static, unchanging snapshot.

So, you can hopefully see my confusion when (if) you try to use this philosophy to bolster your views on the probabilities of life beginning. In Barbour's philosophy, probabilities are literally meaningless. There are no probabilities because there are no causes, effects, changes, or time.

Barbour seems to have missed the fact that, by doing away with time, motion, cause, effect, and the natural, true progression of moments as springing from one another, he has done away with the very idea of probabilities--the same probabilities that the underlying quantum models depend on. Bluntly, if there is no dependency on cause and effect (change over time, dependent on connection between moments), then nothing is any more probable than any other reality.

Also, there is no connection between one species of animal and another. There are no true "moments", or increments, or crawl of time, or cause or effect. There is no "transition". Not only is there no connection between an animal and "its offspring" (I put that in quotes because no animal actually has offspring), but there is no connection between one animal and "itself" in the next instant. The "self" of the next animal is a completely different animal in the next "universe/now/time capsule". Each "self" is just another probabilistic arrangement of matter in its own, separate time capsule.

So, evolution is an illusion that our minds create based on some unproven ability that our minds have evolved, which filters all possible realities into a fake "stream" of moments that got us to here. Again, evolution does not exist, but we evolved the ability to filter probabilities (that do not exist) into a perception that evolution exists.

TLDR

You've changed your vocabulary, even though you seem to think that arguing vocabulary is meaningless. I believe it to be important.

If you didn't actually mean that time/change/cause/effect/probabilities are illusion, then I withdraw my complaint.

If you are trying to describe Barbour's philosophy that seeks to rationalize classical physics with quantum, then I believe there are serious philosophical issues, as highlighted above.

Perhaps my shallow intellect just can't grasp what he's getting at and I'm wrong. But for the sake of the discussion, as you've re-framed it, I'll withdraw my critique of your statements since you've revised the statement.

:hi:

 

[rjd970]

Definition of law of causation
: a principle in philosophy: every change in nature is produced by some cause




Rjt, the meaning of words is important. If you don't want to have discussions where it's important to clearly convey what you mean, and give clarity when needed, then I don't know how you expect to ever have fruitful discussions.

Having said, "time/change" are illusions, you can't imagine how I would take that and superimpose that claim over the other various beliefs that you claim to have? I mean, I can demonstrate that you do not actually believe that statement. You're alive. You've eaten when you get hungry. You've drank when you were thirsty. And you will again. You obviously believe that time exists and change exists. You obviously believe that food satiates hunger and keeps you alive, and you obviously believe that there will be a time in the future that you die if you don't eat/drink.

You obviously believe that change occurs and is more than just your disconnected travel through unchanging space.

(TLDR version at end)

Are you trying to describe Julian Barbour's philosophical treatise about time? If so, I personally think that you are misrepresenting him. In his philosophy, we do not 'travel' through time because time does not exist. Basically there are an (almost) infinite amount of 'universes" that are un-connected but by the relationship that our minds somehow give them to give the impression of time flow/travel/whatever. Each "moment" is not a tick of the clock that proceeds from the previous, they are each individual and un-connected universes. He calls them "nows/time capsules".

Again, they are unconnected but by our conscious arrangement of them. They are all quantum probabilities and we have somehow evolved to connect those which are most probable.

Scrodinger's cat is two different cats, and the acid did not kill one of them. No universe caused any other universe. There is no cause. There is no effect. There is no change. Just innumerable unchanging universes that we piece together somehow to give the impression of time, change, motion, cause an effect.

If this is the case, then there is no connection between a universe where life does not exist, and a universe where life exists. There were no causes that led to life beginning, because life did not begin. It just existed in that universe all along. Again, each universe is a disconnected, static, unchanging snapshot.

So, you can hopefully see my confusion when (if) you try to use this philosophy to bolster your views on the probabilities of life beginning. In Barbour's philosophy, probabilities are literally meaningless. There are no probabilities because there are no causes, effects, changes, or time.

Barbour seems to have missed the fact that, by doing away with time, motion, cause, effect, and the natural, true progression of moments as springing from one another, he has done away with the very idea of probabilities--the same probabilities that the underlying quantum models depend on. Bluntly, if there is no dependency on cause and effect (change over time, dependent on connection between moments), then nothing is any more probable than any other reality.

Also, there is no connection between one species of animal and another. There are no true "moments", or increments, or crawl of time, or cause or effect. There is no "transition". Not only is there no connection between an animal and "its offspring" (I put that in quotes because no animal actually has offspring), but there is no connection between one animal and "itself" in the next instant. The "self" of the next animal is a completely different animal in the next "universe/now/time capsule". Each "self" is just another probabilistic arrangement of matter in its own, separate time capsule.

So, evolution is an illusion that our minds create based on some unproven ability that our minds have evolved, which filters all possible realities into a fake "stream" of moments that got us to here. Again, evolution does not exist, but we evolved the ability to filter probabilities (that do not exist) into a perception that evolution exists.

TLDR

You've changed your vocabulary, even though you seem to think that arguing vocabulary is meaningless. I believe it to be important.

If you didn't actually mean that time/change/cause/effect/probabilities are illusion, then I withdraw my complaint.

If you are trying to describe Barbour's philosophy that seeks to rationalize classical physics with quantum, then I believe there are serious philosophical issues, as highlighted above.

Perhaps my shallow intellect just can't grasp what he's getting at and I'm wrong. But for the sake of the discussion, as you've re-framed it, I'll withdraw my critique of your statements since you've revised the statement.

:hi:

I read this whole thing. All I stated was Einstein's theory on space-time. You've officially jumped into the rabbit's hole and I'm not following you in. Sorry.

Pick up a physics textbook.

 

[Orange_Crush]

"There Is No Such Thing As Time" | Popular Science

Yep. Time is an illusion, as is change. There simply is no "before" or "after". The bird hit by the baseball or life arising are simple instances in the solution space that can happen. As we displace ourselves through this solution space we will inevitably see these things.

I read this whole thing. All I stated was Einstein's theory on space-time. Available in any Physics textbook. You've officially jumped into the rabbit's hole and I'm not following you in. Sorry.

Pick up a physics textbook.

OK. So I misinterpreted your agreement to that link. Slice linked to an article discussing Barbour's philosophy. You agreed and said that both time and change are an illusion.

You don't understand how I would make the connection in that context?

But again. No biggie. Have a nice day.

 

[Roustabout]

The equivocation going on in this thread is mind boggling.
Criss crossing from physics into metaphysics

 

[DancingOutlaw]

Why did it get so serial? It was better when we were talking about dinosaurs in the ark.

 

[DinkinFlicka]

Why did it get so serial? It was better when we were talking about dinosaurs in the ark.

Literally all 4 people on VN who possess no sense of humor came together and had a super serial circjerk.

 

[PKT_VOL]

From a space-time point of view, time no more "flows" or "moves" than space does. This is what I mean by non-existence of time. You are probably right, maybe if I say the non-existence of the flow of time it is more correct.

It makes quite a difference. Or, in the spirit of this election cycle, it makes huuuuuuuge difference.

 

[Grey_pilgrim]

It makes quite a difference. Or, in the spirit of this election cycle, it makes yuuuuuuuge difference.

Fyp

 

[Orange_Crush]

It makes quite a difference. Or, in the spirit of this election cycle, it makes huuuuuuuge difference.

And they said you don't have a sense of humor...

Glad to see you're back around. Where you been? Don't want to sound all emotional and all, but missed you around these parts.

 

[Grey_pilgrim]

OC to PKT

 

[Orange_Crush]

OC to PKT