I didn't read the posts in this, so I'm not sure if anybody linked this site yet but it's quite interesting.
Here is the site
This is an interesting article entitled "wheres the proof"
And
here is one on carbon 14 dating
At the end of the day you interpet the facts and believe what you want to believe. We're all alive here and now no matter how it happened.
You can't outrun the radio.
www.answersingenesis.com? Although the author presents his argument well and uses actual scientific arguments, his argument should have been against billions of years, and maybe in favor of millions. Nothing he has said has supported a "thousands" argument! Supporting that is SO ridiculius because not even the Bible has quoted the age of the Earth. and if the creation story and Noah are just stories than you cannot assume that tracing the ages of all of those Biblical characters back will give you the age of creation.
There is no reason to believe the Earth is that young... there is no evidence for it. There is not enough time in that time scale to hold 1% of Earth's history. To believe this is to deny the existence of 99% of the Earth's creatures! It also ignores the history of man, which existed long before 10000 years. We have written records older. How can things exist before existing? I just haven't heard anything from these people except "wah waaah C14 dating sux! wahh" Give me some other explanations please!
Did you look around the site?
SPITfire wrote:The rate of decay of 14C is such that half of an amount will convert back to 14N in 5,730 years (plus or minus 40 years). This is the ‘half-life.’ So, in two half-lives, or 11,460 years, only one-quarter will be left. Thus, if the amount of 14C relative to 12C in a sample is one-quarter of that in living organisms at present, then it has a theoretical age of 11,460 years. Anything over about 50,000 years old, should theoretically have no detectable 14C left. That is why radiocarbon dating cannot give millions of years. In fact, if a sample contains 14C, it is good evidence that it is not millions of years old.
There is one example of a thousands of years example from one of the articles I linked. I just checked this out today, but on the main page
www.answersingenesis.org if you click on the get answers section there is MANY articles that don't deal with C14 dating. I cannot attest to the valivalidityany of them as I have not read them, but there is more there than "C14 sucks!"
Some other examples they have are the amount of salt going into bodies of water, rate of population increase, the expansion rate of supernovas, and the distance the moon is moving away from the earth. I encourage you to read the other side of the millions/billions of years debate and make up your own mind.
You can't outrun the radio.
Oops, quote should have been from Answersingenesis, not Spitfire.
You can't outrun the radio.
Moon Refuted
better yet
Every One of Your Argument Refuted
take a little while to read... it all has been covered. Magnetic fields, comets, stars, moon, salts, etc.
let me pass one more thing by you.
These people on these fundamentalist websites claim that science has "got it all wrong" with interpretation of the evidence. Who the heck do they think they are? Science is based on the scientific method, in which a hypothesis must face a series of tests to survive. If the evidence does not support the hypothesis, scientific method says that the hypothesis should be rejected or revised. A new hypothesis can then be put in its place. A theory only comes to be when a hypothesis has weathered the experimentation and evidence still supports it. Science today is ALL about peer-review and nothing can enter a scientific journal wihtout passing by the eyes of a dozen peers.
So..... how do you suppose evolution and all of ideas that have gone along with it have survived unchanged for 150 years or more? Don't you suppose that the evidence is so overwhlming for an old Earth that it is common knowledge? If the evidence was so "convincing" for an Earth 10,000 years old, don't you think mainstream science would take notice? But notice no ONE reputable scientific journal or textbook has even entertained the idea.... based on the scientific method and peer review, one can safely assume that the idea has been PROVEN untrue already.
Fundamentalist Christians, the tiny percentage that they are, are the ONLY ones who believe what you are citing in that website. Do you realize that most other religions and science have left you behind in the dark Ages? Do you realize how stupid this10K yr. sounds to an science-educated person? Notice how the old Earth argument is universal all over the world, no matter if you are in India, Japan, Europe, or America? In stark contrast to your argument, which is held by <1% of the world... with all of the creation stories and flood stories in this world, I could come on JBO and claim the bla-bla tribe of Swaziland has it all right. The Bible "stories" have just as much evidence behind them, THE BOOk only! I am not dissing God as I believe in 95% of the Bible, the stories are just that, stories! God is probably chuckling at people trying to prove his little stories!
also... isn't kinda funny that all of the sites for these creationists articles are on websites with something "genesis, god, bible, faith" in their URL and surrounding the article are advertisements for Bibles and anti-evolution books. A clear indication a pack of angry pastors and born-again ex-scientists are behind it.
alert me when a site for a scientific journal or a museum or a scientific lab backs this stuff OR is not so obviously biased.
Damn.. you beat me to it!!! Good one Spitfire.
Answeringenesis.org wrote:
Many physical evidence contradict the ‘billions of years’
Of the methods that have been used to estimate the age of the earth, 90 percent point to an age far less than the billions of years asserted by evolutionists. A few of them follow.
* Evidence for a rapid formation of geological strata, as in the biblical flood. Some of the evidence are: lack of erosion between rock layers supposedly separated in age by many millions of years; lack of disturbance of rock strata by biological activity (worms, roots, etc.); lack of soil layers; polystrate fossils (which traverse several rock layers vertically—these could not have stood vertically for eons of time while they slowly got buried); thick layers of ‘rock’ bent without fracturing, indicating that the rock was all soft when bent; and more. For more, see books by geologists Morris26 and Austin.27
It's called Metamorphosis. Rock under heavy geological stress (ie subduction, tectonic upheaval, meteor impact) can exhibit these characteristics. This is seen in the Ottawa Valley Escarpment, which is Precambrian rock, which also dropped enough to expose the strata. The other thing: rocks at the site of an impact crater may actually liquefy and become igneous. 2 Geologists singing a similar tune are not going to overwhelm the rest that understand that rock can act fluidly during an earthquake, and that there is a greater possibility of many organisms infiltrating rock substrates in succession. If that was impossible, then there would be no evidence of meteor impact craters... and clearly, there are tons of
terrestrial impact craters
Quote:
* Red blood cells and hemoglobin have been found in some (unfossilized!) dinosaur bone. But these could not last more than a few thousand years—certainly not the 65 Ma since the last dinosaurs lived, according to evolutionists.28
This has been explained...
Here.
What is not said is at least as powerful as what they did say.
Look, informed belief is one thing, but you have to be INFORMED. It requires reading into both sides of the argument. Plausibility is one thing, but some of these arguments are based on incomplete or incorrect postulates. People that are trying to advance creationism expect you to believe the "My Cousin Vinny" version of the truth without question.
Trying to impeach an established and vetted process (which includes a variation principle and gives age in ranges) without being fully informed on first, how it works, and second, what it's useful on.. it's like having a one legged man in an ass-kicking contest.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
Yeah, creationists and "new-Earthists" are well known for twisting evidence in their favor, jumping on errors (especially with dating) and claiming science is fatally flawed, and claiming things that science has not figured out yet (origin of life, complex physics of the Universe) are evidence that they are wrong.
For the first one, they can twist all they want but they still look like fools to real scientists
For the second one, they can point out a date that was messed up and cry all they want. Science is not fallible, they are mistakes made in the dating process or even the isotope used. If you use carbon-14 to date rock from the Pre-Cambrian, obviously you won't get a good result or if you date something that died yesterday, it won't work either. That is the beauty of science vs. creationism, science is willing to change, creation isn't. Kind of funny they won't even let their beliefs evolve
For the last one, science has not given up on these ideas. We are still learning and science still has alot to figure out about everything from galaxies to diseases. I'd say science had made great progress in the last 200 years in almost every field. Creation... hmmm, no progress in 2000 years. Thinking logically, science has the stronger backing as well.
Now now Spiutfire, you are being as bad as they are.
The Vatican has done its own studies and revised the offical stance on the matter on a few occasions. In or about 230AD St. Athanasius came up with "Created Evolution" and it was re-visited by St. Thomas Aquinas a few hundred years later. Since then the Vatican Scientists have confirmer evolution in vacteria and more than one Pope have mad statements agreeing that there is evolution at play.
The one thing that they will not let go of, and neither will I, is that God is the "Prime Mover". The only thing that cannot be proved or disproved by anyone.
PAX
hahahaha: sorry, I was specifically talking about fundamentalist Christians and born-agains. I realize most religions have made changes to their stances on the issue.
that last thing i wasnt to be compared to it "them"
The only reason for posting the site was to show people another point of view. I came across it and found it interesting. I'm not interested in arguing points over the Internet - it would just be a waste of time. If you've done the research on both sides and made up your mind then thats great. The world needs more people that think for themselves. We are all entitled to our own opinions, even if you don't like mine. Sure, the "creationist" scientists may be biased but please don't fool yourself into believing that some scientists on the other side aren't biased too. It's possible both sides may be using the evidence to their own ends, thats why one must make up his own mind.
You can't outrun the radio.
The problem is that the biased scientists that don't believe in creation theory still have to prove their ideas to the rest, and if they are easily taken apart by the rest that aren't trying to advance an agenda, they're discredited, and therefore their information is disregarded, and their further research grants are thus jeopardised because their findngs are going to be constantly suspect.
The difference is that creationists that have their findings discredited generally continue to subsist because there are those that want creation theory to be true bad enough that they bankroll bad science.
The difference is NOT agenda. It's about attitude: scientists that cannot produce complete, reliable and repeatable results do not last long... If you approach science as a means to an end other than quantitative results without bias, you're going to find that your stance is going be easily assailed. Look at it this way: there is a reason that your local police, state police, defence research and government research scientists are asked what their leanings on creationism are... It can go either way, and if you can't accept that, and follow the evidence: you're NOT WANTED.
The scientific method is by nature very conservative and must be independantly verifiable. Imagine how messed up we'd be if we didn't figure out that gravity acts on all things equally... One simple deductive truth overlooked, and we'd still be in the age of alchemy and sorcery.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
Capo di tutti capi wrote:The earth, IIRC is about 4.55 billion years old. This is based on testing of some kinda quartz I believe.
Last I heard, the religious zealots, thought it was 6k years old. I havent found anyone that actaully believes that though.
well with me being in astronomy 212 we went over this. ^^^^ your very very close. the oldest objects found on the earth are pieces of meteoroids that are about 3.9Gyrs old, which is 3.9 billion years, but with the way the earth constanly creates new surface, they estimate that the earth and all planets are around 4.5-4.6 billion years old. The sun is around 5 billion years old. there are many factors and explenations in this which will take forever to explain but the way they measured the earths age through a few theories and measurements, one being radioactive dating.
There's about 6-8 different ways of age dating samples... C14 is one that's good for about 5000-60,000 years.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
keep in mind, though that a lot of theoretical science (the unproven stuff), and modern-day hardcore creationalist though is merely an extension of sorcery and alchemy.
Anyhow, consider this, despite the fact that Europe tends to have a strong christian population, why is this not an issue there?
Goodbye Callisto & Skađi, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.
Quote:
Anyhow, consider this, despite the fact that Europe tends to have a strong christian population, why is this not an issue there?
yeah I always wondered that myself... maybe they've had their age of sorcery and alchemy (the Middle Ages and before) already
Or maybe it is because Europeans tend to be more liberal than most Americans. It is funny that these fundamentalists are so convinced their book is correct despite most of the world disproving them. I guess their faith exceeds reason?
Fundamentalism is the problem.
There are enough people that wilfully disregard impartial science because it contradicts what they've been taught and what they've come to believe... some people do not want their perceptions challenged, so they rationalize it to their perceptions... perhaps somethings fit, and those that don't are discarded.
Faith can be a beautiful thing, but if they believe that God created all, including their ability to reason, they might just want to exercise that.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
Quote:
if they believe that God created all, including their ability to reason, they might just want to exercise that
Touché, GAM
Goodbye Callisto & Skađi, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.
Cpl Punishment: anytime.
If you want a mind f**ker, there's a few other threads in the War Forum you might want to peruse.
Keeper: I'm occasionally quotable.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
the original creation/evolution thread is probably the most verbose thread on JBO
IF god created man we would ALL look the same, our organs would be perfect, everything about us would be perfect, there would be no midgets, no overly tall people, no obese kids, no siemese twins, no kids with 3 arms. When you look at all the defective births its just evolution doing its job, but nature @!#$ up a lot, just like humans, its in our blood. The reason why we all look different, speak different is because of evolution. One day WE will evolve. But it will take thousands and thousands of years. What wil we evolve into? Perfection. Thats what. Doesn't man and ape have 99% the same dna? But that 1% makes all these religious people believe even more in creation, even though were getting closer and closer to finding out the truth. its buried out there somewhere, we just haven't found it yet.
If evolution doesn't exist, YOU don't exist. When you are born god doesn't go click, we evolve from sperm going into an "egg" and nature takes its natural course of actions and 9 months later a baby is born. If theres no such thing as evolution then why are we discovering new species of birds, insects, fish, mammals every day? New species too, as in this species didn't exist 100 years ago, but does now. That must be god *major sarcasm* Why are some babys premature? Because god wants the kid to be born early so it can have problems?
I really hate people who are narrow minded and don't believe in evolution.
Theres absolutely no similarities between man and ape at all *major sarcasm*
I want to share something with you - the three sentences that will get you through life. Number one, 'cover for me', Number two, 'oh, good idea, boss', Number three, 'it was like that when I got here.'
what you describe is Gestation, not evolution.
God's creation is corrupted by evil, that's why nothing is perfect. It's the ol' snake-in-the-Garden problem.
God is also a huge advocate of freedom. Free will and the creation is ingenious enough that it can change and adapt. Even Darwin said "It's not the survival of the strongest, but the survival of the most able to adapt to a new situation that survive." (paraphrased from memory)
I kind of wish everone here would dig up the 1600+ year old writings of St. Athanasius so you could see how a Christian Church founder viewed evolution (long before Darwin), and how the two concepts are not opposed but are in fact very much in harmony.
If God created everything to be perfect, we would have no perfection to strive for and would therefore lack the challenge of life itself.. To seek to better ourselves and those around us. To learn of community, etc would all be out the window if we were all perfect. Part of the perfection of creation is the recognition that diversity is more important than perfection. Perfection would enforce a lack of movement and change.. Boring!
PAX
Hahahaha wrote:what you describe is Gestation, not evolution.
God's creation is corrupted by evil, that's why nothing is perfect. It's the ol' snake-in-the-Garden problem.
God is also a huge advocate of freedom. Free will and the creation is ingenious enough that it can change and adapt. Even Darwin said "It's not the survival of the strongest, but the survival of the most able to adapt to a new situation that survive." (paraphrased from memory)
I kind of wish everone here would dig up the 1600+ year old writings of St. Athanasius so you could see how a Christian Church founder viewed evolution (long before Darwin), and how the two concepts are not opposed but are in fact very much in harmony.
If God created everything to be perfect, we would have no perfection to strive for and would therefore lack the challenge of life itself. To seek to better ourselves and those around us. To learn of community, etc would all be out the window if we were all perfect. Part of the perfection of creation is the recognition that diversity is more important than perfection. Perfection would enforce a lack of movement and change.. Boring!
PAX
WOW. Where is this evil, is it visible? Snakes aren't evil. Hitler isn't evil. As much as were told he is, he isn't. Hitler is a Christian, believed very highly in the bible. God is a huge advocate of freedom, but he doesn't want anybody believing in evolution, he doesn't want people to believe in other gods otherwise you go to hell. What kind of BS is that.
We can't prove god doesn't exist, so some religious people say that means he does exist. Well you can't prove the ginormous man-eating spaghetti monster doesn't exist, so it must be true!
More people have been killed in the name of god than any other reason. There is no heaven, and there is no hell. If there was a god watching out for us, he'd do something about the mess humanity is in. Freedom is a very common and twisted word, and 100% of the time never true.
Back when the bible was written, yes it was written and not "created" it was BASED on opinion. The ten commandments was nothing but a political move to get the villagers to be under control. If god told moses ten commandments it must be true! And right off the bat 3 bull@!#$ rules to make people believe it. don't believe in other gods, don't pretend to be god, don't use gods name in anger.
My beliefs in god: Nothing written on this planet of god is true. I have an open mind about a god. I just don't care at this time because of all the BS everywhere, that people actually believe. When i die ill find out if there is an afterlife and if there is a god. If there is then sweet deal life after death, if not oh well. if there is a god he can forgive me for not believing when im dead and if i find out its real.
I want to share something with you - the three sentences that will get you through life. Number one, 'cover for me', Number two, 'oh, good idea, boss', Number three, 'it was like that when I got here.'
No point in going into a tyrade about how you don't believe in God, just debate the topic at hand.
BUT...
Would you know evil if it touched you? Likely not.
Was Hitler evil, well, no, but many of his deeds were.
Think of evil as the corruption of good. Can you see good? If so, then you can also see evil. If you cannot see goodness, that explains your attitude towards God.
God, the Bible or anything else in the Christian religion does NOT contradict evolution. There is nowhere in there that it says you shouldn't look either. Your pre-concieved notions are incorrect.
The myth that more people have been killed in the name of God than anything else is a complete lie. Most people are killed over resources. I gave a nice long list of the bloodiest wars in history and none of them had anything to do with religion of any kind. I don't feel like digging it up again, so you can do some research before posting that BS again.. Think about this. The communist revolution in China killed at minimum 60 million people.. Just one example.
No Biblical scholar or knowledgable person thinks the Bible was created, it has about 70 authors, that is well known. Opinion is up for debate, you can believe whatever you want if you like, but let's not pretend that there is anyone of consequence that thinks the Bible was created.
You do not have an open mind about God or you would not have said that "nothing on the planet written about God is true". Yopu could not know unless you have actually read everything there is about God on this planet. You also would realise after reading all that material that nobody really knows for sure, that's what faith is all about. Knowing leaves out faith and destroys the purpose. How do you know there's no heaven and no hell? What makes you believe that if there was a God (as you put it) He (she/it) would get us out of our mess? First off, eternity is a very, very long time and life is short. What is more important, our time on this Earth or an eternity afterward? So why fix life, if it'll mess with after-life? Will it? I don't know, but I do know that if life is eternal than whtever happens during our time here is not anywhere near as important as the eternity that follows. That's like kindergardeners saying that if there really is a principle, then he'd fix kindergarden to make it better without even considering that there's such a thing as high-school. Do you see?
You talk like you know, and that is the first sign that you haven't even looked.
PAX
