Evolution...not really political, maybe controversial

[WhiteWidow]

How come you can't believe in both? And the idea the earth is only 7000 years old is pretty fuckin retarded seeing as how we have dinosaur bones and carbon dating and what not

[TampaSupremo]

I subscribe to the Lovecraftian theory, i.e. that it doesn't really matter what the hell happened 'cause Cthulhu and the Great Old Ones are gonna come back and rule the cosmos anyway and we will either worship them or go insane.


TampaSupremo

[SandPiper]

How come you can't believe in both? And the idea the earth is only 7000 years old is pretty fuckin retarded seeing as how we have dinosaur bones and carbon dating and what not

I'm not jumping into this beyond this post, as I don't think forum posts are conducive to a debate this size. To post as much info as it would take to make even a basic argument either way would be unwieldy. Just as a baseline, I am a Christian, but don't necessarily believe in a young Earth. The theology behind that is not set in stone...just too many variables in the scripture to definitively say so, because it's not explicitly stated. I believe the origin of that idea (<7,000 years) was from some clergyman's margin notes several hundred years ago who was attempting to simply add up lifespans of people mentioned in the Bible. It seems to me that the young Earth beliefs are often a lot of conjecture. It just doesn't appear to be clearly stated in the Bible to me. But, just as a sidenote, there are stronger arguments to be made for an old Earth than the mere existence of dinosaur bones and carbon dating. The age of the bones is deduced, for the most part, from the context in which they are found. The problem being, there must be a fundamental assumption of some baseline age in the surrounding stria. Carbon dating is essentially worthless in ages of this scope (even in the extraodinarily rare occurrence of any original material in a dinosaur fossil...usually there's no original material remaining; it's been mineralized/replaced). Its half life is much too short. In old Earth thinking, the last dinosaurs died off about 68 million years ago. Carbon's halflife is about 5,700 years...its usefulness in age estimation is significantly degraded by 25,000 years, and entirely useless beyond 50-60,000. That being said, there are other elements that could theoretically be used (K-Ar, etc.). Then, there's the whole thing with original matrix content, intervening contamination, etc.

[WhiteWidow]

Geologic timetable dude.

[SandPiper]

OK, I know I said

I'm not jumping into this beyond this post

but, this is it (really )

Geologic timetable dude.

Exactly. The geologic timetable is constructed with some foundational assumption as to the time required for geologic formation. Otherwise, it's not demonstrable (i.e. we must estimate deposition rates etc. involved based on modern conditions and speculation about past conditions...we couldn't "watch" sedimentation occur for a million years, and then measure). There must be some beginning assumption, simply because of the timespans involved with geology; it's difficult to conduct an experiment knowing the conclusion is millions of years in the future. Dude.

[HersheyWalker]

Dinosaur bones, radiocarbon dating, 68 million years...

Radiocarbon dating is seriously flawed. You can take a dating of two pieces of the same structure and get one piece dating at 12M and the other at 68M. Radiocarbon dating is only accurate within 5,000 years at best, and . The idea behind carbon dating is that the rate of decay of C14 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. Which is why radiocarbon dating cannot give millions of years. In fact, if a sample contains any C14, it is good evidence that it is not millions of years old.

What about the geologic strata? Those lines of dirt were laid down as the Great Flood subsided. There are fossilized trees standing upright through strata layers supposedly laid down over millions of years. How can you explain that? The interpretation of the time involved with the deposit of strata was arbritrarily determined. Some geologists saws the layers, saw the bones within those layers and arbitrarily determined that they must have been laid down over vast amounts of time piece of dust by piece of dust. Add the advent of carbon dating and you know have the ideological construct used by geologists today. They are interpreting the data incorrectly.

Let me put it this way, what would you expect if a worldwide global flood occurred? Perhaps layers of dirt laid down by water all over the world? The remains of dead creatures laid down by size as if they were swirled in a vortex and allowed to fall due to gravity? What do we see? Layers of rock laid down by water all over the world. We see fossils of creatures arranged by size as if they were swirled in water and allowed to fall by gravity. It's really easy to let go of the lies you were told as a child, if you'd only view the world as evidence. The world has given you one interpretation of the facts, which we now are able to see is physically impossible to support. Evolution as an idea is scientifically dead, but most don't know it yet. The chemical procedures that must take place for amino acids to transform into proteins (the first stage of a long highly improbable process) cannot occur in nature. This has been shown to be true over 20 years ago, and evolutionists have been in the lab trying to come up with ways which will circumvent the problem with little success.

Sandpiper is right about the depth of this debate being too large to be conveyed over a message board. But I can get people to research for themselves on the issues. But I'd like to ask you Sandpiper, what doesn't seem to jive about a young earth? The Bible clearly states geneologies with ages that go back from the first man Adam up to Jesus. If you add up those years you are left with 6,500 or so years since God spoke the world into existance. Unless you read the text as being interpretive, ie. 1 year could represent 1000 years, there is no other explaination. And why should there be? The world we see today represents a young earth. The largest coral reef, the Great Barrier reef, is estimated to be 4,000 years old. 4,000 years is the estimated time since the Great Flood. The largest desert in the world is estimated to also be 4,000 years old, the Sarhara. The Sahara is growing at a rate of 4 miles a year due to constant global winds to the west. The oldest living organisms are about 4,000 years old, the bristlecone pine and the great redwoods. The Grand Canyon has recently been shown to have formed over a very short amount of time by observing what occurred at Mt. St. Helens. A mini grand canyon formed over a couple days through solid rock due to huge mud flows.

I'm gonna stop now, but just be aware that the case for the Bible standing as a historically sound document is extremely strong.

[kevin7]

Ooohhhhhhhhh I learned a fucking lot reading all this shit,didnt the rest of you. I feel all edumacated now

[Newfie]

snip....
i believe everyone knows where I stand on this matter.

I believe so, and I for one respect your opinion.

Intelligent Design

aka I'm a Christian

Boom, I respect your opinion as well, but look at today's world and rethink the "Intelligent Design" part. This world is seriously screwed up pal.

Evolution is a fact.

I agree with Barry 100%.

Yup & +1.

Evolution - because I have evolved from smoking crap to cubans.

That, my friends, is the best answer in this whole thread, except for post post #3.

[rsanz]

Dinosaur bones, radiocarbon dating, 68 million years...

Radiocarbon dating is seriously flawed. You can take a dating of two pieces of the same structure and get one piece dating at 12M and the other at 68M. Radiocarbon dating is only accurate within 5,000 years at best, and . The idea behind carbon dating is that the rate of decay of C14 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. Which is why radiocarbon dating cannot give millions of years. In fact, if a sample contains any C14, it is good evidence that it is not millions of years old....snip

They actually use other methods like radiometric dating for the really big numbers.

Note: Non of this disproves any of the many various religions. Evolution is not anti religion or pro religion, it's just another branch of science.

[SmokinDVM]

Dinosaur bones, radiocarbon dating, 68 million years...

Radiocarbon dating is seriously flawed. You can take a dating of two pieces of the same structure and get one piece dating at 12M and the other at 68M. Radiocarbon dating is only accurate within 5,000 years at best, and . The idea behind carbon dating is that the rate of decay of C14 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. Which is why radiocarbon dating cannot give millions of years. In fact, if a sample contains any C14, it is good evidence that it is not millions of years old.

Carbon 14 dating does indeed have a limit of about 50,000 years. This is well known, and other, more accurate, methods of dating are used such as the potassium-argon method and the isochron method, both of which support the hypothesis of an old Earth.

What about the geologic strata? Those lines of dirt were laid down as the Great Flood subsided. There are fossilized trees standing upright through strata layers supposedly laid down over millions of years. How can you explain that? The interpretation of the time involved with the deposit of strata was arbritrarily determined. Some geologists saws the layers, saw the bones within those layers and arbitrarily determined that they must have been laid down over vast amounts of time piece of dust by piece of dust. Add the advent of carbon dating and you know have the ideological construct used by geologists today. They are interpreting the data incorrectly.

I would think it more likely that you are interpreting the data incorrectly. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html

Let me put it this way, what would you expect if a worldwide global flood occurred? Perhaps layers of dirt laid down by water all over the world? The remains of dead creatures laid down by size as if they were swirled in a vortex and allowed to fall due to gravity? What do we see? Layers of rock laid down by water all over the world. We see fossils of creatures arranged by size as if they were swirled in water and allowed to fall by gravity. It's really easy to let go of the lies you were told as a child, if you'd only view the world as evidence. The world has given you one interpretation of the facts, which we now are able to see is physically impossible to support. Evolution as an idea is scientifically dead, but most don't know it yet. The chemical procedures that must take place for amino acids to transform into proteins (the first stage of a long highly improbable process) cannot occur in nature. This has been shown to be true over 20 years ago, and evolutionists have been in the lab trying to come up with ways which will circumvent the problem with little success.

You have been fooled again by the pseudo-science used by the creationists.
While the "hydraulic sorting" hypothesis certainly sounds scientific and perhaps even logical, there are numerous examples from the fossil record which demonstrate that it is simply not true. The ammonites, for instance, were a large group of marine invertebrates, similar to the modern day nautilus, which existed for several hundred million years until they were wiped out in the same mass extinction that killed the dinosaurs. Although they remained at approximately the same size and shape, the ammonites over time developed a complicated system of sutures which separated the various gas chambers inside their curved shells. The earliest ammonites, found in the Devonian layers, had simple straight sutures. Later ammonites, found in Triassic layers, retained the same body size and shape, but exhibited slightly more complex suture patterns. The very latest ammonites, from the Cretaceous layers, differed from the others only in the increased complexity of their shell sutures.
Link to more in depth article quoted above.

I'm gonna stop now, but just be aware that the case for the Bible standing as a historically sound document is extremely strong.

The bible is a work of fiction designed to keep the simple-minded in line. But the bible really isn't a discussion that would be on topic for this thread.

[basil]

required reading: Cartoon History of the Universe, by Larry Gonick. Endorsed by Carl Sagan, one of the Leakeys, etc. It's some funny shit - lots of sacred cows get bar-b-qued. And most importantly, it points up the bullshit we get ourselves mired in when (every time) we take ourselves too fucking seriously.

[mills]

First, I avoided this thread until now because I thought that it would quickly degenerate into a name-calling match, but it's actually quite well-behaved. Now wish I had taken part because I want to reply to just about every post (except for the cheese.) Second, I'm impressed that we have one person claiming science as a tool to keep the rabble in check, and another claiming religion as the same thing. I guess you're damned either way if you're not one of the bourgeouis.

snip... By infusing the masses with the idea that they are nothing more than a glorified monkey, they are able to more easily roll out their plan a step at a time. What they don't want is a large group of people who believe that they are made in the image of God, each with inalienable rights, and irrevocable worth as a human being.

We are entering a new era which will have monumental changes in the way we eat, breath, and procreate. Open your eyes. Peak oil, the Patriot Act, environmental nuts, Martial Law, population reduction, etc. All these ideas are setting the stage for a drama which will completely revamp society in the blink of an eye.

snip... The bible is a work of fiction designed to keep the simple-minded in line. But the bible really isn't a discussion that would be on topic for this thread.

Hershey, I might be misunderstanding you, but I found it interesting that you threw 'environmental nuts' in with Orwellian government stuff. If there's one thing that I think would suffer at the hands of a tyranny it would be the environment. I don't think they would be on the same side.

I'm Creationist, but you can't refute natural selection. Whether that means all life evolved from the primordial ooze, I don't know, but the strongest ones in a species will pass on their genes more often than not.

Finally, I hate the term Intelligent Design, because it makes no sense outside of religion. I agree with most that religion and politics should not hold hands here in the US of A.

PS Somebody should start a gay marriage thread ;)

[Shagaroo]

Just as a baseline, I am a Christian, but don't necessarily believe in a young Earth. The theology behind that is not set in stone...just too many variables in the scripture to definitively say so, because it's not explicitly stated.

I am an old earth creationist at this point in my journey. Some scholars claim a more accurate translation of Genesis 1:2 (And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.) is that the earth, in it's previous form, had been destroyed and God created the earth that we know. This is one of the many variations on the Gap Theory. I find little, either Scripturally or scientifically, that indicates the earth is a mere 6,000-10,000 year old.

Unfortunately some have tried to turn this into a Salvation requirement, which it clearly is not. And in the grand scheme of things, as far as Christianity is concerned, doesn't matter one bit.

[HersheyWalker]

I just wanted to add this.

I find little, either Scripturally or scientifically, that indicates the earth is a mere 6,000-10,000 year old.

If you add up the ages of the people listed in the geneologies in the Bible from Adam to Jesus you are left with 4,500 years or so. Add the 2,000 since that time and you are left with 6,500 or so. How can you disregard this?

Unfortunately some have tried to turn this into a Salvation requirement, which it clearly is not. And in the grand scheme of things, as far as Christianity is concerned, doesn't matter one bit.

This is not a salvation requirement, but it gives power to those who are saved. The world tells us that the Bible is a fairytale which preys on the weak minded. We are bombarded everyday with the notion that we have been living in a world who's inner workings are death and destruction, ie. evolution. We are told that everything that God wrote in the Bible as fact is wrong. It's the biggest slap in the face of the Christian, who despite all of the propoganda has had a spiritual encounter with Jesus and believes. Yes, a person can come to salvation without having to understand and accept the historical record recorded in the Bible, thank God for that. But when living in this modern world as a Christian, we shrink and feel embarrassed that we have experienced a real emotional/spiritual thing in Jesus Christ because of what that entails. "Omg, you believe the Bible? But it's just a book of stories written by drunk shepards". We never share our beliefs with our neighbors, we never read in the Old Testament, we never put up our flag and stand for our beliefs.

"In the grand scheme of things", it makes all the difference in the world. This is coming from a person who use to be embarrassed that he prayed to Jesus.

We as Christians have absolutely no reason to live like this. We have every right to stand strong in our beliefs and stand strong in knowing that God has spoken in our hearts and in the Bible. Understanding that the Bible is on point from cover to cover is such a critical point in owning your faith. If we don't take literally that with Adam's fall sin came into the world, and with sin death also came into the world. Then we can't understand why Jesus had to die as a undeservant sacrifice. And this ties to evolution because evolution tells us that death and destruction has fueled the process that brought us into being. The Bible tells us the exact opposite, that we were brought into being and sin/death followed. If we can't believe that, then why believe any of it? Why believe that Jesus rose from the dead? If there is a single lie in a book which claims to be the written voice of God, then we are fools. If evolution is true, then the Bible is full of lies and more to the point, there's no reason Jesus had die. Nothing in the Bible makes sense unless you accept a literal reading of Genisis. It lays the foundation for everything that follows.

[Hugh Jorgan]

God is going to be really pissed when she finds out you are hell bent on short changing her for billions of years of dedicated work.

[rsanz]

Snip <Nothing in the Bible makes sense unless you accept a literal reading of Genisis. It lays the foundation for everything that follows.

So unless you believe in the 6x 24hr day creation story then nothing in the bible makes sense? I'm sure many people who find sense in the bible who disagree with the literal 6 day creation story would disagree with you there.

Keep 'em coming though. This stuff is priceless.

[Shagaroo]

I just wanted to add this.
If you add up the ages of the people listed in the geneologies in the Bible from Adam to Jesus you are left with 4,500 years or so. Add the 2,000 since that time and you are left with 6,500 or so. How can you disregard this?

I'm not diregarding this. I even stated so in my earlier post. I simply think there is valid evidence in one of the various Gap Theories. God could still have created the earth as we know it in 6 days, even if the earth existed in previous forms prior to the Creation story in Genesis. It does not change the diety of God one bit to see the Creation happening slightly different.

I'm on your side bubba. I just see Creation happening a little different.

[stjohnroe]

I think that I expressed my opinion on this matter in the past: http://www.cigarsmokers.com/showpost...2&postcount=13.

BTW, Richard Dawkins is also a good read

[Kenyth]

The Bible is a history book and a guide for christian life and religious practice, not a science manual. It was written, compiled, and translated by many human hands throughout history. The science and record keeping we have available now simply wasn't there back then (obviously), and the general population was lucky to be literate, much less educated. Much of it was originally written for simple people with simple language and using simple tools. The fact that it doesn't match up with modern scientific examination doesn't change the message or the spirit of what is in there. There are many lessons to be taken from its pages without worrying about whether every story actually occurred the way it was written.

[rsanz]

How come you can't believe in both? And the idea the earth is only 7000 years old is pretty fuckin retarded seeing as how we have dinosaur bones and carbon dating and what not

Exactly. One does not cancel out the other.

Though certain areas of science do not sit well with certain areas of various religions. For those believing the world is between 6,000 to 10,000 years old for example. But I guess they also have problems with the geological sciences too.

I suspect there are a few here who believe the world is between 6,000 to 10,000 years young. But none of them are retarded. They just believe what they believe. As does anyone.