Evolution...not really political, maybe controversial

[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.

[heftysmokes]

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

Newf, what about the cheese??? I'm deeply offended that you would trample upon my well thought out reply

[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.

[WhiteWidow]

If the earth is only 6000 years old does that mean the furthest star is only 6000 light years away? If it was any further we wouldn't be able to see it, correct?

[nhcigarfan]

Holy crap the stoner has a point.

Unless of course it was created that way.

[HersheyWalker]

Smokin, I can't understand what is being said in the articles you've posted. They are confusing to say the least. I think it's because I am unfamiliar with certain scientific terminology which states the position of the author early on.

Smokin, you call the Bible a work of fiction. Let me just say this, it has never been shown to be incorrect by archeology. Modern archeology in the Middle East has uncovered towns, cities, and people groups who were thought to have been made up by the various authors of the Old Testament. The more they dig, the more they reveal, showing that at the very least the Bible stands as an accurate document from a historical perspective. Archeology is a testament to the veracity of contents. Does it prove that Moses parted the Red Sea? No, but all that digging proves that the stuff they were talking about is actually there, it existed. The New Testament also has stood up to the rigorous acid test of archeology, and even more so due to the fact that it is so close in relative time frame to the present. If you read Acts, you will see that there is a lot of information contained there in which can be tested by going to the area and looking around. Names of governors, aides, architectural pieces, who was ruling what areas at what time, etc. There is a ton of stuff to disprove. But it has all been shown to be accurate. Luke, the author of the book, has been called a "historian of the highest degree" because of the amount of detail in his book found to be backed up by the archeological record. It's all there. Why would Luke go through so much trouble to take a detailed record of what was going on during his travels with Paul? Perhaps it was because he understood the importance of the events of his time. But you've got to ask youself, if he took such extreme effort to get minor details of his record right, wouldn't he take even more effort to make sure he got details right in his account of the life and death of Jesus?

Whitewidow, the speed of light has been slowing down since it's been first measured a few centuries ago. It's has been show to be slowing down, and even it's rate of slow down has been slowing down. In other words, it was slowing down at a great pace early on, and now is slowing down extremely slowly. So if we can imagine an early universe with the speed of light being almost instantaneous, and for some reason (perhaps the fall of Adam), it has been caused to slow down, we can see the universe in its current state.

Barry Setterfield was the first to notice the phenomenon and has done groundbreaking work in this area, which was first embraced by the scientific community as being fundamentally sound, but after it was found out that Barry was a young earth creationist and the connection was made to how this seminal work could be construde as supporting a young earth, all further support was removed. The humanist influence in education and the sciences is extremely powerful.

I think I'm done with this thread. I was warned that this sort of a thread usually ends with two angry parties when conducted on a message board. This is the first time I've done anything like this, and I feel it would be best if I stop posting here.

[rsanz]

If the earth is only 6000 years old does that mean the furthest star is only 6000 light years away? If it was any further we wouldn't be able to see it, correct?

Only if you believe the speed of light.

[rsanz]

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.

Hey that looks awesome! Must get myself a copy.

And without wanting to link to wikipedia too much more, this looks like a pretty good description of the "Cartoon History of the Universe".

[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 ;)

[ReV]

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.

The two dont contradict... the only theory that is REALLY opposed to creationism is spontaneous generation... basically one says that an omnipotent being 'God' created life, the other that life formed from nothing... from that point on, unless you decide to take the time frames mentioned in the bible literally, they dont contradict... it says God created this and that, but it never said that evolution and natural selection weren't the tools which God used to create this and that... i think its funny how people put limits on a being that is supposedly omnipotent and as such, a time frame-- say 7 days-- would mean nothing to... God would exist outside of a limitation such as time, and viewed in that manner, the theories dont contradict. By the way, not an attack at you, just my view on the situation, everyone is entitled to their own beliefs. I cant tell exactly what you are saying, but it seems that you imply creationism and natural selection conflict on some level and i know alot of people DO believe just that.

[mills]

The two dont contradict... the only theory that is REALLY opposed to creationism is spontaneous generation... basically one says that an omnipotent being 'God' created life, the other that life formed from nothing... from that point on, unless you decide to take the time frames mentioned in the bible literally, they dont contradict... it says God created this and that, but it never said that evolution and natural selection weren't the tools which God used to create this and that... i think its funny how people put limits on a being that is supposedly omnipotent and as such, a time frame-- say 7 days-- would mean nothing to... God would exist outside of a limitation such as time, and viewed in that manner, the theories dont contradict. By the way, not an attack at you, just my view on the situation, everyone is entitled to their own beliefs. I cant tell exactly what you are saying, but it seems that you imply creationism and natural selection conflict on some level and i know alot of people DO believe just that.

Don't worry, I don't feel attacked. I didn't mean to imply that the two couldn't coexist, I am was more trying to get at what you said in your last sentence. Good points by the way. I don't know what is harder to believe, that an omnipotent being created the world, or that enough molecules randomly collided billions of years ago to create life.