Evolution...not really political, maybe controversial

[rsanz]

I believe it's called the Theory of Evolution not the Law of evolution. Perhaps you should look up the word 'theory'.

Doc.

theory (link to look up 'theory')

[CoventryCat86]

I believe it's called the Theory of Evolution not the Law of evolution. Perhaps you should look up the word 'theory'.

Doc.

I don't think it's called either but there is certainly scientific evidence of evolution.

[nhcigarfan]

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

[Devil Doc]

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolib...hp?topic_id=48

I don't think it's called either but there is certainly scientific evidence of evolution.

Doc.

[WOXOF]

Yea more shit to divide this place. What a fucking neat topic to discuss


asshats

Although not how I would have worded it, pretty much the same way I feel. Why hasn't anyone figured out that politics, religion, and cigars don't mix. Like many other threads in this section, I don't see how this could possibly be constructive for the forum.

[kevin7]

Although not how I would have worded it, pretty much the same way I feel. Why hasn't anyone figured out that politics, religion, and cigars don't mix. Like many other threads in this section, I don't see how this could possibly be constructive for the forum.

LOL ,spoken in ,outdoor,surly ,obnoxious ,plain talk

[HersheyWalker]

The evolutionist position is that we evolved from a rock... That's just too much for me to swallow.

In theory, evolution has a possibility of occurring if time is equal to infinity. When time is equal to infinity all things that are possible will occur. But time is far from infinite. I believe our earth is less than 7,000 years old, but putting that conjecture aside and taking the universe to be 6.5 billion years old destroys evolution and reveals it's mathematical absurdity.

When we look at the chemical processes that must have occurred for the first protein to have evolved from non-life, we are faced with odds of occurrance in the neighborhood of 1 x 10^65. Given 6.5 billion years still leaves us with a chance of 1 x 10^54. Anything over 1 x 10^50 is considered a mathematical absurdity. Evolutionists conducting research towards proving evolution are being converted into Intelligent Designers by the boatloads due to the overwhelming impossibility that the chemical evolutionary model poses. Leading researchers are not converting to Christianity, but they are coming around and agreeing that chemical evolution could not have taken place.

We can get into details, but I'm almost certain none of you want to go there. This is only one point of many where evolution crumbles. It is a stupid idea that a small group of powerful humanists with antisemitic leanings took in the 1950's and forced into our public education system. They have an agenda which calls for a New World Order with a small group of ruling elite and a large group of slaves. 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.

[SmokinDVM]

The evolutionist position is that we evolved from a rock... That's just too much for me to swallow.

In theory, evolution has a possibility of occurring if time is equal to infinity. When time is equal to infinity all things that are possible will occur. But time is far from infinite. I believe our earth is less than 7,000 years old, but putting that conjecture aside and taking the universe to be 6.5 billion years old destroys evolution and reveals it's mathematical absurdity.

When we look at the chemical processes that must have occurred for the first protein to have evolved from non-life, we are faced with odds of occurrance in the neighborhood of 1 x 10^65. Given 6.5 billion years still leaves us with a chance of 1 x 10^54. Anything over 1 x 10^50 is considered a mathematical absurdity. Evolutionists conducting research towards proving evolution are being converted into Intelligent Designers by the boatloads due to the overwhelming impossibility that the chemical evolutionary model poses. Leading researchers are not converting to Christianity, but they are coming around and agreeing that chemical evolution could not have taken place.

We can get into details, but I'm almost certain none of you want to go there. This is only one point of many where evolution crumbles. It is a stupid idea that a small group of powerful humanists with antisemitic leanings took in the 1950's and forced into our public education system. They have an agenda which calls for a New World Order with a small group of ruling elite and a large group of slaves. 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.

This is a joke, right?

[SmokinDVM]

I believe it's called the Theory of Evolution not the Law of evolution. Perhaps you should look up the word 'theory'.

Doc.

This is the part that most people can't figure out;

In science, a theory is a mathematical description, a logical explanation, a verified hypothesis, or a proven model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theory which explains why the apple behaves so is the current theory of gravitation.

The Theory of Evolution has so much supportive evidence that it is considered a fact. The only questions remaining are as to some of the minor details.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.