Evolution...not really political, maybe controversial

[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

[nhcigarfan]

I agree with Barry 100%.

what say




Not that I disagree, but I never figured.....

[SmokinDVM]

what say




Not that I disagree, but I never figured.....

I know it's extremely shocking, but it does happen every now and then.

[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.

[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]

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]

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.

[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".

[SmokinDVM]

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.

Don't take this wrong, but if you can't understand science how can you expect to be taken seriously in a scientific discussion?
You posted about hydraulic theory when you brought up the flood. Do you just repeat what others have told you, since you don't understand science?

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?

My wife reads romance novels. Some of them refer to cities and countries, and to people that were real but are now dead. Are her novels then to be held up as scripture? I think not. Just because there are references to actual places and well known people in the bible, does not make it's wild tales of magical tricks true.

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.

The speed of light is slowing down? Link to scientific explaination as to why that theory is false.

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.

The reason support for his "work" was removed is because it was found to be "gross misinterpretations of innaccurate data". See above link.

[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.

[CoventryCat86]

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.

Thank you Kenyth! I don't know if I've ever seen a better short summary of the Bible that is as well written as this.

[nhcigarfan]

I agree, Nice work Kenyth.

[Kenyth]

Thank you! You're welcome!