Well well, I'm gone for a day and this topic exploded into complete nonsense. Just one thing:
DeFender1031> In fact, it explains a discrepancy created by the theory of evolution. The issue is that the geological age of the eath (by carbon dating) is far older than the age of the galaxy (based upon its rate of expansion).
1) Carbon dating is only used to date things that once lived, a group which the earth is most certainly not part of.
2) Carbon dating can only be used on objects up to 60,000 years maximum.
3) There is no such discrepancy, the universe is calculated to be a lot older (13.7 billion years) than the earth (4.567 billion years).
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_datinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_datinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earthhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe
The end.
..there's also the fact that the theory of evolution has absolutely nothign to say about the age of the universe, or the earth, or the origin of anything, or anything. There are cosmological theories for that.
someone is out there who will like you. take off your mask so they can find you faster.
I support the new Nekketsu Kouha Kunio-kun.
Humans have no idea how old the earth is. No matter what concepts they tell you to use to say how old the earth is. They also once said that Pluto was a planet , now they change their mind and say its not. Which is just another example on how these scientist can make obscure theories, logical assumptions,guesses, suspicions,hunches, and just on and on and on.
To say the earth is billions of years old just because they tell you that they examine a rock or a mineral with a radiation , is ludcrious just to believe they tell you something. They also once told you the world was flat. And I'm sure they had their reasoning behind that too, and had people believe it. So don't always believe such calculations.
Plus most of these scientist are taking in the fact that(THEORY OF) evolution is true , which btw has no proof too whats so ever, and from that stand point they calculate something or whatever that has evolved to see how much time it took for something to evolve, so they say its about 100 billion or whatever years old.
And from taking in the belief of the evolution they are simply denying how God made the earth described in Genesis.
Joined: 8/1/2004
Posts: 2687
Location: Seattle, WA
HG: Carbon dating is a proven system. Saying that it proves nothing is the equivalent of saying that the theory of the atom is wrong as well. If you don't like carbon dating, you can always use ice core samples in the polar ice caps to do the same kind of testing without using half-life.
In the past, scientists made unfounded conclusions to certain theories. Those theories were disproved with fact later on. Those theories that had some basis have held still to this day*. I should also point out that a lot of the theories that you are raging against were supported by the church.
*Newtonian Physics don't work for things that we generally can't experience.
Joined: 3/11/2004
Posts: 1058
Location: Reykjavík, Ísland
*shrug*
(I don't know why I'm bothering to reply to this)
There is absolutely plenty of complete, absolute proof of evolution. Scientists have done experiments in laboratories that show with conclusive certainty, that evolution is a fact. To deny evolution is like denying gravity. It just makes you look stupid. There is absolutely, totally, NO argument within the scientific community about this. None. Zip. Nada. If you don't believe me, read a book.
HG: Carbon dating is a proven system. Saying that it proves nothing is the equivalent of saying that the theory of the atom is wrong as well. If you don't like carbon dating, you can always use ice core samples in the polar ice caps to do the same kind of testing without using half-life.
In the past, scientists made unfounded conclusions to certain theories. Those theories were disproved with fact later on. Those theories that had some basis have held still to this day*. I should also point out that a lot of the theories that you are raging against were supported by the church.
*Newtonian Physics don't work for things that we generally can't experience.
Church? Yeah can you be anymore vague btw? It's possible some churches can be corrupt yes. Oh, I didn't know that there was a "theory of the atom" If you are talking about a theory then that means its not proven, therefore that means carbon dating is not proven. Testing of the what and the what? Ice caps to do what testing? Who knows what you are talking about, you sound like some scientist so sure of himself. But you made no sense in trying to tell me you can do the same kind of testing with ice caps? Test what? Test how cold it is then make some more logical assumptions?
Nevermind, I'm going to stop wasting my time in this thread, because it has gone way off topic, and I saw what was going to happen right away when this thread was made. People's ignorance just annoys me , so I'm not going to be looking in this thread anymore. So whatever you tell me in this thread , I'm not going to be looking at. And don't try to pm me, if I see your name I will delete the private message too. Don't try to tell me anything on irc either, I will just do /clear then close the private message box if you do that too.
Joined: 3/11/2004
Posts: 1058
Location: Reykjavík, Ísland
You are either trolling, or you have no idea what the word "theory" means in science. I think you think it means "shit you make up" which is very far from the truth.
You are either trolling, or you have no idea what the word "theory" means in science. I think you think it means "shit you make up" which is very far from the truth.
Joined: 3/11/2004
Posts: 1058
Location: Reykjavík, Ísland
L4yer wrote:
Blublu wrote:
You are either trolling, or you have no idea what the word "theory" means in science. I think you think it means "shit you make up" which is very far from the truth.
He breaks the calendar into two parts, the "days" and the "generations". Midrash says we are to interpret "days" as the six days of creation and "generations" as years from Adam, two separate calendars.
How does this show that "day" in Genesis 1 doesn't mean a 24-hour day, though? That's what I was trying to ask.
Boco wrote:
Use in contemporary works (including other scripture)
So, where in the Bible does it say that the days of creation weren't normal days? Based on the contexts of Exodus 20:11 and Exodus 31:17, for example, they are definitely normal days.
Boco wrote:
It just means we can't expect current definitions to hold. After all, how can one have a literal 24-hour day, four days before the sun?
You don't need the sun to have days; you just need a source of light and the rotation of the earth. God is the Creator of light, and He doesn't require any other source for it.
Boco wrote:
Also there's the whole thing about there being two creation narratives which disagree on details as a reason not to take it literally rather than as a multilayered poem describing how God went about his work.
If you mean the "apparent contradiction" in the order of creation between Genesis 1 and 2, it's dealt with on this page, which I've probably linked before.
DeFender1031 wrote:
If i recall correctly, i believe it was Maimonidies who said "woe is the fool who takes all midrash literally"
You seem to keep on quoting more recent sources to deny many things from earlier sources. By the argument that time dilutes knowledge about the actual events in question, with which I partially agree, you're therefore getting more and more inaccurate. If you only believe the things that modern "scientists" say, tell us already.
Truncated wrote:
Wikipedia links (neutral, all of them interesting reads)
The fact that there's no "Evidence of Creation" article makes me doubt Wikipedia's neutrality. That's not the only reason, of course, but it's a significant one related to our current discussion.
Bob A wrote:
How so? What of that evidence shows that the earth isn't 4.5 milliard years old and that life didn't evolve from a common ancestor?
I'll explain all of those "comparative <whatever>" ones quickly. You can find the rest on Answers in Genesis. The comparative <whatever> argument is that various organisms, organs, cellular components, cellular processes, etc. from different sources studied in the field of <whatever> are similar or the same, so they must have come from a common ancestor at some point. However, this can also be interpreted as a manifestation of God's omniscience. He created the characteristic in question in different creatures based on a common design. It's like theme and variations in music or standard libraries in programming or using the same materials to make different kinds of buildings, automobiles, books, <insert item of choice here> or... well, you get the idea.
OmnipotentEntity wrote:
Oh, I'd really like to hear this. Let's see which flawed argument you use. Maybe it'll be one so laughably absurd I haven't heard it before.
You've probably heard all this before. For me, at least, all of these arguments against the Bible are well-known.
Blublu wrote:
Of course, nothing will ever disprove creation. After all, it isn't a scientific theory, so it cannot even theoretically be disproven.
I disagree. The way you disprove Creation, evolution, or any other theory is by testing its predictions. If the predictions don't match up with our observations, you can throw the theory away. At least, this is how it works in principle. Practically, those assumptions/axioms that everyone holds about the universe generally interfere with the process, in that they will cause the interpretations of those observations to be favorable toward the person's beliefs. So, unless the person is willing to change those axioms, opposing arguments will be to no avail.
Blublu wrote:
But the whole point of evolution is that there is no creator... You'd have to radically re-interpret the bible right from the beginning until the end, until the interpretation is so different from what is actually written there, you might as well do away the whole thing.
I totally agree with this, although I suppose evolution could be the thing that is re-interpreted. I'll say more on this later.
Ramzi wrote:
If he told me he was a theist philosopher, and believes in God for good reason, I would ask him what those reasons are and dismiss them one by one.
Ramzi wrote:
This conversation would merely be to understand him and his faith better, but not to discover truths about the real world.
I'd say this puts you in the "people who aren't willing to change their axioms" category.
Blublu wrote:
According to the theory of evolution by natural selection, there is no intelligent guide. If you postulate an intelligent guide, it is not the theory of evolution by natural selection anymore. But like I said, you can ignore this. Or you could call it a "variation", or whatever.
I agree with Blublu. Whatever "variation" you're using isn't going to get you any support from the real evolutionists, since they don't believe in any guide whatsoever.
DeFender1031 wrote:
fine, G-d created the process of evolution from the beginning and it takes its natural course (except of course where G-d chooses to alter it, same as with any physical constant)
You seem to be misunderstanding Blublu's very clear point: Evolution, as believed by all those "U.S. earth and life scientists" that Truncated mentioned, does not allow for any alteration at all. It is driven by completely random mutations, not mutations that are susceptible to God's choosing. Anything that says otherwise is not the theory of evolution by natural selection.
Bob A wrote:
Seriously, what did yahweh need to do to make it clear that that was literally the way the world began?
I second this question. Even if the Bible said that light was created on the "first 24-hour period of time," you would argue that those "hours" were not the same kind of hours that we have today. So, how do you think the Bible could have been written better? (Note: I don't believe that the Bible is improvable in any way, but that's what people who want to reconcile it with evolution seem to believe.)
One other thing that you may not have considered is that we would have no choice but to believe if the Bible gave us "too much" information. That would nullify the free will which I believe God has given us. If you don't believe in free will, then you can just ignore this argument.
DeFender1031 wrote:
The pope can only decide for one religion. There are other religons besides christianity, you know.
The pope can actually only decide for himself. As he is human, he is as fallible as anyone else. Anyway, no one is forced to believe what the pope decides. Furthermore, it is not only Catholics who are Christian.
Truncated wrote:
3) There is no such discrepancy, the universe is calculated to be a lot older (13.7 billion years) than the earth (4.567 billion years).
He said the galaxy, not the universe.
Zurreco wrote:
Carbon dating is a proven system.
No, it's not. The most serious issue with it is that you have to assume what amounts of the isotopes in question were originally there. You also have to assume that the amounts were left unchanged from the moment the thing died to the moment it was tested; for non-living things, this means that you assume that the amounts were not increased or decreased since the thing was formed until the testing. If these assumptions do not hold, radioisotope dating is useless.
Zurreco wrote:
I should also point out that a lot of the theories that you are raging against were supported by the church.
The church, although it is headed by God, is composed of fallible people, and they can be wrong.
Blublu wrote:
There is absolutely, totally, NO argument within the scientific community about this.
I could question pretty much every sentence in that post, but I'll just stick with this for now. The numbers that Truncated posted earlier show that there is by no means 100% agreement among scientists about the truthfulness of evolution. Furthermore, the numbers are affected by the phrasing of the question(s) in the poll/survey/whatever and how they are being interpreted by the analysts to decide who believes what.
DeFender1031 wrote:
that doesn't disprove creation, as i've explaned before, evolution fits in to the story of creation just fine.
[and similar comments]
I was going to give a lengthy explanation of how evolution does not fit into the Creation story, but I saw several flaws in your "stage <#>" interpretation that I thought I would question you about. Assuming this thread doesn't get locked, I'll give my lengthy explanation later.
Stage 1: You seem to indicate that the planet earth was created at this point, but then you say that it wasn't in the universe. So, where was this physical object that we call earth located?
Stage 2: Genesis 1:6-7 says that the firmament, which God called Heaven in verse 8, was used to "divide the waters from the waters." Verse 7 says that there were waters above and below Heaven. If this division is a separation of realms, as you say, what are these waters that are apparently both in the metaphysical and physical realms?
Stage 3: Genesis 1:11-12 mentions trees that produce fruit. How does this work without photosynthesis, which isn't around according to your interpretation?
Stage 4: You reference the big bang as a theory that explains the beginning of the universe, but you said that God created the universe in stage 1.
Stage 5: Genesis 1:20-23 doesn't mention "crawling creatures of the land" on day 5. Genesis 1:24-25 does say that things that creep on the earth were created on day 6, however.
Stage 6: According to Genesis 2, your theory maintains that God created a garden with plants, rivers, and animals in the "metaphysical eden" separate from the things that were evolving on earth. What was the point of this?
Another problem is your explanation of the meaning of "image of God." If Adam and Eve were not originally physical, why does the Bible use physical terms to describe the events? For example, God made Adam from "the dust of the ground" and "breathed into his nostrils" (Genesis 2:7); the trees in the garden were "pleasant to the sight, and good for food" (2:9); the river leaving Eden split up into four heads, one of which encompassed a land containing gold, bdellium, and onyx (2:11-12); God gave Adam permission to eat from all the trees in the garden except for the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (2:16-17); God took one of Adam's ribs to make Eve, and He "closed up the flesh" (2:21); Adam said that Eve was "bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh" (2:23); Adam and Eve were naked (2:25); Eve misquotes God saying that they weren't even allowed to touch the forbidden fruit (3:3); the snake said that their eyes would be opened if they ate the fruit (3:5); they made and wore aprons out of fig leaves (3:7); they were able to talk and hear (3:8-19); they tried to hide (3:8); the head of the serpent and the heel of the woman's seed is mentioned (3:15); Cherubims and a flaming sword were placed to keep people away from the tree of life (3:24). These descriptions don't make sense if Adam and Eve were not physical. The last one is especially troublesome: Why would people need to be kept away from the tree of life if they had now been reduced to a physical state that had been separated from the metaphysical Garden of Eden and the tree back in stage 2?
If he told me he was a theist philosopher, and believes in God for good reason, I would ask him what those reasons are and dismiss them one by one.
Ramzi wrote:
This conversation would merely be to understand him and his faith better, but not to discover truths about the real world.
I'd say this puts you in the "people who aren't willing to change their axioms" category.
That's rich. I'd say there is a fair division between atheists who were born into believing families and atheists who were born into atheistic families. I'm of the prior. This means I had to counter my family, education, and society. I doubt you were born atheist and reasoned your way to such irrational beliefs. Don't tell me about open-mindedness.
If he told me he was a theist philosopher, and believes in God for good reason, I would ask him what those reasons are and dismiss them one by one.
Ramzi wrote:
This conversation would merely be to understand him and his faith better, but not to discover truths about the real world.
I'd say this puts you in the "people who aren't willing to change their axioms" category.
That's rich. I'd say there is a fair division between atheists who were born into believing families and atheists who were born into atheistic families. I'm of the prior. This means I had to counter my family, education, and society. I doubt you were born atheist and reasoned your way to such irrational beliefs. Don't tell me about open-mindedness.
I think Ramzi's point about atheists being raised in believing vs non-believing families is a good one.
They also once said that Pluto was a planet , now they change their mind and say its not. Which is just another example on how these scientist can make obscure theories, logical assumptions,guesses, suspicions,hunches, and just on and on and on.
Um, we defined the word planet. We made it up. It doesn't mean anything except what we call it. The new definition, which is stricter than the last, happens coincidentally to exclude Pluto. So what? The universe doesn't have some built in thing where "this is a planet and this isn't"... WE created the distinction.
HiddenGamer wrote:
(THEORY OF)
Know what else is a theory? Gravity.
If a theory is flawed, once we have something that doesn't fit it's predictions it's discarded for something better. Evolution might not be correct but it's our best guess right now (due to overwhelming evidence).
HiddenGamer wrote:
And from taking in the belief of the evolution they are simply denying how God made the earth described in Genesis.
Evolution has nothing to say about the origin of earth. There are other theories for that.
HiddenGamer wrote:
If you are talking about a theory then that means its not proven
