text:
URL: http://prince.org/msg/105/382118
Date printed: Sat 24th Jun 2017 8:40pm PDT
46% Of Americans Believe Man Was Created By God 10,000 Years Ago Or Less
Hey! Only 46% of Americans believes in myths and fairy tales still! Not bad
"The voter is less important than the man who provides money to the candidate," - Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens
10,000 years ago? I'm not an atheist, but when are people going to realize humans have been around much longer than 10,000 years? More people need to look into the research/findings regarding early humans which many Anthropologists/Archaeologists/Genetic Scientists, etc., have been working on.
[Edited 6/1/12 9:54am]
'Trump voters got Hoodwinked by Trump'
46% is still scary. That's a lot of stupidity.
Some dumb Mofo's walking around. What else is new?
Which part of the Bible exactly claims that "Man Was Created By God 10,000 Years Ago Or Less"?
Can anybody answer me that?
Don't you have schools in America?
Yeah, Sunday schools
"The voter is less important than the man who provides money to the candidate," - Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens
'Trump voters got Hoodwinked by Trump'
By St. Boogar and all the saints at the backside door of Purgatory!
46% sounds a little high to me. But even still, even if this result is out by 10, heck even 20 or 30 percentage points, that's still a ridiculously high number of ignorant people in what is, for all other intents and purposes, a fairly modernised country. I do not for a second believe that the vast majority of people who believe in 'young Earth' are even aware of the evidence against it. I would like to think that most of them just don't know any better. And if that's the case, then it's our job as people who recognise the evidence to show them.
Toejam @ Peach & Black Podcast: http://peachandblack.podbean.com
Toejam's band "Cheap Fakes": http://cheapfakes.com.au, http://www.facebook.com/cheapfakes
Toejam the solo artist: http://www.youtube.com/scottbignell
If you and anyone else don't mind me saying, I can see how this calculation has come about. According to 2 Pet 3:8, one day is considered a thousand years to the Lord God:
2 Peter 3
King James Version (KJV)
3 This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance:
2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:
3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,
12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?
13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.
14 Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.
15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.
18 But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.
According to Genesis, man was created on the sixth day, and the seventh day, He rested. With this calculation, the earth has to be at least 12,000 years old.
Toejam @ Peach & Black Podcast: http://peachandblack.podbean.com
Toejam's band "Cheap Fakes": http://cheapfakes.com.au, http://www.facebook.com/cheapfakes
Toejam the solo artist: http://www.youtube.com/scottbignell
Well, let him be the judge of my answer because I don't expect for you to be content with my answer. It doesn't suit you.
Acording to many scientists, humans have been on earth for over 200,000 years, so how is it that 46% of Americans, can believe God created humans only 10,000 years ago?
[Edited 6/1/12 16:20pm]
'Trump voters got Hoodwinked by Trump'
Some archaologist say millions of years, since man's creation. Why is it that we cannot get an straight answer? Allow me to say this: if scientist can figure out how to stop death in its tracks, the sun fron shining, the birds from flying or gravity from pulling, then I would take them a whole lot seriously, than I do now. Ask any scientist today, and they will tell you there's a lot they do not know about creation.
Most scientists will not talk about "creation" full stop.
Why should you expect a straight, easy, comprehensible answer to what are complex questions? It's amazing to me that we are probably *just* smart enough to figure out what we have I think, regarding the age of the Earth and the approximate age of humans.
The biggest hurdle in determing how long "humans" have been around is not so much "when" it happened, but at what point do we distinguish the difference between "human" and "pre-human". There is no definitive start. Some will say point x is "human" while others will say point y. It regularly comes down to arguments over definitions, not the Theory. It's a tough call a lot of the times, and most scientists recognise this. But there is almost zero dispute on the Theory that humans evolved from earlier Primates, and were not born out of literally thin air, or the dust of the Earth by an conscious creator-being less than 10,000yrs ago
And I'm glad they don't. Because there's no evidence for a "creation" in the sense that our universe was "created" by a conscious, all-knowing, all-loving, all-powerful being. Even if the Big Bang was caused by an intentional action of a conscious creator-being, we still do not have the evidence yet to accept that it was - let alone that he has the other characteristics you attribute to him. We musn't jump to conclusions here simply because we don't know.
[Edited 6/1/12 17:56pm]
Toejam @ Peach & Black Podcast: http://peachandblack.podbean.com
Toejam's band "Cheap Fakes": http://cheapfakes.com.au, http://www.facebook.com/cheapfakes
Toejam the solo artist: http://www.youtube.com/scottbignell
They would say their studies are inconclusive.
You won't believe the Bible but you'll believe a scientist? Either way, you take it on faith, right?
Still it's nice to know, when our bodies wear out, we can get another
Toejam @ Peach & Black Podcast: http://peachandblack.podbean.com
Toejam's band "Cheap Fakes": http://cheapfakes.com.au, http://www.facebook.com/cheapfakes
Toejam the solo artist: http://www.youtube.com/scottbignell
Thanks for asking the tough question .
In our age, imformation is all up for grabs and question, but I think in the case of the former option, you only need walk away from it. That is your recourse. In the case of the latter, you descend intio conspiracy theory.
Perhaps it is just a matter of values. I'd rather be lazy than a conspiracy theorist.
Believe it or not, many that argue for the young earth, and know of the scientific studies that have shown the earth to be older, consider the science to be the work of satan. They believe it is satan causing us to be blinded, or obscuring the truth of a young earth. There have also been some to argue that dinosaur bones were placed on earth to try to get us to disbelieve the Bible and turn our backs on God.
No we have factories that developed children into spending lots and lots of money.
Toejam @ Peach & Black Podcast: http://peachandblack.podbean.com
Toejam's band "Cheap Fakes": http://cheapfakes.com.au, http://www.facebook.com/cheapfakes
Toejam the solo artist: http://www.youtube.com/scottbignell
I found this to be an interesting read:
Doesn't Carbon-14 Dating Disprove the Bible?
by Mike Riddle
September 20, 2007
Scientists use a technique called radiometric dating to estimate the ages of rocks, fossils, and the earth. Many people have been led to believe that radiometric dating methods have proved the earth to be billions of years old. This has caused many in the church to reevaluate the biblical creation account, specifically the meaning of the word "day" in Genesis 1. With our focus on one particular form of radiometric dating—carbon dating—we will see that carbon dating strongly supports a young earth. Note that, contrary to a popular misconception, carbon dating is not used to date rocks at millions of years old.
Before we get into the details of how radiometric dating methods are used, we need to review some preliminary concepts from chemistry. Recall that atoms are the basic building blocks of matter. Atoms are made up of much smaller particles called protons, neutrons, and electrons. Protons and neutrons make up the center (nucleus) of the atom, and electrons form shells around the nucleus.
The number of protons in the nucleus of an atom determines the element. For example, all carbon atoms have 6 protons, all atoms of nitrogen have 7 protons, and all oxygen atoms have 8 protons. The number of neutrons in the nucleus can vary in any given type of atom. So, a carbon atom might have six neutrons, or seven, or possibly eight—but it would always have six protons. An "isotope" is any of several different forms of an element, each having different numbers of neutrons. The illustration below shows the three isotopes of carbon.
Some isotopes of certain elements are unstable; they can spontaneously change into another kind of atom in a process called "radioactive decay." Since this process presently happens at a known measured rate, scientists attempt to use it like a "clock" to tell how long ago a rock or fossil formed. There are two main applications for radiometric dating. One is for potentially dating fossils (once-living things) using carbon-14 dating, and the other is for dating rocks and the age of the earth using uranium, potassium and other radioactive atoms.
Carbon-14 Dating
Carbon-14 (14C), also referred to as radiocarbon, is claimed to be a reliable dating method for determining the age of fossils up to 50,000 to 60,000 years. If this claim is true, the biblical account of a young earth (about 6,000 years) is in question, since 14C dates of tens of thousands of years are common.1
When a scientist's interpretation of data does not match the clear meaning of the text in the Bible, we should never reinterpret the Bible. God knows just what He meant to say, and His understanding of science is infallible, whereas ours is fallible. So we should never think it necessary to modify His Word. Genesis 1 defines the days of creation to be literal days (a number with the word "day" always means a normal day in the Old Testament, and the phrase "evening and morning" further defines the days as literal days). Since the Bible is the inspired Word of God, we should examine the validity of the standard interpretation of 14C dating by asking several questions:
All radiometric dating methods use scientific procedures in the present to interpret what has happened in the past. The procedures used are not necessarily in question. The interpretation of past events is in question. The secular (evolutionary) worldview interprets the universe and world to be billions of years old. The Bible teaches a young universe and earth. Which worldview does science support? Can carbon-14 dating help solve the mystery of which worldview is more accurate?
The use of carbon-14 dating is often misunderstood. Carbon-14 is mostly used to date once-living things (organic material). It cannot be used directly to date rocks; however, it can potentially be used to put time constraints on some inorganic material such as diamonds (diamonds could contain carbon-14). Because of the rapid rate of decay of 14C, it can only give dates in the thousands-of-year range and not millions.
There are three different naturally occurring varieties (isotopes) of carbon: 12C, 13C, and 14C.
Carbon-14 is used for dating because it is unstable (radioactive), whereas 12C and 13C are stable. Radioactive means that 14C will decay (emit radiation) over time and become a different element. During this process (called "beta decay") a neutron in the 14C atom will be converted into a proton. By losing one neutron and gaining one proton, 14C is changed into nitrogen-14 (14N = 7 protons and 7 neutrons).
If 14C is constantly decaying, will the earth eventually run out of 14C? The answer is no. Carbon-14 is constantly being added to the atmosphere. Cosmic rays from outer space, which contain high levels of energy, bombard the earth's upper atmosphere. These cosmic rays collide with atoms in the atmosphere and can cause them to come apart. Neutrons that come from these fragmented atoms collide with 14N atoms (the atmosphere is made mostly of nitrogen and oxygen) and convert them into 14C atoms (a proton changes into a neutron).
Once 14C is produced, it combines with oxygen in the atmosphere (12C behaves like 14C and also combines with oxygen) to form carbon dioxide (CO2). Because CO2 gets incorporated into plants (which means the food we eat contains 14C and 12C), all living things should have the same ratio of 14C and 12C in them as in the air we breathe.
How the Carbon-14 Dating Process Works
Once a living thing dies, the dating process begins. As long as an organism is alive it will continue to take in 14C; however, when it dies, it will stop. Since 14C is radioactive (decays into 14N), the amount of 14C in a dead organism gets less and less over time. Therefore, part of the dating process involves measuring the amount of 14C that remains after some has been lost (decayed). Scientists now use a device called an "Accelerator Mass Spectrometer" (AMS) to determine the ratio of 14C to 12C, which increases the assumed accuracy to about 80,000 years. In order to actually do the dating, other things need to be known. Two such things include the following questions:
The decay rate of radioactive elements is described in terms of half-life. The half-life of an atom is the amount of time it takes for half of the atoms in a sample to decay. The half-life of 14C is 5,730 years. For example, a jar starting with all 14C atoms at time zero will contain half 14C atoms and half 14N atoms at the end of 5,730 years (one half-life). At the end of 11,460 years (two half-lives) the jar will contain one-quarter 14C atoms and three-quarter 14N atoms.
Since the half-life of 14C is known (how fast it decays), the only part left to determine is the starting amount of 14C in a fossil. If scientists know the original amount of 14C in a creature when it died, they can measure the current amount and then calculate how many half-lives have passed.
Since no one was there to measure the amount of 14C when a creature died, scientists need to find a method to determine how much 14C has decayed. To do this, scientists use the main isotope of carbon, called carbon-12 (12C). Because 12C is a stable isotope of carbon, it will remain constant; however, the amount of 14C will decrease after a creature dies. All living things take in carbon (14C and 12C) from eating and breathing. Therefore, the ratio of 14C to 12C in living creatures will be the same as in the atmosphere. This ratio turns out to be about one 14C atom for every 1 trillion 12C atoms. Scientists can use this ratio to help determine the starting amount of 14C.
When an organism dies, this ratio (1 to 1 trillion) will begin to change. The amount of 12C will remain constant, but the amount of 14C will become less and less. The smaller the ratio, the longer the organism has been dead. The following illustration demonstrates how the age is estimated using this ratio.
T = Trillion
A Critical Assumption
A critical assumption used in carbon-14 dating has to do with this ratio. It is assumed that the ratio of 14C to 12C in the atmosphere has always been the same as it is today (1 to 1 trillion). If this assumption is true, then the AMS 14C dating method is valid up to about 80,000 years. Beyond this number, the instruments scientists use would not be able to detect enough remaining 14C to be useful in age estimates. This is a critical assumption in the dating process. If this assumption is not true, then the method will give incorrect dates. What could cause this ratio to change? If the production rate of 14C in the atmosphere is not equal to the removal rate (mostly through decay), this ratio will change. In other words, the amount of 14C being produced in the atmosphere must equal the amount being removed to be in a steady state (also called "equilibrium"). If this is not true, the ratio of 14C to 12C is not a constant, which would make knowing the starting amount of 14C in a specimen difficult or impossible to accurately determine.
Dr. Willard Libby, the founder of the carbon-14 dating method, assumed this ratio to be constant. His reasoning was based on a belief in evolution, which assumes the earth must be billions of years old. Assumptions in the scientific community are extremely important. If the starting assumption is false, all the calculations based on that assumption might be correct but still give a wrong conclusion.
In Dr. Libby's original work, he noted that the atmosphere did not appear to be in equilibrium. This was a troubling idea for Dr. Libby since he believed the world was billions of years old and enough time had passed to achieve equilibrium. Dr. Libby's calculations showed that if the earth started with no 14C in the atmosphere, it would take up to 30,000 years to build up to a steady state (equilibrium).
If the cosmic radiation has remained at its present intensity for 20,000 or 30,000 years, and if the carbon reservoir has not changed appreciably in this time, then there exists at the present time a complete balance between the rate of disintegration of radiocarbon atoms and the rate of assimilation of new radiocarbon atoms for all material in the life-cycle.2
Dr. Libby chose to ignore this discrepancy (nonequilibrium state), and he attributed it to experimental error. However, the discrepancy has turned out to be very real. The ratio of 14C /12C is not constant.
The Specific Production Rate (SPR) of C-14 is known to be 18.8 atoms per gram of total carbon per minute. The Specific Decay Rate (SDR) is known to be only 16.1 disintegrations per gram per minute.3
What does this mean? If it takes about 30,000 years to reach equilibrium and 14C is still out of equilibrium, then maybe the earth is not very old.
Magnetic Field of the Earth
Other factors can affect the production rate of 14C in the atmosphere. The earth has a magnetic field around it which helps protect us from harmful radiation from outer space. This magnetic field is decaying (getting weaker). The stronger the field is around the earth, the fewer the number of cosmic rays that are able to reach the atmosphere. This would result in a smaller production of 14C in the atmosphere in earth's past.
The cause for the long term variation of the C-14 level is not known. The variation is certainly partially the result of a change in the cosmic ray production rate of radiocarbon. The cosmic-ray flux, and hence the production rate of C-14, is a function not only of the solar activity but also of the magnetic dipole moment of the Earth.4
Though complex, this history of the earth's magnetic field agrees with Barnes' basic hypothesis, that the field has always freely decayed.... The field has always been losing energy despite its variations, so it cannot be more than 10,000 years old.5
Earth's magnetic field is fading. Today it is about 10 percent weaker than it was when German mathematician Carl Friedrich Gauss started keeping tabs on it in 1845, scientists say.6
If the production rate of 14C in the atmosphere was less in the past, dates given using the carbon-14 method would incorrectly assume that more 14C had decayed out of a specimen than what has actually occurred. This would result in giving older dates than the true age.
Genesis Flood
What role might the Genesis Flood have played in the amount of carbon? The Flood would have buried large amounts of carbon from living organisms (plant and animal) to form today's fossil fuels (coal, oil, etc.). The amount of fossil fuels indicates there must have been a vastly larger quantity of vegetation in existence prior to the Flood than exists today. This means that the biosphere just prior to the Flood might have had 500 times more carbon in living organisms than today. This would further dilute the amount of 14C and cause the 14C/12C ratio to be much smaller than today.
If that were the case, and this C-14 were distributed uniformly throughout the biosphere, and the total amount of biosphere C were, for example, 500 times that of today's world, the resulting C-14/C-12 ratio would be 1/500 of today's level....7
When the Flood is taken into account along with the decay of the magnetic field, it is reasonable to believe that the assumption of equilibrium is a false assumption.
Because of this false assumption, any age estimates using 14C prior to the Flood will give much older dates than the true age. Pre-Flood material would be dated at perhaps ten times the true age.
The RATE Group Findings
In 1997 an eight-year research project was started to investigate the age of the earth. The group was called the RATE group (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth). The team of scientists included:
The objective was to gather data commonly ignored or censored by evolutionary standards of dating. The scientists reviewed the assumptions and procedures used in estimating the ages of rocks and fossils. The results of the carbon-14 dating demonstrated serious problems for long geologic ages. For example, a series of fossilized wood samples that conventionally have been dated according to their host strata to be from Tertiary to Permian (40-250 million years old) all yielded significant, detectable levels of carbon-14 that would conventionally equate to only 30,000-45,000 years "ages" for the original trees.8 Similarly, a survey of the conventional radiocarbon journals resulted in more than forty examples of supposedly ancient organic materials, including limestones, that contained carbon-14, as reported by leading laboratories.9
Samples were then taken from ten different coal layers that, according to evolutionists, represent different time periods in the geologic column (Cenozoic, Mesozoic, and Paleozoic). The RATE group obtained these ten coal samples from the U.S. Department of Energy Coal Sample Bank, from samples collected from major coalfields across the United States. The chosen coal samples, which dated millions to hundreds of millions of years old based on standard evolution time estimates, all contained measurable amounts of 14C. In all cases, careful precautions were taken to eliminate any possibility of contamination from other sources. Samples, in all three "time periods", displayed significant amounts of 14C. This is a significant discovery. Since the half-life of 14C is relatively short (5,730 years), there should be no detectable 14C left after about 100,000 years. The average 14C estimated age for all the layers from these three time periods was approximately 50,000 years. However, using a more realistic pre-Flood 14C /12C ratio reduces that age to about 5,000 years.
These results indicate that the entire geologic column is less than 100,000 years old—and could be much younger. This confirms the Bible and challenges the evolutionary idea of long geologic ages.
Because the lifetime of C-14 is so brief, these AMS [Accelerator Mass Spectrometer] measurements pose an obvious challenge to the standard geological timescale that assigns millions to hundreds of millions of years to this part of the rock layer.10
Another noteworthy observation from the RATE group was the amount of 14C found in diamonds. Secular scientists have estimated the ages of diamonds to be millions to billions of years old using other radiometric dating methods. These methods are also based on questionable assumptions and are discussed elsewhere11. Because of their hardness, diamonds (the hardest known substance) are extremely resistant to contamination through chemical exchange. Since diamonds are considered to be so old by evolutionary standards, finding any 14C in them would be strong support for a recent creation.
The RATE group analyzed twelve diamond samples for possible carbon-14 content. Similar to the coal results, all twelve diamond samples contained detectable, but lower levels of 14C. These findings are powerful evidence that coal and diamonds cannot be the millions or billions of years old that evolutionists claim. Indeed, these RATE findings of detectable 14C in diamonds have been confirmed independently.12 Carbon-14 found in fossils at all layers of the geologic column, in coal and in diamonds, is evidence which confirms the biblical timescale of thousands of years and not billions.
Because of C-14's short half-life, such a finding would argue that carbon and probably the entire physical earth as well must have a recent origin.13
All radiometric dating methods are based on assumptions about events that happened in the past. If the assumptions are accepted as true (as is typically done in the evolutionary dating processes), results can be biased toward a desired age. In the reported ages given in textbooks and other journals, these evolutionary assumptions have not been questioned, while results inconsistent with long ages have been censored. When the assumptions were evaluated and shown faulty, the results supported the biblical account of a global Flood and young earth. Christians should not be afraid of radiometric dating methods. Carbon-14 dating is really the friend of Christians, and it supports a young earth.
The RATE scientists are convinced that the popular idea attributed to geologist Charles Lyell from nearly two centuries ago, "The present is the key to the past," is simply not valid for an earth history of millions or billions of years. An alternative interpretation of the carbon-14 data is that the earth experienced a global flood catastrophe which laid down most of the rock strata and fossils.... Whatever the source of the carbon-14, its presence in nearly every sample tested worldwide is a strong challenge to an ancient age. Carbon-14 data is now firmly on the side of the young-earth view of history.14
Help keep these daily articles coming. Support AiG.
^LOL. Good ol' Mike Riddle .
Toejam @ Peach & Black Podcast: http://peachandblack.podbean.com
Toejam's band "Cheap Fakes": http://cheapfakes.com.au, http://www.facebook.com/cheapfakes
Toejam the solo artist: http://www.youtube.com/scottbignell
Folks actually believe dinosaur bones were placed by satan???? You have to be kidding me with that shit.
Prof denied grant over evolution
A clash between McGill University and the key federal agency that funds social science research in the country is sparking a scholarly debate in Canada about the theory of evolution.
A clash between McGill University and the key federal agency that funds social science research in the country is sparking a scholarly debate in Canada about the theory of evolution.
McGill University says the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council made a "factual error" when it denied Professor Brian Alters a $40,000 grant on the grounds that he'd failed to provide the panel with ample evidence that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is correct.
Jennifer Robinson, McGill's associate vice-principal for communications, said the university has asked the SSHRC to review its decision to reject Alters's request for money to study how the rising popularity in the United States of "intelligent design" - a controversial creationist theory of life - is eroding acceptance of evolutionary science in Canada.
The planned project, submitted last year to the council, is titled Detrimental effects of popularizing anti-evolution's intelligent design theory on Canadian students, teachers, parents, administrators and policymakers.
Alters, director of McGill's Evolution Education Research Centre, told CanWest News Service yesterday he was shocked at SSHRC's response and that it offers "ironic" proof that his premise about intelligent design gaining a foothold in Canada is correct.
Alters said he read the letter at a public lecture last week in Montreal and there were "audible gasps" from the large audience.
"Evolution is not an assumption and intelligent design is pseudo-science," Alters said.
"I think SSHRC should come out and state that evolution is a scientific fact and that intelligent design is not."
"There are all kinds of reasons to deny a grant proposal," Robinson said. "We don't want to assume anything." But she said McGill is obviously concerned by what it sees as a mistake in the committee's reasoning.
In its decision to deny the grant, the SSHRC panel said Alters had not supplied "adequate justification for the assumption in the proposal that the theory of evolution, and not intelligent design theory, was correct."
"McGill considers this a factual error," Robinson said.
"The theory of evolution is well-established science, while intelligent design is a form of religious belief."
Janet Halliwell, the SSHRC's executive vice-president and a chemist by training, acknowledged that the "framing" of the committee's comments to Alters left the letter "open to misinterpretation."
Halliwell said confidentiality obligations made it difficult for her to discuss Alters's case in detail, but she argued that the professor had taken one line in the letter "out of context" and the rejection of his application should not indicate that SSHRC was expressing "doubts about the theory of evolution."
However, Halliwell added there are phenomena that "may not be easily explained by current theories of evolution" and that the scientific world's understanding of life "is not static. There's an evolution in the theory of evolution."
Intelligent design - the idea that life on Earth was shaped by the guiding actions of some intelligent force rather than through natural selection - has become the latest battleground, particularly in the United States, between creationists and advocates of the theory of evolution championed by Darwin.
Alters holds teaching positions at McGill and Harvard University and is co-author of Defending Evolution. Last fall, he was a key witness when creationists squared off with proponents of evolution in a Pennsylvania courthouse.
The six-week case, seen as a throwback to the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial, rekindled debate over the place of religion in U.S. public schools.
Judge John Jones ruled the Dover Area School Board had broken a constitutional ban on the teaching of religion in public schools when it inserted wording in its science curriculum that life on Earth might have been designed by an unidentified intelligent being.
Advocates of intelligent
design contend life on Earth
is just too complicated to have occurred through natural selection and survival of the fittest theories put forward by Darwin.
However, even the Vatican has come forward to say it has no quarrel with Darwin - that it is possible to believe in God and evolution.
One of six experts who were called to testify against the teaching of intelligent design, Alters argues the case touched at the core of how people think the world began and at the very definition of science.
The members of the SSHRC committee that rejected Alters's application were: chairperson Susan Bennett of the department of English literature at the University of Calgary; Lawrence Felt of the department of sociology at Memorial University of Newfoundland; University of Ottawa history professor Ruby Heap; Gilbert Larochelle from the department of human sciences at the Universite du Quebec a Chicoutimi; and Ruth Rose from the department of economics at the Universite du Quebec a Montreal.
© (c) CanWest MediaWorks Publications Inc.
Yeah that's when I pretty much dropped out of the debate. I realized I came from a different religious background then a lot of people in this argument, so much so I can't wrap my head around a lot of these explanations. I so happy there are other schools of thought.
"Do I dare Disturb the universe?"
― T.S. Eliot
"Only by acceptance of the past, can you alter it"
― T.S. Eliot
A lot of the interpetation that is being clinged to today is not the interpetation that has been held throughout out the centuries. Which to me says a lot, since the words are exactly the same century to century, then to me the difference in interpetation has more to do with the state of mind of the time then the fact the the wording is concrete.
Given the stark difference between evolution and six-day creation, many people assume that Darwin's theory shook the foundations of the Christian faith. In truth, the literal six-day interpretation of Genesis 1-2 was not the only perspective held by Christians prior to modern science. St. Augustine (354-430), John Calvin (1509-1564), John Wesley (1703-171), and others supported the idea of Accommodation. In the Accommodation view, Genesis 1-2 was written in a simple allegorical fashion to make it easy for people of that time to understand. In fact, Augustine suggested that the 6 days of Genesis 1 describe a single day of creation. St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) argued that God did not create things in their final state, but created them to have potential to develop as he intended.
Rise of Young Earth Creationism
Between 1910 and 1915, a group of conservative Christians wrote a series of papers titled "The Fundamentals." These papers clarified the beliefs of conservative Christians to preserve the faith from the threats of the time.7 Interestingly, "The Fundamentals" put no emphasis on Noah's flood as an explanation of geological data and included contributors who accepted an old earth. Even William Jennings Bryan, a conservative Christian who crusaded against the teaching of evolution in public schools, accepted the Day-Age interpretation.
Although Young Earth Creationism is today's primary anti-evolution campaign, it has only been a popular Christian belief for the last 50 years. Just before and for 100 years following Darwin's discovery, most Christians in the United States were comfortable with the idea of an old earth, and many found harmony with the scriptures through either the Day-Age or Gap Theory interpretations.
[Edited 6/2/12 11:02am]
"Do I dare Disturb the universe?"
― T.S. Eliot
"Only by acceptance of the past, can you alter it"
― T.S. Eliot
Cowardice always hides behind insinuation
A scientist can present evidence. The Bible is what it is.
Reviewing scientific evidence is not accepting on faith.
I don't want you to think like me. I just want you to think.
That evidence doesn't exist.
You want a personal interpretation of the science? Why?
Not sure what purpose that serves.
I don't want you to think like me. I just want you to think.
That is the most ridiculous nonsense I have heard. Why would the work of scientists, anthropologists, archaeologists, etc., have anything to do with trying to make people disbelieve in God? I don't see how anyone can discount the findings of fossils, bones, etc., of early humans, ignore DNA testing, and when the results of these findings are made public, how is it a way to steer people away from believing in God? Did Christianity not come hundreds of thousands of years after humans were already here?
Many ancient, early humans already had their own spiritual beliefs in their own Gods, so how could religious folks today, just discount the existence of humans who were around over 200,000 years ago who embraced spiritual beliefs? 'To me, the difference between science and reiigion is that you can produce physical, hard evidence with science, while religion is a spiritual belief, a state of mind, so-to-speak, with the belief that some powerful, spiritual force unseen, exists, but you can 't see it, and difficult to present hard evidence as proof of its existence, other than what many religious folk called the 'bible' or 'koran' or whatever name the 'written word' is given and means to them.
I actually see the bible as a manual for humans. Stories of life experiences, trials and tribulations, and personal stories of individuals in the bible, told as an example of how they handled, specific life experiences. A manual used to teach people the difference between love and hate, and human laws written (i.e. the Ten Commandments), to teach humans the rights vs the wrongs, respect and how we as humans should treat one another and to raise our awareness that evil as well as, love exists within many humans. Not that may sound a bit cliche, but that's just my interpretation of the purpose/intention of the bible. I'm not going to disrespect anyone's belief in God or religion, regardless of how I personally feel, because I don't have some special privilege to tell someone what they shouldn't believe in, and if someone needs religion to give them strength, get them through their trials and tribulations of life, then so be it. I just think it is impossible to discount evolution, science, when it comes to the existence of the human species.
'Trump voters got Hoodwinked by Trump'
I find it appalling to belive that I wouldn't no right from wrong if I was not supernaturally guided by a celestial dictatorship. Let's not forget the immoral teaching within this book, to qoute hitches
"including the slaughter of other "tribes," the enslavement of the survivors, the mutilation of the genitalia of children, the burning of witches, the condemnation of sexual "deviants" and the eating of certain foods, the opposition to innovations in science and medicine, the mad doctrine of predestination, the deranged accusation against all Jews of the crime of "deicide," the absurdity of "Limbo," the horror of suicide-bombing and jihad, and the ethically dubious notion of vicarious redemption by human sacrifice."
Furthermore, how did the Jewish people get to the top of Mount Sinai under the impression that murder and theft and perjury were okay?
Further reading http://www.vanityfair.com...ens-201004
I actually had a young earth creationist use this very argument with me recently. In their words, satan is the deceiver and is capable of doing anything, including planting false evidence to get us to turn our backs on God by bringing into question God's words within the Bible.
2elijah, they are not saying the scientists and researchers are the ones that are deceiving us, but rather that they, as well, have been deceived. The argument a young earth creationist used with me was that satan is the deceiver and is not above planting false evidence (as I posted to toejam above this post). When I tried to discuss that point and point out the fallacy of the magical thinking - I was told I had been deceived as well, and "get thee away from me satan". :-/ People believe what they want to believe and can find any argument to support their belief and they will not be swayed in any other direction.
This is just sad. To believe in God is one thing but to think God made us 10,000 years ago is ridiculous. Hopefully these people learn about something called carbon dating
The bible is a big mix-mash. Using this I doubt Noah was on the ark for 46,000 years
2elijah, did you know the Ten Commandments existed centuries before the Exodus? You'll find them word-for-word in the 42 Negative Confessions from the Egyptian Book of the Dead. Since Moses spent part of his life in Egypt(and studied the priesthood as a member of the royal family), I'm sure he came across the 42 Confessions and condensed them into 10.
Thanks but I don't see how the scientists who test DNA of humans, and can trace it back to East Africa, or have found fossils/bones/stones they can date back hundreds/thousands of years, have been deceived by some fairy tale guy named satan. I am not falling for the 'Humans were just created less than 10,000 years ago' nonsense. DNA don't lie. Scientists have been able to track early human existence as far back as over 200,000 years ago. I suppose next I'll hear someone intentionally planted human bones or that DNA testing is bs.
As far as your mention of satan, in the bible he basically represents what 'evil' is as God represents 'Good'. Satan is just a representation of the evil side of humans, vs the compassionate, good-hearted side of humans. I'm not going to say that I don't believe in a higher, spiritual force, but I still see the bible as a manual to teach humans about good vs evil, and how we use those two forces among ourselves. But I have great respect for scientists who provide, hard evidence to back up their findings/studies/research. in their goals and search for the origins of the human species. When you compare how a small band of humans survived and travelled out of Africa, to populate the world, and when they separated from one another, and some met up again years later, after the ice age, they didn't recognize one another, because they looked different from one another, physically in appearance, and communicated in various languages. That reminds me of a story in the bible where a small band of humans were suddenly speaking in different languages and were told to go out and spread around the world. Can't remember which part of the bible that is in, but when you compare the scientific one to the biblical one, it has similarities. Someone here who is more knowledgeable about the bibliclal stories, would know which part I'm talking about in the bible,
'Trump voters got Hoodwinked by Trump'
Uptown, I have had very little exposure to the biblical stories in the bible, and I am certainly no expert, but know my eyes were opened, so-to-speak when I started to learn about the origins of the human species, by some of the experts in the field. Humans existed long before Christianity did, so it makes one wonder then, how is it one can believe humans were just created only 10,000 years ago? To answer your question, no I have never heard of the 42 negative confessions, but I have definitely heard of the Egyptian book of the dead. Guess I need to be schooled a bit more on those biblical stories. , but since I've been researching the origins of the human species, some of these biblical stories or scriptures I've read or heard, somehow reflects some of the journeys of early humans I've read about.
'Trump voters got Hoodwinked by Trump'
With all the DNA testing by population geneticists who can trace humans back as far as 200,000 years, I can't see how anyone could ignore that humans have been around that far back. I think there's a lot of prejudice when it comes to science vs religion, and I don't see how the extensive research and physical evidence/findings by research population geneticists, archaeologists, anthropologists, regarding the existence of ancient humans, can be ignored by the religious community.
'Trump voters got Hoodwinked by Trump'
Dude, take it easy. I'm not saying you would or you wouldn't. I'm just giving my personal opinion on what the bible's purpose may have been. Key word 'may', which means my opinion is not written in stone, and by the way I made no mention of Jewish people. I also did not mention the teachings of the bible was guided by some celestial force. I see it more or less written by humans, to be quite honest, but then again you missed the whole point, so, you could calm down now.
'Trump voters got Hoodwinked by Trump'
I read a report about atheism being linked to autism, and I immediately thought of this forum! I always find it interesting when SOME atheists but not all state that believers are stupid...
Interestingly enough, this research implies that SOME atheists are simply not able to think in the abstract.....
It would serve the purpose of deciphering whether or not the Earth is more or less than 10,000yrs old. The "purpose" is to determine the truth of history. If it's true, and demonstratable, then I would like to know about it. Problem is every time someone makes the claim that it is, they fail to convince me (let alone the scientists) of it. Perhaps this is some subconscious "denial" or conspiracy theory or something... Or... Perhaps, and this is the view I take, the reason for that is that the Earth is not less than 10,000yrs old!
Toejam @ Peach & Black Podcast: http://peachandblack.podbean.com
Toejam's band "Cheap Fakes": http://cheapfakes.com.au, http://www.facebook.com/cheapfakes
Toejam the solo artist: http://www.youtube.com/scottbignell
But yet say it's inconclusive. What a contradiction.
Toejam @ Peach & Black Podcast: http://peachandblack.podbean.com
Toejam's band "Cheap Fakes": http://cheapfakes.com.au, http://www.facebook.com/cheapfakes
Toejam the solo artist: http://www.youtube.com/scottbignell
I found this interesting even though it's about homeschooling.
Why is the Age of the Earth Such a Big Deal to Many Christians?
Many Christians suggest that the Young-Earth/Old-Earth debate is of vital importance not only or merely because there is a vast difference between 6,000 to 10,000 years on the one hand, and 5 billion-plus years on the other. But, they say, this debate is important because of a syllogism, a logical and appropriate progression of thought:
By these logical steps, beginning from a "scientific" inability to believe that the Scriptures are trustworthy, many people who once committed themselves to love, honor, and obey the Lord Jesus Christ have been led in their adult years to abandon their Lord and Savior.
The point: if we can't trust the biblical account of creation, then we have no reason to trust the Bible as God's authoritative word at any other point, either.
a correct interpretation of Genesis 1-11 is extremely difficult--perhaps more difficult than the interpretation of almost any other section of Scripture.
And herein lies a problem.
Many of our brothers and sisters in Christ believe that a scientifically well-informed person can--and ought--to believe the Scriptures for what they seem to say on their surface, "literally.". Indeed, they find it offensive if someone even suggests that a surface--or "literal"-- reading may be problematic.
They say--or at least strongly imply--that to question the "obvious" interpretation of Scripture (their"obvious" interpretation!) is to question the very Word of God.
Does It Make Sense for Us to at Least Look at Scientific Data when Interpreting Scripture?
Martin Luther, we are told, once wrote, "This fool Copernicus wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy [by claiming that the Earth spins on its axis and that the Earth revolves around the Sun]; but sacred Scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still and not the earth."4. [Luther is referencing Joshua 10:12-13 where "Joshua said to the LORD in the presence of Israel: 'O sun, stand still over Gibeon, O moon, over the Valley of Aijalon.' So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the nation avenged itself on its enemies."]
Most Christians--even most leaders in the Young-Earth creationist movement--no longer read verses like Joshua 10:12-13 the way Martin Luther seems to have read it. Indeed, our brothers and sisters at Answers in Genesis say that those who think they see geocentrism taught in the Scriptures are reading it into the text rather than finding it there to begin with.
A note on the matter of "setting science above Scripture"
Let me state that I believe God gave us our minds and enabled human beings to develop the scientific method in order to acquire wisdom and to gain knowledge--true wisdom and true knowledge. I believe it is legitimate to seek to know more today than people knew yesterday or two thousand years ago. And I believe God intends for us to use that wisdom and knowledge in the service of His Word. He desires us to bend all our energies--not only of our spirits, but of our minds and bodies as well--to obeying His commands (see Mark 12:30).
Therefore, I believe, not only is it a grave injustice to those dedicated brothers and sisters who are engaged in scientific research, but it is a grave mistake for any of us to suggest that we cannot, or ought not, to use science to help us interpret the Scriptures or to do the work of God.
Yes, of course our science must be submitted to the Scriptures. But our interpretations of Scripture, too, ought to be moderated by our scientific understanding. Our understanding of science and our understanding of Scripture, I believe, ought to work together in a virtuous cycle of interactive and mutual correction. . . .
Scripture, in that sense, is made to submit to science. But science, too, is forced to submit to Scripture. Scripture, ultimately, must have the last word. But when do we know we have made it to the end? When do we, as limited, fallible human beings, know that we have fully and accurately comprehended what the Word of God is saying? --I think we will never arrive at that destination until we stand before God face to face. Until that day, we will continue to "see in a mirror, dimly" (1 Corinthians 13:12). And for as long as that remains true, we ought to conduct ourselves with appropriate humility and grace . . . before both God and man.
Young-Earth creationists say that their Old-Earth brethren are "compromisers" when they want to (re-)interpret Genesis 1-11 with the aid of their understanding of modern science.
[Edited 6/2/12 21:50pm]
"Do I dare Disturb the universe?"
― T.S. Eliot
"Only by acceptance of the past, can you alter it"
― T.S. Eliot
For Beautifulstarr123: http://www.rationalskepti...t1101.html
Toejam @ Peach & Black Podcast: http://peachandblack.podbean.com
Toejam's band "Cheap Fakes": http://cheapfakes.com.au, http://www.facebook.com/cheapfakes
Toejam the solo artist: http://www.youtube.com/scottbignell
So, your point is......
wrong. google falsifiability and go from there
you, me, EVERYONE can go out, do research conduct experiments and disprove evolution. like finding a rabbit fossil beside a T-Rex fossil. and POOF!! there goes the theory
but nothing. in 150 years. best suppoerted theroy in history. full stop.
and NO faith involved. none.
Vanglorious... this is protected by the red, the black, and the green. With a key... sissy!
A scientist presents evidence based on rules that scientists created.
A relgion presents evidence based on rules that religion created.
It's the same thing. If I question scientific evidence, they show me a book. if I question religious evidence, they show me a book.
Not everything can be based on personal emperical evidence. At somepoint, you have to take some "facts" on faith. Data can be manipulated to make claims a theorum. both in science and in religion.
Still it's nice to know, when our bodies wear out, we can get another
hey look! I can c&p too. hoever, mine has provable facts behind it
2.Radiometric dates are consistent with several nonradiometric dating methods. For example:
3.The creationist claim that radiometric dates are inconsistent rest on a relatively few examples. Creationists ignore the vast majority of radiometric dates showing consistent results (e.g., Harland et al. 1990).
or those old threads google just popped up for me, where we handled that dating shit years ago
also notice how a certain SlamGlam argues with the exact same stuff OnlyNdUsa does
"...life about as likely as life just happening by chance bla bla "
re-user, coward and liar
[Edited 6/4/12 8:24am]
Vanglorious... this is protected by the red, the black, and the green. With a key... sissy!
But you haven't done it. You're taking a scientists word as truth. And how many experiments have been done and redone and have shown errors in data or data collection, or data collection processes? Science is just as fallible as religion, to be honest with you. But that's kind of the point of science. To work questions into the ground until the only answer left is the "right" one.
Still it's nice to know, when our bodies wear out, we can get another
How is something that searches 4 facts the same as something made up?
fallible, maybe. but it is not falsifiable
point is, I can not disprove Last Thursdayism, even if I WANTED to. and neither any claim of a deitiy or creator. so it's all irrelevant and adds NOTHING to the table
and no, I didn't check or verify everything in evolution. just a bit in a way with that attitude you render any form of outside information - TV news, book, newspapers - as irrelevant. you can't check everything out there, can you? sometimes you have to rely on the assumption, that someone else would falsify it if possible. especially in a theory as much under attack as evolution
[Edited 6/4/12 8:38am]
Vanglorious... this is protected by the red, the black, and the green. With a key... sissy!
Which is my point, altogether. You take a large amount of scientific knowledge on faith. Just as people take a large amount of religious knowledge on faith.
People are making fun of religious people (people who give themselves to religious instruction) as "ignorant." However, there are hordes of people who "have faith" on science who cannot understand something as basic as inertia.
I guess I'm saying, I have no qualms with questioning logical fallacies in the Bible. But mocking the argument "well, that's what it says in the Bible" can be logically challanged with mocking the argument "well, that's what it says in the Encyclopedia."
Still it's nice to know, when our bodies wear out, we can get another
Actually that is not such a high number considering the supposed number of Americans who consider themselves Christian.
Secularism is moving up quickly so likewise religion is disappearing, slowly but surely. Most advanced nations are going the secular route, and secularism is more prevalent amongst the young. So what we are seeing is religion in it's waning days. Religion on the defensive. When religion turns to politics it is always a defensive move, and when politics turns to religion it is desperation.
46% means less Americans believe in the validity of the bible than do. It's the tipping point where the boat begins to sink.
What to make of that sinking feeling is up to you.
[Edited 6/4/12 9:07am]
Because you, personally, do not have specific emperical evidence on all things related to science. You rely on textbooks of data to support your argument. No different from people who rely on a Bible to support their arguments. I would argue that people who refer to the Bible are searching for facts as well.
Rely on your logic and evidence to show people why they are wrong. No sense mocking them for doing something you would do yourself (pointing to a book to show you're right).
Still it's nice to know, when our bodies wear out, we can get another
It is one thing to disagree and another to insult those that do. I am not perfect I have called people names too... but not based on their core beliefs.
Gemini rising on the 7th day... 21,138
Seriously, what kind of answer is that?
A simple timeline is not clear 2 u?
That's it? One line from Peter saying "One day with the Lord is as thousand years, and a thousand years as one day"?
Let's be totally clear here: that line doesn't claim in any way whatsoever that "Man Was Created By God 10,000 Years Ago Or Less".
It's rather a figure of speech that with the Lord time isn't a factor and it's not even from Genesis nor is it put in the context of creation.
Isn't there more in the Bible to support the claim that "Man Was Created By God 10,000 Years Ago Or Less"?
A simple question: Which part of the Bible exactly claims...? isn't enough for you?
Why even bother.
it is estimations based on the stated genealogies and stated ages of the people.
Gemini rising on the 7th day... 21,138
So where in the Bible exactly does it say that "Man Was Created By God 10,000 Years Ago Or Less"?
Also, if one day in the Bible actually means one thousand years and Noah really lived for 950 years, he would have actually lived for about 365x950x1000=346 million years.
who said it did?
Gemini rising on the 7th day... 21,138
uh... 46% of Americans, apparantly.
not true. read the poll question again. Where is the Bible specifically refereed to?
Gemini rising on the 7th day... 21,138
Interestingly this "news" seems to only have been posted on "thenewcivilrightsmovement.com" and I can't open the linkthe OP provided anymore...
But let's not play games here. It is always being claimed that the Bible supposedly claims that
"Man Was Created By God 10,000 Years Ago Or Less"
Just see reply #49 for example:
Doesn't Carbon-14 Dating Disprove the Bible?
by Mike Riddle
September 20, 2007
Am I the only one that noticed the sicking irony that a web site called the new civil rights movement could be so openly anti-civil rights? To attack religious people so openly is not in keeping with civil rights by any measure. Note they are not attacking a specific religious belief that has been used to deny some perceived equal rights... but one of the most basic of religious beliefs of the origin of the world and life.
Gemini rising on the 7th day... 21,138
^yeah but civil trights is something else than civilty
Anyway what about the Bible claiming that "Man Was Created By God 10,000 Years Ago Or Less'"?
Where is "the evidence" of that?
Gemini rising on the 7th day... 21,138
I am willing to take a bet that nobody is going to povide me with a single Bible verse that can substantiate the statement that "Man Was Created By God 10,000 Years Ago Or Less".
It's all man-made, politicised bullshit by firstly fundamentalist so-called "Christians" and now also fundamentalist so-called "atheists".
so not directly on any Bible verse but on so-called "estimates"
yeah by WHOM, WHY and HOW???
[Edited 6/4/12 12:17pm]
Gemini rising on the 7th day... 21,138
well thank you!
Once again who said there was such a passage?
and if something in a book is something you do not like or believe in then why put any thought in it?
Gemini rising on the 7th day... 21,138
Come on now Dance. "Science"is most certainly "falisifiable". Here in Holland we just had some widely publicised "incidents" that pretty much "proved" that not all "science" is all "real", really.
Once again, just look at this thread (not that you really did).
That the Bible claims this, is like the premise to it. It is claimed all the time.
Why else do so many Americans "believe" it?
Gemini rising on the 7th day... 21,138
in fact Tremolina it was you that first mentioned the bible. and from the replies that I read (i may have missed few) they all seem to offer the same answer... that the age is not stated but is implied by time lines, genealogies, stated ages, and references to historicall facts that are mentioned in bible stories.
Gemini rising on the 7th day... 21,138
really, I must have missed those posts then. Can you point me to a few, since you know it so well and all?
EXACTLY my point.
Why do these 46% of so called (American) "Christians" believe this (excuse my Americanglish)CRAP... when it is NOT "the Word of God"?
Oh are you saying now that we are not talking about "Christians" here?
It's the 46% of Jews, Hindus and Muslims in America that believe this?
posts: 5 11 12 for starters...
Gemini rising on the 7th day... 21,138
Each one of the them refers to.... drumroll...
Since when do so-called "Christians" go along with what is "Implied" and "estimated" instead of what is WRITTEN IN THE BIBLE??
OnlyndaUSA I guess..
your question was about the bible so it stands to reason that the answer would be limited to the bible.
i am not sure what you want? I am pretty sure whatever question you are asking is not all that relevant to this topic.
Gemini rising on the 7th day... 21,138
^ you are not sure because you are not smart enough
Are you "not sure"?
6 still nothing?
Try post #93 then..
Since when do so-called "Christians" go along with what is "Implied" and "estimated" instead of what is WRITTEN IN THE BIBLE??
i am trying to ignore you anti-religious posts... but the answer is i do not know why 46% answered option C, nor do you. And as i said read the question again: it is about which one is closest... no mention to the bible exists. you seem to have totally made that part up as part of your personal anti-religious bias.
You seem dead set on putting them down because the age of the earth is not specifically mentioned? When you asked where, the perfectly acceptable answer "it is an estimation..."
again: it is not a matter of how smart i am: it is a matter of you not being clear enough in what you are asking. As to why 46% found the god created 10000 years ago the best choice... maybe it had more to do with what the other 2 where and less about the time line. Again I am wondering who is the one that has not read the information.
Gemini rising on the 7th day... 21,138
can you post any specific doctrine of any Christan faith that says that only that which is specifically stated in the Bible is to be believed?
Can you post any specific passage in the bible or any Abrahamic Religion that says only that which is specifically stated is to be accepted?
Do you really think the commandment "thow shall not kill" is 100% literal or that it is taken as such by ANYONE?
Gemini rising on the 7th day... 21,138
[Edited 6/4/12 13:37pm]
"Do I dare Disturb the universe?"
― T.S. Eliot
"Only by acceptance of the past, can you alter it"
― T.S. Eliot
[Edited 6/4/12 13:49pm]
Gemini rising on the 7th day... 21,138
see, this already proves why you are wrong.
Why don't you answer my questions first.
Don't be such a douche.
the POINT here
which I am sure everybody else is getting except for Only and 46% of his fellow Americans
is that it's NOT TRUE that "Man Was Created By God 10,000 Years Ago Or Less"
that the Bible does NOT claim it.
It's "Only" 46% of Americans...
wrong about what? i have not made any statements of fact other than that you are the only one talking about the bible, that the poll makes no mention of the bible, and that the bible does have information that some have used to make a guess as to the age of the earth.
and you have made statements that sure seem to put down people that believe that the world is 10000 years based on an implied age as opposed to a specifically stated age.
specificaly where you said:
Why do these 46% of so called (American) "Christians" believe this (excuse my Americanglish)CRAP... when it is NOT "the Word of God"?"
Gemini rising on the 7th day... 21,138
about ME
of course...
you are really not smart
when did I state my answer to the poll question?
and can you prove what % of that 46% specifically believe the 10000 year part? or that maybe they just reject the other 2 choices for other reasons?
Gemini rising on the 7th day... 21,138
Ha! you are asking me to "prove" a poll now
you are the one making up assumptions on it so yeah.
from how i read the 2 questions it is: you you believe in evolution, evolution with help, or creationism.... i am not even sure the time lines were even that important to the responders.
Gemini rising on the 7th day... 21,138
Talk about assumptions
where did I assume anything? I am pretty sure that the words i used above imply that I do not know the reasons why 46% answered option: #3. I leave open that there were other factors why that was chosen as the best answer by 46% of respondents.
to me the answer could just as well be that god created man as is and did not use a process in which man evolved.
if we apply your standard of if it is not specifically in the bible then Christians should not believe it that would still be the only leave choice 3. The bible does specifically say that God created Man in his own image and did so separate from the other animals. That makes the years extra and unnecessary information. (like in those silly tests kids take in school... there is often extra information that has nothing to do with the answer built into the question or answer choices.)
[Edited 6/4/12 14:38pm]
Gemini rising on the 7th day... 21,138
a little to high
don't believe it
more like 16%
that's the way America goes, anyway, in Europe and other parts of world, literalists are very hard to find
why many americans still believe in EVERY word of OLD testament is beyond me...
Created by that violent, angry, ego-maniacal character "God" in the Old Testament of the Bible?
Any belief in that is equal to believing in a literal Santa Claus.
Created by a creating force of super-human intelligence?
That's self-evident.
Scientifically speaking that's an absurdity. On an institutional religious level that's just dogma.
I would say we're in a constant state of creation. Linear time is really just another human-made concept, as is "evolution."
Did you really?
All books are equal in the knowledge they contain? News to me . . . . .
I can find specific empirical evidence for most things related to science. That evidence is published to be dissemated and available to a large audience.
Will searching the Bible tell me the distance the Earth is from the Sun? The height of any mountain? The depths of any body of water?
Better yet, what facts do you go to the Bible to find?
I can't believe you really posted that.
I don't want you to think like me. I just want you to think.
How do you verify where the genealogies end and that no is missing from the geneaology?
Our current calendar isn't accurate back to the time of the Cruxifixion, so our present time calculations also need to be adjusted.
If you accept it on faith, then just say there is no evidence but that you accept on faith, based on your beliefs that mankind was created by God 10,000 years ago. Then you can ignore the science to the contrary.
I don't want you to think like me. I just want you to think.
I think it is literal. I am one who does take it literally. Which isn't to say, that I don't understand situations where killing will happen, such as war.
I don't want you to think like me. I just want you to think.
Both existed before mankind and will after.
I don't want you to think like me. I just want you to think.
Gemini rising on the 7th day... 21,138
no you don't
Gemini rising on the 7th day... 21,138
Now what were you about to say?
This is why I called toejam a hypocrite, and there's more like them.
I'm all ears.
I don't want you to think like me. I just want you to think.
SUPRMAN said:
I'm all ears.
So there is no difference between a person and an ant? I all killing I the same.
Gemini rising on the 7th day... 21,138
I interpret it to being a reference to human beings.
If all killing is the same, plants are living creatures too. We kill them.
I don't want you to think like me. I just want you to think.
SUPRMAN said:
I interpret it to being a reference to human beings.
If all killing is the same, plants are living creatures too. We kill them.
So then it is not really literal?
Gemini rising on the 7th day... 21,138
Does the Bible say how far the distance is between the Earth and the Sun? It doesn't (afaik). It does, however, chronicle the age of the universe as 10-15 thousand years old (as postulated by many a religious scholar). Obviously, there is inconsistancy with science which dates the Universe at a much, much longer span.
What kind of proof are you going to show me? A link to a web page? A text from an encyclopedia? That's my point. People are mocking the idea that somebody would take information from a book presented as fact simply because it's from a Bible, and then defend their own information with information taken from a book presented as fact simply because it's from an encyclopedia (or similar). "Oh... but it's proven science!" How is that different than "Oh... but it's the word of God!"
I'm talking about the Meta-flaming that is going on. Not the actual measurments of how old the Earth is. That's a completely different discussion.
Still it's nice to know, when our bodies wear out, we can get another
Toejam @ Peach & Black Podcast: http://peachandblack.podbean.com
Toejam's band "Cheap Fakes": http://cheapfakes.com.au, http://www.facebook.com/cheapfakes
Toejam the solo artist: http://www.youtube.com/scottbignell
Toejam @ Peach & Black Podcast: http://peachandblack.podbean.com
Toejam's band "Cheap Fakes": http://cheapfakes.com.au, http://www.facebook.com/cheapfakes
Toejam the solo artist: http://www.youtube.com/scottbignell
again, there is a giant difference.
Vanglorious... this is protected by the red, the black, and the green. With a key... sissy!
and I'm ignoring your Anti-Semitic and Anti-Mulim posts
idiotic. nothing in his post was remotely anti-religious.
you are clueless as fuck, Tremolina is and was always in FRONT row when it comes to defend religion against atheists and alike. but this little piece of information slipped by, like almost any other information that would have been available to you.
Vanglorious... this is protected by the red, the black, and the green. With a key... sissy!
So, 46% of Americans believe the world to be 10,000 years old. What we have then is 150 million educated people, living in a civilised first world economy where some of the worlds greatest inventions, like aeroplanes, cars and personal computers were conceived, completely and utterly laughing in the face of their own education.
They are stating that what they have been taught, the gadgets they use and the cars they drive are all based on factless assumptions. The books we read to educate our kids, be them about pythagoras theorum or the mathematics used to show the world revolves around the sun are so full of faults that each and every one of us that knows that 1+1=2 is on shakey ground when it comes to our basic education.
Newton, Einstein and Darwin, educated by books compiled by people making discoveries before them are completely wrong. The discoveries and scientific breakthroughs they made are bogus because the science they were taught was on shakey ground. How we came up with the combustion engine, the telephone, GPS, satellite TV, Microsoft Windows, actual windows, super colliders, atomic clocks, boats, guns, nuclear weapons, lazers, torches, fire, the wheel and everything else we see around us must have been a fluke because the science we used just wasnt reliable enough to come up with any of it.
And now we have the blatent cheek to state that, using that very same science, the world is 5 billion years old, and even more absurdly, the universe itself is 13 billion years old. How dare we state that we think, using Einsteins bogus theory of relativity that we can map the universe back to the big bang and a split second after the universe came into existence. Who in their right minds would honestly claim that the evolution of life is not a faith-based nonsensical falacy made up by scientists using fake fossils, broken dating techniques and complete disregard for the 1st law of thermodynamics. What a cheek!
Jeez, if I had known this back when my mind was begging for more knowledge and my whole life was ahead of me, I would have picked up a bible instead. Then i wouldnt have to have sat through all those bogus mathematics lessons, made-up physics and chemistry lectures, false history and geography lessons. Instead i could have educated myself properly with hard facts such as a "1000 years is a day and a day is a 1000 years".
No wonder these people think the world is 10,000 years old. They don't have any education!
When a scientist in any given field, be it evolution, string theory or medicine publishes a theory or proof, there are countless other scientists in the same field out to try and debunk them. Science is an extremely competetive field and nothing gets through rigourous testing of results by their peers doing their best to find holes. Many many theories and suppositions get debunked before they have even had a chance to mature. Others like General and special relativity, evolution of the species, quantum physics etc have had no end of attempts to disprove them and have remained robust enough to mature and become part of what will one day become a Theory of Everything.
[Edited 6/5/12 3:54am]
That is illogical. By definition, when you claim that the logic of your scientific data holds true over the logic of religious data, you are re-testing the findings of the Bible (or similar text).
And if there ever was a scenario where people are clinging to faulty data made by faulty scientists using faulty collection methods, look no further than Global Warming. Even science can be used in a manner in which you claim religious people hold their beliefs.
Still it's nice to know, when our bodies wear out, we can get another
Of course you can believe the Bible is false. Who is forcing you to think otherwise?
Still it's nice to know, when our bodies wear out, we can get another
It is not pointless, unless your entire logical reasoning depends on never taking information on faith. That is an argument here in the thread. That people who believe that Man was created 10,000 years ago have no argument other than what is in a book. Well, all the evidence that will be used to counter that argument is... in a book.
If you checked an earlier post I made, I supported the idea that science is all about ideas being given extreme scrutiny. It's the science of being wrong, to a large extent. To me, that's one of the beauties of science and research. But again, there is a point where I say to myself "Okay... I'm going to have to take this information on faith."
Also, I should ask the question just to be devil's advocate (har har), but Christianity and Judaism have maintained against scrutiny for over 2000 years, using what amounts to a single source of knowledge (The Holy Bible). How much credit does that get over something like the Higgs Boson Particle, or Dark Matter?
[Edited 6/5/12 4:28am]
Still it's nice to know, when our bodies wear out, we can get another
uh did I say anything different? it's not what I or you believe. it's about what at least in theory is testable, provable or more important falsifiable
all I'm saying there is a differnce between religious "writings" and scientific "writings" because of that
sorry, I see myself unable to render my point more understandable
Vanglorious... this is protected by the red, the black, and the green. With a key... sissy!
on book can be proved or debunked. the other book not.
that makes the entire difference
that's why those two scenarios can not be compared, no matter how much you try
Vanglorious... this is protected by the red, the black, and the green. With a key... sissy!
Then I'm in the same boat.
I get it. Your argument is that the Bible is a logical fallacy. That's all well and good. But your support for science is that it can be just as wrong as the Bible is illogical.
So then, what IS truth?
And now we can get into some interesting epistemology.
Still it's nice to know, when our bodies wear out, we can get another
Of course they can be compared. When the argument is "look how ignorant you are, using a book to prove you are right" and then immediately using abook to prove you yourself are right... it's a contradiction.
And again... YOU CAN DEBUNK THE BIBLE. Isn't that what's going on in this thread? People offering data on the age of the Earth/Mankind in conflict to the claims of the Bible?
But so far, I've only seen one good reply from Creationists (which I am too): the Bible doesn't explicitly give the age of Mankind. Man has "reasoned" the age of Mankind from the Bible. Man is falliable, God is not. If 10,000 years is wrong, then WE (mankind) must be reading something wrong.
Is that fair?
Still it's nice to know, when our bodies wear out, we can get another
That I leave to your interpretation.
I see the Ten Commandments relating to human beings, not all life.
The Ten Commandments isn't telling all life to not bear false witness. (Humans aren't the only animals capable of deception.)
I don't want you to think like me. I just want you to think.
But the difference between a science book and the Bible is that the experiements in science can be replicated and the results proven. I don't have to trust the science book, with the resources I can duplicate the experiment and know that what the science book said is correct.
That is much different than quoting the Bible, where you aren't going to prove most of it.
Calling them both books is factual but saying because they are books they are the equivalent is false.
I don't want you to think like me. I just want you to think.
So how many versions of the Bible are there?
Why would you make such an ignorant statement?
Why can't what the Bible says be falsified? It's already been repeatedly changed!
Total loss of credibility.
I don't want you to think like me. I just want you to think.
Religion requires faith not facts. That's why religion still exists.
Science exists outside of textbooks by the way.
No one who believes in the Bible is able to duplicate events in the Bible such as turning water into wine, parting the Red Sea, making the Sun remain fixed in the sky, using horns to knock down city fortifications etc.
Higgs Boson and dark matter are still theories, not proven facts so you are switching from science fact to science theory.
Science, unlike religion, doesn't claim to have all the answers.
If the Torah, which predates the Bible, which predates the Koran is factual, why isn't there one religion? How are all these varying religions factual? Or is it just Christianity because Christians want to believe their book above all other books?
I don't want you to think like me. I just want you to think.
I believe God is responsible for the origin of the metaverses. I also believe the universe we are in is at least 13 billion years old.
I can't prove that belief and the Bible doesn't support that belief.
God is not fallible, but Man has rewritten the Bible repeatedly. If the Bible is right, is the Torah wrong, the Koran useless? God only recognizes Christianity?
Again, a science text in which the information can be tested to confirm the results in the book is different than the Bible where you can't test most of what you believe.
[Edited 6/5/12 7:13am]
I don't want you to think like me. I just want you to think.
In the Bible, Goliath was from a race of giants. Why haven't we found non-Biblical evidence of this race of giants that lived in Palestine?
I don't want you to think like me. I just want you to think.
so how do you disprove the spiritual and voodoo parts? or what God thought or said? hell? angels? what Jesus or Abraham said ? please do tell...
even more factual things like the flood that could be object to an actual scientific approach slip through f.e. if I calculate that the amount of water is not enough to flood the planet the answer is "god can do everything" or "that's a miracle" or just "it's only a metapher" how do you falsifiy that? PLEASE DO TELL....
the Bible itself says it is the infallible word of God. so in its own little universe it proves itselfs and basically disproves all other observations that might contradict it
[Edited 6/5/12 7:22am]
Vanglorious... this is protected by the red, the black, and the green. With a key... sissy!
First, which version of the Bible are we talking about?
We need to start there. KJV, NIV, New American, Women's Bible?
We do know there was a flood. There is historical evidence of that. When is the question.
How do you account for the age of the Earth, the stars?
Do dinosaurs not exist because they are not mentioned in the Bible?
Do fossils not exist because those animals aren't described in the Bible?
What about animals frozen in ice for ages longer than 10,000 years? They don't exist either because the get no mention in the Bible?
All knowledge and evidence is not collected in the Bible.
Believers in the Koran believe that book is infalliable. Believers in the Torah believe they've collected God's communication with Man.
Are they wrong because the Bible says it is infalliable?
Anyone can add that language to any book can't they?
I don't want you to think like me. I just want you to think.
I didn't proclaim that it's was direct and literally that way. I am saying that I do see how theologist or even an creationist would calculate this, but one thing I do have is my faith, and I feel good about it, to say the least. As for science, it has a long way to go, considering there's a lot they do not know, and inconclusive studies. The incident in your native land you've mentioned is proof of that.
Another thing I would like to add is even your contemprary scientist like Stephen Hawking can say that God did not create the universe, but yet his M-theory studies were inconclusive. Therefore, if He did not create the universe, not even in 10,000 years, then who did? How can you draw that final conclusion that God did not create the universe, and not have an conclusion for your other studies, and feed it?
[Edited 6/5/12 8:27am]
it's all true. the bible AND advanced physics.
for anyone truly interested in ancient history and religious mythology the epic of gilgamech is a must read. also, the mahabharata of india.
if you really read these you will see what ancient people witnessed and described with respect to god
it's all in there, the great flood, why we even have great floods, giants, the nephilim. etc.
to me it is fascinating that so many really ancient texts have so much in common with what we see in the bible, and other religious mythologies. there is one common theme to almost every religion - the sky people. who are they? where do they come from?
Thanks Dance. That was really well put
But the fact remains that both science as religion are most certainly falsifiable.
And my point on this thread is that many so-called "Christians" ánd "Atheists" do exactly that with the Bible.
What so many people apparantly people believe regarding this "10.000 years or less" idea is NOT in the Bible, but is derived from the "reasoning" and "estimations" of so-called "religious scolars" (the equivalent to "scientists" for so-called "atheists").
I get it you know, that many so-called "atheists" use that against so-called "religious people", mock them for it etc. But it's on the same low intellectual level or even lower.
We should be discussing WHY these so called scolars have come to this conclusion when they are obviously wrong and there are alternative views possible too, WHO they are, WHAT their agenda is and HOW COME so many (Americans) adopt their views into their belief system. Not this.
[Edited 6/5/12 10:56am]
......and Sabbath schools for the SDAs on SATURday.
That is so true. Instead of believing in God, many revere science as their god. Neither process can be observed or recreated, so we have to take someone else's word regardless.
As stated in the previous article, scientist who don't "play ball" don't get the funding to do the research. You cannot arrive at the truth by eliminating a point of view that you don't agree with while giving cart blanche funding to the point of view that you do agree with.
This evolution theory is far from proven. When reading the so called proof, I have questions that no one has provided answers to. The common theme is that the scientists don't have all of the answers. My response, is don't teach it as fact until you get the answers.
Isn't that limiting?
I don't want you to think like me. I just want you to think.
No, it's not. Why would you want to be taught something that may not be correct?
Toejam @ Peach & Black Podcast: http://peachandblack.podbean.com
Toejam's band "Cheap Fakes": http://cheapfakes.com.au, http://www.facebook.com/cheapfakes
Toejam the solo artist: http://www.youtube.com/scottbignell
Just because a varying decay rate has not been observed, does not mean that the decay rate never varies, especially when you are speaking in terms of millions and billions of years. It's implossible to determine what has happened over that much time.
Here are a few of my questions:
1. Why do archaeologists have to give dating labs a hint at the expected date of a sample? Why can't the labs take a sample and run dating tests with no clue as to the stratum that the sample was found in?
2. Various assumptions must be made in the archaeological dating process. Is it realistic to assume that fossils/rocks that were formed billions of years ago experienced no forms of contamination?
3. If rocks that were formed at known recent times, such as the Mt. St. Helens eruption, yield dates 300,000 – millions of years range, how can I trust the dates given for older rocks?
4. How is it that an unintelligent process knows how to create complex biological systems? For instance, how does this process know to create an organism with blood, that is used to nourish the organism; and create a circulatory system to pump the blood to the various parts of the organism; and create organs to cleanse the blood; and create a system within the organism to process its energy source (i.e. food) into energy; and on and on. How does this unintelligent process further create a means to procreate the organism's own kind, not through a means contained solely within the organism, but requiring the assistant of another organism, that has different parts for said purpose, yet those different parts fit together perfectly, and each of the 2 organisms contribute different things to this process? And all of this is occurs by chance?
But the problem I have with the argument you present is that it effectively destroys itself. If the rates of decay did vary in the past, then it's just as likely that they varied in the opposite direction, making the Earth even older than what the current Science suggests. In no way does accpeting the non-evident possibility that the rate changed add any weight to the idea that the Earth is less than 10,000yrs old. Again, it's like saying the fact we can't prove that aliens didn't live on the moon makes it a good reason to believe that they did. Err, not quite!
Toejam @ Peach & Black Podcast: http://peachandblack.podbean.com
Toejam's band "Cheap Fakes": http://cheapfakes.com.au, http://www.facebook.com/cheapfakes
Toejam the solo artist: http://www.youtube.com/scottbignell
The only blind process going on here is your own.
Its called natural selection, a random process that has been going on for billions of years. This is fact. It is as factual as the speed of light. The only things up for debate in the theory of evolution are the "hows" and "whys" of certain processes within the theory. But it IS fact that evolution is real. It has been going on since the onset of life and we have so much proof of it that grounded, considered and rational people accept it like they accept that eating and breathing keeps us alive.
On the other hand, 46% of Americans, like yourself are neither grounded or rational, and instead ask the completely wrong questions to fill gaps in their fabricated alternate theory. These meanderings have no weight, no grounding in science and have no place in any classroom. Not if you want your kids to grow up well rounded and open to rational discussion.
If you want your kids to grow up learning that science as we know it is all wrong, then you may as well teach them that breathing and eating are optional.
Why not try actually studying some of these theories - evolution, relativity and quantum physics - and delve into the real science of it? You may be pleasantly surprised and find yourself in awe at the immense and evolving universe that we are but a very tiny part of. And you know what? You can STILL have your faith in god at the same time!
Here are some interesting books that are written for the layman like you and me. They don't go into the heavy mathematics that we really need to learn to understand things thoroughly, but they are a good start:
The Elegant Universe - Brian greene
Why Evolution is True - Jerry A. Coyne
A Brief history of Time - Stephen Hawking
And if you really want to understand why scientists have come up with the theories thay have then the real fun is learning the HIGHLY complex mathematics that goes behind proving suppositions. Then you can delve into the published , peer reviewed scientific papers. Learning and understanding those and then you will truly understand how we got to where we are in our knowledge, and you would very quickly laugh in the face of those pseudo-scientists that make stupid claims without any knowledge of the science and mathematics behind real discovery.
Do these creationist "scientists" really understand calculus and differentiation? I doubt it very much because if they did they would find it impossible to say that the earth is only 10,000 years old. Absolutely and categorically impossible!
They make for a good read and all, but why would anyone really base any fact on things that were written thousands of years ago? I mean it was only a few hundred years ago that we were writing things like "the sun revolves around the earth".
What we understand today is by far closer to the truth than what we were writing way back then. And what we will understand in the future will one day make what we believe today look primitive. Advancement of knowledge takes us forward and creates things like mobile phones and gps. Not reading about sky people and angry gods of thunder or, indeed, the suns revolving around planets and flat earths.
Its good to document and learn about our prior knowledge, but not to digress backwards and take it as truth. And that includes the bible.
There is still so much we dont understand. There are many alternate theories about where we came from. But the facts about evolution and the geological history of the earth are not in dispute. Did some kind of god start the process of evolution? Maybe. Did some sort of god start the big bang and everything else happened on its own? Possibly. Was life on earth put here by aliens experimenting on their own questions about evolution? Who knows?
A thinking man on the org? WTH........
i'm glad you asked, the reason we would care what they said is because some of the ancient 'star charts' have, a few thousand years alter, been found to be accurate. how did these ancient folk know this stuff??? they had working batteries back then.. for example.
also, i find it facsinating that there are so many similarities between most major religious mythologies. and obviously yes, it is always good to take things with a grain of salt. believe none of what you hear and only half of what you see....
Sure you have. It's called evolution.
I don't want you to think like me. I just want you to think.
What if scientists are using those calculations on the sly? Interesting
key point: world wide flood. there was no flood with enough water to "flood the planet" (as I said). important difference. simply not enough water to cover the entire surface of earth like the Bible claims.
you can not falsify such claims!
neither can you falsify quotes of Jesus, thoughts of God and all that shit... hey yo, anything goes
I agree.... I dunno where you are getting here....
yes exactly.... anyone can add anything to religious texts... and that way claim everything they want... and therefore those claims are irrelvant brabble...
uhmm okay.. I think I get it now... I think you totally misread my post....
I did NOT claim the bible (or religious texts in gerneral) are infalliable. I said they are unfalsifiable.
Karl Popper? Falsifiability? Hello??? http://en.wikipedia.org/w...ifiability
that is the fundamental difference between religious claims (not falisifiable) and scientific claims (falisifiable). that's what my whole exchange with Dauphin was all about.
[Edited 6/11/12 7:25am]
Vanglorious... this is protected by the red, the black, and the green. With a key... sissy!
nothing of that sort happens.
evolution remains one of the best supported scientific theories ever. there is more evidence to support evolution than there is for a round earth.
and that tiny little 0.0001 percent of this gigantic theory, that is actually taught in schools, is certainly proven beyond reasonable doubt. or if you want to call it that way "correct".
Vanglorious... this is protected by the red, the black, and the green. With a key... sissy!
that is entirely incorrect. here's why.
first, halflife of isotopes and decay rates are not some random numbers, which we just can measure and observe. they can be calculated and predicted from quantum mechanics. and obervations match those calculations.
should we stop teaching gravitational theory at our schools cause it might be incorrect???
a notable changing of those constants would have resulted in an unstable universe. no forming of galaxies possible, no stars, no planets and no solid matter after the big bang.
second, results by radiometric dating is consistent with other non-radiometric dating methods.
third, so just for fun, let's assume that those rates have been different in the past, either by changing fundamental constants or by outside influence like high pressure, heat or whatever you want.
[Edited 6/11/12 7:36am]
Vanglorious... this is protected by the red, the black, and the green. With a key... sissy!
I've heard a calculation that Adam lived up to 110 years before the fall of man. During that time, he lived in Eden, where he may have been subject to the "1000 days = 1 day" quote. 110 x 365 x 1000 = 110,000 years of Man's existence.
And I know somebody asked about remains of fallen angels or giants, but we all know there are many different species in the homo branch. Homo Erectus, Homo Sapien, Homo Sapien Sapien, etc.
Anyway, that would completely rely on the correct interpretation of the Bible; which, I believe that is a huge point that a few of us have made. The idea that the Bible as written is infallible , and we are interpreting the Bible in error. Further, there are some that say the Bible itself is subect to error due to Man's influence; yet, God still remains.
Still it's nice to know, when our bodies wear out, we can get another
I don't buy research like that for a second
Let's say a 1000 people were questioned regarding this
In no way that would be representative for the whole population of the USA
The theory of evolution describes an earth that is about 4.5 billion years old. But many creation scientists interpret the Genesis account of creation as requiring an earth that is only 6,000 to 10,000 years of age. There are numerous indicators that the earth was in existence billions of years ago. However, these indicators all assume that various processes like the speed of light, nuclear decay, etc. happen today as they have in the past. Because no human before 4,000 BCE was able to observe, measure, and record these processes, it is impossible to prove that the earth is billions of years old to everyone's satisfaction.
Some of the indicators of an old earth are presented below, with typical rebuttals as might be stated by a creation scientist. Most of the rebuttals take the position that God created the universe less than 10,000 years ago, but made everything from tree rings to dinosaur eggs; from mountains to fossils as if the universe had a multi-billion year history. Since the creative power of God is assumed by believers to be infinite, God could have engineered creation in just this manner -- perhaps with the intent of fooling future generations of scientists.
Age of the galaxy
There is one good indicator that our galaxy is very old:
There are three direct indicators that the earth's age is in excess of 8000 years:
Indicators that the earth is much older than 10,000 years of age
We have selected 14 indicators:
Footnotes at citation site.
Clonal trees
As with all long-lived plant and fungal species, no individual part of a clonal colony is alive (in the sense of active metabolism) for more than a very small fraction of the life of the entire clone. Some clonal colonies may be fully connected via their root systems, while most are not actually interconnected, but are genetically identical clones which populated an area through vegetative reproduction. Ages for clonal colonies, often based on current growth rates, are estimates.[26]
I don't want you to think like me. I just want you to think.
I just stopped over to the Chicago History Museum and right under the Human skeleton, it says "10,000 Years". Wow.
Still it's nice to know, when our bodies wear out, we can get another
You are a laugh.
What does that mean?
Do they say it's the earliest known human skeleton?
How tall was he/she?
How old was she/he?
If Adam lived a hundred thousand years, what impressed you about this skeleton?
I don't want you to think like me. I just want you to think.
there were humans 10,000 years ago... in fact that is about the time what is now North America was being migrated too. (Well maybe 15K ago) but yeah that is about the age one would expect an early human skeleton found in the that area would be dated at.
Gemini rising on the 7th day... 21,138
SUPRMAN said:
You are a laugh.
What does that mean?
Do they say it's the earliest known human skeleton?
How tall was he/she?
How old was she/he?
If Adam lived a hundred thousand years, what impressed you about this skeleton?
It was an exhibit that displayed remains from Lucy (that was awesome! I didn't realize Chicago had her/him there!) to Modern Humans. Which they show as 10,000 - Present.
What impressed me was that here we are, at a SCIENCE Museum, and it's supporting the claim that we, Homo Sapien Sapien, have only been around for 10,000 years. So, if Science AND Religion both dateus at 10,000 years, what's the argument about?
Still it's nice to know, when our bodies wear out, we can get another
I don't want you to think like me. I just want you to think.
OnlyNDaUsa said:
explain how any form of migration could come to be without some form of abiogenesis? please do tell.
you need to proof abiogenesis first, only after that you can make some migration theories.
and let's not forget that they will also all be part of Hawkings SHITNEEATS theory, the Super Hyper Incredible Top Notch Explaning Everything And Then Some theory
God cheats to keep evolution on track, right? so it's only logical if he cheats on other occasions too
[Edited 6/28/12 4:36am]
Vanglorious... this is protected by the red, the black, and the green. With a key... sissy!
^^what more proof do you want? Human remains in america from native american archaeological sites have been roughly dated to 15 thousand years.
And since there arent any pre-sapiens Hominid remains in America, the only plausible argument is that modern humans have evolved else where (Africa according to western anthropologists) and dispersed throughout the world.
not very complicated
up to something..
When they can duplicate abiogenesis in a lab let me know.
As for the migration theory, another possibility is the Pangaea theory - there was one big land mass at one point, that split and gradually drifted apart (or maybe it was not so gradual; who knows).
I know that decay rates can be measured and are consistent today and scientist can probably be reasonably sure that they have been consistent for the past 10,000 years or so. But there is no way that anyone can prove that decay rates world wide or even regionally, have been consistent, say for the past billion years. You assume that any changes would have been massive and caused the earth to have melted, but something like a volcano eruption, flood, meteor hit, or whatever, that disturbed fossils 100,000 years ago, would result in an incorrect assumption about how much of whatever element is being measured to determine decay rate.
The bottom line is that anytime a scientific theory cannot be reproduced, it is really outside of the realm of true science. Nothing in evolution can be recreated or observed. They are only making up stories to go with the pictures, so to speak.
Toejam @ Peach & Black Podcast: http://peachandblack.podbean.com
Toejam's band "Cheap Fakes": http://cheapfakes.com.au, http://www.facebook.com/cheapfakes
Toejam the solo artist: http://www.youtube.com/scottbignell
It sounds like logic and common sense are getting to you. It's not that unreasonable to acknowledge the possibility that the world as we know it, may not be the world that existed in the past. Things change you know. It's a mistake to assume that everything is constant. In fact, it's proven that many things are NOT constant. For example, 100 years ago, there were places on earth that were dry land and now are under water, and vice versa. Surely such an event as that would have some impact on decay rates.
I'm not going to go round and round with you on this. There is no point.
[Edited 7/1/12 20:10pm]
Toejam @ Peach & Black Podcast: http://peachandblack.podbean.com
Toejam's band "Cheap Fakes": http://cheapfakes.com.au, http://www.facebook.com/cheapfakes
Toejam the solo artist: http://www.youtube.com/scottbignell
When they can duplicate creation in a lab let me know.
note that creation is ALSO abiogeneis. abiogenesis is a fact, full stop. once there was NO life on earth and then there was. either by some chemical process, planted by aliens, or created by Jupiter (or whatever deitiy you worship)
my ongoing point with OnlyNDaUsa (over some other threads) was, he refused to see that abiogeneis is not part of evolution theory and never was. that is simple fact. does evolution need abiogeneis to to have biological material to work with? of course. and it has it. and so does migration. and biology. and anatomy. and history. basically without abiogenesis (life on earth) NO scientific theory would exist.
As for the migration theory, another possibility is the Pangaea theory - there was one big land mass at one point, that split and gradually drifted apart (or maybe it was not so gradual; who knows).
uhhhh no. sure Pangea did exist and did break up, but this happened several 100 million years before humans appeared on earth.
Vanglorious... this is protected by the red, the black, and the green. With a key... sissy!
did you even read my post?
but in that case we and the galxies as we know them would not be here! so we have proof that they did not change. not change. not. change.
not surprisingly you didn't answer this one:
You assume that any changes would have been massive and caused the earth to have melted,
I'm not assuming anything. that's a scientific fact.
when gravity were let's say 5 times higher, then we can exactly calculate how fast the apple would "shoot" to the floor. no assumption. just physics and maths.
But then again when we talk about geological dating....
Significant changes to rates of radiometric decay of isotopes relevant to geological dating have never been observed under any conditions. Emery (1972) is a comprehensive survey of experimental results and theoretical limits on variation of decay rates. Note that the largest changes reported by Emery are both irrelevant (they do not involve isotopes or modes of decay used for this FAQ), and minuscule (decay rate changed by of order 1%) compared to the change needed to compress the apparent age of the Earth into the young-Earthers' timescale.
As described above, the process of radioactive decay is predicated on rather fundamental properties of matter. In order to explain old isotopic ages on a young Earth by means of accelerated decay, an increase of six to ten orders of magnitude in rates of decay would be needed (depending on whether the acceleration was spread out over the entire pre-Flood period, or accomplished entirely during the Flood).
The bottom line is that anytime a scientific theory cannot be reproduced, it is really outside of the realm of true science.
concerning evolution however, we even have the repeatable experiments you long for, about mutations and natural selection in the laboratory and in the field. check.
Nothing in evolution can be recreated or observed.
as I just said, that's completley false
also see this for example http://www.talkorigins.or...ation.html and plenty others
[Edited 7/3/12 5:34am]
Vanglorious... this is protected by the red, the black, and the green. With a key... sissy!
URL: http://prince.org/msg/105/382118
Date printed: Sat 24th Jun 2017 8:40pm PDT