Creepier Belief system (1 Viewer)

[Jericho]

so, you're saying you can't prove ****.Got it.

Neither can you. That's the point I just made. Anybody on either side who is requiring 'proof' is a moron.

 

[Hov34]

These were first-hand accounts, BTW, and I will grant that they were written down some 20 - 120 years after Christ died, probably from a source called Q.

Was Captain Picard there?

 

[Jericho]

These were first-hand accounts, BTW, and I will grant that they were written down some 20 - 120 years after Christ died, probably from a source called Q.

Was Captain Picard there?

He meant the one from James Bond.

 

[shining path]

I just got to page 3 of this thread and started weeping. I thought we had bullied the creationists into silence on this board long ago.

 

[MelvinTScupper]

so, you're saying you can't prove ****.Got it.

Neither can you. That's the point I just made. Anybody on either side who is requiring 'proof' is a moron.

we agree then.

 

[pantagrapher]

The chances of an cell/organism/acid thinger evolving, then evolving further, then evolving limbs, organs, etc.... especially the eye... are VERY SLIM!!

Not really. The chances of life appearing in the first place may be slim, based on the specific conditions required to start the process, but once it's there, if it's susceptible to minor changes ('mutations') and has variable environmental conditions then evolution is an inevitability.

I think the people who are arguing against the probability of evolution have very little understanding of the immense size of the universe. Not to mention the age of the universe.Obviously, evolution would be very far-fetched to someone who believes the earth is a few thousand years old.

Again, not a new-earther here, but how old would the planet earth have to be to account for the vast number of plants and animals either in existence today or already extinct. I would think that the earth would have to be unimaginably old to support evolution from one source out of the primordial ooze into the vast compilation of flora and fauna we have today.

Does about 4.5 billion years old work for you?

You tell me, how many years would it take to arrive at the number and variety of plants and animals that we have now?We have evidenced some evolution within our own lifetiome, but certainly nothing on a spectacular scale. Humans have been the same for roughly the last 10,000 years or so (as far as science can tell). I am just curious to how long each iteration takes to lead to so many divergent paths.

Humans have not been unchanged for 10,000 years. How many people over 6 feet tall do you think there were back in the 18th Century? How many back then could run 100 meters in less than 11 seconds? Have you seen the images of ancient Egypt, as drawn by the people who lived there?They are human, and they look like us, but they are hardly similar.By the way, 10,000 years is 1/450,000 of the life of the earth. That's a blink of an eye, in evolutionary terms.

 

[MelvinTScupper]

These were first-hand accounts, BTW, and I will grant that they were written down some 20 - 120 years after Christ died, probably from a source called Q.

Was Captain Picard there?

He meant the one from James Bond.

Rip Desmond Lewellyn

 

[Captain Quinoa]

Link to definitive information that Jesus was not the Son of God please?

Right after you prove that there is a God.Ask the Jews for information on this subject. And Muslims. They all believe in the same creator. Yet none of them accept that Jesus is the son of God. In fact, Christians are on the way to becoming the minority in this belief.

Hi. I'm logic and reading comprehension. Nice to meet you.Nowhere did I or anyone say we could prove God exists. You, on the other hand, said "Information came out later that invalidated their claim". I am interested in reading this informaton. Please point me in the right direction. 'The Koran' is not a correct answer here.Thank you.

 

[MelvinTScupper]

By the way, 10,000 years is 1/450,000 of the life of the earth. That's a blink of an eye, in evolutionary terms.

proof?Not a chance.

 

[Dickies]

I was initially going to vote for scientology, but after reading through this, I can 100% prove that creationists are loons...This thread is mind-numbing

 

[shining path]

what about a Lion and a housecat?

This is an experiment I'd like to see.

 

[ScottNorwood]

I'm not going to decide until I hear what Carl Everett has to say.

 

[MelvinTScupper]

I was initially going to vote for scientology, but after reading through this, I can 100% prove that creationists are loons...This thread is mind-numbing

:rotflmao: well, if you need 100% proof to believe in anything, then you, my friend, are ####ED!

 

[Statorama]

Kudos to ScottNorwood on this surprisingly effective and well executed fishing trip.

 

[tangfoot]

Nowhere did I or anyone say we could prove God exists. You, on the other hand, said "Information came out later that invalidated their claim".

You misunderstood me. Nowhere did I indicate that there is proof of the non-existence of god. I merely stated that people throughout history have died KNOWING certain things that have later been proven to be wrong.You accept ON FAITH the existence of a god. This can never be proven or disproven (conveniently for you).My statement was merely meant to irritate those who take ON FAITH the "fact" that Jesus was the son of god. I haven't seen anything to prove this, and you haven't seen anything to disprove this.There is a far higher probability that my angle will be the first to be "proven".

 

[The Football Freak]

The chances of an cell/organism/acid thinger evolving, then evolving further, then evolving limbs, organs, etc.... especially the eye... are VERY SLIM!!

Not really. The chances of life appearing in the first place may be slim, based on the specific conditions required to start the process, but once it's there, if it's susceptible to minor changes ('mutations') and has variable environmental conditions then evolution is an inevitability.

I think the people who are arguing against the probability of evolution have very little understanding of the immense size of the universe. Not to mention the age of the universe.Obviously, evolution would be very far-fetched to someone who believes the earth is a few thousand years old.

Again, not a new-earther here, but how old would the planet earth have to be to account for the vast number of plants and animals either in existence today or already extinct. I would think that the earth would have to be unimaginably old to support evolution from one source out of the primordial ooze into the vast compilation of flora and fauna we have today.

Does about 4.5 billion years old work for you?

You tell me, how many years would it take to arrive at the number and variety of plants and animals that we have now?We have evidenced some evolution within our own lifetiome, but certainly nothing on a spectacular scale. Humans have been the same for roughly the last 10,000 years or so (as far as science can tell). I am just curious to how long each iteration takes to lead to so many divergent paths.

Humans have not been unchanged for 10,000 years. How many people over 6 feet tall do you think there were back in the 18th Century? How many back then could run 100 meters in less than 11 seconds? Have you seen the images of ancient Egypt, as drawn by the people who lived there?They are human, and they look like us, but they are hardly similar.By the way, 10,000 years is 1/450,000 of the life of the earth. That's a blink of an eye, in evolutionary terms.

Your hearts in the right place and I think we believe the same things, but that is a result of breeding rather than evolution. The little pinky toe shrinking, I believe, is more an example of evolution. The other changes like height, bad teeth, etc are from breeding without the same animalistic selectivity we used to use looooong ago. As for needing proog for or against Jesus being the son of god, anoyone coming out with information that is basically unprovable, unseeable and unknowable usually has the burden of proof. But I guess using a scientific concept to define the situation would, as always, be unacceptable to believers.

 

[shining path]

The chances of an cell/organism/acid thinger evolving, then evolving further, then evolving limbs, organs, etc.... especially the eye... are VERY SLIM!!

Not really. The chances of life appearing in the first place may be slim, based on the specific conditions required to start the process, but once it's there, if it's susceptible to minor changes ('mutations') and has variable environmental conditions then evolution is an inevitability.

I think the people who are arguing against the probability of evolution have very little understanding of the immense size of the universe. Not to mention the age of the universe.Obviously, evolution would be very far-fetched to someone who believes the earth is a few thousand years old.

Again, not a new-earther here, but how old would the planet earth have to be to account for the vast number of plants and animals either in existence today or already extinct. I would think that the earth would have to be unimaginably old to support evolution from one source out of the primordial ooze into the vast compilation of flora and fauna we have today.

Does about 4.5 billion years old work for you?

You tell me, how many years would it take to arrive at the number and variety of plants and animals that we have now?We have evidenced some evolution within our own lifetiome, but certainly nothing on a spectacular scale. Humans have been the same for roughly the last 10,000 years or so (as far as science can tell). I am just curious to how long each iteration takes to lead to so many divergent paths.

Humans have not been unchanged for 10,000 years. How many people over 6 feet tall do you think there were back in the 18th Century? How many back then could run 100 meters in less than 11 seconds? Have you seen the images of ancient Egypt, as drawn by the people who lived there?They are human, and they look like us, but they are hardly similar.By the way, 10,000 years is 1/450,000 of the life of the earth. That's a blink of an eye, in evolutionary terms.

Your hearts in the right place and I think we believe the same things, but that is a result of breeding rather than evolution. The little pinky toe shrinking, I believe, is more an example of evolution. The other changes like height, bad teeth, etc are from breeding without the same animalistic selectivity we used to use looooong ago. As for needing proog for or against Jesus being the son of god, anoyone coming out with information that is basically unprovable, unseeable and unknowable usually has the burden of proof. But I guess using a scientific concept to define the situation would, as always, be unacceptable to believers.

More specifically, the question is whether or not the physical differences between some groups of modern humans and ancient humans are due to genetic differences or due to different environments. If the differences are due to genes, then it is, by definition, evolution. If not, then they're not.

 

[The Football Freak]

By the way, 10,000 years is 1/450,000 of the life of the earth. That's a blink of an eye, in evolutionary terms.

proof?Not a chance.

Are you actually saying you need proof that the earth is older than 10,000 years? Or that evolution isn't real so how can anything be a "blink of an eye" in terms of something that is false? If you want proof of the age of the earth, go read some scince books. Or better yet, take some scientific instruments out into the field and do some studies and tell me how many results back up the 10,000 year age.My cousin is very religious and he used to tell me that dinosaur fossils were planted there by the devil to fool people according to his sunday school........

 

[shining path]

My cousin is very religious and he used to tell me that dinosaur fossils were planted there by the devil to fool people according to his sunday school........

I'd like to know what proof his Sunday School has that it was the Devil that planted those bones. Could be any number of supernatural or extraterrestrial agents.

 

[The Football Freak]

The chances of an cell/organism/acid thinger evolving, then evolving further, then evolving limbs, organs, etc.... especially the eye... are VERY SLIM!!

Not really. The chances of life appearing in the first place may be slim, based on the specific conditions required to start the process, but once it's there, if it's susceptible to minor changes ('mutations') and has variable environmental conditions then evolution is an inevitability.

I think the people who are arguing against the probability of evolution have very little understanding of the immense size of the universe. Not to mention the age of the universe.Obviously, evolution would be very far-fetched to someone who believes the earth is a few thousand years old.

Again, not a new-earther here, but how old would the planet earth have to be to account for the vast number of plants and animals either in existence today or already extinct. I would think that the earth would have to be unimaginably old to support evolution from one source out of the primordial ooze into the vast compilation of flora and fauna we have today.

Does about 4.5 billion years old work for you?

You tell me, how many years would it take to arrive at the number and variety of plants and animals that we have now?We have evidenced some evolution within our own lifetiome, but certainly nothing on a spectacular scale. Humans have been the same for roughly the last 10,000 years or so (as far as science can tell). I am just curious to how long each iteration takes to lead to so many divergent paths.

Humans have not been unchanged for 10,000 years. How many people over 6 feet tall do you think there were back in the 18th Century? How many back then could run 100 meters in less than 11 seconds? Have you seen the images of ancient Egypt, as drawn by the people who lived there?They are human, and they look like us, but they are hardly similar.By the way, 10,000 years is 1/450,000 of the life of the earth. That's a blink of an eye, in evolutionary terms.

Your hearts in the right place and I think we believe the same things, but that is a result of breeding rather than evolution. The little pinky toe shrinking, I believe, is more an example of evolution. The other changes like height, bad teeth, etc are from breeding without the same animalistic selectivity we used to use looooong ago. As for needing proog for or against Jesus being the son of god, anoyone coming out with information that is basically unprovable, unseeable and unknowable usually has the burden of proof. But I guess using a scientific concept to define the situation would, as always, be unacceptable to believers.

More specifically, the question is whether or not the physical differences between some groups of modern humans and ancient humans are due to genetic differences or due to different environments. If the differences are due to genes, then it is, by definition, evolution. If not, then they're not.

Easy, they are due to selective breeding, in a adaptive sense, to their environment. Just like animals, those who were well adapted thrived, and those who thrived were attractive to the opposite sex. Breeding among these groups as the countries became more interactive is likely what spread these traits. I see what you mean though, but I think strict evolution is more unconscious than human traits. Hmmmm, actually, I'm having trouble with the distinction. Good question!!!!!!IT is probably a mix because of course it is about genes, but also selective breeding and passing of beneficial traits. Also, different traits have become more important over time so differences could be more due to societal evolution.

 

[Bubba]

My cousin is very religious and he used to tell me that dinosaur fossils were planted there by the devil to fool people according to his sunday school........

I'd like to know what proof his Sunday School has that it was the Devil that planted those bones. Could be any number of supernatural or extraterrestrial agents.

perhaps it was Xenu...

 

[The Football Freak]

My cousin is very religious and he used to tell me that dinosaur fossils were planted there by the devil to fool people according to his sunday school........

I'd like to know what proof his Sunday School has that it was the Devil that planted those bones. Could be any number of supernatural or extraterrestrial agents.

I would ask them but I think they would throw stones at me and chase me until I fell off the edge of the earth.

 

[Jericho]

My cousin is very religious and he used to tell me that dinosaur fossils were planted there by the devil to fool people according to his sunday school........

I'd like to know what proof his Sunday School has that it was the Devil that planted those bones. Could be any number of supernatural or extraterrestrial agents.

It was Slartibartfast.

 

[tangfoot]

It was Slartibartfast.

I was going to suggest Ford Prefect. But Slartibartfast is merely responsible for the fjords. Perhaps it was a hyper-intelligent shade of the color blue?

 

[ScottNorwood]

Who's creepier. John Travolta or Mel Gibson?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

how did the eye evolve? It would have been totally useless what, the first 50 evolutions?

No it wouldn't have. Light-sensitive cells are immediately useful.

 

[Bubba]

It was Slartibartfast.

I was going to suggest Ford Prefect. But Slartibartfast is merely responsible for the fjords. Perhaps it was a hyper-intelligent shade of the color blue?

Ford Prefect? Zaphod Beeblebrox, maybe...or even the Vogons...

 

[Jericho]

It was Slartibartfast.

I was going to suggest Ford Prefect. But Slartibartfast is merely responsible for the fjords. Perhaps it was a hyper-intelligent shade of the color blue?

He's not merely responsible for fjords. He was in charge of Norway. He just happened to win an award for the fjords.Ne got assigned Africa on the Earth Mark II, but they wouldn't let him do fjords. Not equatorial enough.I've often wanted to take on the quest of Wowbagger the Infinitely Prolonged on this board. Alphabetical PMs to everybody. Should be fun.

 

[Dudley Do-Right]

Are you actually saying you need proof that the earth is older than 10,000 years? Or that evolution isn't real so how can anything be a "blink of an eye" in terms of something that is false? If you want proof of the age of the earth, go read some scince books. Or better yet, take some scientific instruments out into the field and do some studies and tell me how many results back up the 10,000 year age.

See, I have a real problem with this.You cannot be 100% sure that all of this scientific dating is accurate. There is no documentation that proves the carbon dating system to be correct. It is impossible for anyone to ever know whether they are even close to be correct with their dating system. Therefore, the earth could very easily be 10,000 years old. All that you have to prove otherwise is a "theory" made by men that have no real proof that anything exists over a few thousand years old.

 

[Captain Quinoa]

Nowhere did I or anyone say we could prove God exists. You, on the other hand, said "Information came out later that invalidated their claim".

You misunderstood me. Nowhere did I indicate that there is proof of the non-existence of god. I merely stated that people throughout history have died KNOWING certain things that have later been proven to be wrong.You accept ON FAITH the existence of a god. This can never be proven or disproven (conveniently for you).

yes, it's a position of convenience.

My statement was merely meant to irritate those who take ON FAITH the "fact" that Jesus was the son of god.

Bull####.

There is a far higher probability that my angle will be the first to be "proven".

Not a chance.

 

[The Football Freak]

Uh-oh, Maurile is working his way down the list now. He is at 9:42 AM, by the time he catches up there will be alot of disgruntled and frustrated poster I bet.

 

[Bubba]

Who's creepier. John Travolta or Mel Gibson?

Mel...did you see that South Park episode?he's wacky...

 

[shining path]

The chances of an cell/organism/acid thinger evolving, then evolving further, then evolving limbs, organs, etc.... especially the eye... are VERY SLIM!!

Not really. The chances of life appearing in the first place may be slim, based on the specific conditions required to start the process, but once it's there, if it's susceptible to minor changes ('mutations') and has variable environmental conditions then evolution is an inevitability.

I think the people who are arguing against the probability of evolution have very little understanding of the immense size of the universe. Not to mention the age of the universe.Obviously, evolution would be very far-fetched to someone who believes the earth is a few thousand years old.

Again, not a new-earther here, but how old would the planet earth have to be to account for the vast number of plants and animals either in existence today or already extinct. I would think that the earth would have to be unimaginably old to support evolution from one source out of the primordial ooze into the vast compilation of flora and fauna we have today.

Does about 4.5 billion years old work for you?

You tell me, how many years would it take to arrive at the number and variety of plants and animals that we have now?We have evidenced some evolution within our own lifetiome, but certainly nothing on a spectacular scale. Humans have been the same for roughly the last 10,000 years or so (as far as science can tell). I am just curious to how long each iteration takes to lead to so many divergent paths.

Humans have not been unchanged for 10,000 years. How many people over 6 feet tall do you think there were back in the 18th Century? How many back then could run 100 meters in less than 11 seconds? Have you seen the images of ancient Egypt, as drawn by the people who lived there?They are human, and they look like us, but they are hardly similar.By the way, 10,000 years is 1/450,000 of the life of the earth. That's a blink of an eye, in evolutionary terms.

Your hearts in the right place and I think we believe the same things, but that is a result of breeding rather than evolution. The little pinky toe shrinking, I believe, is more an example of evolution. The other changes like height, bad teeth, etc are from breeding without the same animalistic selectivity we used to use looooong ago. As for needing proog for or against Jesus being the son of god, anoyone coming out with information that is basically unprovable, unseeable and unknowable usually has the burden of proof. But I guess using a scientific concept to define the situation would, as always, be unacceptable to believers.

More specifically, the question is whether or not the physical differences between some groups of modern humans and ancient humans are due to genetic differences or due to different environments. If the differences are due to genes, then it is, by definition, evolution. If not, then they're not.

Easy, they are due to selective breeding, in a adaptive sense, to their environment. Just like animals, those who were well adapted thrived, and those who thrived were attractive to the opposite sex. Breeding among these groups as the countries became more interactive is likely what spread these traits. I see what you mean though, but I think strict evolution is more unconscious than human traits. Hmmmm, actually, I'm having trouble with the distinction. Good question!!!!!!IT is probably a mix because of course it is about genes, but also selective breeding and passing of beneficial traits. Also, different traits have become more important over time so differences could be more due to societal evolution.

Technically, ANY genetic changes in a population is termed "evolution". You can have evolution by natural selection, evolution by sexual selection, evolution by selective breeding, evolution to random changes in gene frequency, or whatever. I see the distinction you're trying to make between humans consciously evolving by selecting mates with certain qualities, but it seems to me that it's a pretty fine distinction - scientifically, of course - between a man "consciously" choosing a woman because she's got big boobs and a type of bird choosing a mate because it's the right color or does the right dance or whatever. And in either case, whether it's by the conscious intervention by an intelligent agent or due to the blind preference of instinct, gene frequencies are changing.

 

[tangfoot]

yes, it's a position of convenience.Bull####.Not a chance.

It is a position of convenience because you steadfastly refuse to question your own belief. Scientists do, on a daily basis.BS? Go to confession, young man.As soon as you go through the Pearly Gates, come back and tell me about it. That is the only way to prove your position.

 

[MelvinTScupper]

Who's creepier. John Travolta or Mel Gibson?

Mel...did you see that South Park episode?he's wacky...

PM's down? WTF are you, and why are you stalking me?

 

[Bubba]

Who's creepier.  John Travolta or Mel Gibson?

Mel...did you see that South Park episode?he's wacky...

PM's down? WTF are you, and why are you stalking me?

because I hate Aussies who try to pass...

 

[The Football Freak]

Are you actually saying you need proof that the earth is older than 10,000 years? Or that evolution isn't real so how can anything be a "blink of an eye" in terms of something that is false? If you want proof of the age of the earth, go read some scince books. Or better yet, take some scientific instruments out into the field and do some studies and tell me how many results back up the 10,000 year age.

See, I have a real problem with this.You cannot be 100% sure that all of this scientific dating is accurate. There is no documentation that proves the carbon dating system to be correct. It is impossible for anyone to ever know whether they are even close to be correct with their dating system. Therefore, the earth could very easily be 10,000 years old. All that you have to prove otherwise is a "theory" made by men that have no real proof that anything exists over a few thousand years old.

I have a problem with people who poke holes in science, which has benefitted the world muuuuuuch more than ANY religion, to side with what is a small percentage chance of incorrectness. Sorry to offend, but you are likely to be offended anyway since you are taking science and putting it at ends with your faith. If you take something that is in any way provable and put it against something that is unprovable...well, except for in a debate sense, you are going to have a lot of troubles with that argument outside of your compatriots.I have long said that the church, as it has doen with so many other issues in the past, should find a way to meld scince into their beliefs in order to stop the gradual disproval of religion.

 

[CrossEyed]

I might die for something if I didn't realize it was a lie, but not if I knew it was a lie.

This is splitting hairs.Millions of Nazis and Communists believed they were right and were willing to die for the cause that they believed.Millions of Christians and Muslims have died because they believed their religion was "right".I see no difference between the disciples and those who KNEW that the earth was flat. Information came out later that invalidated their claim.After all, humans once KNEW that the universe rotated around the earth.We KNEW that heavier-than-air travel was impossible.We KNEW that gods existed

You are wrong again. Man thought these things, but didn't know. The disciples knew what they saw. Had Jesus never risen from the dead, the disciples would have known that it hadn't happened and would not have been willing to die for their beliefs.Again, it's one thing to die for something you think is true. But it's another to die for something you know is false.

 

[Captain Quinoa]

yes, it's a position of convenience.Bull####.Not a chance.

It is a position of convenience because you steadfastly refuse to question your own belief.

100% incorrect.

As soon as you go through the Pearly Gates, come back and tell me about it. That is the only way to prove your position.

I still have not said that I could prove it. Nor can you.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

are wolves and dogs different species? I say, no...do you say yes?

They are not the same species because they cannot be bred together.

Dogs and wolves are members of the same species, and can interbreed.

 

[Dudley Do-Right]

Are you actually saying you need proof that the earth is older than 10,000 years?  Or that evolution isn't real so how can anything be a "blink of an eye" in terms of something that is false?  If you want proof of the age of the earth, go read some scince books.  Or better yet, take some scientific instruments out into the field and do some studies and tell me how many results back up the 10,000 year age.

See, I have a real problem with this.You cannot be 100% sure that all of this scientific dating is accurate. There is no documentation that proves the carbon dating system to be correct. It is impossible for anyone to ever know whether they are even close to be correct with their dating system. Therefore, the earth could very easily be 10,000 years old. All that you have to prove otherwise is a "theory" made by men that have no real proof that anything exists over a few thousand years old.

I have a problem with people who poke holes in science, which has benefitted the world muuuuuuch more than ANY religion, to side with what is a small percentage chance of incorrectness. Sorry to offend, but you are likely to be offended anyway since you are taking science and putting it at ends with your faith. If you take something that is in any way provable and put it against something that is unprovable...well, except for in a debate sense, you are going to have a lot of troubles with that argument outside of your compatriots.I have long said that the church, as it has doen with so many other issues in the past, should find a way to meld scince into their beliefs in order to stop the gradual disproval of religion.

Since I have not stated what I believe in regards to religion, you are taking a great leap lumping me into a stereotype. I simply said I find the argument that "science" tells us that the earth is a certain age to be an argument with holes in it. Sure there are holes in the side of the argument that religion holds as well. My point is that no one is really for sure on this matter, and that splitting hairs over beliefs on this matter is a waste of your time on this earth at this point. The age of the earth will never be a provable number.

 

[pantagrapher]

Are you actually saying you need proof that the earth is older than 10,000 years? Or that evolution isn't real so how can anything be a "blink of an eye" in terms of something that is false? If you want proof of the age of the earth, go read some scince books. Or better yet, take some scientific instruments out into the field and do some studies and tell me how many results back up the 10,000 year age.

See, I have a real problem with this.You cannot be 100% sure that all of this scientific dating is accurate. There is no documentation that proves the carbon dating system to be correct. It is impossible for anyone to ever know whether they are even close to be correct with their dating system. Therefore, the earth could very easily be 10,000 years old. All that you have to prove otherwise is a "theory" made by men that have no real proof that anything exists over a few thousand years old.

Wow, with an attitude like that, it's amazing you take gravity for granted. After all, it's just another theory based on observation and scientific rigor.And carbon dating isn't some made-up discipline. It's a pretty realiable measurement tool, by scientific standards.

Read up:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...ear/cardat.html

 

[Bubba]

yes, it's a position of convenience.Bull####.Not a chance.

It is a position of convenience because you steadfastly refuse to question your own belief.

100% incorrect.

As soon as you go through the Pearly Gates, come back and tell me about it.  That is the only way to prove your position.

I still have not said that I could prove it. Nor can you.

So you equate the inability to prove the existence of something, and still basing your belief system and in some cases your life on it anyway...and the inability to prove the non-existence of the same thing and pretty much just....not believing it?you're a madman...

 

[Dudley Do-Right]

Are you actually saying you need proof that the earth is older than 10,000 years?  Or that evolution isn't real so how can anything be a "blink of an eye" in terms of something that is false?  If you want proof of the age of the earth, go read some scince books.  Or better yet, take some scientific instruments out into the field and do some studies and tell me how many results back up the 10,000 year age.

See, I have a real problem with this.You cannot be 100% sure that all of this scientific dating is accurate. There is no documentation that proves the carbon dating system to be correct. It is impossible for anyone to ever know whether they are even close to be correct with their dating system. Therefore, the earth could very easily be 10,000 years old. All that you have to prove otherwise is a "theory" made by men that have no real proof that anything exists over a few thousand years old.

Wow, with an attitude like that, it's amazing you take gravity for granted. After all, it's just another theory based on observation and scientific rigor.And carbon dating isn't some made-up discipline. It's a pretty realiable measurement tool, by scientific standards.

Read up:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...ear/cardat.html

Gravity and how old a rock is are two totally different issues. Gravity is here for us to test and observe on our own today. The formation of a rock is something that there is no record of. When you get down to it, the scientific dating system is nothing but an educated guess. It will never be anything more.

 

[The Football Freak]

The chances of an cell/organism/acid thinger evolving, then evolving further, then evolving limbs, organs, etc.... especially the eye... are VERY SLIM!!

Not really. The chances of life appearing in the first place may be slim, based on the specific conditions required to start the process, but once it's there, if it's susceptible to minor changes ('mutations') and has variable environmental conditions then evolution is an inevitability.

I think the people who are arguing against the probability of evolution have very little understanding of the immense size of the universe. Not to mention the age of the universe.

Obviously, evolution would be very far-fetched to someone who believes the earth is a few thousand years old.

Again, not a new-earther here, but how old would the planet earth have to be to account for the vast number of plants and animals either in existence today or already extinct. I would think that the earth would have to be unimaginably old to support evolution from one source out of the primordial ooze into the vast compilation of flora and fauna we have today.

Does about 4.5 billion years old work for you?

You tell me, how many years would it take to arrive at the number and variety of plants and animals that we have now?

We have evidenced some evolution within our own lifetiome, but certainly nothing on a spectacular scale. Humans have been the same for roughly the last 10,000 years or so (as far as science can tell). I am just curious to how long each iteration takes to lead to so many divergent paths.

Humans have not been unchanged for 10,000 years. How many people over 6 feet tall do you think there were back in the 18th Century? How many back then could run 100 meters in less than 11 seconds? Have you seen the images of ancient Egypt, as drawn by the people who lived there?

They are human, and they look like us, but they are hardly similar.

By the way, 10,000 years is 1/450,000 of the life of the earth. That's a blink of an eye, in evolutionary terms.

Your hearts in the right place and I think we believe the same things, but that is a result of breeding rather than evolution. The little pinky toe shrinking, I believe, is more an example of evolution. The other changes like height, bad teeth, etc are from breeding without the same animalistic selectivity we used to use looooong ago.

As for needing proog for or against Jesus being the son of god, anoyone coming out with information that is basically unprovable, unseeable and unknowable usually has the burden of proof. But I guess using a scientific concept to define the situation would, as always, be unacceptable to believers.

More specifically, the question is whether or not the physical differences between some groups of modern humans and ancient humans are due to genetic differences or due to different environments. If the differences are due to genes, then it is, by definition, evolution. If not, then they're not.

Easy, they are due to selective breeding, in a adaptive sense, to their environment. Just like animals, those who were well adapted thrived, and those who thrived were attractive to the opposite sex. Breeding among these groups as the countries became more interactive is likely what spread these traits. I see what you mean though, but I think strict evolution is more unconscious than human traits. Hmmmm, actually, I'm having trouble with the distinction. Good question!!!!!!

IT is probably a mix because of course it is about genes, but also selective breeding and passing of beneficial traits. Also, different traits have become more important over time so differences could be more due to societal evolution.

Technically, ANY genetic changes in a population is termed "evolution". You can have evolution by natural selection, evolution by sexual selection, evolution by selective breeding, evolution to random changes in gene frequency, or whatever. I see the distinction you're trying to make between humans consciously evolving by selecting mates with certain qualities, but it seems to me that it's a pretty fine distinction - scientifically, of course - between a man "consciously" choosing a woman because she's got big boobs and a type of bird choosing a mate because it's the right color or does the right dance or whatever. And in either case, whether it's by the conscious intervention by an intelligent agent or due to the blind preference of instinct, gene frequencies are changing.

Well, yeah gene frequencies are changing. Once insular gene pools are interacting with greater frequency, and on an evolutionary scale that hasn't been happening for long. I haven't done a scientific study, but it makes sense to me. I think the changes are causal rather than evolutional. And as for the boob, vs plumage thing, bright good looking plumage is a sign of good health, and healthy bvreeding stock, and cannot be surgically implanted. The brain we have fights evolution a bit cause we don't try for the best available match, we make conscious choice based on desire. Also, animals will migrate to certain areas to breed and spawn, increasing the pool of choice, while we don't do more than go on spring break and...

 

[Jericho]

are wolves and dogs different species? I say, no...do you say yes?

They are not the same species because they cannot be bred together.

Dogs and wolves are members of the same species, and can interbreed.

How about lions and housecats? :hopeful:

 

[shining path]

Are you actually saying you need proof that the earth is older than 10,000 years? Or that evolution isn't real so how can anything be a "blink of an eye" in terms of something that is false? If you want proof of the age of the earth, go read some scince books. Or better yet, take some scientific instruments out into the field and do some studies and tell me how many results back up the 10,000 year age.

See, I have a real problem with this.You cannot be 100% sure that all of this scientific dating is accurate. There is no documentation that proves the carbon dating system to be correct. It is impossible for anyone to ever know whether they are even close to be correct with their dating system. Therefore, the earth could very easily be 10,000 years old. All that you have to prove otherwise is a "theory" made by men that have no real proof that anything exists over a few thousand years old.

Science can't be 100% sure of anything. That's why scientists are in a continual state of questioning, fact checking, calibrating, cross-referencing, anything they can do to make their conclusions stronger. The carbon and radioisotopic methods used to date rocks are similar to other dating techniques in that they all share an underlying assumption: that physical processes today haven't changed over time. The decay of a given atomic nucleus occurred 500 billion years ago at the same rate that it decays today. Is the assumption a valid one? I'm not an expert, but I would bet that if the fundamental physical constants that govern these types of things were different in the past, then the universe would be so much different that it wouldn't be conducive to terrestrial life at all. In other words, if the physicists and geologists are wrong and that conditions in the past were such that uranium decayed to lead many orders of magnitude faster - meaning that all the fossils in the ground are a lot younger than we think - then that change in physical constants would mean that organic life wouldn't be possible at all.That idea just occurred to me, so pardon if it isn't really well fleshed out. If you want to read up on why scientists are reasonably confident about their conclusions, here are some websites:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dating.html

http://my.erinet.com/~jwoolf/rad_dat.html

http://pegasus.phast.umass.edu/a100/handou...dat/raddat.html

 

[Jericho]

Gravity and how old a rock is are two totally different issues. Gravity is here for us to test and observe on our own today. The formation of a rock is something that there is no record of. When you get down to it, the scientific dating system is nothing but an educated guess. It will never be anything more.

No, particle decay is a well understood and extremely precise science.

 

[tangfoot]

When you get down to it, the scientific dating system is nothing but an educated guess. It will never be anything more.

Therefore we should scrap it altogether as being useless?

 

[ScottNorwood]

Everyone knows that scientists are Satan.