Creepier Belief system (5 Viewers)

[Bubba]

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?

and go with something 100% reliable...the bible.

 

[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

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.

So if DNA links a son to his father, would you be dubious of that connection, since you weren't there to witness the birth?

 

[tangfoot]

and go with something 100% reliable...the bible.

Riiiiiiiiiight.

 

[Dudley Do-Right]

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?

No, not at all... but you can stop talking about it like it is stone cold truth.

 

[CrossEyed]

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.

I pointed out this fact earlier but it was conveniently ignored.

 

[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.

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.

I apologize, I read your responsed and assumed your beliefs. Were you playing devils advocate? As for the age of the earth, no we will never know the EXACT age, but yes, we do reliably know what the age is about. Or at least what age it is older than. Dating means, as well as all other scientific method, goes through very rigorous testing before it is widely accepted so you can be fairly certain that it works to some reasonable degree of accuracy.

 

[Jericho]

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?

No, not at all... but you can stop talking about it like it is stone cold truth.

Irony, thy name is religion.

 

[tangfoot]

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

I pointed out this fact earlier but it was conveniently ignored.

I didn't argue with you about it. That should be consolation enough.

I haven't heard your stance on lions and housecats.

 

[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.

I pointed out this fact earlier but it was conveniently ignored.

You also said lions and housecats.

 

[Bubba]

Dating means, as well as all other scientific method, goes through very rigorous testing before it is widely accepted so you can be fairly certain that it works to some reasonable degree of accuracy.

like the bible...

 

[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.

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...

I don't know what the **** you are trying to say here but please feel free to not address me or any of my posts again. TIA.

 

[tangfoot]

Dating means, as well as all other scientific method, goes through very rigorous testing before it is widely accepted so you can be fairly certain that it works to some reasonable degree of accuracy.

like the bible...

rigorous testing?

 

[shining path]

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.

Here's a cool experiment. I bet that wolves and chihuahuas can't (or wouldn't) interbreed in the wild. So here's what you do: kill off every single breed of dog except chihuahuas, leave the wolves alone so that gene flow is impossible, and see where evolution takes 'em. If they can't interbreed, then presto! Instant, man made speciation in a large mammal. Pretty neat, huh?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

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?

This is an interesting topic. In the 18th century, people were pretty short. But that seems to be mostly because of diet, not genes.People were around our height when they were hunting and gathering, eating meat and plants.Then at the time of the agricultural revolution about 10,000 years ago, when people started substituting grains and dairy for meat and plants, people got shorter. They also, for the first time, started suffering from arteriosclerosis, diabetes, cancer, osteoporosis, tooth decay, poor eyesight, stroke, and other "diseases of civilization".In America, people started getting taller again in the last 50-100 years when refrigeration methods allowed people in cities to start eating meat again. In various other countries, people are still pretty short.What I'm saying is that differences in height over the past 20,000 years or so seem to have a strong environmental (i.e., dietary) component in addition to any genetic component.

 

[MelvinTScupper]

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?

No, not at all... but you can stop talking about it like it is stone cold truth.

Irony, thy name is religion.

again, I agree with Jericho.Science and Religion both require faith, and neither have enough proof to prove otherwise.You believe in a really big bang.I believe God made it happen.

 

[tangfoot]

feel free to not address me or any of my posts again.

If he knows your address, he may come calling. You probably don't want that.

 

[Jericho]

kill off every single breed of dog

I'm on board.

 

[pantagrapher]

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?

This is an interesting topic. In the 18th century, people were pretty short. But that seems to be mostly because of diet, not genes.People were around our height when they were hunting and gathering, eating meat and plants.Then at the time of the agricultural revolution about 10,000 years ago, when people started substituting grains and dairy for meat and plants, people got shorter. They also, for the first time, started suffering from arteriosclerosis, diabetes, cancer, osteoporosis, tooth decay, poor eyesight, stroke, and other "diseases of civilization".In America, people started getting taller again in the last 50-100 years when refrigeration methods allowed people in cities to start eating meat again. In various other countries, people are still pretty short.What I'm saying is that differences in height over the past 20,000 years or so seem to have a strong environmental (i.e., dietary) component in addition to any genetic component.

Cool. I've learned something. I rescind my example.See what happens when you don't have your mind made up before the argument?

 

[CrossEyed]

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.

I pointed out this fact earlier but it was conveniently ignored.

You also said lions and housecats.

No, I didn't. Check the posts before you make false accusations.

 

[tangfoot]

What I'm saying is that differences in height over the past 20,000 years or so seem to have a strong environmental (i.e., dietary) component in addition to any genetic component.

But it is also a anthropological fact that when dissimilar human races breed, the resultant offspring are bigger and stronger.

 

[Bubba]

Here's a cool experiment. I bet that wolves and chihuahuas can't (or wouldn't) interbreed in the wild.

been there...done that...you lose that bet.

 

[Bubba]

You also said lions and housecats.

No, I didn't. Check the posts before you make false accusations.

you did say ducks and wildebeest...

 

[The Football Freak]

Dating means, as well as all other scientific method, goes through very rigorous testing before it is widely accepted so you can be fairly certain that it works to some reasonable degree of accuracy.

like the bible...

You can't just say "like the bible.." and attach it to a sentiment about something seeable, knowable and provable and expect the sentament to rub off on it. The bible, as it professes, is all about faith, while science is most certainly not about faith at all. Even a hypothesis that a scientist is trying to prove is taken with a grain of salt until it is acceptable proven; at least for good scientists. Believe what you want to believe and let it be fact in your heart if you need it to be, but it has never been tested, measured or proved other than in a semantic sense.

 

[shining path]

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?

No, not at all... but you can stop talking about it like it is stone cold truth.

Irony, thy name is religion.

again, I agree with Jericho.Science and Religion both require faith, and neither have enough proof to prove otherwise.You believe in a really big bang.I believe God made it happen.

Well, the big bang has the benefit at least of having some observational support - the fact that all the galaxies seem to be moving in such a way that if you extrapolated their paths back into the past, they all seem to be diverging from a single point. If we were asked to believe in the big bang without any shred of physical evidence, then it would be more like religion. The big bang theory, or whatever they're on right now, is also subject to continuous review and modification as we find new stuff out. If the bible were like that, then priests would constantly be rewriting it as we learn more about history and the physical state of the world.

 

[CrossEyed]

You also said lions and housecats.

No, I didn't. Check the posts before you make false accusations.

you did say ducks and wildebeest...

That was ducks and platypus. Get it straight.

 

[Bubba]

Dating means, as well as all other scientific method, goes through very rigorous testing before it is widely accepted so you can be fairly certain that it works to some reasonable degree of accuracy.

like the bible...

You can't just say "like the bible.." and attach it to a sentiment about something seeable, knowable and provable and expect the sentament to rub off on it. The bible, as it professes, is all about faith, while science is most certainly not about faith at all. Even a hypothesis that a scientist is trying to prove is taken with a grain of salt until it is acceptable proven; at least for good scientists. Believe what you want to believe and let it be fact in your heart if you need it to be, but it has never been tested, measured or proved other than in a semantic sense.

are you saying that the bible may not be 100% accurate?

 

[tangfoot]

That was ducks and platypus. Get it straight.

If you can show me how to breed a bird and a mammal, I will give you $1 bazillion.

 

[shining path]

What I'm saying is that differences in height over the past 20,000 years or so seem to have a strong environmental (i.e., dietary) component in addition to any genetic component.

But it is also a anthropological fact that when dissimilar human races breed, the resultant offspring are bigger and stronger.

Is that a fact with humans? I'm not sure. If you have a population that's interbred to the point that all kinds of recessive genes are starting to be expressed, then yes, outbreeding them would result in healthier offspring. I can't really think of a reason that breeding two healthy populations would result in offspring that are - on average - anything but intermediates between the two parents.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

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.

There are stands of trees that are more than 10,000 years old based on their tree rings.There are ice cores that are over a hundred thousand years old based on their annual layering.

 

[ScottNorwood]

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.

There are stands of trees that are more than 10,000 years old based on their tree rings.There are ice cores that are over a hundred thousand years old based on their annual layering.

Satan created the rings and the layers.

 

[The Football Freak]

Dating means, as well as all other scientific method, goes through very rigorous testing before it is widely accepted so you can be fairly certain that it works to some reasonable degree of accuracy.

like the bible...

You can't just say "like the bible.." and attach it to a sentiment about something seeable, knowable and provable and expect the sentament to rub off on it. The bible, as it professes, is all about faith, while science is most certainly not about faith at all. Even a hypothesis that a scientist is trying to prove is taken with a grain of salt until it is acceptable proven; at least for good scientists. Believe what you want to believe and let it be fact in your heart if you need it to be, but it has never been tested, measured or proved other than in a semantic sense.

are you saying that the bible may not be 100% accurate?

You are like walking into a wall, incredibly obvious! Science will prove something to an acceptable precentage, the bible is accepted blindly, ie faith.

 

[tangfoot]

Is that a fact with humans? I'm not sure.

I was ONLY referring to humans in my post.This is a documented fact.If you take two populations that are historically homogenous and they are allowed to intermarry, the offspring will, on average, be taller and stronger.

 

[Bubba]

Dating means, as well as all other scientific method, goes through very rigorous testing before it is widely accepted so you can be fairly certain that it works to some reasonable degree of accuracy.

like the bible...

You can't just say "like the bible.." and attach it to a sentiment about something seeable, knowable and provable and expect the sentament to rub off on it. The bible, as it professes, is all about faith, while science is most certainly not about faith at all. Even a hypothesis that a scientist is trying to prove is taken with a grain of salt until it is acceptable proven; at least for good scientists. Believe what you want to believe and let it be fact in your heart if you need it to be, but it has never been tested, measured or proved other than in a semantic sense.

are you saying that the bible may not be 100% accurate?

You are like walking into a wall, incredibly obvious! Science will prove something to an acceptable precentage, the bible is accepted blindly, ie faith.

get out!that's not what my minister says...

 

[Bubba]

Is that a fact with humans? I'm not sure.

I was ONLY referring to humans in my post.This is a documented fact.If you take two populations that are historically homogenous and they are allowed to intermarry, the offspring will, on average, be taller and stronger.

taller and stronger than who?if i breed with a 4 ft. tall Mexican woman, will the offspring be taller than me, or her?

 

[The Football Freak]

Dating means, as well as all other scientific method, goes through very rigorous testing before it is widely accepted so you can be fairly certain that it works to some reasonable degree of accuracy.

like the bible...

You can't just say "like the bible.." and attach it to a sentiment about something seeable, knowable and provable and expect the sentament to rub off on it. The bible, as it professes, is all about faith, while science is most certainly not about faith at all. Even a hypothesis that a scientist is trying to prove is taken with a grain of salt until it is acceptable proven; at least for good scientists. Believe what you want to believe and let it be fact in your heart if you need it to be, but it has never been tested, measured or proved other than in a semantic sense.

are you saying that the bible may not be 100% accurate?

You are like walking into a wall, incredibly obvious! Science will prove something to an acceptable precentage, the bible is accepted blindly, ie faith.

get out!that's not what my minister says...

You're just trying to have a little fun aren't you?

 

[tangfoot]

if i breed with a 4 ft. tall Mexican woman, will the offspring be taller than me, or her?

I don't believe you or a Mexican is "homogenous" anymore.I'm referring mainly to tribal populations, and/or island groups.Also, you may include populations such as the Inuits, or other nomads.And FYI, the offspring are larger than BOTH sets of parents.There is also a correlation between trauma and adult strength/size.Many low birthweight 'crack-babies', if they survive will end up to be larger on average than their siblings. This is true across all human populations where infants or young children are subjected to some sort of uncommon violence or trauma.

 

[The Football Freak]

Is that a fact with humans?  I'm not sure.

I was ONLY referring to humans in my post.This is a documented fact.If you take two populations that are historically homogenous and they are allowed to intermarry, the offspring will, on average, be taller and stronger.

taller and stronger than who?if i breed with a 4 ft. tall Mexican woman, will the offspring be taller than me, or her?

Are you three feet tall? Then you!

 

[Bubba]

I don't believe you or a Mexican is "homogenous" anymore.

are you calling me gay?

 

[shining path]

Is that a fact with humans? I'm not sure.

I was ONLY referring to humans in my post.This is a documented fact.If you take two populations that are historically homogenous and they are allowed to intermarry, the offspring will, on average, be taller and stronger.

Documented where? So if you took a population of white people who average 5'10" for men, and breed them with a population of Japanese whose males average 5'5", you'd get a super race of Anglo-Japanese supermen who average 6'2"?If by "homogenous" populations you mean "heavily interbred", then sure, bringing some fresh genetic material in will result in healthier offspring because you start masking deleterious recessive genes. But for a given trait, mixing two populations whose average values differ generally results in intermediate offspring. (This of course goes for traits that vary continuously like height, mass, etc.)

 

[Jericho]

Is that a fact with humans?  I'm not sure.

I was ONLY referring to humans in my post.This is a documented fact.If you take two populations that are historically homogenous and they are allowed to intermarry, the offspring will, on average, be taller and stronger.

taller and stronger than who?if i breed with a 4 ft. tall Mexican woman, will the offspring be taller than me, or her?

Pics?

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

MT, you pretty much touched on what I was addressing with regard to human development over the last 10,000 years. As for study of relative age of rock strata, ice core, tree rings, etc. ; I think you would need to take a sample over a Veeeeeeery long period of time to have meaningful purpose in using it as a measurement. Note that I am not a new-earth guy, but I have always been fascinated by how scientists date extremely ancient objects. There has to be a pretty significant margin of error, no?As for everyone else making smart remarks about "Satan did it". That's fine, go on ahead believing there is no hell or heaven, no God and Satan, its your choice. No amount of your idiotic sarcasm will change what I know to be true. That is a personal "knowing" by the way, I would never presuppose to tell you I have facts to back my faith in all instances. Afterall, by definition faith and proof are not synonymous. If I had concrete proof, I would have no decision to make and therefor no free will.

 

[shining path]

if i breed with a 4 ft. tall Mexican woman, will the offspring be taller than me, or her?

I don't believe you or a Mexican is "homogenous" anymore.I'm referring mainly to tribal populations, and/or island groups.Also, you may include populations such as the Inuits, or other nomads.

Okay, gotcha. You're talking about inbred populations.

 

[shining path]

I don't believe you or a Mexican is "homogenous" anymore.

are you calling me gay?

Not at the moment.

 

[Bubba]

if i breed with a 4 ft. tall Mexican woman, will the offspring be taller than me, or her?

I don't believe you or a Mexican is "homogenous" anymore.I'm referring mainly to tribal populations, and/or island groups.Also, you may include populations such as the Inuits, or other nomads.

Okay, gotcha. You're talking about inbred populations.

like the Mormons?

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

if i breed with a 4 ft. tall Mexican woman, will the offspring be taller than me, or her?

I don't believe you or a Mexican is "homogenous" anymore.I'm referring mainly to tribal populations, and/or island groups.Also, you may include populations such as the Inuits, or other nomads.And FYI, the offspring are larger than BOTH sets of parents.There is also a correlation between trauma and adult strength/size.Many low birthweight 'crack-babies', if they survive will end up to be larger on average than their siblings. This is true across all human populations where infants or young children are subjected to some sort of uncommon violence or trauma.

I call shenanigans. Just by interbreeding you result in taller and stronger offspring? This definitely requires a link. You might be getting this science from the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles...

 

[tangfoot]

So if you took a population of white people who average 5'10" for men, and breed them with a population of Japanese whose males average 5'5", you'd get a super race of Anglo-Japanese supermen who average 6'2"?If by "homogenous" populations you mean "heavily interbred", then sure, bringing some fresh genetic material in will result in healthier offspring because you start masking deleterious recessive genes. But for a given trait, mixing two populations whose average values differ generally results in intermediate offspring. (This of course goes for traits that vary continuously like height, mass, etc.)

No, but you would end up with a population that is, on average, larger than the 5'10" people.I wasn't specifically referring to small interbred populations. Large, geographically-separated populations will exhibit this behavior also.

 

[The Football Freak]

I would never presuppose to tell you I have facts to back my faith in all instances.

Not to go after you, but what proof do you have in SOME instances then?

 

[shining path]

So if you took a population of white people who average 5'10" for men, and breed them with a population of Japanese whose males average 5'5", you'd get a super race of Anglo-Japanese supermen who average 6'2"?If by "homogenous" populations you mean "heavily interbred", then sure, bringing some fresh genetic material in will result in healthier offspring because you start masking deleterious recessive genes. But for a given trait, mixing two populations whose average values differ generally results in intermediate offspring. (This of course goes for traits that vary continuously like height, mass, etc.)

No, but you would end up with a population that is, on average, larger than the 5'10" people.I wasn't specifically referring to small interbred populations. Large, geographically-separated populations will exhibit this behavior also.

Can you at least provide some documentation? Hybrid intermediacy in continuous traits is a pretty well-documented biological phenomenon. There are exceptions, but these are usually instances of single individuals receiving a "magic" combinaition of alleles that makes them well outside the nomal range of a trait.

 

[Bubba]

So if you took a population of white people who average 5'10" for men, and breed them with a population of Japanese whose males average 5'5", you'd get a super race of Anglo-Japanese supermen who average 6'2"?If by "homogenous" populations you mean "heavily interbred", then sure, bringing some fresh genetic material in will result in healthier offspring because you start masking deleterious recessive genes.  But for a given trait, mixing two populations whose average values differ generally results in intermediate offspring. (This of course goes for traits that vary continuously like height, mass, etc.)

No, but you would end up with a population that is, on average, larger than the 5'10" people.I wasn't specifically referring to small interbred populations. Large, geographically-separated populations will exhibit this behavior also.

Can you at least provide some documentation? Hybrid intermediacy in continuous traits is a pretty well-documented biological phenomenon.

especially in Alabama...

 

[Jericho]

If I had concrete proof, I would have no decision to make and therefor no free will.

Why no decision? Are you saying that if it is shown that a God exists, mankind would be required to worship it? Why is that? Why could you not choose to ignore it, like I'm doing now?