The Transformers Archive Skip to main content / Also skip section headers

[The Transformers Archive - an international fan site]
Please feel free to log in or register.

 
  • transformers toys
  • transformers comics
  • transformers cartoon
  • transformers live-action movies
  • transformers fandom
  • transformers forum

Go Back   TFARCHIVE > COMMUNITY > General Discussion

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old 2002-04-11, 06:57 PM   #41
Strafe
Certifiably not cool.
 
Strafe's Avatar
 
Chicago, Illinois
Cool

How come Galvatron91, PaladinPrime, and I are the only ones who think these two theories can work well together?

Is it really that hard to believe that God used evolution? He's not a deceiver so why create all that evidence that leans towards evolution? (I.E. Distance of stars who's light takes billions of years to get here, therefore the Universe is quite old, the fossil record etc etc etc.)
 

Strafe. You're a dick. Ishin_ookami - Dec 1st 2003
Strafe is offline  
Old 2002-04-11, 07:04 PM   #42
Sheba
One with the Matrix
 
Sheba's Avatar
 
Sephiroth's Backyard
Default

OK I read some of that "evidence" for Macroevolution. Specifically, these guys are confusing Macroevolution with Microevolution. Folks, MACRO-Evolution is when one species TOTALLY CHANGES INTO ANOTHER. (i.e. reptiles into birds or mammals, or one type of mammal/reptile/whatever into a totally different creature in the same family that cannot be bred back into the preceding family but can interbreed with more like it).

Micro-evolution is genetic changes within an organism that do not alter the basic KIND that the organism is. For instance, bacteria that gain resistance to antibiotics ARE STILL BACTERIA. They don't become amoebas, or other protozoans.

Biggest bone of contention between the Creationists and Evolutionists is that Creationists believe there is an interspecies barrier that cannot be crossed. One kind cannot change into another. You can breed donkeys with horses and get mules but the resulting mules are sterile with few exceptions. Same with Tigers and Lions, or Tigers and Leopards, or Leopards and Lions.

These guys can play this DNA game all they want but wouldn't similar DNA also alternatively point to a common designer? After all, there are SOME physical similarities between chimps and humans. However, there are some differences that aren't easily explained away--such as, the connection of the head to the neck bones--in chimps it's at the back of the skull while with humans it's at the base of the skull. Chimps have a bone in the male organ (which humans do not possess) and the females lack a hymen. In fact ALL female animals lack this--ONLY humans have it. For what purpose would THAT have evolved?
 

"This appears to be a copy of Final Fantasy, which is a step up from a copy of Pearl Jam"-Ed the Sock, on Fromage 2002, about one of Creed's videos--"Bullets".
Sheba is offline  
Old 2002-04-11, 07:24 PM   #43
Strafe
Certifiably not cool.
 
Strafe's Avatar
 
Chicago, Illinois
Wink Ha, this must be funny to S and Denyer...the two Christians duking it out...

Quote:
Originally posted by Sheba
Folks, MACRO-Evolution is when one species TOTALLY CHANGES INTO ANOTHER. (i.e. reptiles into birds or mammals, or one type of mammal/reptile/whatever into a totally different creature in the same family that cannot be bred back into the preceding family but can interbreed with more like it).

Micro-evolution is genetic changes within an organism that do not alter the basic KIND that the organism is. For instance, bacteria that gain resistance to antibiotics ARE STILL BACTERIA. They don't become amoebas, or other protozoans.

And that happens, albeit it doesn't happen overnight.

Evolution simply means adapting one's environment. If you have a group of animals say proto-giraffes and lets say that they eat leaves, those with taller necks well eat more. Those that eat more are more successful and mate more. Thus more proto-giraffes with larger necks are made. Those in turn out-breed the shorter necked ones, until only the long necked ones are left. That's evolution. Evolution happens to populations not individuals.

I still believe that God used evolution because quite frankly natural selection makes a lot of sense. Just look at around. Species best adapted to their environments win the game so to speak. They breed. Others don't.
 

Strafe. You're a dick. Ishin_ookami - Dec 1st 2003
Strafe is offline  
Old 2002-04-11, 07:38 PM   #44
Unicron
Time for plan bee-weeoop
 
Unicron's Avatar
 
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Strafe
How come Galvatron91, PaladinPrime, and I are the only ones who think these two theories can work well together?

Is it really that hard to believe that God used evolution? He's not a deceiver so why create all that evidence that leans towards evolution? (I.E. Distance of stars who's light takes billions of years to get here, therefore the Universe is quite old, the fossil record etc etc etc.)
Well, the reason I don't say both theories can work together is I don't believe in God. Unless I'm mistaken, the whole creation theory falls apart if you don't believe in God
 
Unicron is offline  
Old 2002-04-11, 07:59 PM   #45
Osku
One with the Matrix
 
Finland
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Strafe
How come Galvatron91, PaladinPrime, and I are the only ones who think these two theories can work well together?
I think I answered to this question in another thread
And the answer is I do. At the moment Iīm willing to accept evolution theory as the best current theory. Itīs contradictionary towards Bible if you interpret it literally, but thatīs not the way I see it.
 
Osku is offline  
Old 2002-04-11, 08:08 PM   #46
Sheba
One with the Matrix
 
Sheba's Avatar
 
Sephiroth's Backyard
Default

There are many explanations of how things happened. Creationists, like Evolutionists, are uncertain on some details.

I don't necessarily agree on the mechanisms by which some creationists have come to explain certain phenomena. Sure, in their bias (but let's remember that evolutionists have a bias too ) they may have been too quick to accept "evidence" in their favor, or may know not enough about certain formulas or whatever to properly construct a valid theory on this and that.

After all, evolutionists are refining their theories all the time and according to them, that fact alone does NOT make their overall theory "wrong." They've made some pretty big goof-ups in their time but have still plodded along with the same determination that ONE DAY they will be proven RIGHT somehow.

Why then should a few discardable theories throw a monkey wrench in the opposing view? For example, maybe people haven't worked out where all the water came from and maybe some difficulties with the nature of it but that might mean some mechanism that hasn't been considered was responsible that does not require long ages but will fit with what was reported in the Bible.

For the record the "Flat Earth" idea did NOT come from the Bible.
 

"This appears to be a copy of Final Fantasy, which is a step up from a copy of Pearl Jam"-Ed the Sock, on Fromage 2002, about one of Creed's videos--"Bullets".
Sheba is offline  
Old 2002-04-11, 08:29 PM   #47
Denyer
Shooty Dog Thing
 
Denyer's Avatar
 
UK
Smile I think...

Quote:
Originally posted by Strafe
How come Galvatron91, PaladinPrime, and I are the only ones who think these two theories can work well together?
...it's plausible, but I'm less certain about one half of the equation than the other, and neither half of which I really pay that much attention to.

We're here. How isn't really a pressing question, I find.

BTW, the hymen seems to have evolved to protect the human female, basically because humans develop more after birth than during... other animals tend to enter a reproductive cycle within fewer years of birth.

To a certain extent, we've set ourselves outside of evolutionary tendencies through our reliance upon tools (and ability to use those tools to kill natural threats.)

Similar DNA only points to a connection, not an origin.

End of the day, it's all opinion. However, one of those opinions has benefited medical research, weather prediction and flight technology. The other hasn't. No science or explanation is exact. Beware those who feel that they are.
 
Denyer is offline  
Old 2002-04-11, 10:05 PM   #48
S
Registered User
 
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Sheba
The reason Creationists don't believe the hype about some of the "evidence" for evolution is because much of it is FAR from provable--and almost none of it is repeatable in a laboratory. It is quite one thing to prove that hydrogen and oxygen make water. It is something else entirely to "prove" that life spontaneously generated.
Several things can be "proved" in labs: the radioactive decay rates, for example. We can also see speciation in laboratories with fruit flies and plants. Now, creationists are very eager to dismiss all this as insignificant... but obvisouly one cannot repeat billions of years of global evolution over a few decades in test tube. It's like saying that you should be able to repeat Jesus's resurrection or the Flood in a lab, of course that's not going to happen. To demand something like that is absurd.

Secondly, despite the controversy over abiogenesis, we do have certain insights to the early life from lab experiments: scientists have managed to generate complex chemicals and there are quite a few theories of how they could have stuck together to form self-replicating primitive organisms (I think RNA world is the leading theory, but I'm not sure). There is no "proof" that any of these theories is what actually happened, but there is constant progress, and the lack of evidence is not evidence for the contrary position. Or would you say that becuase no one has found the Ark, the flood cannot have happened?

Finally, even if life did not come into existence by natural means, it has nothing to do with the arguments against evolution after the origins of life. Speicifically, you cannot discredit the fossil record and the radiometric dating of Earth this way.

Quote:
I have not JUST seen the creationists side. I HAVE seen the evolutionists side as well. A few years ago I regularly went into the library at the local University in search of books written by evolutionists to see what arguments they had against creationism. And you know what? NOT ONE of those books had ANYTHING to do with research. Every single book was a polemic against Creationism--in other words just a big long RANT. No "debunking" of evidence--just a bunch of name-calling. Needless to say I was sorely disappointed. I'd thought someone could have actually gotten a DECENT argument from at least ONE of them.
Okay, looks like there are rants on both sides. But if you are disappointed at evolutionists bashing creationists (which I think they might have had a good reason to do, because many creationists are dishonest about the way they present the evidence), why is it okay for the creationists to blame the scientists for being conspirers?

Quote:
And why does a debate have to be "written"? Seems that several evolutionists are afraid of LIVE debate. They don't want an audience involved. Many times I have heard tell from the horse's mouth about how some evolutionists simply refuse to debate AT ALL. I guess the evolutionists think debating on paper is safer because nobody will see it but them and the creationist :rolleyes:
I meant a written debate that is published somewhere. A written article (or series of articles) would have a much greater audience than an oral debate, especially if somebody puts in on the web.

Another thing is that in a written debate, you can check what your opponent is saying. In live debates you only have the stuff that you've prepared in advance. That's why the content in these debates is leaves a lot to be desired. Also, in live debates the debater's charisma distracts from the topic. Scientists are not necessarily showpeople who know how to captivate the audience with jokes or sarcasm: for example, if an evolutionist explains the isochron dating methods, blahblahblah, and concludes that the age of the Earth is this and that, a creationist can "win" the argument by just looking sly and dismissing the issue by saying something like "Wew you there when Earth was created? I don't think you were!" The audience cheers and nobody remembers the boring scientist's case.

Finally, creationists claim to have won many debates, but where can I find these debates? The only ones are published and sold by the creationists themselves. If creationists really wanted to prove their case the the greater public, they would publish at least some of these debates for free in the internet (either as video, audio or text transcript). There's really no financial reason not to do so: I have seen creationist seminars downloadable on the net, and I don't seee what secrets could be on the debate tapes that creationists don't want me to see.

Quote:
uuuuuuuum how do they "KNOW" it's CORRECT? (the dating results of the actual lava)?
Because they know that the lava is 200 years old, you said it yourself...?

Quote:
Despite all your claims that evolution has lots GOOD scientific evidence, the fact remains that there ARE scientists--ones who are themselves evolutionists and have NO USE for creationism--that are critical of much of the "evidence" presented as indisputable fact towards the propping up of evolution.
Yes, there is a lot of debate within scientific community as to how some things really happened. However, even if we don't know whether A or B happenened, we can sometimes tell for sure that C did not happen. Evolution is not based on some obscure guessworking, there are several different fields that all point to the same direction. The fossil record for example, even if all the dating was way off, is still organized. And when it comes to disproving young Earth creationism, there are plenty of ways to do that: tree rings, coral formation, ice caps, ... so no matter how suspicious the paleontological evidence for evolution were, we can quite independently say that it's a fact that the flood didn't happen (at least not in the biblical sense).

Do not be fooled that if one cannot conclusively show that evolution does not work, that flood would be shown true. It is a fallacy.

Quote:
Now this is my understanding of radiometric dating:

Everybody knows that certain elements decay at a specific rate--although not every element decays AT the same rate.

IT is a simple matter to calculate what WILL be left of a radiogenic substance IN THE FUTURE. However, working backwards is a little trickier. Sure, TECHNICALLY you can work your way backwards, but the problem there is how do you know that much time has elapsed? And how do you KNOW what happened to the sample in that time?
Quite correct. It is very dependant on the actual original condition of the samples. However, the fact that we have multiple samples reduces the amount of error: if there is "contamination", then the results will not stick with the majority of data points and we can detect it by means of statistical methods. Furthermore, we can usually check the dates by doing multiple datings of different isotopes, in which case if there was an error there would be disagreements between the measurements. But usually, different dating methods give the more or less the same results, and that's one of the most compelling reasons why we can trust the estimates.

(Here's a nice easy-to-read article about isochron dating, in caseanyone is interested: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/isochron-dating.html)

Quote:
For instance, nuclear Potassium decays into Argon gas. Scientists have accepted 1.31 BILLION years as the half-life of radioactive potassium (the amount of time it takes for half the potassium to become argon). However--argon from the atmosphere can get trapped in lava while it is on the surface of the ground and still molten. That of course would naturally skew the results to make it appear that the rock is older than it actually is. (More argon that is assumed to be solely from decay process = older sample)
Hmm. If potassium decays to argon, then more argon would mean younger sample, wouldn't it?

Quote:
[b]A number of ASSUMPTIONS are made regarding this dating.
- that the initial state of the sample of the rock can be determined, and that the fundamental physical constants of nature have not changed over the time interval under study. While many interesting samples do not meet assumptions underlying the use of K/Ar dating, others do, therefore the latter can be accurately dated--Zetterberg, J. Peter[/q]
If we doubt the fundamental physical constants, then the repercussions must also be taken into account. Creationists who claim that the Earth is 6000 years old need a very large change in the constants to justify their claims. So big, in fact, that something like sun exploding should have happened. But there is no fear of that, because the physical constants have not been shown to change in labs... the decay rates stem from quantum mechanical calculations, which are arguably the most accurate theories ever (all the experiments we can do verify QM).

Quote:
-that volcanic samples are virtually leakproof with the argon trapped inside little crystals. None of the products of decay were lost or gained during the course of time.
Yes, that's correct. However, creationists need a very significant leak to prove Young Earth. And I'm going to have to remind again that the particular dating methods can be compared with each other, so if there was a "leak" of a particular element, then it would stand out in comparison.

Quote:
-that the crystals formed as a result of volcanic eruptions represent a specific moment in time, and they are totally uncontaminated by any OLDER argon. There were no productos of decay ALREADY PRESENT when the rock was first formed.
Yes, that's actually a very important point with regards to Potassium/Argon dating in particular, and that's why scientists don't think Potassium/Argon is reliable for certain time periods.

How can it be reliable at all, you may wonder? Okay, let's assume that there is some "extra" argon present in the original rock when it forms. Now, the largest error is made if the sample is very recent: the only Argon there is is from the contamination. However, if we take a sample where, say, half the potassium have decayed into Argon, then the portion of the argon that is from the contamination is smaller, hence the estimate of the age more accurate. So in effect, if a sample is old, then the dating should work (consistently with several samples that give the same age).

But what if the sample is young, and most of the Argon comes from contamination? What kind of results you'd get if you take a lot of samples and compare the results. The amount of argon that is originally present in the sample is irrelevant of the amoung of potassium... so, if the samples were contaminated, the ratio of argon and potassium should vary a great deal (being random), but if they are not contaminated then you would get consistent ratios across several samples. So this way, you can distinguish the contamination if you have a lot of samples.

Quote:
And here are the REQUIREMENTS and PROCEDURES for dating K/Ar: (noted by Donald Johanson)

-volcanic rocks are eminently suitable for K/Ar dating. The argon in the air adhering to the sample must be subtracted from the argon in the sample because the best vacuum pumps cannot remove all the air from the sample.

-The samples must be clean, that is, free of contamination from other materials and free from any damage that might have released some of the argon, such as weathering.

-the geologic history of the sample MUST be known, since exposure to high temperatures causes argon to leak from the sample.
Yes, that's true. Thsi is why the hawaiian rocks gave such wild results: they were exposed to different amounts of heat, and the leaking of argon made the measurements unreliable. However, this only applied to the rocks embedded in lava, and the lava itself could be dated accurately (because all of its argon had leaked out).

So what did this experiment prove? Only that you cannot use K/Ar dating reliably if you are not certain of the premises. But like I said above, the contamination caused by insufficient heat will matter only with regards to recent samples.

Quote:
-K/Ar dating is commonly checked against other methods. For example, seven years were spent in dating "Lucy" during which the K/Ar tests were "synchronized" with four other techniques: geology (the strata or layers of rock in the earth), fission-track dating, paleomagnetism, and biostratigraphy. The result of 3.5 to 4.0 million years for "Lucy" was overturned a few years later by a method not involving radiometric dating.
I should probably look into this. But the point is that radiometric dating has alternatives, and the mistake was corrected. Yes?

Quote:
The biggest argument I have ever heard tell of involving controversy over K/Ar dating was NOT between Creationists and Evolutionists, but rather between EVOLUTIONIST scientists trying to date Richard Leakey's Skull 1470. In 41 trials on KBS tuff (conducted by Fitch and Miller) the K/Ar dates ranged from 910 Thousand to 223 Million years. Curtis--who had obtained dates of 1.6 and 1.8 million years for the same KBS tuff, accused Fitch and Miller (some of the other testers) of reaching into a hat filled with all the numbers they had obtained, while Fitch accused Curtis of using simple conventional irrelevant K/Ar methods. Fitch and Miller now claim that Leakey must have mistakenly collected samples from many sites other than the KBS tuff (around where Skull 1470 was found). Leakey retorted that he was as sure of where his first sample was collected from as he was sure about where his house was.
Richard Leakey made a mistake. The skull was not found in a pile of other skulls or anything like that. Richard Leakey very much wanted 1470 to be a proof that homo dates back far enough not to be direct descendant of austropithecus, and he wanted it to be around 2,9 million years old before the radiometric dating was conducted. However, the results gave the wild number which you cited above, and they could be dismissed unreliable. There was quite a lot of debating over the age of the bones, and I'm not sure if their real age is still shown with dating methods.

But, that is not the whole truth: the skull itself is clearly not human, and not an ape. It's now considered to be homo habilis not only because of radioactive dating (results of which I am unsure), but because it's uncanny resemblance to other skulls. Creationists who make the point that the radiometric dating in this case does not work ignore that the fossil itself still exists and fits to what we think of human evolution... it's just the time table that is a bit hazy.

Quote:
Science at work, folks.
Yes, indeed! Leakey's original assumptions were shown to be wrong. There was no hiding of facts, and everything was discussed quite thoroughly, and eventually the best arguments won. This is not an example of the kind of big cover-up creationists want it to look like.

Quote:
IF we ARE to take dating by K/Ar SERIOUSLY then I suggest the following be done:
--the FULL results of ALL K/Ar tests be reported. If there is picking and choosing of acceptable dates and discarding unnacceptable ones, as commonly reported, the practice should be universally condemned and stopped.
I believe they are all reported, in scientific journals. Also, nothing prevents creationists (or anyone suspecting these results) from writing to these journals and refuting the fallacy: in peer reviewed journals only the content of the articles matters, not who submits them. The fact that no one has done so (or made a big fuzz about discrimination) within the 30 or so years since Leakey's skull seems to argue that there is no "picking and choosing" going on.

Quote:
-Geochronologists using K/Ar method must clearly state whether or not this procedure can stand by itself for valid and reliable dating. If K/Ar testing can stand on its own merits, geochronologists should condemn the recommendation (made in a book edited by geochronologist Christopher Harper) that a committe of experts be established to prevent the publication of unacceptable dates (translation--censorship SUCKS).
Yup, anyone suggesting such a committee would be a fool and quite likely condemned by the scientific community. But anyway, the limits of K/Ar are well known... and the way scientific research is written, the limitations of used methods are always taken into account, if not by the original author then by the reviewers.

Quote:
-If the half-life of K/Ar is known more precisely than 1.31 billion years, the correct half-life should be commonly reported to the media. The standard practice is to round the half-life to the nearest 10 or 100 million years. If calculation of the half-life is that imprecise, then it should be publicly acknowledged that it is futile to attempt to establish any dates under 10,000,000 years.
I'd say that things like half life of K/Ar are not significant enough to be "reported to the media". I can hadly imagine it in the headlines of New York times. Anyway, in the scientific journals such things are reported. I don't know what the standard practise in rounding the half lives is (sounds a bit dubious to me), but note that K/Ar is (if I understood correctly) unreliable under 10M year anyway.

Quote:
-Simple, standard statistical language SHOULD be used to report the standard error of measurement in K/Ar determinations. Current practice is to fail to mention error entirely or to state it so imprecisely that it cannot be understood or evaluated.
Again, the scientific articles do report the whole statistics, and the methods used. It's only the popular science magazines and articles which filter information out, taking only the results and not the process. That does not tell anything about "current practise".

Quote:
-The practice of testing a sample first, THEN ruling it as being an invalid sample for testing in the first place should be condemned and stopped.
In case of Leakey's skull, the results did not coincide with what Leakey wanted, so they were discarded. If all the samples had agreed that the skull was, say, 140 million years old, that would have raised a big holler. However, like you said the measurements gave conflicting answers and that suggests that there was something wrong with the measuring method, rather than tell anything about the actual age of the skull.

Quote:
-Full record of K/Ar testing should be published in terms of apparent successes and failures for the evaluation of scientists and laymen alike.
I'd like to see this kind of study as well, in layman terms.
 

- S
S is offline  
Old 2002-04-11, 10:32 PM   #49
S
Registered User
 
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Sheba
Micro-evolution is genetic changes within an organism that do not alter the basic KIND that the organism is. For instance, bacteria that gain resistance to antibiotics ARE STILL BACTERIA. They don't become amoebas, or other protozoans.
There is one problem: creationists define "kind" however it suits them. They put all the bacteria in one kind, for example, while some individual mammal species are supposedly kinds of their own. But genetically, there's much more difference among the bacteria than there are between mammals. There is really no basis for talking about kinds unless you already assume that all species were created at once.

What about horses and zebras? They cannot interbreed, so are they a different or a same kind? If they are different, isn't it possible to imagine an extinct ancestor with which both zebras and horses could breed? Would that make them the same kind again?

Quote:
Biggest bone of contention between the Creationists and Evolutionists is that Creationists believe there is an interspecies barrier that cannot be crossed. One kind cannot change into another.
What "barrier"? Creationists have not been able to show any mechanism that would somehow make interbreeding through extinct species impossible.

Quote:
[b]These guys can play this DNA game all they want but wouldn't similar DNA also alternatively point to a common designer? After all, there are SOME physical similarities between chimps and humans.
[b]
What about the so called junk DNA, which isn't according to our knowledge used at all? Humans and chimps could look exactly as they do now without having 95% or so of their junk DNA being the same... well, that can also be explained away by the "common designer" argument, but why don't the homological features (say, human eye and cetacean eye) have the same genetic coding if they are made by the same creator? Why make two organs that have exactly the same function two times from the scratch?

Quote:
However, there are some differences that aren't easily explained away--such as, the connection of the head to the neck bones--in chimps it's at the back of the skull while with humans it's at the base of the skull. Chimps have a bone in the male organ (which humans do not possess) and the females lack a hymen. In fact ALL female animals lack this--ONLY humans have it. For what purpose would THAT have evolved?
Actually, not all humans have hymen (or more accurately, some are born without a hymen) and there are animals who do have hymen. Horses, moles, hyenas, whales, ... so it is not unique. As for why humans have it while the chimps don't, there is the water ape theory to explain that. Or the social factor which Denyer mentioned.
 

- S
S is offline  
Old 2002-04-11, 10:42 PM   #50
S
Registered User
 
Default

(Apologies to the mods for triple posting... I'll try to avoid it in the future.)

Quote:
Originally posted by Sheba
Why then should a few discardable theories throw a monkey wrench in the opposing view? For example, maybe people haven't worked out where all the water came from and maybe some difficulties with the nature of it but that might mean some mechanism that hasn't been considered was responsible that does not require long ages but will fit with what was reported in the Bible.
I basically agree that creationists have the rigth to exist... but, criticism to a theory does not mean that the theory shouldn't have been proposed in the first place, quite the contrary: we need different hypothesis and suggestions, of which we then weed out the best ones. So I hope that the creationists will keep revising their own theories and if they turn out to be true, then eventually they'll present us the evidence. So far they have failed, so I am not holding my breath, but they certainly have the right to try again.

Anyway, I have shown reasons why flood cannot have happened (in the other topic, in case someone wonders). That puts a serious dent in the literalism of bible, in my opinion... I cannot imagine any way except God deliberately altering all the possible evidence (tree rings, coral reefs) afterwards, and using miracles to keep Noah's Ark floating and all the animals alive. That alone is enough reason not to believe in biblical young earth creationism.

Quote:
For the record the "Flat Earth" idea did NOT come from the Bible.
Hmm, "circle of earth" can be interpreted two ways, I guess. Anyway, the flat earth theory is a good analogy of biblical flood theories... both make as much sense.
 

- S
S is offline  
Old 2002-04-12, 02:56 AM   #51
Skylinx
Registered User
 
Skylinx's Avatar
 
Currently lost -->?<--
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Stormbringer

Evolution says that the human race is becoming more perfect as time goes on,
Now, this is what the positivist, ethnicentrist, "modern", mind of the XIX century to the mid XX century would say, based on the old paradigm (Kant was a supporter of such).
Nowadays, such concept is not valid, we're not "more perfect" than any other being, we're just different.
 

Skylinx is offline  
Old 2002-04-12, 02:59 AM   #52
Galvatron91
Has anger management issues
 
Galvatron91's Avatar
 
Keeping the world safe from crappy posts
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Strafe
How come Galvatron91, PaladinPrime, and I are the only ones who think these two theories can work well together?

it could be one of three things...

a: we are the only ones drinking at the time
b: we are the only ones that think for ourselves
c: we are the only ones who actually read both theories and pondered the possible nature that the two could very easily work together.

and s...stop double posting...its annoying
 

Galvatron91 is offline  
Old 2002-04-12, 03:03 AM   #53
Ravage
Primus
 
Ravage's Avatar
 
In the depths of blackest Hell. Or just Vermont
Default

And I have yet to post in this topic, yeah it could be both threories but I am too lazy to go into detail now.
 

The bunnies, they give me knowledge it is neat.

The only necessity for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
Ravage is offline  
Old 2002-04-12, 03:23 AM   #54
Denyer
Shooty Dog Thing
 
Denyer's Avatar
 
UK
Wink They are...

Quote:
Originally posted by Galvatron91
s...stop double posting...its annoying
...long posts. Often very long posts. Typing into a text box with a vertical scroll bar you can hardly see can be a bit of a pain. I don't think he's going to come knocking at your door for a custom rank anytime soon...
 
Denyer is offline  
Old 2002-04-12, 07:33 PM   #55
Sheba
One with the Matrix
 
Sheba's Avatar
 
Sephiroth's Backyard
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by S

Several things can be "proved" in labs

<snip> ~Denyer: PLEASE DON'T MAKE QUOTES THAT LENGTH!

I'd like to see this kind of study as well, in layman terms.
The point I was trying to make about the Leakey Skull was merely that I've seen evolutionists go at it hammer and tongs to each other over results they WANTED and the results they GOT. Whether a date is "correct" through "science" or through preconceived notions is sometimes to be wondered about.

There ARE some things that will FOREVER be in the realm of NON SCIENCE. Nobody is suggesting or even claiming that the 6-day creation (which was around several thousand years ago--and not all creationists agree exactly--some will go as high as over 10,000 years because some ppl think the Masoretic Text was altered by parties that wanted to throw off the timing of when the Messiah was supposed to appear so it would look like Jesus wasn't the Messiah) is "Scientific"--that is, that it follows any known scientific laws or processes. If indeed the Supernatural exists (which hardcore atheists categorically deny), then is there not place for things that cannot be explained in measurable terms because such beings are themselves ABOVE the laws of nature?

For instance, the origin of matter out of NOTHING is non-scientific and CANNOT be explained in those terms, whether a God is there to pull the strings or not. Show me the mathematical formula (or whatever) for NOTHING to change into MATTER. NOT ENERGY. (energy is SOMETHING). NOTHING.

Atheists love to say "But WHO made God?"--conveniently forgetting that their OWN theory of how matter came about isn't ANY BETTER OFF. Either way you could stretch backward to infinity looking for the answer--and NEVER find it.

I'm not exactly sure when the World came to be, but I do NOT believe that it was millions of years ago. The only basis for those calculations are radioactive dating and a few things from Astronomy that may be in doubt.

Quote:
Hmm. If potassium decays to argon, then more argon would mean younger sample, wouldn't it?
HELL NO. I think you're confusing this with Radiocarbon dating. The longer the potassium has time to decay into argon, the MORE argon there will be (and LESS potassium). I think you got things bass-ackward there bud. If it was discovered that Argon in a sample LEAKED then it would indicate an older sample according to all this.

But all this about Radiometric dating is missing the point. HOW do we know that millions of years even happened? Yes decay rates can be measured but can they tell us for sure HOW MUCH Potassium was IN the rock to begin with, and how much Argon? It's one thing to measure decay rates and work FORWARD. At least then we KNOW what we have now. We don't KNOW what these rocks had to BEGIN with. Nobody can go back in time x number of years to find the rocks and see. The assumption is made that the rocks had a certain composition--and that the ratio of argon to potassium was 1 to 0 in the beginning up until the first potassium atom spit out the first radiogenic argon atom. Nobody knows what the ratio of nuclear potassium to argon (radiogenic or otherwise) really was. As far as we know there could have been LOTS of argon in rocks with potassium back in the day (because why would argon have to be made ONLY by radiogenic means?).
"OK there's this much potassium--and this much argon. Hmmm according to the ratio it looks like this much of the argon came from the potassium for this many millions of years." ISN'T it even POSSIBLE that a certain amount of argon could have gotten into the rocks that LOOKS like it's CLOSE to a proper ratio in terms of length of time for potassium to decay, but really isn't? (i.e. it LOOKS like the amount of argon that comes from potassium decaying for x number of years but it's REALLY got NOTHING to do with nuclear potassium decay)? The reason K/Ar didn't date the hawaiian lava at 200 years is because it COULDN'T have!!!

And aren't we ignoring that the potassium was decaying into argon WHILE IN THE EARTH'S MANTLE, before it solidified into lava? And then we use these rocks to date the time of the LAVA FLOW?! Something seems amiss here. What of THAT little problem? It's not as if the potassium atoms said to each other, "Ok we're above ground in SOLID ROCK NOW! Start spittin' out Argon!" :rolleyes:

When GOD created the Earth it says it was without form and VOID BEFORE day one (Creation of LIGHT). HOW LONG it was like that is anyone's guess. But the 6 days of creation that happened afterwards need not have been that long ago.
 

"This appears to be a copy of Final Fantasy, which is a step up from a copy of Pearl Jam"-Ed the Sock, on Fromage 2002, about one of Creed's videos--"Bullets".

Last edited by Sheba; 2002-04-12 at 07:43 PM.
Sheba is offline  
Old 2002-04-12, 07:47 PM   #56
Denyer
Shooty Dog Thing
 
Denyer's Avatar
 
UK
Wink Actually...

Quote:
Originally posted by Sheba
For instance, the origin of matter out of NOTHING is non-scientific and CANNOT be explained in those terms, whether a God is there to pull the strings or not. Show me the mathematical formula (or whatever) for NOTHING to change into MATTER. NOT ENERGY. (energy is SOMETHING). NOTHING.
...it's simply akin to calculating with infinity, which is all theology is.

Quote:
Originally posted by Sheba
Atheists love to say "But WHO made God?"--conveniently forgetting that their OWN theory of how matter came about isn't ANY BETTER OFF. Either way you could stretch backward to infinity looking for the answer--and NEVER find it.
Actually, my argument runs more along the lines of: We ARE better off, because then we don't have to listen to so many stories with overtly moralistic and conflicting dialogues. Any interest I have for contemplating the myriad origin stories of science, Christianity or the indigenous Australian Aborigines tends to wane when my attention is drawn to the events and atrocities of the past and present. Hmmm, if there's ever an exhibition, I wonder if Margaret Weis would open it...

Quote:
Originally posted by Sheba
I'm not exactly sure when the World came to be, but I do NOT believe that it was millions of years ago. The only basis for those calculations are radioactive dating and a few things from Astronomy that may be in doubt.
"And Jesus and the disciples walked down the path towards Nazareth, but oh! The trail was blocked... by a giant Brontosaurus. With a splinter in his paw."
 
Denyer is offline  
Old 2002-04-12, 08:10 PM   #57
Sheba
One with the Matrix
 
Sheba's Avatar
 
Sephiroth's Backyard
Default Re: Actually...

Quote:
Originally posted by Stuart Denyer
...it's simply akin to calculating with infinity, which is all theology is.
My point exactly.

Quote:
Originally posted by Stuart Denyer
Actually, my argument runs more along the lines of: We ARE better off, because then we don't have to listen to so many stories with overtly moralistic and conflicting dialogues. Any interest I have for contemplating the myriad origin stories of science, Christianity or the indigenous Australian Aborigines tends to wane when my attention is drawn to the events and atrocities of the past and present. Hmmm, if there's ever an exhibition, I wonder if Margaret Weis would open it...
I don't mean better off as in "better off WITHOUT a God" I mean atheists can't any better explain the origin of matter than a creationist can explain the origin of God. Either way, you can go backwards to search for the "beginning" and NEVER find it.

Quote:
Originally posted by Stuart Denyer
"And Jesus and the disciples walked down the path towards Nazareth, but oh! The trail was blocked... by a giant Brontosaurus. With a splinter in his paw."
LOL! Actually, did you know that Myths (especially ones concerning dragons) may actually be CODED HISTORY of actual dinosaurs encountering humans? In Jesus' day there would not have been many (if any at all) dinosaurs left--I'm bettin' the temperature change eventually finished off most of the ones that got off the ark with Noah...
 

"This appears to be a copy of Final Fantasy, which is a step up from a copy of Pearl Jam"-Ed the Sock, on Fromage 2002, about one of Creed's videos--"Bullets".
Sheba is offline  
Old 2002-04-12, 08:13 PM   #58
Strafe
Certifiably not cool.
 
Strafe's Avatar
 
Chicago, Illinois
Default Oh the Irony...

Quote:
Originally posted by Sheba

LOL! Actually, did you know that Myths (especially ones concerning dragons) may actually be CODED HISTORY of actual dinosaurs encountering humans? In Jesus' day there would not have been many (if any at all) dinosaurs left--I'm bettin' the temperature change eventually finished off most of the ones that got off the ark with Noah...
Sheba.

Do you know how ridiculous that sounds?
 

Strafe. You're a dick. Ishin_ookami - Dec 1st 2003
Strafe is offline  
Old 2002-04-12, 08:19 PM   #59
Sheba
One with the Matrix
 
Sheba's Avatar
 
Sephiroth's Backyard
Default

ridiculous my @$$. Why do you think there are almost UNIVERSAL stories of humans encountering "dragons" (which may well be embellished DINOSAURS)? BECAUSE AT ONE POINT THEY LIVED TOGETHER!!!
 

"This appears to be a copy of Final Fantasy, which is a step up from a copy of Pearl Jam"-Ed the Sock, on Fromage 2002, about one of Creed's videos--"Bullets".
Sheba is offline  
Old 2002-04-12, 08:25 PM   #60
Strafe
Certifiably not cool.
 
Strafe's Avatar
 
Chicago, Illinois
Exclamation

Quote:
Originally posted by Sheba
ridiculous my @$$. Why do you think there are almost UNIVERSAL stories of humans encountering "dragons" (which may well be embellished DINOSAURS)? BECAUSE AT ONE POINT THEY LIVED TOGETHER!!!
Oh my word.

Sheba, you need to get yourself in a science class, like now.

I can create stories about unicorns, but do you see any unicorns around? Ever?

All evidence points towards dinosaurs having been extinct for 65 million years. Written history has been around for what, 3000 years? Humanity has been around for 5000 years? Uh-oh...

Note that this doesn't run contradictory to any Bible restricitions.

7 days to create the world. What is a day to God? God exists outside of time. To him a day could be an instant, or it could be 65 million years! Catch my drift here?
 

Strafe. You're a dick. Ishin_ookami - Dec 1st 2003
Strafe is offline  
Closed Thread


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:07 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
 
 
[the-hub.co.uk]
[transfans.co.uk]
[oneshallstand]
[unicron.com]
[counter-x.net]
[ntfa.net]
[allspark.com]
[transformertoys.co.uk]
[tfu.info]
[botchthecrab.com]
[obscure_tf]
[tfradio.net]
 

[TFArchive button]
Link graphics...

BOOKMARK US
Or in FF, hit Ctrl+D.