|
Post by Elliot Kane on Aug 5, 2009 15:54:25 GMT
Most thorough, also! Any refutation must face a deadly riposte! ;D
|
|
|
Post by kilgoretrout on Aug 5, 2009 22:43:05 GMT
And BTW, if you add up the dates in the Bible (Adam was x age when his son Seth was born, Seth was x age when his son was born, etc.) We can conclude that the World was created in about 4,000 B.C. Of course, you have to believe the Bible to believe this, but I'd rather have a 6,000 year-old World with straight-created human beings that a zillion-year-old World with a man who has evolved from an ape (like I said, that's a Religion too). I'm not an atheist , I just thought this was a good quote though "atheism is not just another religion - just as baldness is not another hair color"
|
|
|
Post by ss on Aug 6, 2009 0:44:01 GMT
And BTW, if you add up the dates in the Bible (Adam was x age when his son Seth was born, Seth was x age when his son was born, etc.) We can conclude that the World was created in about 4,000 B.C. Of course, you have to believe the Bible to believe this, but I'd rather have a 6,000 year-old World with straight-created human beings that a zillion-year-old World with a man who has evolved from an ape (like I said, that's a Religion too). I'm not an atheist , I just thought this was a good quote though "atheism is not just another religion - just as baldness is not another hair color" I like the quote, but tend to disagree... ;D
|
|
|
Post by kitty on Aug 6, 2009 2:41:33 GMT
@ everyone, I don't have time answering to all of you (especially two's 5 posts in a row..) atm, I only answered in the other thread to Eli & ss. I've to go to hospital (in about 20 minutes) and I'm not sure when I'm back. When I'm back I'll answer. Keep debatting amigos Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Aug 6, 2009 6:05:14 GMT
I'm not an atheist , I just thought this was a good quote though "atheism is not just another religion - just as baldness is not another hair color" I like the quote, but tend to disagree... ;D Be fair: it's a belief and a religious position, but it's not a religion as such. It ticks none of the boxes
|
|
|
Post by twoheadedragon on Aug 6, 2009 11:50:16 GMT
I like the quote, but tend to disagree... ;D Be fair: it's a belief and a religious position, but it's not a religion as such. It ticks none of the boxes Well, I agree, Atheism is not a religion, but Evolution is (judging by the primary standard of what constitutes a Religion: having to believe in something that can't be proven physically).
|
|
|
Post by Glance A'Lot on Aug 6, 2009 18:01:12 GMT
*Ahem* That evolution as such, as a natural principle, exists, can be proven - whether it is for man in the presumed, assumed or found to date way, may be a matter of discussion - or belief, if one prefers. To principally deny it for Man on the basis of some links missing to be discovered is - human On the other side there is a theory on the basis of an interrupted chain of proof - to say it's fact is at least scientifically improper. I personnally believe (!) that the probability of veracity is not evenly in balance - whether it's enough to bet on the ape as ancestor? I'm not gambling - and I wouldn't mind if it were found out that it is something else. Ultimately it comes back to bacterias anyway... And a lot of random luck in the development of our planet - my version, others call it fate, design or predetermination.
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Aug 6, 2009 23:31:16 GMT
Strictly speaking, it is proven that species do evolve over time. There is as yet NO proof that they change into totally new species over time... And Evolution isn't a religion either, for the same reason Atheism isn't: no deity/ies
|
|
|
Post by twoheadedragon on Aug 7, 2009 1:57:40 GMT
Strictly speaking, it is proven that species do evolve over time. There is as yet NO proof that they change into totally new species over time... And Evolution isn't a religion either, for the same reason Atheism isn't: no deity/ies That's what I meant, Glance, there is NO proof that species change into totally new species over time... The only Evolution that has been proven is know as Micro-Evolution, which states that there can be variations within species (i.e. With dogs: German Shepherds, Poodles, Golden Retrievers, etc. Without a Dog becoming a Bear! ;D )The rest (Macro Evolution; which states that species can evolve into other species i.e. a man evolving from an ape. Cosmic Evolution; which is another name for the Big Bang, etc.) cannot be proven. And EK, Evolution is a Religion and has a Diety: THE MISSING LINK, who they've been trying to find for 150+ years already! I don't blame them, many people spend their entire lives trying to find God...
|
|
|
Post by Dark Phoenix Rising on Aug 7, 2009 9:08:48 GMT
Intrestingly with dogs they are distinctly canine and already there are already effective barriers to reproduction that you would expect to see in the evolution of distinct species (try mating a male St Bernard with a miniture Chihawa), which means that dispite the fact that they are still genetically compatible, physically they are no longer compatible.
Over time genetic differences would arise that would make that both genetic and physical.
|
|
|
Post by twoheadedragon on Aug 8, 2009 11:24:47 GMT
Intrestingly with dogs they are distinctly canine and already there are already effective barriers to reproduction that you would expect to see in the evolution of distinct species (try mating a male St Bernard with a miniture Chihawa), which means that dispite the fact that they are still genetically compatible, physically they are no longer compatible. Over time genetic differences would arise that would make that both genetic and physical. Yes, but "unfortunately" time periods of that length don't have any records (for me personally, I believe the Earth to be about 6,000 years old, so it's just a big "duh" ). So since there's no proof, it (Evolution) still requires belief without seeing. Which makes Evolution no more "scientific" than any other Religion...
|
|
|
Post by Glance A'Lot on Aug 8, 2009 12:29:41 GMT
Evolution or no evolution - but there IS proof that Earth is older than 6.000 years (and even the history of man is)
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Aug 8, 2009 14:33:51 GMT
I find it quite fascinating that there seems to be no consensus amongst the 'Young Earth' believers as to how young the world is. I suppose if you are going to count ancient family trees than add a few generations (Presumably at random) between then and now, the result you get will be... unpredictable!
|
|
|
Post by twoheadedragon on Aug 9, 2009 3:58:51 GMT
@ Glance: Nope, there's no solid proof that the World is much older than 6,000. Here's an article about it: Evolution assumes that man dropped out of the trees 1 to 5 million years ago and became fully human approximately one hundred thousand years ago. Yet archeological records show civilization arising only about five thousand years ago (based on evolutionary thinking). In other words, by evolutionary reasoning, it took mankind ninety-five thousand years—after becoming fully human—to figure out that food could be produced by dropping a seed into the ground! Another indication of both a young earth and a confirmation of the worldwide Flood is the scarcity of meteors in sedimentary rock layers. Although some meteors have been found in sedimentary layers, they are relatively rare. Meteors are easily identifiable, and many thousands have been identified and recovered from recent impacts on the planet's surface. If most of the rock layers were laid down rapidly during the one-year period of a worldwide Flood, you would not expect to find many meteorites buried in only one year. However, if the sediment was laid down over billions of years, there should be multiple billions of meteorites buried within this sediment. The fact that we find so few is another possible evidence for the rapid accumulation of the sedimentary layers and a young earth. Suppose you walked into an empty room and found a smoking cigar. You could assume that the cigar was very old and that it had only recently burst into flames, but the more logical conclusion would be that someone had recently been there to light it. The universe is full of similar "smoking cigars": 1. All planetary rings still exhibit intricacies which should have long ago disappeared. 2. All known comets burn up their material with each pass around the sun and should have a maximum life expectancy of one hundred thousand years. 3. The outer solar system planets should have long ago cooled off. 4. The spiral galaxies should have long ago un-spiraled, and the uneven dispersion of matter in the universe should have long ago dispersed. Scientists working from the preconception that the universe is 10-20 billion years old have suggested controversial and complicated possibilities for how these types of transient phenomena could still exist, but their explanations are based more on faith, not science. The simpler explanation is that these "smoking cigars" are smoking because they are young. What about dating methods which do seem to indicate that things are very old? As seen in the first article on dating methods, assumptions are everything. For instance, carbon-14 generation rate has never significantly changed. This method does not date the age of the earth but understanding it can have a profound effect on our interpretation of the "ice age" and the "stone age." A recent worldwide catastrophe would have caused an enormous change in the total amount of carbon on earth's biosphere. This event would completely invalidate one of the basic assumptions of the carbon-14 dating method (a known carbon-14 to carbon-12 ratio throughout the measurement period) and lead to excessively old dates for organisms alive shortly after this Flood. This problem with carbon-14 dating assumptions will be described in detail in another article. @ EK: Well, if you go by the Bible, you come down to the World being slightly older than 6,000 (+ a few hundred years). You can't really come down to the EXACT age, but close enough... I find it amusing that scientists waste many years and BILLIONS of dollars trying to prove the Earth to be old, when if they tried to prove the Earth young, they'd probably have a lot more success...
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Aug 9, 2009 5:58:02 GMT
The Bible doesn't state an age for the Earth, Dragon. If it did, the Young Earthers would at least have a religious case, if not a scientific one.
Science can definitely date the Earth as being older using both geological and carbon dating systems. While it is true that the two do not always agree, indicating there may indeed be problems with carbon dating on older specimens, geological dating is a lot more reliable. Even assuming a margin of error of half a billion years on either, though (Vastly more than is likely) the Earth is STILL significantly older than 6,000 years.
Given the speed of light, it is literally impossible that we would be able to see some of the constellations we can see with our telescopes if the Earth really were only 6,000 years old, given that the light from their stars would take longer than that to reach us.
|
|
|
Post by Glance A'Lot on Aug 9, 2009 7:52:24 GMT
*sigh*
The Neolithic Revolution was the first agricultural revolution—the transition from hunting and gathering communities and bands, to agriculture and settlement (settlement is currently being questioned). Archaeological data indicate that various forms of domestication of plants and animals arose independently in at least 7-8 separate locales worldwide, with the earliest known developments taking place in the Middle East around 10,000 BC (BCE) or earlier.
Those big civilizations arising some 6.000 years ago didn't come from nothing...
Neandertal Man got extinct (!) some 25.000 years ago - one of the contributing factors suspected being 'modern man'.
Claiming missing meteorites in sedimentary layers, but ignoring the fossiles found there, does not appear as objective evaluation of actual findings. We can agree that dinosaurs did NOT live within the past 6.000 years, or?
Unless, of course, one retires to the position 'it's not mentioned in the bible, hence it never was' - the logic of which path escapes me.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Phoenix Rising on Aug 9, 2009 10:52:19 GMT
Can I also point out that domestication of plants and animals doesn't come from no where, after all, those plants and animals were probably used alot before agricuture, but in a "when we go here at this time of year, we find these plants" and a "These animals are always here at this time of year". In fact I wouldn't be suprised if agricuture and animal farming wasn't discovered accidently as a by product of protecting the families resources. Oh, and what about egyptian, indian, and chinese societies that have written histories that date back to before the creation of the earth (young earth time)
|
|
|
Post by ss on Aug 9, 2009 18:04:24 GMT
Strictly speaking, it is proven that species do evolve over time. There is as yet NO proof that they change into totally new species over time... Is that a play on words Ekkiot.?? ;D They evolve but do not change... Actually I do NOT believe in evolution at all in the normally actepted definition.......species evolve over time...??..well, they do (as you say) remain the same species... Seems to me that "There is NO proof"....is actually proof that it CANNOT/DOES NOT happen..?? So why the concentrated effort and "rabid" anger over "usens" who simply believe that it doesn't happen cause it never has..?? If I had NEVER, EVER, read the bible, and before I EVER did, I did not believe in evolution and still don't....now the scientific evidence of DNA seems proof that it is "prevented" from ever happening...and that is NOT from the Bible...
|
|
|
Post by ss on Aug 9, 2009 18:19:36 GMT
The Bible doesn't state an age for the Earth, Dragon. If it did, the Young Earthers would at least have a religious case, if not a scientific one. Science can definitely date the Earth as being older using both geological and carbon dating systems. While it is true that the two do not always agree, indicating there may indeed be problems with carbon dating on older specimens, geological dating is a lot more reliable. Even assuming a margin of error of half a billion years on either, though (Vastly more than is likely) the Earth is STILL significantly older than 6,000 years. Given the speed of light, it is literally impossible that we would be able to see some of the constellations we can see with our telescopes if the Earth really were only 6,000 years old, given that the light from their stars would take longer than that to reach us. Unless....... www.answersingenesis.org/docs/267.aspwww.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i1/starlight.aspwww.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/v17n2_cosmology.pdf
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Aug 9, 2009 18:58:26 GMT
Unless WHAT, ss? Light has somehow slowed down? Unlikely, I would have to say. As for 'creation IS billions of years old, but, um, that's not the creation mentioned in the Bible!' - isn't that a bit, well, counter to the whole idea?
I reiterate: at NO point in the Bible is the age of the Earth specifically stated. Continuing to cling to this idea that we can estimate it from counting the FEW generations that were recorded in the Bible is not Biblical, not scholarly and just does not hold up on any level. At the very least, there is NO clue as to how many generations have passed since the last recorded and now.
Science disproves it. Your own articles run through contortions before coming to the conclusion that the speed of light argument is basically inarguable. As for the guy who postulates that the universe was made from a sphere of water a light year across... Well, nuff said! Why not just read 'the deep' as 'the depths of space'? I'm sure from the context it would work vastly better...
***
As for evolution: well, I've never believed in a few of the wilder assertions myself. The idea that the Tyrannosaur is a direct ancestor of the chicken is just too ludicrous for words. Nonetheless, to use a quote you yourself will doubtless find handy at many moments: "Absence of proof is not proof of absence."
Micro-evolution is proven fact. Macro-evolution remains totally unproven and purely theoretical. This is my position on the matter and likely to remain so pending proof. I find it plausible enough as a possibility to suspend disbelief, but no more.
|
|