Creation vs. Evolution

  • Thread starter ledhed
  • 9,687 comments
  • 445,344 views
Ah...then you did not understand where my conversation with danoff was going. He said may have died due to oxygen content. I was responding to that.



That is not a perfect science per the ability to think your looking at rock that is 250 million years old. Good science but not conclusive.



So using spectrometry to determine what the sun consist of although its not like we are going there anytime soon is not " perfect science "

What is by your definition " perfect science " Because by analyzing soil and rock samples you can be 96.88 percent accurate as to what the atmospheric conditions and the make up of the atmosphere along with the soil and the rocks themselves along with the trace organic material as well as organic material trapped in amber or lave flows ...etc.

Are you saying a 96 to 99 percent CERTAINTY is not good enough ?


EDIT...please stop making me duct tape my head to keep it from exploding....it is the height of arrogance and ignorance to equate the Bible with anything scientific. it is a book of stories and an alagory..its a compilation of testimony and a SYMBOL of religion...it contains NO science. And the so called "facts" as pertains to the development of the earth and the species , have been thoroughly debunked by every 6th grade to 90 year old scholar on earth.
 
Yes - that is one astonishing statement...

Which one?

No? No biggie that the bible doesn't mention dinosaurs? Doesn't make the whole thing seem a bit contrived to you? Maybe they forgot to mention evolution as well.
You know for a guy who doesn't believe in anything you sure are passionate about dinosaurs and evolution.
I think you are forgetting yourself. Or maybe your using some of that Las Vegas evidence you were tellin me about.
It must not be important, if its not mentioned. Quite frankly if they weren't part of the new arrangement I have to agree. They are gone, history, kaput. Forget about it.
They definitely forgot to mention evolution, but there is a good reason for that. It didn't happen that way.
 
Which one?

Yours.

You know for a guy who doesn't believe in anything you sure are passionate about dinosaurs and evolution.
I think you are forgetting yourself. Or maybe your using some of that Las Vegas evidence you were tellin me about.

The truth is important. Those who would misrepresent it annoy those of us who do not.

It must not be important, if its not mentioned. Quite frankly if they weren't part of the new arrangement I have to agree. They are gone, history, kaput. Forget about it.

So... the Bible doesn't mention 100 foot tall monsters ruling the planet for 90 times longer than any form of mankind has been on it, nor their subsequent destruction by a catastrophic sequence of some of the most powerful events ever seen by the planet, including a 6 mile wide lump of iron smashing into Mexico at over 20,000 miles per hour because it's not important?

Or because the folks writing and compiling it had no clue that any of this had ever happened, because nobody knew it had happened at all until the middle of the 19th Century?

Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.


They definitely forgot to mention evolution, but there is a good reason for that. It didn't happen that way.

Except that every study ever conducted indicates that it did - and that its exclusion from the Bible is due to the fact that nobody had any clue about it until the middle of the 19th Century.

It should be noted at this point that the Bible does tacitly imply the beginnings of scientific thinking with regards to genetics and evolution by, in Leviticus, forbidding... errr... "relations" with relations. There's a recognition that if you boink your sister/mother/niece/half-sister, the kids are more likely to be physically enfeebled, and that implies that there's something shared by families which makes that happen...
 
Is there proof that man and dinosaurs were on the planet at the same time?
No, there is proof that they were NOT on the planet at the same time.
There is no proof, even a hint of it, that man and dinosaurs co-existed. Despite this, unfortunately, and without any proof whatsoever, Ken Ham's Creation Museum insists otherwise, and, if you're lucky...
"You might even get up the courage to climb on Sarah (short for Triceratops), the museum’s fierce-looking but gentle dinosaur with a saddle" (link)​
I think it's sad, tragic even, that children be exposed to this sort of wrongness - no righteous scholar of the Bible or Scripture should have any truck with this garbage either. How can a place that purports to 'uphold the authority of the Bible' and claim to stick to the exact word of the Bible even talk about a Triceratops, let alone the idea of man saddling them up and riding about on them like a horse? Last time I checked, there wasn't any mention in the Bible of a Triceratops, and yet AIG expects us (and more importantly, our children) to swallow this nonsense... :rolleyes:

My feeling is that if Man had indeed coexisted with dinosaurs in the pre-Flood world, then atleast we would have learned how to run - and hide. Armed with nothing more than stone-age (or bronze-age) weaponry, and stood against a 15 foot high, 40 foot long meat-eating killing machine (or rather, a whole pack of them), Man would have had a serious job on his hands...:nervous:

Trex1.png
 
So using spectrometry to determine what the sun consist of although its not like we are going there anytime soon is not " perfect science "

What is by your definition " perfect science " Because by analyzing soil and rock samples you can be 96.88 percent accurate as to what the atmospheric conditions and the make up of the atmosphere along with the soil and the rocks themselves along with the trace organic material as well as organic material trapped in amber or lave flows ...etc.

Are you saying a 96 to 99 percent CERTAINTY is not good enough ?


EDIT...please stop making me duct tape my head to keep it from exploding....it is the height of arrogance and ignorance to equate the Bible with anything scientific. it is a book of stories and an alagory..its a compilation of testimony and a SYMBOL of religion...it contains NO science. And the so called "facts" as pertains to the development of the earth and the species , have been thoroughly debunked by every 6th grade to 90 year old scholar on earth.

The main reason I used that statement was to guide the science types down this road. We have previously disscused how the earths crust recycles itself. If you really believe that concept you must agree that whatever rock you are looking at just might not be as old as you think it is. True or False?
 
The main reason I used that statement was to guide the science types down this road. We have previously disscused how the earths crust recycles itself. If you really believe that concept you must agree that whatever rock you are looking at just might not be as old as you think it is. True or False?

False, we have methods of figuring out how old it is.
 
False, we have methods of figuring out how old it is.

You shouldn't use the WE in that my friend. We have established that the only thing you believe is that you ARE! In all of your future arguments you should use the term THEM or THEY or THE SCIENTIST! Due to the fact that in your terms all things which must include science are only probable.
 
You shouldn't use the WE in that my friend. We have established that the only thing you believe is that you ARE! In all of your future arguments you should use the term THEM or THEY or THE SCIENTIST! Due to the fact that in your terms all things which must include science are only probable.

No - WE as in people. That's the thing about science - a properly-written paper contains all of the information anyone could need to repeat the experiment(s). Papers telling you how to date rocks can be picked up and repeated by anyone.
 
You shouldn't use the WE in that my friend. We have established that the only thing you believe is that you ARE! In all of your future arguments you should use the term THEM or THEY or THE SCIENTIST! Due to the fact that in your terms all things which must include science are only probable.

I am a scientist (of sorts) and I hold only that things are probable. I fully expect that the guys who actually do the dating of the rock have a similar view.

In short, if fully expect that ALL SCIENTISTS know that the results of their work is based on evidence, not proof. Any scientist that does not know that has no business being a scientist and should become a mathematician or logician.

As for my use of the term "We". I meant it in the "human species" sense. As in "we humans" have a method for figuring out how old it is.
 
No - WE as in people. That's the thing about science - a properly-written paper contains all of the information anyone could need to repeat the experiment(s). Papers telling you how to date rocks can be picked up and repeated by anyone.

So far I have not denied the fact that you can date rocks. My debate is because of the earths constant evolution there might be flaws in your dating due to misleading conditions that you have observered in part per recycling of the earths crust.
 
So far I have not denied the fact that you can date rocks. My debate is because of the earths constant evolution there might be flaws in your dating due to misleading conditions that you have observered in part per recycling of the earths crust.

Yes, it's possible. Though less than 5% possible.
 
Yes, it's possible. Though less than 5% possible.

5% here 5% there and soon enough you have more holes in evolution then swiss cheese.:sly:

Let me also remind you that I realize that there is no way that I think I am capable of stating the scientific facts that some of you here have. My post high school education was geared only at my chosen field. I am mearly a passer by on this road. I have also choose the road that I believe will lead me beyond this world. If I am wrong...who cares because I will just be worm food. If I am right then AMEN brother!
 
5% here 5% there and soon enough you have more holes in evolution then swiss cheese.:sly:

5% on this rock, 5% on that rock. Get enough rocks to agree and you're sure you've got the right date. If you had something that was 95% accurate what would you do?

Take 100 rocks from the same area. Test them. Keep the 95 that agree, toss out the 5 that went apesh**.
 
WHY?
The truth is important. Those who would misrepresent it annoy those of us who do not.
Whose truth.
Danoff has already admitted to evolution not being conclusive so he is contradicting himself again. He is believing it and quite forcefully. Would you believe that?
BTW if you are referring to my earlier mistake, whether you believe it or not, I'm quite glad you pointed it out. I do not wish to make arguments on misinterpreted info.
Are you also saying you have never made a mistake?
So... the Bible doesn't mention 100 foot tall monsters ruling the planet for 90 times longer than any form of mankind has been on it, nor their subsequent destruction by a catastrophic sequence of some of the most powerful events ever seen by the planet, including a 6 mile wide lump of iron smashing into Mexico at over 20,000 miles per hour because it's not important?.
Tell me what direct bearing, influence or otherwise matter does it make to your life.
Or because the folks writing and compiling it had no clue that any of this had ever happened, because nobody knew it had happened at all until the middle of the 19th Century?
The folks didn't just wright it.
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.
Except that every study ever conducted indicates that it did - and that its exclusion from the Bible is due to the fact that nobody had any clue about it until the middle of the 19th Century.
It should be noted at this point that the Bible does tacitly imply the beginnings of scientific thinking with regards to genetics and evolution by, in Leviticus, forbidding... errr... "relations" with relations. There's a recognition that if you boink your sister/mother/niece/half-sister, the kids are more likely to be physically enfeebled, and that implies that there's something shared by families which makes that happen.
I don't know how you work evolution into it, however I believe, while it may have other implications, it is more a designed consequence of the relational law.
 
5% on this rock, 5% on that rock. Get enough rocks to agree and you're sure you've got the right date. If you had something that was 95% accurate what would you do?

Take 100 rocks from the same area. Test them. Keep the 95 that agree, toss out the 5 that went apesh**.

Good point. Eliminate any evidence that doesn't help our predisposed conclusion. Sounds good to me.

I wonder what percentage of people at one time thought the world was round vs the world being flat? If a scant few thougth the world was round how could they have possibly been right? HUMMM
 

You imply that anything not in the Bible is of no import - and in fact then directly state this.

This is absolutely astonishing, on every level.


Whose truth.

Truth is not objective.

Danoff has already admitted to evolution not being conclusive so he is contradicting himself again.

No, he isn't. In fact danoff has been quite consistantly pointing out that he is only absolutely certain of one thing and that nothing else is entirely certain.

He is believing it and quite forcefully. Would you believe that?

No, he isn't.

BTW if you are referring to my earlier mistake, whether you believe it or not, I'm quite glad you pointed it out. I do not wish to make arguments on misinterpreted info.

Nope, not referring to that at all - just the reason why scientists may appear "passionate" about things that are scientifically valid.

Are you also saying you have never made a mistake?

I don't recall saying that, no.

Tell me what direct bearing, influence or otherwise matter does it make to your life.

It all rather depends on whether you believe we were created as man and all descend from men, or whether you accept that we weren't.

The folks didn't just wright it.

Sure they did. Then some more folks rewrote it. Then some more folks translated it. Then some more folks compiled it. Then yet more folks retranslated the translation, and threw out "Versions" (with a big V) where they didn't agree.

I don't know how you work evolution into it, however I believe, while it may have other implications, it is more a designed consequence of the relational law.

Why come up with the law? Before Leviticus, sister:censored:ing wasn't outlawed and Jacob married one of his sisters. Then it was outlawed. Why?

If children of siblings were perfectly healthy, there'd never have been an issue. But something makes them typically less healthy than the norm. Even recognising this fact gives the base of a scientific understanding - there's something siblings share that makes their kids wrong. Of course, the wrong conclusion is reached - it offends God, so we must ban it. Today we know the real reason.
 

If children of siblings were perfectly healthy, there'd never have been an issue. But something makes them typically less healthy than the norm. Even recognising this fact gives the base of a scientific understanding - there's something siblings share that makes their kids wrong. Of course, the wrong conclusion is reached - it offends God, so we must ban it. Today we know the real reason.

This brings up something I have a question about. If in general when sibilings reperduce it causes birth defects. How did evolution avoid this problem? Why didn't millions of years of inbreeding cause evolution to decline?
 
The main reason I used that statement was to guide the science types down this road. We have previously disscused how the earths crust recycles itself. If you really believe that concept you must agree that whatever rock you are looking at just might not be as old as you think it is. True or False?


FALSE...carbon dating ever hear of it ? fossil record ..ever hear of it ? If you find a fossil you know from previous dating in a strata then its reasonable to assume that the ROCK / SOIL , surrounding it is from the same period...then when you combine that with other testing and cross check and cross reference you can pinpoint a time period.

" A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing "


Your taking things out of context and extrapolating or trying to rationalize an argument with twisted logic .

Google "Archeology" and read up about the methodology used then come back .

You will be suprised at all your missing.



Good point. Eliminate any evidence that doesn't help our predisposed conclusion. Sounds good to me.

I wonder what percentage of people at one time thought the world was round vs the world being flat? If a scant few thougth the world was round how could they have possibly been right? HUMMM

They have a medical term for this condition ...

A delusion is commonly defined as a fixed false belief and is used in everyday language to describe a belief that is either false, fanciful or derived from deception.

A monothematic delusion is a delusional state that only concerns one particular topic.


and believe it or not if by some small chance you are right and everyone else is wrong ........

There is a name for that.

The Martha Mitchell effect is the process by which a psychiatrist, psychologist, or other mental health clinician mistakes his or her patient's belief in real events for delusion and diagnoses accordingly


Isn't science wonderfull.
 
This brings up something I have a question about. If in general when sibilings reperduce it causes birth defects. How did evolution avoid this problem? Why didn't millions of years of inbreeding cause evolution to decline?

Inbreeding is a vital part of evolution.

Small populations have small gene pools, so they have less variation. Large populations have large gene pools, so they have more variation.

Variation = adaptability. The more variation there is, the more different flavours a species can come in, which makes the species more adaptable - the worm that's slightly browner blends in more with the soil so isn't as likely to be eaten, and the frog with the slightly longer tongue can feed on insects further away so will acquire food (=energy) more easily. As the advantages and disadvantages of the varietes work themselves out, you end up with breeding populations where the more advantageous trait is more prevalent.

With a small population there is measurably less variation. If I was a mongoose and had a sister, all of our genes would have come from our mongoose parents. If we had kids, all of their genes would have come from our parents. If they had kids together, all of their genes would have come from our parents. No new genetic information is acquired while, all around us other species which compete with us for resources are changing with some individuals are improving - improving at getting our food off us.

Their variability gives them the edge, while the sister:censored:ing mongooses are static.

Inbreeding is an evolutionary dead-end. When populations get so small that they have to "keep it in the family", they've lost.


Incidentally, the reason inbreeding causes genetic defects is that most genetic defects are recessive. When two "carriers" get together, there's a 1 in 4 chance that the offspring have a double-recessive and suffer from the disorder, and a 1 in 2 chance that the offspring will be carriers. If there's a carrier in the family, boinking your siblings vastly increases the chances of two carriers reproducing. See the European Royal families of the 18th/19th centuries and the disorder hameophilia.
 
FALSE...carbon dating ever hear of it ?

Yes...Carbon dating is full of tons of discrepancies. Would it really change your mind if I quoted any facts stating so? If so then I will get them for you.

fossil record ..ever hear of it ?

Yes...I just don't agree with the age of the fossil record. Like I have said before science does its best to interpret what we see. Science more often then not changes their findings as they observe things with better technology. This makes me take science with a grain of salt. What we know today is not what we may think tomorrow.

" A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing "

And blindly acepting something because its written down has the same affect that make scientist think the bible is just stories.


Your taking things out of context and extrapolating or trying to rationalize an argument with twisted logic .

True...I admit to grasping at straws just to find anything to debate in here even if I don't believe."guilty as charged":ouch:

You will be suprised at all your missing.

In the end I don't care that much about what I might be missing. I feel that I get the best of all this world can give me. I would be the first in line to take a vacation to mars thanks to science. And lucky for me I will not be judged by god as a bad person for doing so. Its a win win for me.
 
And blindly acepting something because its written down has the same affect that make scientist think the bible is just stories.



what part of science dont you understand , apart from all of it ?

If you did understand anything about science then you would know that what you posted is...... a crock of really ripe..... dino doo doo .

here let me help you out a bit.

Introduction to the Scientific Method


The scientific method is the process by which scientists, collectively and over time, endeavor to construct an accurate (that is, reliable, consistent and non-arbitrary) representation of the world.
Recognizing that personal and cultural beliefs influence both our perceptions and our interpretations of natural phenomena, we aim through the use of standard procedures and criteria to minimize those influences when developing a theory. As a famous scientist once said, "Smart people (like smart lawyers) can come up with very good explanations for mistaken points of view." In summary, the scientific method attempts to minimize the influence of bias or prejudice in the experimenter when testing an hypothesis or a theory.

I. The scientific method has four steps
1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

If the experiments bear out the hypothesis it may come to be regarded as a theory or law of nature (more on the concepts of hypothesis, model, theory and law below). If the experiments do not bear out the hypothesis, it must be rejected or modified. What is key in the description of the scientific method just given is the predictive power (the ability to get more out of the theory than you put in; see Barrow, 1991) of the hypothesis or theory, as tested by experiment. It is often said in science that theories can never be proved, only disproved. There is always the possibility that a new observation or a new experiment will conflict with a long-standing theory.

II. Testing hypotheses
As just stated, experimental tests may lead either to the confirmation of the hypothesis, or to the ruling out of the hypothesis. The scientific method requires that an hypothesis be ruled out or modified if its predictions are clearly and repeatedly incompatible with experimental tests. Further, no matter how elegant a theory is, its predictions must agree with experimental results if we are to believe that it is a valid description of nature. In physics, as in every experimental science, "experiment is supreme" and experimental verification of hypothetical predictions is absolutely necessary. Experiments may test the theory directly (for example, the observation of a new particle) or may test for consequences derived from the theory using mathematics and logic (the rate of a radioactive decay process requiring the existence of the new particle). Note that the necessity of experiment also implies that a theory must be testable. Theories which cannot be tested, because, for instance, they have no observable ramifications (such as, a particle whose characteristics make it unobservable), do not qualify as scientific theories.

If the predictions of a long-standing theory are found to be in disagreement with new experimental results, the theory may be discarded as a description of reality, but it may continue to be applicable within a limited range of measurable parameters. For example, the laws of classical mechanics (Newton's Laws) are valid only when the velocities of interest are much smaller than the speed of light (that is, in algebraic form, when v/c << 1). Since this is the domain of a large portion of human experience, the laws of classical mechanics are widely, usefully and correctly applied in a large range of technological and scientific problems. Yet in nature we observe a domain in which v/c is not small. The motions of objects in this domain, as well as motion in the "classical" domain, are accurately described through the equations of Einstein's theory of relativity. We believe, due to experimental tests, that relativistic theory provides a more general, and therefore more accurate, description of the principles governing our universe, than the earlier "classical" theory. Further, we find that the relativistic equations reduce to the classical equations in the limit v/c << 1. Similarly, classical physics is valid only at distances much larger than atomic scales (x >> 10-8 m). A description which is valid at all length scales is given by the equations of quantum mechanics.

We are all familiar with theories which had to be discarded in the face of experimental evidence. In the field of astronomy, the earth-centered description of the planetary orbits was overthrown by the Copernican system, in which the sun was placed at the center of a series of concentric, circular planetary orbits. Later, this theory was modified, as measurements of the planets motions were found to be compatible with elliptical, not circular, orbits, and still later planetary motion was found to be derivable from Newton's laws.

Error in experiments have several sources. First, there is error intrinsic to instruments of measurement. Because this type of error has equal probability of producing a measurement higher or lower numerically than the "true" value, it is called random error. Second, there is non-random or systematic error, due to factors which bias the result in one direction. No measurement, and therefore no experiment, can be perfectly precise. At the same time, in science we have standard ways of estimating and in some cases reducing errors. Thus it is important to determine the accuracy of a particular measurement and, when stating quantitative results, to quote the measurement error. A measurement without a quoted error is meaningless. The comparison between experiment and theory is made within the context of experimental errors. Scientists ask, how many standard deviations are the results from the theoretical prediction? Have all sources of systematic and random errors been properly estimated? This is discussed in more detail in the appendix on Error Analysis and in Statistics Lab 1.


http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html


While you are reading up on that..

Keep this in mind.

I do not feel oblged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intendended us to forgo their use - galileo


Now compare that with blindly accepting every thing written in any book ...even if its called a Bible.
 
Inbreeding is a vital part of evolution.

Small populations have small gene pools, so they have less variation. Large populations have large gene pools, so they have more variation.

Variation = adaptability. The more variation there is, the more different flavours a species can come in, which makes the species more adaptable - the worm that's slightly browner blends in more with the soil so isn't as likely to be eaten, and the frog with the slightly longer tongue can feed on insects further away so will acquire food (=energy) more easily. As the advantages and disadvantages of the varietes work themselves out, you end up with breeding populations where the more advantageous trait is more prevalent.

With a small population there is measurably less variation. If I was a mongoose and had a sister, all of our genes would have come from our mongoose parents. If we had kids, all of their genes would have come from our parents. If they had kids together, all of their genes would have come from our parents. No new genetic information is acquired while, all around us other species which compete with us for resources are changing with some individuals are improving - improving at getting our food off us.

Their variability gives them the edge, while the sister:censored:ing mongooses are static.

Inbreeding is an evolutionary dead-end. When populations get so small that they have to "keep it in the family", they've lost.


Incidentally, the reason inbreeding causes genetic defects is that most genetic defects are recessive. When two "carriers" get together, there's a 1 in 4 chance that the offspring have a double-recessive and suffer from the disorder, and a 1 in 2 chance that the offspring will be carriers. If there's a carrier in the family, boinking your siblings vastly increases the chances of two carriers reproducing. See the European Royal families of the 18th/19th centuries and the disorder hameophilia.

This really doesn't satisfy my question. Your response started with verious populations in existence. I was purposing the problem be much further back down the line. Are you saying that for example one type of frog evolved one one side of the planet and a different frog evolved never knowing the other frog existed? That doesn't sound logical. Wouldn't those two frogs evolve from a single point thus unable to avoid the small gene pool?

ledhed
what part of science dont you understand , apart from all of it ?

If you did understand anything about science then you would know that what you posted is...... a crock of really ripe..... dino doo doo .

WOW...I have even convinced someone on my own team that I don't know poo about science. I guess when I question the educated that makes me uneducated apparently.
 
This really doesn't satisfy my question. Your response started with verious populations in existence. I was purposing the problem be much further back down the line. Are you saying that for example one type of frog evolved one one side of the planet and a different frog evolved never knowing the other frog existed? That doesn't sound logical. Wouldn't those two frogs evolve from a single point thus unable to avoid the small gene pool?


Easter Island and Darwin ....yes precisely
 
This really doesn't satisfy my question. Your response started with verious populations in existence.

I did what now?

I was purposing the problem be much further back down the line.

My answer is not time-dependant.

Are you saying that for example one type of frog evolved one one side of the planet and a different frog evolved never knowing the other frog existed?

No. I made no reference to speciation amongst frogs, giving only an example that a frog in a population of other frogs which has a longer tongue has a slight advantage when it comes to food-gathering compared to the population average and so, unless the longer tongue carries a significant penalty in terms of energy consumption or attracting predators, is more likely to survive and continue the long-tongue variation to the next generation.


For reference, if you have to try to extrapolate what I'm saying ("Are you saying that") and say what you think I meant then you either haven't read what I actually said or you haven't understood it.


That doesn't sound logical. Wouldn't those two frogs evolve from a single point thus unable to avoid the small gene pool?

Oh, if only species were completely immutable and all had to start from a single individual.

Levels of understanding again.
 
Easter Island and Darwin ....yes precisely

I would counter that theory because of plate tectonics that island was not isolated at one point. But hey...we have established that I don't know poo.

Levels of understanding again.[/color][/b]

I know poo there for I am. Talk about a getting a stoning for questioning the common knowledge of all that is...shhhesh!
 
I would counter that theory because of plate tectonics that island was not isolated at one point.

And what about plate tectonics would lead you to think that?

I know poo there for I am. Talk about a getting a stoning for questioning the common knowledge of all that is...shhhesh!

Not at all - but you're starting your points based on how you understand carbon dating, or plate tectonics, or evolution. It's okay that you understand these things on that level - many people do - but it's not a strong position to be in to start arguing against.
 
You imply that anything not in the Bible is of no import - and in fact then directly state this.
This is absolutely astonishing, on every level.
That is not what I'm saying but it is relevant to the subject. Something that is not important is not important no matter where you find or don't find it.
In this case you consider dinosaurs important so you believe it should have been included.
While my inclination is to assume God knows more than I do about the subject for obvious reasons, and after all it is his account, even so when I examine it apart from that, I don't see where it is all that important either.
Truth is not objective.
That is correct, but as we examined earlier, in application not that simple.
No, he isn't. In fact danoff has been quite consistantly pointing out that he is only absolutely certain of one thing and that nothing else is entirely certain.
Uh huh :confused:
No, he isn't.
Nope, not referring to that at all - just the reason why scientists may appear "passionate" about things that are scientifically valid.
may appear "Passionate".......Hmmmm?
Tell me how this works.
I don't recall saying that, no.
It all rather depends on whether you believe we were created as man and all descend from men, or whether you accept that we weren't.
I think you know where I stand on that.
Sure they did. Then some more folks rewrote it. Then some more folks translated it. Then some more folks compiled it. Then yet more folks retranslated the translation, and threw out "Versions" (with a big V) where they didn't agree.
Your leaving out an very important detail. Thats unlike you.
Why come up with the law? Before Leviticus, sister:censored:ing wasn't outlawed and Jacob married one of his sisters. Then it was outlawed. Why?
Because it is an obvious precurser to the law.
You are delving into God's plan and purpose and while it may be possible to extract it I don't know that like the dinosaurs it will be of great significance to you if you did.
If children of siblings were perfectly healthy, there'd never have been an issue. But something makes them typically less healthy than the norm. Even recognising this fact gives the base of a scientific understanding - there's something siblings share that makes their kids wrong. Of course, the wrong conclusion is reached - it offends God, so we must ban it. Today we know the real reason.
I don't think thats the wrong conclusion, unless your looking for an out and hell bent on, as you put it "boinking your sister or other close female relative".
You failed to mention the obvious: "it may not be a good thing for all concerned".
I said it probably had other implications as well.
 
And what about plate tectonics would lead you to think that?

If its a given that ALL the land mass were at one point connected per plate tectonics any living creature could have occupied that space. At some point that chunk of land decided to set sail only including those who occupied it. For those lizards to servive they had to adapt, such as breathing underwater. Its this a good example?

Not at all - but you're starting your points based on how you understand carbon dating, or plate tectonics, or evolution. It's okay that you understand these things on that level - many people do - but it's not a strong position to be in to start arguing against.

I'll state this again and again until I am blue in the face. Me being in here is like taking a knife to a gun fight. There is NO WAY I can begin to understand your level of understanding because you have made its your lifes work to dig deeper then the casual person. Just accept that as it may be or due to my qualifications should I remove myself from this topic?
 
*snip*Just accept that as it may be or due to my qualifications should I remove myself from this topic?

All hail the powerful and great Famine! All hail!!

Seriously though, no you shouldn't. You have made a strong argument. The problem with having this discussion with Famine and the like, is that our stance is backed by the knowledge of an omnipotent presence in our lives. They will never believe you because they have not experienced this for themselves. Everything you say is hearsay and conjecture. Even if there are millions of people that experience the same 'relationship' as you with a God of all creation, this holds no 'value' of fact for them. They live in a world of observing God's greatness and don't even know it while they hold on the truths of science that leaves them with an understanding of how God works within the capacity of our intellectual ability. ;)
 
All hail the powerful and great Famine! All hail!!

Seriously though, no you shouldn't. You have made a strong argument. The problem with having this discussion with Famine and the like, is that our stance is backed by the knowledge of an omnipotent presence in our lives. They will never believe you because they have not experienced this for themselves. Everything you say is hearsay and conjecture. Even if there are millions of people that experience the same 'relationship' as you with a God of all creation, this holds no 'value' of fact for them. They live in a world of observing God's greatness and don't even know it while they hold on the truths of science that leaves them with an understanding of how God works within the capacity of our intellectual ability. ;)

Experiencing God does not preclude following evolution. If you feel God in your life, why would that mean you must turn your brain off and accept only what men have claimed is his word?

Experiencing God does not prevent you from understanding and accepting evolution.

Good point. Eliminate any evidence that doesn't help our predisposed conclusion. Sounds good to me.

I wonder what percentage of people at one time thought the world was round vs the world being flat? If a scant few thougth the world was round how could they have possibly been right? HUMMM

You test the device before you trust it. You take a rock whose age you know - you test it. You take a rock that's just below it (therefore, just a little older), you test it. The number you get fits with where it was found. You take a rock that's a little older, you test that as well. You compare the results with other techniques and geological theory and validate your procedure.

If you test 100 rocks with your tester. Maybe 95 of them say 1 million years old (give or take a few thousand). One of them says the rock is 20 billion years old. The other one says the rock is -1000 years old (as in, it hasn't been created yet). Another one says the rock comes from a time when it would have been underwater - and since it shows no signs of wear from water, you know that isn't right. The 4th one says it's 500 million years ago, but since there are no others in agreement, that can't be validated. The last one says that the rock was created today.

Which of those would you go with? Once again, I remind you that it's all based on probability. Do you go where 95% of the evidence tells you to go and throw out the one that says the rock will be created in 1000 years? Or do you just throw your hands up and say you have no idea and you're confused? If you take the second approach, I recommend curling up in a fetal position and sucking your thumb.


WHY?
Whose truth.
Danoff has already admitted to evolution not being conclusive so he is contradicting himself again. He is believing it and quite forcefully. Would you believe that?

Quote me, specifically. Show me where I have told you that I believe evolution 100% without doubt. Show me where I have implied that it is unquestiable gospel (pun intended) truth.
 
Back