Creation vs. Evolution

[Dotini]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/07/science/07neanderthal.html

When it's published in the journal Science, you can take it that the paradigm has changed; it's now recognized that Neanderthals and humans interbred during the Pleistocene.

This comes as no surprise to many of us. Even so, it may take a while for all the implications to sink in.

Respectfully submitted,
Dotini

 

[niky]

Not terribly surprising, since interbreeding has been theorized... but surprising in that the same team had declared that no interbreeding had taken place, based on the same evidence, last year. (I remember when it came out).

 

[Dotini]

Scientists and researchers such as Erik Trinkhaus and Stan Gooch who have long been proponents of our Neanderthal ancestors will be feeling justifiably vindicated.

 

[Dotini]

One of the crucial parameters for discussing "creation vs evolution" issues is the radiocarbon system of dating. Although I am on record as supporting the "evolution" end of this debate, I have stumbled across evidence which might bring into question the reliability of radiocarbon dating, and therefore open up the possibility that some "creation myths" might have greater validity than I had thought.

This first article provides observations from NASA's Fermi Gamma Ray Telescope that Earth's lightning produces gamma rays, and the 2nd article states that gamma rays can affect radiocarbon dating.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34114891

http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2009/arch09/090623longago.htm

"Cosmic rays or electrical discharges could increase the percentages of C-14 ("radiocarbon") in living organisms. If the remains of those organisms were dated using the standard radiocarbon ratios, they would appear to be much younger than they are, or much closer to the present era than they should be.

Conversely, if an increase in radioactively neutral carbon isotope were to accumulate in our biosphere from burning forests, from cosmic dust, or from extensive volcanic eruptions, anything dated following whichever particular cause would appear much older. No definite timeline can be constructed using the dating methods traditionally thought to produce accurate results.

It seems possible that plasma interactions with Earth and other charged bodies in space, or the impact of ion beams from a vast cloud of plasma on our biosphere could disrupt all the elemental changes that are used to date rocks: uranium changing to lead; potassium changing to argon; or samarium changing to neodymium. Therefore, the Earth could be much younger than the billions of years commonly ascribed to it. It is equally possible that it is much older than is thought. Until some radical new discovery is made, no one can be sure."

Respectfully submitted
Dotini

 

[Danoff]

Not as much younger as required to make the creation myths make sense. Even if they're off by 50% we're talking about the difference between 4 billion years old and 2 billion. Not the difference between 4 billion years and 6,000.

 

[Dotini]

Not as much younger as required to make the creation myths make sense. Even if they're off by 50% we're talking about the difference between 4 billion years old and 2 billion. Not the difference between 4 billion years and 6,000.

Undoubtedly. But I was thinking more about the difference between 12,000 BC and 6000 BC, being pretty restrictive on the particular subsets of myths under consideration. I would only dip my toe into this subject, and not dive in at the deep end!!

Respectfully,
Dotini

 

[wfooshee]

Which 12,000BC creation story uses radiocarbon dating?

And thunderbolts.info seems to be in the same league as chemtrails, 2012, and that guy some years ago that said aliens would throw asteroids at us if we didn't destroy all nuclear arms.

 

[Dotini]

Which 12,000BC creation story uses radiocarbon dating?

And thunderbolts.info seems to be in the same league as chemtrails, 2012, and that guy some years ago that said aliens would throw asteroids at us if we didn't destroy all nuclear arms.

Wfooshee, I hesitate to get overly involved in such murky issues, but I will respect your question.

The myth I had in mind was the flood myth which is widely held around the world by hundreds of distinct and unrelated cultures. Upon reading about the earthly gamma rays discovered by NASA, it casually occurred to me that, since the ending of our most recent Ice Age was marked by catastrophic world-wide events and gigantic climate anomalies like the Younger Dryas, as well as a dramatic excursion of the polar magnetic axis, this general time being 12,000 years ago, that if were re-dated to 6000BC then it might make all those flood myths more believable. That's as far as I can take it at this time.

in re Thunderbolts, i think if you look into them, you will find they were founded by electrical engineers and plasma physicists joining into an interdisciplinary approach to controversial issues and anomalies in the sciences. They have a number of highly entertaining and informative books and DVD's, as well as a delightful forum.

Respectfully yours,
Dotini

 

[wfooshee]

in re Thunderbolts, i think if you look into them, you will find they were founded by electrical engineers and plasma physicists joining into an interdisciplinary approach to controversial issues and anomalies in the sciences. They have a number of highly entertaining and informative books and DVD's, as well as a delightful forum.

Here's another one that it puts me in mind of. This was on one of my motorcycle forums recently.

Cancer-shield motorcycle seat

It begins with (and I quote: )

The United Kingdom has granted a patent to Canadian inventor Randall Dale Chipkar for his innovative 'electromagnetic shielding motorcycle seat'. The invention is designed to shield motorcycle electromagnetic field radiation from penetrating the rider's vital organs.


Basically any time they're selling books to explain it, then what they're doing is selling books. That doesn't make it respectable science.

 

[Duke]

Also, many of the flood myths have been linked to strong geological evidence of a catastrophic earthquake in Turkey (still an active earthquake zone) at around that time (6,000 years ago +/-), which generated a massive subsidence in the northern part of the country (10 feet or so), allowing a substantial portion of the Mediterranean Sea to pour through the Straits of Bosporus, flooding a vast area of what at the time was all of the known world.

 

[MatskiMonk]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/science_and_environment/10132762.stm

In short:

Scientists in the US have succeeded in developing the first synthetic living cell.

Selected quotes:

"As soon as this new software goes into the cell, the cell reads [it] and converts into the species specified in that genetic code."
..
The new bacteria replicated over a billion times, producing copies that contained and were controlled by the constructed, synthetic DNA.
..
"This is the first time any synthetic DNA has been in complete control of a cell," said Dr Venter.
..
The researchers hope eventually to design bacterial cells that will produce medicines and fuels and even absorb greenhouse gases.
..
"These could be used in the future to make the most powerful bioweapons imaginable. The challenge is to eat the fruit without the worm."

The possibilities seem to be endless, on the one hand the human race could end up living forever, or maybe we'll end up wiping ourselves out?

Anyway... I think this is valid in the argument on hand. The closer we get to being able to create something from scratch, the less people will believe that "God created man".

 

[niky]

Actually, the Creationist line is "it's too complicated to have happened by chance."

If anything, the ability to do it in the laboratory will only reinforce their belief that it would have taken an intelligent entity to invent this mechanism in the first place.

 

[Pako]

*snip*
Anyway... I think this is valid in the argument on hand. The closer we get to being able to create something from scratch, the less people will believe that "God created man".

First off, very cool article. I am continually amazed at modern science.

Secondly, I don't think people will believe less in "God created man" but rather believe more that "Man is God".

On that note, I'm going to try and get a nights rest. ♫♪♫

 

[DK]

Actually, the Creationist line is "it's too complicated to have happened by chance."

To me, creationists don't accept evolution because there's no room in their brains for all the proof, with all those lines of the Bible bar two taking up so much space in their heads: "Judge not lest ye be judged," and "Forgive them father for they did not know what they were doing," (or at least something along those lines).

EDIT: I don't really feel that offended that my 1,000th-great-grandad (i.e. 1,000 generations before me) was a monkey. Besides, I think monkeys are cool - have you seen my avatar?

 

[Ibonibo]

How can someone really believe that evoltion didn't exist, dinosaurs didn't exist, we didn't came from the apes. Seriously, it is a shame for educationed people to have this believe. I believe in a certain god(higher power), that is the same for us all, but i don't care about a pope, church or the other dogmas related. I ws raised christian, and i'm lucky for not being raised as an agnostic because i think religion as a child can be a good thing, because it explains morals in simplistic stories that children can understand. But after a certain age (adolescence) the youngster will revolt and that's a good think, because he's beginning to think for it's own.

Like Rousseau said : It's the socity that corrupts the human.

so with a good education to start in life
Too funny the google ad above is abbout "darwinism falls2013". LOL

 

[Joel]

I'm actually really looking forward to what the Pope says regarding the synthetic life.

 

[niky]

To me, creationists don't accept evolution because there's no room in their brains for all the proof, with all those lines of the Bible bar two taking up so much space in their heads: "Judge not lest ye be judged," and "Forgive them father for they did not know what they were doing," (or at least something along those lines).

EDIT: I don't really feel that offended that my 1,000th-great-grandad (i.e. 1,000 generations before me) was a monkey. Besides, I think monkeys are cool - have you seen my avatar?

It's a false generalization to think that creationists are creationists because they're "dumb". There are a whole lot of intelligent people who believe in intelligent design.

It's more of orientation and belief-systems (I hesitate to use the word "superstition" ). Most people tend to make up their minds on the subject first, and view any evidence through whatever filter they've conditioned themselves to look through.

 

[analog]

I'm actually really looking forward to what the Pope says regarding the synthetic life.

Accidentally stumbled across the official Vatican reaction yesterday ( watching BBC Newsnight I guess ); they'll look into it and reserve further judgement of its implications and the ethical side of things after thorough analysis.
At least they'll responding moderate so far, not that it actually matters to me whatever the Vatican may actually decide on this matter or any matter that is...

 

[niky]

Interesting response, considering how regressive Papa Ratzi seems compared to John Paul the second.

 

[LizMcQueen]

"God created man".

That quote always reminds me a movie, this one.

Seriously, man created god and that's the only truth, god, religion and their fan club are a burden, a hindrance to human progress.

PS for believers: I don't have to prove the nonexistence of god, you have to prove his/her existence.

 

[Pako]

That quote always reminds me a movie, this one.

Seriously, man created god and that's the only truth, god, religion and their fan club are a burden, a hindrance to human progress.

PS for believers: I don't have to prove the nonexistence of god, you have to prove his/her existence.

That is too broad of a statement to be accurate or true I'm afraid.

 

[LizMcQueen]

It's a fact, religion always has delayed the progress of science.
an example: L'Osservatore Romano, the Vatican newspaper condemns the child born to save his brother: news here and here I'm sorry, I couldn't find the news in english.

 

[Joey D]

Seriously, man created god and that's the only truth, god, religion and their fan club are a burden, a hindrance to human progress.

Hindered the progression of science yes, hindered the progression of mankind though? Not at all. Religion has helped progress along mankind in many cultural aspect. One only has to look at the art and architecture of the past 1,000 years to see that.

PS for believers: I don't have to prove the nonexistence of god, you have to prove his/her existence.

No. You still have to prove a super natural being does not exist since there will always be an equal chance of existence/non-existence unless definitive prove is shown either way.

 

[LizMcQueen]

Religion has helped progress along mankind in many cultural aspect. One only has to look at the art and architecture of the past 1,000 years to see that.
No. You still have to prove a super natural being does not exist since there will always be an equal chance of existence/non-existence unless definitive prove is shown either way.

I disagree in both cases, first, religion hasn't helped (or it has helped little) the architecture, painting, music... religions used them for their own purposes, how many times religion has censored arts? and second no, if I say, there is a T-Rex in my kitchen, I have to provide evidences, but you don't have to prove the dinosaur is not in my kitchen because right is on your side, which is more likely?

By the way, there are more evidences of the existence of dinosaurs than the existence of god... wait... there is not proof of the existence of god (strong evidences, books written by men don't count).

PS: I'll read something about creationism and as they try to explain things that happened over 6000 years ago.

 

[Joey D]

I disagree in both cases, first, religion hasn't helped (or it has helped little) the architecture, painting, music... religions used them for their own purposes, how many times religion has censored arts?

Religion has been the motivator for many of the great cultural treasures we have as a species. Look at the works of artist like Leonardo da Vinci, religiously motivated, and that's just one example. Some of the greatest buildings the world has are religious in some way, and I'm not saying any one religion. The Pyramids of Giza, Stonehenge, Hagia Sophia, and Angkor Wat just to name a few.

and second no, if I say, there is a T-Rex in my kitchen, I have to provide evidences, but you don't have to prove the dinosaur is not in my kitchen because right is on your side, which is more likely?

If you make a statement and say that it's true, you must be able to prove it.

By the way, there are more evidences of the existence of dinosaurs than the existence of god... wait... there is not proof of the existence of god (strong evidences, books written by men don't count).

There is also more physical evidence of the existence of dinosaurs then the non-existence of a supernatural being...so what's your point?

PS: I'll read something about creationism and as they try to explain things that happened over 6000 years ago.

Go for it. I don't believe in creationism and I have training in the field of archaeology and worked for an ancient art dealer, so I have an idea of what was going on 6,000 years ago.

 

[Pako]

It's a fact, religion always has delayed the progress of science.
an example: L'Osservatore Romano, the Vatican newspaper condemns the child born to save his brother: news here and here I'm sorry, I couldn't find the news in english.

So science is the only vessel or measurable medium for human progress? I beg to differ.

Oh and...just a quick google search found this little page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_science

Be careful with absolutes. I would argue the opposite. I won't go as far to say Always, or Every Time, but religion has planted seeds in the minds of many great thinkers to answer questions that they didn't have answers for and have used science to help explain the unexplainable.

Oh and...not sure what your kick is on Dino's....but our very own site owner sited scriptures describing dinosaurs earlier in this thread.

 

[niky]

It's a fact, religion always has delayed the progress of science.

It's not. As Pako points out, there are lots of religious people in science.

And let's not forget how monasteries managed to preserve learnings and culture throughout the dark ages.

-

My favorite example of religious scientist? Gregor Mendel. Whose pioneering work in genetics would help pave the way for Evolutionary Theory. And he was a monk.

 

[Pako]

This sums up my belief anyways,

There's got to be a cartoon out there to go with this caption:
God asks man, "So....it took you how long to figure out how I did it?"

 

[Joel]

I don't think anyone can say that religion has been an overall negative influence on society. I do however, think that western society doesn't need the "training wheels" anymore.

 

[Joey D]

I don't think anyone can say that religion has been an overall negative influence on society. I do however, think that western society doesn't need the "training wheels" anymore.

Depends on how you look at it, religion has had more blood spilled in it's name then any other cause. That's a fairly negative affect on society.