100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Evolution Is it Compatible With THE BIBLE? - part 2 | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Evolution takes place, eljay doesn't believe it. Thats ok. indeed. This is a statement of something occuring in the present. I've never, I repeat - NEVER - said that anything is incapable of "evolving". Had the statement "Evolution of the species did not occur" - then one could say "Eljay doesn't believe it". Let's not demonstrate a lack of comprehanding posts you guys. If you can't show you can comprehand a post - how do you expect anyone to believe you can comprehend science? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wow. So we, as humans, don't know how radioactive isotopes decay. I'm thinking there's a whole lotta people in trouble. People who work in nuke power plants, people who rely on atomic clocks, many on much of our navel fleet, anyone getting cancer treatments via radiation, ect. ect. Eljay, I don't really care where you got your info. With just a wee bit of thought, one can see that it's just wrong. I didn't say we don't know how radioactive isotopes decay - so what's your point? Read my post - I said there is no way to determine the amount of radioativity in the parent element. Whether it was created 6,000 or so years ago - or 4.5 billion - it is a pure educated quess as to what the decay ratin is without knowing how much radioactivity existed in the first place. And since the hslf life of these elements is measured in the billions of years - how can there even be any information on what was lost - since there would be no measurable change within the lifetime of any of the scientists who are calculating this data. And all of the examples you have cited for radioactivity is done in closed - controlled environments, and is not analogous to the information used in radiometric dating. Really bad analogy. If you're trying to prove a point - at least start wih as point to prove. Alright Eljay, calm down. Your writing belies your charged emotional state. Which makes your points difficult to discern through the typos, ect.... So, if I understand you correctly, you do agree that because of observation and mathematics, we know for a certainty the decay rates of various radioactive isotopes. What you disagree with is the ability to determine the amount of original element vs. the element it changes into after decay, in the wild, as it were. Is this correct? Because, in the wild, it isn't a closed system? uh..huh... Well, I'd say something buried in rock was a pretty closed system. And since our methods of radioactive dating corresponds to other methods of dating, such as astronomical observation, I think we've got a fairly good handle on the whole dating the world thing. But hey, you're still free to say God just made it that way. If I recall correctly, you made 3 points on why evolution is not correct. 1. Noone has ever shown that life comes from lifelessness. I've told you of an experiment that's been done dozens of times that shows that self-replicating organic molecules can be created easily. Molecules that become more and more complex over time, via natural selection. Created using some very basic stuff. 2. DNA never adds information. I've told you of a fairly common and well known case that proves that's not true. 3. The world isn't old enough for evolution to have occured. We know that it is. Honestly, Eljay, if you haven't got anything else, why do you persist? Seriously, why? You want to believe that God did it, fine. I've got no beef w/ that belief. I don't believe it myself, but in that, I can't prove God didn't do it, either. But you can't use science to prove evolution doesn't work and the world isn't as old as it is. You just can't. It'll never work. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wow. So we, as humans, don't know how radioactive isotopes decay. I'm thinking there's a whole lotta people in trouble. People who work in nuke power plants, people who rely on atomic clocks, many on much of our navel fleet, anyone getting cancer treatments via radiation, ect. ect. Eljay, I don't really care where you got your info. With just a wee bit of thought, one can see that it's just wrong. I didn't say we don't know how radioactive isotopes decay - so what's your point? Read my post - I said there is no way to determine the amount of radioativity in the parent element. Whether it was created 6,000 or so years ago - or 4.5 billion - it is a pure educated quess as to what the decay ratin is without knowing how much radioactivity existed in the first place. And since the hslf life of these elements is measured in the billions of years - how can there even be any information on what was lost - since there would be no measurable change within the lifetime of any of the scientists who are calculating this data. And all of the examples you have cited for radioactivity is done in closed - controlled environments, and is not analogous to the information used in radiometric dating. Really bad analogy. If you're trying to prove a point - at least start wih as point to prove. Alright Eljay, calm down. Your writing belies your charged emotional state. Which makes your points difficult to discern through the typos, ect.... So, if I understand you correctly, you do agree that because of observation and mathematics, we know for a certainty the decay rates of various radioactive isotopes. What you disagree with is the ability to determine the amount of original element vs. the element it changes into after decay, in the wild, as it were. Is this correct? Because, in the wild, it isn't a closed system? uh..huh... Well, I'd say something buried in rock was a pretty closed system. And since our methods of radioactive dating corresponds to other methods of dating, such as astronomical observation, I think we've got a fairly good handle on the whole dating the world thing. To simplify this - I believe that the current observation of radio-active change in isotopes - be it uranium, strontium, any of the elements at the bottom of the periodical chart - is a real occurance. There are numerous factors involved in determining this rate (environment - location - mass - etc) so generally, an "error" factor is given - if you will - so that a range is determined. More often than not - there is a set of parameters (a priori's) that must be accepted as true - yet are impossible to "prove", as these factors have never been witnessed, and are impossible to recreate. An example of this would be "The Big Bang". No one was there to verify it - impossible to recreate it. All dating methods used in science have as a priori's - The Big Bang and No_global_flood. These "truths" depend upon the faith of anyone attempting to date any object - be it a rock - fossil - tree - you get the point, to accept these as fact. And those are just two of the obvious a priori's. There are many. Now - while I have little reason to doubt the current observation of scientists pertaining to the experiments and conclusions they come to based on their study of these isotopes - I have serious doubts as to the conclusions that are arrived at when it comes to extrapolating these observances back into time. To blindly accept these conclusitory observations (if that's even a word) one must hold to the "religion" of Uniformitarianism. But if this be the case - then that would contradict numerous conclusions that have been determined to be fact. The Ice Age alone would be enough of an example. So - in order to believe that a scientist - through determining the amount of radioactive decay in - say carbon-14, and extrapolating it's age, would necessitate one's believing that the rate of change of atmospheric and eternal influences on that object were exactly the same over the period that the object were dated back to, than it is to the time period the current object is observed in. So let me ask you this. Do you think this is true? That this phenomina has occured in order to ensure the accuracy of the extrapolation? I have my doubts. So - to claim the extrapolation as "fact", is a bit of a stretch to me. So - it isn't that I claim it to be wrong - I just want to know what the information that supports the claim of it being fact is. I ask this question all the time - and never get answers. Saying that it's understood to be true by all scientists - just doesn't cut it for me as "supportive evidence". I would say that the same holds true for you. Just because Moses claimed that God created the universe and everythng in it in 6 days - just isn't giving you the supportive evidence you need to accept this as fact. Am I right on this? But hey, you're still free to say God just made it that way. It's just a matter of what one's world view is - and what they're willing to believe thru their faith. Suffice it to say - that for me, my faith in God is not trumped by my faith in man. If I recall correctly, you made 3 points on why evolution is not correct. Let's begin by saying that I make no claim that evolution is incorrect - I claim that it's "claimed facts" are unsubstanciated. But let's continue..... 1. Noone has ever shown that life comes from lifelessness. I've told you of an experiment that's been done dozens of times that shows that self-replicating organic molecules can be created easily. Molecules that become more and more complex over time, via natural selection. Created using some very basic stuff. So let me get this straight - science can take a rock and create life out of it? When was this done? Where can I go to get the information on this? And how exactly have these molecules become more complex? What would be an obvious example of this? 2. DNA never adds information. I've told you of a fairly common and well known case that proves that's not true. Refresh my memory here. I want to look into this. 3. The world isn't old enough for evolution to have occured. We know that it is. And we know that how exactly? Give me something that supports this claim. I say that the world is no older than 10,000 years because Moses said so. Now who's saying it's 4.5 billion years old - to begin with, and what is supporting that claim? Provide me with those answers, and I'll become a major disciple of Evolution. Honestly, Eljay, if you haven't got anything else, why do you persist? Seriously, why? Because I keep seeing these claims of fact about evolution - without anything to substanciate it. "Where's the beef?" as they say. You want to believe that God did it, fine. I've got no beef w/ that belief. I don't believe it myself, but in that, I can't prove God didn't do it, either. Well - it isn't a matter of "want" - it's just what i'm left with after all of these years of asking "why". To me - it's just as easy to say that God created the world, than it is to say it happened by the big bang. Neither one can be proved - or disproved. But you can't use science to prove evolution doesn't work and the world isn't as old as it is. You just can't. It'll never work. But science has nothing to do with evolution. It is a faith based system. Science only demonstrates what is occuring now - and in many circumstances it can help predict what will occur in the furure. It can do nothing to prove anything about the past that doesn't rely on the world view interpretation of what is observed. Now - we're not discussing the evolving of organisms here - this is real time observation - and is fact. But to claim that observing virus' mutating somehow proves man and ape share a common ancestor - is nothing more than interpreting an observation through a world view - and does not in any way substanciate the claims of evolution. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Bushidobillyclub
on
Thu 08/27/09 03:01 PM
|
|
Am I right on this? No what you are talking about is first principles. The big bang does jive with first principles, but its completely unimportant when discussing the theory of evolution. Potassium Argon dating. http://id-archserve.ucsb.edu/anth3/courseware/Chronology/09_Potassium_Argon_Dating.html Its whats for dinner. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Am I right on this? No what you are talking about is first principles. The big bang does jive with first principles, but its completely unimportant when discussing the theory of evolution. Potassium Argon dating. http://id-archserve.ucsb.edu/anth3/courseware/Chronology/09_Potassium_Argon_Dating.html Its whats for dinner. Ah. Finally - a response. Interesting site. I went through all 13 sections - granted, quickly - to get an idea of the grand scheme of things. Though not exhaustive in its presentation - it does give more than just a "because we said so" analysis of what is involved in dating. I've had more than a casual interest in this over the past 6 months, and this site offered a couple of different perspectives. I will spend more time with it (when I have the time) in the days and weeks to come - and see where it leads. Thanks Bushi. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wow. So we, as humans, don't know how radioactive isotopes decay. I'm thinking there's a whole lotta people in trouble. People who work in nuke power plants, people who rely on atomic clocks, many on much of our navel fleet, anyone getting cancer treatments via radiation, ect. ect. Eljay, I don't really care where you got your info. With just a wee bit of thought, one can see that it's just wrong. I didn't say we don't know how radioactive isotopes decay - so what's your point? Read my post - I said there is no way to determine the amount of radioativity in the parent element. Whether it was created 6,000 or so years ago - or 4.5 billion - it is a pure educated quess as to what the decay ratin is without knowing how much radioactivity existed in the first place. And since the hslf life of these elements is measured in the billions of years - how can there even be any information on what was lost - since there would be no measurable change within the lifetime of any of the scientists who are calculating this data. And all of the examples you have cited for radioactivity is done in closed - controlled environments, and is not analogous to the information used in radiometric dating. Really bad analogy. If you're trying to prove a point - at least start wih as point to prove. Alright Eljay, calm down. Your writing belies your charged emotional state. Which makes your points difficult to discern through the typos, ect.... So, if I understand you correctly, you do agree that because of observation and mathematics, we know for a certainty the decay rates of various radioactive isotopes. What you disagree with is the ability to determine the amount of original element vs. the element it changes into after decay, in the wild, as it were. Is this correct? Because, in the wild, it isn't a closed system? uh..huh... Well, I'd say something buried in rock was a pretty closed system. And since our methods of radioactive dating corresponds to other methods of dating, such as astronomical observation, I think we've got a fairly good handle on the whole dating the world thing. To simplify this - I believe that the current observation of radio-active change in isotopes - be it uranium, strontium, any of the elements at the bottom of the periodical chart - is a real occurance. There are numerous factors involved in determining this rate (environment - location - mass - etc) so generally, an "error" factor is given - if you will - so that a range is determined. More often than not - there is a set of parameters (a priori's) that must be accepted as true - yet are impossible to "prove", as these factors have never been witnessed, and are impossible to recreate. An example of this would be "The Big Bang". No one was there to verify it - impossible to recreate it. All dating methods used in science have as a priori's - The Big Bang and No_global_flood. These "truths" depend upon the faith of anyone attempting to date any object - be it a rock - fossil - tree - you get the point, to accept these as fact. And those are just two of the obvious a priori's. There are many. Now - while I have little reason to doubt the current observation of scientists pertaining to the experiments and conclusions they come to based on their study of these isotopes - I have serious doubts as to the conclusions that are arrived at when it comes to extrapolating these observances back into time. To blindly accept these conclusitory observations (if that's even a word) one must hold to the "religion" of Uniformitarianism. But if this be the case - then that would contradict numerous conclusions that have been determined to be fact. The Ice Age alone would be enough of an example. So - in order to believe that a scientist - through determining the amount of radioactive decay in - say carbon-14, and extrapolating it's age, would necessitate one's believing that the rate of change of atmospheric and eternal influences on that object were exactly the same over the period that the object were dated back to, than it is to the time period the current object is observed in. So let me ask you this. Do you think this is true? That this phenomina has occured in order to ensure the accuracy of the extrapolation? I have my doubts. So - to claim the extrapolation as "fact", is a bit of a stretch to me. So - it isn't that I claim it to be wrong - I just want to know what the information that supports the claim of it being fact is. I ask this question all the time - and never get answers. Saying that it's understood to be true by all scientists - just doesn't cut it for me as "supportive evidence". I would say that the same holds true for you. Just because Moses claimed that God created the universe and everythng in it in 6 days - just isn't giving you the supportive evidence you need to accept this as fact. Am I right on this? But hey, you're still free to say God just made it that way. It's just a matter of what one's world view is - and what they're willing to believe thru their faith. Suffice it to say - that for me, my faith in God is not trumped by my faith in man. If I recall correctly, you made 3 points on why evolution is not correct. Let's begin by saying that I make no claim that evolution is incorrect - I claim that it's "claimed facts" are unsubstanciated. But let's continue..... 1. Noone has ever shown that life comes from lifelessness. I've told you of an experiment that's been done dozens of times that shows that self-replicating organic molecules can be created easily. Molecules that become more and more complex over time, via natural selection. Created using some very basic stuff. So let me get this straight - science can take a rock and create life out of it? When was this done? Where can I go to get the information on this? And how exactly have these molecules become more complex? What would be an obvious example of this? 2. DNA never adds information. I've told you of a fairly common and well known case that proves that's not true. Refresh my memory here. I want to look into this. 3. The world isn't old enough for evolution to have occured. We know that it is. And we know that how exactly? Give me something that supports this claim. I say that the world is no older than 10,000 years because Moses said so. Now who's saying it's 4.5 billion years old - to begin with, and what is supporting that claim? Provide me with those answers, and I'll become a major disciple of Evolution. Honestly, Eljay, if you haven't got anything else, why do you persist? Seriously, why? Because I keep seeing these claims of fact about evolution - without anything to substanciate it. "Where's the beef?" as they say. You want to believe that God did it, fine. I've got no beef w/ that belief. I don't believe it myself, but in that, I can't prove God didn't do it, either. Well - it isn't a matter of "want" - it's just what i'm left with after all of these years of asking "why". To me - it's just as easy to say that God created the world, than it is to say it happened by the big bang. Neither one can be proved - or disproved. But you can't use science to prove evolution doesn't work and the world isn't as old as it is. You just can't. It'll never work. But science has nothing to do with evolution. It is a faith based system. Science only demonstrates what is occuring now - and in many circumstances it can help predict what will occur in the furure. It can do nothing to prove anything about the past that doesn't rely on the world view interpretation of what is observed. Now - we're not discussing the evolving of organisms here - this is real time observation - and is fact. But to claim that observing virus' mutating somehow proves man and ape share a common ancestor - is nothing more than interpreting an observation through a world view - and does not in any way substanciate the claims of evolution. to say you are vebose would be an understatement... I don't think you understand the words "religion, faith, science". But hey, I'm just basing that on your usage here. I could be wrong. Doesn't really matter to this discussion. Also, before you comment that I'm wrong on something, perhaps you should actually read it first. Radioactive isotopes decay at a steady rate, regardless of the enviroment, unless that enviroment is actively inputting or releasing radiation that effects the isotope in question. This would be why it is relied upon to date things. Also, radiactive decay is by no means the only way to date very old things. The different ways correspond to a high degree. Astrological data would be another way.  No, I never said "science can take a rock and make life out of it". What I said is that one can put the elements thought to be on the primordial Earth into a closed container, add energy such as electricity, and you get self-replicating organic molecules. Molecules that over time via natural selection become more complex. You had a question about how do we know what was on the primordial Earth. No doubt you missed that answer too, so here it is again. It is no big extrapolation to take what is still in the comets and asteroids and infer that those things that are there now, were on the Earth then. Please don't make me go into why this is so. In any case, it shouldn't really matter what one puts in the container, as long as nothing alive is. If all that's added is energy and you get self-replicating molecules where none were before, your speech about "abiogenisis" et.al., is just wrong. This experiment is easy to do. YOU can even do it. It's been done at least since the 70's. I'm sure you can find it on the internet SOMEWHERE. Try college websites. I'd look it up for you but I have a job and I have to see a woman about a vagina. I barely have the time for this. And yes, sorry Eljay but vaginas are more important to me than proving something to you. You want to look up downsydrome(sp?) for extra info in the DNA code. Laters... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wow. So we, as humans, don't know how radioactive isotopes decay. I'm thinking there's a whole lotta people in trouble. People who work in nuke power plants, people who rely on atomic clocks, many on much of our navel fleet, anyone getting cancer treatments via radiation, ect. ect. Eljay, I don't really care where you got your info. With just a wee bit of thought, one can see that it's just wrong. I didn't say we don't know how radioactive isotopes decay - so what's your point? Read my post - I said there is no way to determine the amount of radioativity in the parent element. Whether it was created 6,000 or so years ago - or 4.5 billion - it is a pure educated quess as to what the decay ratin is without knowing how much radioactivity existed in the first place. And since the hslf life of these elements is measured in the billions of years - how can there even be any information on what was lost - since there would be no measurable change within the lifetime of any of the scientists who are calculating this data. And all of the examples you have cited for radioactivity is done in closed - controlled environments, and is not analogous to the information used in radiometric dating. Really bad analogy. If you're trying to prove a point - at least start wih as point to prove. Alright Eljay, calm down. Your writing belies your charged emotional state. Which makes your points difficult to discern through the typos, ect.... So, if I understand you correctly, you do agree that because of observation and mathematics, we know for a certainty the decay rates of various radioactive isotopes. What you disagree with is the ability to determine the amount of original element vs. the element it changes into after decay, in the wild, as it were. Is this correct? Because, in the wild, it isn't a closed system? uh..huh... Well, I'd say something buried in rock was a pretty closed system. And since our methods of radioactive dating corresponds to other methods of dating, such as astronomical observation, I think we've got a fairly good handle on the whole dating the world thing. To simplify this - I believe that the current observation of radio-active change in isotopes - be it uranium, strontium, any of the elements at the bottom of the periodical chart - is a real occurance. There are numerous factors involved in determining this rate (environment - location - mass - etc) so generally, an "error" factor is given - if you will - so that a range is determined. More often than not - there is a set of parameters (a priori's) that must be accepted as true - yet are impossible to "prove", as these factors have never been witnessed, and are impossible to recreate. An example of this would be "The Big Bang". No one was there to verify it - impossible to recreate it. All dating methods used in science have as a priori's - The Big Bang and No_global_flood. These "truths" depend upon the faith of anyone attempting to date any object - be it a rock - fossil - tree - you get the point, to accept these as fact. And those are just two of the obvious a priori's. There are many. Now - while I have little reason to doubt the current observation of scientists pertaining to the experiments and conclusions they come to based on their study of these isotopes - I have serious doubts as to the conclusions that are arrived at when it comes to extrapolating these observances back into time. To blindly accept these conclusitory observations (if that's even a word) one must hold to the "religion" of Uniformitarianism. But if this be the case - then that would contradict numerous conclusions that have been determined to be fact. The Ice Age alone would be enough of an example. So - in order to believe that a scientist - through determining the amount of radioactive decay in - say carbon-14, and extrapolating it's age, would necessitate one's believing that the rate of change of atmospheric and eternal influences on that object were exactly the same over the period that the object were dated back to, than it is to the time period the current object is observed in. So let me ask you this. Do you think this is true? That this phenomina has occured in order to ensure the accuracy of the extrapolation? I have my doubts. So - to claim the extrapolation as "fact", is a bit of a stretch to me. So - it isn't that I claim it to be wrong - I just want to know what the information that supports the claim of it being fact is. I ask this question all the time - and never get answers. Saying that it's understood to be true by all scientists - just doesn't cut it for me as "supportive evidence". I would say that the same holds true for you. Just because Moses claimed that God created the universe and everythng in it in 6 days - just isn't giving you the supportive evidence you need to accept this as fact. Am I right on this? But hey, you're still free to say God just made it that way. It's just a matter of what one's world view is - and what they're willing to believe thru their faith. Suffice it to say - that for me, my faith in God is not trumped by my faith in man. If I recall correctly, you made 3 points on why evolution is not correct. Let's begin by saying that I make no claim that evolution is incorrect - I claim that it's "claimed facts" are unsubstanciated. But let's continue..... 1. Noone has ever shown that life comes from lifelessness. I've told you of an experiment that's been done dozens of times that shows that self-replicating organic molecules can be created easily. Molecules that become more and more complex over time, via natural selection. Created using some very basic stuff. So let me get this straight - science can take a rock and create life out of it? When was this done? Where can I go to get the information on this? And how exactly have these molecules become more complex? What would be an obvious example of this? 2. DNA never adds information. I've told you of a fairly common and well known case that proves that's not true. Refresh my memory here. I want to look into this. 3. The world isn't old enough for evolution to have occured. We know that it is. And we know that how exactly? Give me something that supports this claim. I say that the world is no older than 10,000 years because Moses said so. Now who's saying it's 4.5 billion years old - to begin with, and what is supporting that claim? Provide me with those answers, and I'll become a major disciple of Evolution. Honestly, Eljay, if you haven't got anything else, why do you persist? Seriously, why? Because I keep seeing these claims of fact about evolution - without anything to substanciate it. "Where's the beef?" as they say. You want to believe that God did it, fine. I've got no beef w/ that belief. I don't believe it myself, but in that, I can't prove God didn't do it, either. Well - it isn't a matter of "want" - it's just what i'm left with after all of these years of asking "why". To me - it's just as easy to say that God created the world, than it is to say it happened by the big bang. Neither one can be proved - or disproved. But you can't use science to prove evolution doesn't work and the world isn't as old as it is. You just can't. It'll never work. But science has nothing to do with evolution. It is a faith based system. Science only demonstrates what is occuring now - and in many circumstances it can help predict what will occur in the furure. It can do nothing to prove anything about the past that doesn't rely on the world view interpretation of what is observed. Now - we're not discussing the evolving of organisms here - this is real time observation - and is fact. But to claim that observing virus' mutating somehow proves man and ape share a common ancestor - is nothing more than interpreting an observation through a world view - and does not in any way substanciate the claims of evolution. to say you are vebose would be an understatement... I don't think you understand the words "religion, faith, science". But hey, I'm just basing that on your usage here. I could be wrong. Doesn't really matter to this discussion. Also, before you comment that I'm wrong on something, perhaps you should actually read it first. Radioactive isotopes decay at a steady rate, regardless of the enviroment, unless that enviroment is actively inputting or releasing radiation that effects the isotope in question. This would be why it is relied upon to date things. Also, radiactive decay is by no means the only way to date very old things. The different ways correspond to a high degree. Astrological data would be another way. No, I never said "science can take a rock and make life out of it". What I said is that one can put the elements thought to be on the primordial Earth into a closed container, add energy such as electricity, and you get self-replicating organic molecules. Molecules that over time via natural selection become more complex. You had a question about how do we know what was on the primordial Earth. No doubt you missed that answer too, so here it is again. It is no big extrapolation to take what is still in the comets and asteroids and infer that those things that are there now, were on the Earth then. Please don't make me go into why this is so. In any case, it shouldn't really matter what one puts in the container, as long as nothing alive is. If all that's added is energy and you get self-replicating molecules where none were before, your speech about "abiogenisis" et.al., is just wrong. This experiment is easy to do. YOU can even do it. It's been done at least since the 70's. I'm sure you can find it on the internet SOMEWHERE. Try college websites. I'd look it up for you but I have a job and I have to see a woman about a vagina. I barely have the time for this. And yes, sorry Eljay but vaginas are more important to me than proving something to you. You want to look up downsydrome(sp?) for extra info in the DNA code. Laters... So what you're saying is that I don't understand the meaning of "religion, faith, and science" as you understand them. I'm sorry - but putting anything in a "closed container" is not going to provide me any additional knowledge to what happened 4.5 billion years ago. Yes - radioactive isotropes decay at a steady rate - as is understood by examining them today (something which - was not done even when you and I were youngsters with any accuracy.) I would guess that this will be a consistancy years into the future - I would say no one has a clue about what happened 6,000 years ago - let alone 4 billion years ago. If you think that someone can say they know with a certainty they do - you are as delusional as they are. They can believe what they want - they cannot "assure" you of anything that happened at a time when nothing was known about the state of the planet. And why is it you think that a scientist can look at a comet through a telescope - a million miles or so away - and associate that with anything on this planet? There's no way to verify his observation about anything. I would be more than disappointed in you were you to for_go your "womanly pursuits" to respond to a post of mine. Anyway - down syndrome - I'll check it out. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Arcamedees
on
Sat 08/29/09 11:03 PM
|
|
Wow. So we, as humans, don't know how radioactive isotopes decay. I'm thinking there's a whole lotta people in trouble. People who work in nuke power plants, people who rely on atomic clocks, many on much of our navel fleet, anyone getting cancer treatments via radiation, ect. ect. Eljay, I don't really care where you got your info. With just a wee bit of thought, one can see that it's just wrong. I didn't say we don't know how radioactive isotopes decay - so what's your point? Read my post - I said there is no way to determine the amount of radioativity in the parent element. Whether it was created 6,000 or so years ago - or 4.5 billion - it is a pure educated quess as to what the decay ratin is without knowing how much radioactivity existed in the first place. And since the hslf life of these elements is measured in the billions of years - how can there even be any information on what was lost - since there would be no measurable change within the lifetime of any of the scientists who are calculating this data. And all of the examples you have cited for radioactivity is done in closed - controlled environments, and is not analogous to the information used in radiometric dating. Really bad analogy. If you're trying to prove a point - at least start wih as point to prove. Alright Eljay, calm down. Your writing belies your charged emotional state. Which makes your points difficult to discern through the typos, ect.... So, if I understand you correctly, you do agree that because of observation and mathematics, we know for a certainty the decay rates of various radioactive isotopes. What you disagree with is the ability to determine the amount of original element vs. the element it changes into after decay, in the wild, as it were. Is this correct? Because, in the wild, it isn't a closed system? uh..huh... Well, I'd say something buried in rock was a pretty closed system. And since our methods of radioactive dating corresponds to other methods of dating, such as astronomical observation, I think we've got a fairly good handle on the whole dating the world thing. To simplify this - I believe that the current observation of radio-active change in isotopes - be it uranium, strontium, any of the elements at the bottom of the periodical chart - is a real occurance. There are numerous factors involved in determining this rate (environment - location - mass - etc) so generally, an "error" factor is given - if you will - so that a range is determined. More often than not - there is a set of parameters (a priori's) that must be accepted as true - yet are impossible to "prove", as these factors have never been witnessed, and are impossible to recreate. An example of this would be "The Big Bang". No one was there to verify it - impossible to recreate it. All dating methods used in science have as a priori's - The Big Bang and No_global_flood. These "truths" depend upon the faith of anyone attempting to date any object - be it a rock - fossil - tree - you get the point, to accept these as fact. And those are just two of the obvious a priori's. There are many. Now - while I have little reason to doubt the current observation of scientists pertaining to the experiments and conclusions they come to based on their study of these isotopes - I have serious doubts as to the conclusions that are arrived at when it comes to extrapolating these observances back into time. To blindly accept these conclusitory observations (if that's even a word) one must hold to the "religion" of Uniformitarianism. But if this be the case - then that would contradict numerous conclusions that have been determined to be fact. The Ice Age alone would be enough of an example. So - in order to believe that a scientist - through determining the amount of radioactive decay in - say carbon-14, and extrapolating it's age, would necessitate one's believing that the rate of change of atmospheric and eternal influences on that object were exactly the same over the period that the object were dated back to, than it is to the time period the current object is observed in. So let me ask you this. Do you think this is true? That this phenomina has occured in order to ensure the accuracy of the extrapolation? I have my doubts. So - to claim the extrapolation as "fact", is a bit of a stretch to me. So - it isn't that I claim it to be wrong - I just want to know what the information that supports the claim of it being fact is. I ask this question all the time - and never get answers. Saying that it's understood to be true by all scientists - just doesn't cut it for me as "supportive evidence". I would say that the same holds true for you. Just because Moses claimed that God created the universe and everythng in it in 6 days - just isn't giving you the supportive evidence you need to accept this as fact. Am I right on this? But hey, you're still free to say God just made it that way. It's just a matter of what one's world view is - and what they're willing to believe thru their faith. Suffice it to say - that for me, my faith in God is not trumped by my faith in man. If I recall correctly, you made 3 points on why evolution is not correct. Let's begin by saying that I make no claim that evolution is incorrect - I claim that it's "claimed facts" are unsubstanciated. But let's continue..... 1. Noone has ever shown that life comes from lifelessness. I've told you of an experiment that's been done dozens of times that shows that self-replicating organic molecules can be created easily. Molecules that become more and more complex over time, via natural selection. Created using some very basic stuff. So let me get this straight - science can take a rock and create life out of it? When was this done? Where can I go to get the information on this? And how exactly have these molecules become more complex? What would be an obvious example of this? 2. DNA never adds information. I've told you of a fairly common and well known case that proves that's not true. Refresh my memory here. I want to look into this. 3. The world isn't old enough for evolution to have occured. We know that it is. And we know that how exactly? Give me something that supports this claim. I say that the world is no older than 10,000 years because Moses said so. Now who's saying it's 4.5 billion years old - to begin with, and what is supporting that claim? Provide me with those answers, and I'll become a major disciple of Evolution. Honestly, Eljay, if you haven't got anything else, why do you persist? Seriously, why? Because I keep seeing these claims of fact about evolution - without anything to substanciate it. "Where's the beef?" as they say. You want to believe that God did it, fine. I've got no beef w/ that belief. I don't believe it myself, but in that, I can't prove God didn't do it, either. Well - it isn't a matter of "want" - it's just what i'm left with after all of these years of asking "why". To me - it's just as easy to say that God created the world, than it is to say it happened by the big bang. Neither one can be proved - or disproved. But you can't use science to prove evolution doesn't work and the world isn't as old as it is. You just can't. It'll never work. But science has nothing to do with evolution. It is a faith based system. Science only demonstrates what is occuring now - and in many circumstances it can help predict what will occur in the furure. It can do nothing to prove anything about the past that doesn't rely on the world view interpretation of what is observed. Now - we're not discussing the evolving of organisms here - this is real time observation - and is fact. But to claim that observing virus' mutating somehow proves man and ape share a common ancestor - is nothing more than interpreting an observation through a world view - and does not in any way substanciate the claims of evolution. to say you are vebose would be an understatement... I don't think you understand the words "religion, faith, science". But hey, I'm just basing that on your usage here. I could be wrong. Doesn't really matter to this discussion. Also, before you comment that I'm wrong on something, perhaps you should actually read it first. Radioactive isotopes decay at a steady rate, regardless of the enviroment, unless that enviroment is actively inputting or releasing radiation that effects the isotope in question. This would be why it is relied upon to date things. Also, radiactive decay is by no means the only way to date very old things. The different ways correspond to a high degree. Astrological data would be another way. No, I never said "science can take a rock and make life out of it". What I said is that one can put the elements thought to be on the primordial Earth into a closed container, add energy such as electricity, and you get self-replicating organic molecules. Molecules that over time via natural selection become more complex. You had a question about how do we know what was on the primordial Earth. No doubt you missed that answer too, so here it is again. It is no big extrapolation to take what is still in the comets and asteroids and infer that those things that are there now, were on the Earth then. Please don't make me go into why this is so. In any case, it shouldn't really matter what one puts in the container, as long as nothing alive is. If all that's added is energy and you get self-replicating molecules where none were before, your speech about "abiogenisis" et.al., is just wrong. This experiment is easy to do. YOU can even do it. It's been done at least since the 70's. I'm sure you can find it on the internet SOMEWHERE. Try college websites. I'd look it up for you but I have a job and I have to see a woman about a vagina. I barely have the time for this. And yes, sorry Eljay but vaginas are more important to me than proving something to you. You want to look up downsydrome(sp?) for extra info in the DNA code. Laters... So what you're saying is that I don't understand the meaning of "religion, faith, and science" as you understand them. I'm sorry - but putting anything in a "closed container" is not going to provide me any additional knowledge to what happened 4.5 billion years ago. Yes - radioactive isotropes decay at a steady rate - as is understood by examining them today (something which - was not done even when you and I were youngsters with any accuracy.) I would guess that this will be a consistancy years into the future - I would say no one has a clue about what happened 6,000 years ago - let alone 4 billion years ago. If you think that someone can say they know with a certainty they do - you are as delusional as they are. They can believe what they want - they cannot "assure" you of anything that happened at a time when nothing was known about the state of the planet. And why is it you think that a scientist can look at a comet through a telescope - a million miles or so away - and associate that with anything on this planet? There's no way to verify his observation about anything. I would be more than disappointed in you were you to for_go your "womanly pursuits" to respond to a post of mine. Anyway - down syndrome - I'll check it out. Alright, Eljay, now I know you're f**king with me. Good one. You got me. ha ha. Noone could be that thick. Really had me going. Hope you had a good laugh. cherrio, then. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Some people watch the Flintstones on TV and think it is a documentary. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All I have to say is, watch a baby being born....thats all the answer you will need
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
this is really a terrible question to ask as I believe you already know the answer
No, according to the bible evolution and genesis/ are not compatable otherwise the bible would have said that. Non believers can sit here until they are blue in the face to try to say how horrid or off topic the bible is and show how it is wrong.. however the simple answer is no they are not that is from the faith perspective. let's also remember that evolution is but a theory as well. All in all to all the non believers who sit here and posts and browse web sources... i'm sorry but you simply can't expect for a person of faith to believe you over the bible or the background they've grown up in. It is fine to wonder and have questions and try to pose answers but just be yourselves if you don't believe in it you don't believe in it just say i have a different way of thinking and i believe this... you don't have to throw rhetoric and passages into your posts because trust me they don't change the answer. No matter what the bible teaches creationism not evolution. End of concept. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
this is really a terrible question to ask as I believe you already know the answer No, according to the bible evolution and genesis/ are not compatable otherwise the bible would have said that. Non believers can sit here until they are blue in the face to try to say how horrid or off topic the bible is and show how it is wrong.. however the simple answer is no they are not that is from the faith perspective. let's also remember that evolution is but a theory as well. All in all to all the non believers who sit here and posts and browse web sources... i'm sorry but you simply can't expect for a person of faith to believe you over the bible or the background they've grown up in. It is fine to wonder and have questions and try to pose answers but just be yourselves if you don't believe in it you don't believe in it just say i have a different way of thinking and i believe this... you don't have to throw rhetoric and passages into your posts because trust me they don't change the answer. No matter what the bible teaches creationism not evolution. End of concept. The second is your use of the term non-believers. Iam a graduate of Zoology and in my time is studied both evolution and theology. I chose to believe that evolution is how it happened and just because i dont believe what you believe why am i a non-believer ? Now you are right, evolution is a theory but you fail to say that it is a proven theory. Now if so many people have had a religious experiences and in this age of everyone owning either a camcorder or camera why have these experiences ever been proven. Now i respect and at times tolerate everyones belief i just wish that most religious people could do the same |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i say non believers because usually thats what the fight in this forum is about non believers vs. believers you have them both battling each other on who is right.
evolution is not a proven theory if it was a proven theory it wouldn't be a theory would it. i'm sorry but you can't say they didn't understand it God inspired man to write the bible and evolution is not included in it. At no time is there a story about the apes evolving that is why the bible cann not support evolution the bible says GOD created the world through creationism. I don't care what anyone believes the best to you I know what i believe... and the bible does not support evolution.. i'm sorry you can't simply say oh well they couldn't cognitively handle that so that's why it isn't there. ... if you say that we could probably write anything into the bible. Genesis says how the world was created and if you are of a religious faith and by this i mean Baptist, Catholic, Lutheran etc... then you do not believe that evolution is how the world was created.. if you do believe that God created through evolution that's fine but people of the Christian faith believe what the bible says and Jewish faith believes in the old testament where genesis is... and i throw my piece about non believers because i've been a member here since 2007 this isn't the first post on evolution it wont be the last. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Evolution is a myth. We were created by God. Evolution makes no sense at all. I will pray for those who believe there are monkey & apes in their family tree.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Adam & Eve = two sons Cain & Abel that's where we all came from according to God followers and that makes so much more sense then evolution.
When I look at what religion as made human do I rather have a monkey in my family tree then those fanatic religious freaks. So pray for my soul if you think that will help me in the end we will all end up the same. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i say non believers because usually thats what the fight in this forum is about non believers vs. believers you have them both battling each other on who is right. evolution is not a proven theory if it was a proven theory it wouldn't be a theory would it. i'm sorry but you can't say they didn't understand it God inspired man to write the bible and evolution is not included in it. At no time is there a story about the apes evolving that is why the bible cann not support evolution the bible says GOD created the world through creationism. I don't care what anyone believes the best to you I know what i believe... and the bible does not support evolution.. i'm sorry you can't simply say oh well they couldn't cognitively handle that so that's why it isn't there. ... if you say that we could probably write anything into the bible. Genesis says how the world was created and if you are of a religious faith and by this i mean Baptist, Catholic, Lutheran etc... then you do not believe that evolution is how the world was created.. if you do believe that God created through evolution that's fine but people of the Christian faith believe what the bible says and Jewish faith believes in the old testament where genesis is... and i throw my piece about non believers because i've been a member here since 2007 this isn't the first post on evolution it wont be the last. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
sororitygurl4life
on
Wed 09/23/09 10:24 AM
|
|
i say non believers because usually thats what the fight in this forum is about non believers vs. believers you have them both battling each other on who is right. evolution is not a proven theory if it was a proven theory it wouldn't be a theory would it. i'm sorry but you can't say they didn't understand it God inspired man to write the bible and evolution is not included in it. At no time is there a story about the apes evolving that is why the bible cann not support evolution the bible says GOD created the world through creationism. I don't care what anyone believes the best to you I know what i believe... and the bible does not support evolution.. i'm sorry you can't simply say oh well they couldn't cognitively handle that so that's why it isn't there. ... if you say that we could probably write anything into the bible. Genesis says how the world was created and if you are of a religious faith and by this i mean Baptist, Catholic, Lutheran etc... then you do not believe that evolution is how the world was created.. if you do believe that God created through evolution that's fine but people of the Christian faith believe what the bible says and Jewish faith believes in the old testament where genesis is... and i throw my piece about non believers because i've been a member here since 2007 this isn't the first post on evolution it wont be the last. thats the point.. you don't belive in the bible which is wht this thread is talking about. religion doesnt' cloud my eyes its a pretty black and white subject on can the bible and evolution go together. no it does not if you can pull a bible verse that does then please put it here if not then you are merely sitting here to argue about what you believe this thraed is on the bible and evolution When those who don't believe in the bible come into the forums they either do 1 of 2 things in order to protect themselve 1 they go on different websites find things to post and then copy from websites into their post to try to show how philosophical and intelligent they are 2 they say non believers are lead blindedly by their faith.. I haven't once said something rude to you and yet you sit here and talk about how religion clouds my mind this was never on my religion what this topic was on is does the bible support it and NO IT DOESNT if you think there is a passage that does please post it otherwise stick to the topic of the thread or start a new one where what your saying makes sense in response to that thread.. have a blessed day. btw please look up the definitions to fact and theory and you will see that if in "fact" evolution could be proven then it would not be a theory. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i say non believers because usually thats what the fight in this forum is about non believers vs. believers you have them both battling each other on who is right. evolution is not a proven theory if it was a proven theory it wouldn't be a theory would it. i'm sorry but you can't say they didn't understand it God inspired man to write the bible and evolution is not included in it. At no time is there a story about the apes evolving that is why the bible cann not support evolution the bible says GOD created the world through creationism. I don't care what anyone believes the best to you I know what i believe... and the bible does not support evolution.. i'm sorry you can't simply say oh well they couldn't cognitively handle that so that's why it isn't there. ... if you say that we could probably write anything into the bible. Genesis says how the world was created and if you are of a religious faith and by this i mean Baptist, Catholic, Lutheran etc... then you do not believe that evolution is how the world was created.. if you do believe that God created through evolution that's fine but people of the Christian faith believe what the bible says and Jewish faith believes in the old testament where genesis is... and i throw my piece about non believers because i've been a member here since 2007 this isn't the first post on evolution it wont be the last. thats the point.. you don't belive in the bible which is wht this thread is talking about. religion doesnt' cloud my eyes its a pretty black and white subject on can the bible and evolution go together. no it does not if you can pull a bible verse that does then please put it here if not then you are merely sitting here to argue about what you believe this thraed is on the bible and evolution When those who don't believe in the bible come into the forums they either do 1 of 2 things in order to protect themselve 1 they go on different websites find things to post and then copy from websites into their post to try to show how philosophical and intelligent they are 2 they say non believers are lead blindedly by their faith.. I haven't once said something rude to you and yet you sit here and talk about how religion clouds my mind this was never on my religion what this topic was on is does the bible support it and NO IT DOESNT if you think there is a passage that does please post it otherwise stick to the topic of the thread or start a new one where what your saying makes sense in response to that thread.. have a blessed day. btw please look up the definitions to fact and theory and you will see that if in "fact" evolution could be proven then it would not be a theory. If you read my thread again i think you will see i never said your religion has clouded your mind. I said your mind has been clouded by what religion is. If you took offence to this then i apologise but i stand by what i said. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i say non believers because usually thats what the fight in this forum is about non believers vs. believers you have them both battling each other on who is right. evolution is not a proven theory if it was a proven theory it wouldn't be a theory would it. i'm sorry but you can't say they didn't understand it God inspired man to write the bible and evolution is not included in it. At no time is there a story about the apes evolving that is why the bible cann not support evolution the bible says GOD created the world through creationism. I don't care what anyone believes the best to you I know what i believe... and the bible does not support evolution.. i'm sorry you can't simply say oh well they couldn't cognitively handle that so that's why it isn't there. ... if you say that we could probably write anything into the bible. Genesis says how the world was created and if you are of a religious faith and by this i mean Baptist, Catholic, Lutheran etc... then you do not believe that evolution is how the world was created.. if you do believe that God created through evolution that's fine but people of the Christian faith believe what the bible says and Jewish faith believes in the old testament where genesis is... and i throw my piece about non believers because i've been a member here since 2007 this isn't the first post on evolution it wont be the last. thats the point.. you don't belive in the bible which is wht this thread is talking about. religion doesnt' cloud my eyes its a pretty black and white subject on can the bible and evolution go together. no it does not if you can pull a bible verse that does then please put it here if not then you are merely sitting here to argue about what you believe this thraed is on the bible and evolution When those who don't believe in the bible come into the forums they either do 1 of 2 things in order to protect themselve 1 they go on different websites find things to post and then copy from websites into their post to try to show how philosophical and intelligent they are 2 they say non believers are lead blindedly by their faith.. I haven't once said something rude to you and yet you sit here and talk about how religion clouds my mind this was never on my religion what this topic was on is does the bible support it and NO IT DOESNT if you think there is a passage that does please post it otherwise stick to the topic of the thread or start a new one where what your saying makes sense in response to that thread.. have a blessed day. btw please look up the definitions to fact and theory and you will see that if in "fact" evolution could be proven then it would not be a theory. If you read my thread again i think you will see i never said your religion has clouded your mind. I said your mind has been clouded by what religion is. If you took offence to this then i apologise but i stand by what i said. |
|
|
|
|
