Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

Trackaholic wrote:

SourWorms wrote:But i thought this was all just years after Adam and Eve? We know dinosaurs lived from 250-65 milllion years ago. It seems like this great flood must have happened after this fact. Or maybe God didnt come into existance or care until 50,000 years ago when hunter-gatherers began to appear on earth.

ugh, weve already been over this sourworms. Carbon dating blah blah blah. According to any reputable scientist, carbon dating is only good for 50,000 years. In addition to that, carbon dating is part of the 10% of dating systems that say all these artifacts are so old, while the other 90% point to the earth and its fossils being very young.

You do not know whehter dinosuars lived 250-65 millions of years ago, you have no proof.

oh jeeze don't get into another carbon dating argument.

SourWorms wrote:

Trackaholic wrote:

Pinthin wrote:

AudienceOfOne wrote:

Pinthin wrote:

AudienceOfOne wrote:

SourWorms wrote:

Pinthin wrote:

AudienceOfOne wrote:

Pinthin wrote:^ true, I wish they would at least accept that their relgion might not be the 'right religion'. But thats out of the question

it is. why would we follow a fake God? because that's what we would be doing if we didn't think this was the right "religion".

So I guess every other religion is following a fake god then huh?? Wow you should tell them they're just wasting their time.

Mohammed claimed to be the messiah, why don't you guys just randomly believe him?

because we KNOW jesus is God. all the other "gods" are dead. mine is alive.

I thought you guys had "open" minds about others religions? Or were at least a little more accepting. At least this is what my religous friends tell me christians are all about

no one ever told me to have an open mind to other religions. it's like having an open mind to 2+2 being 5.

"love the sinner, hate the sin". love the others, don't lov their religion.

well maybe thats why christians have so many followers, because they dont actually open their minds and glance at other religions.

This explains alot..

At least we don't deny the possibility of any god based on circular reasoning, unproven theories and chimpanzee skeletons.

Scientists have accepted Lucy as a primitive human, walking upright. Reputable scientists mind you, not God fearing ones. And you do deny the possibility of any other god just because you do, you have no reason to believe in your god and not believe in any other one just based on the fact that your parents told you so.

God fearing scientists can be just as reputable as any athiest. If you believe christian scientists are baised towards there findings, well I say to you, so are athiest scientists.

Lucy is a complete fraud:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/1651429/posts

AudienceOfOne wrote:

Trackaholic wrote:

SourWorms wrote:But i thought this was all just years after Adam and Eve? We know dinosaurs lived from 250-65 milllion years ago. It seems like this great flood must have happened after this fact. Or maybe God didnt come into existance or care until 50,000 years ago when hunter-gatherers began to appear on earth.

ugh, weve already been over this sourworms. Carbon dating blah blah blah. According to any reputable scientist, carbon dating is only good for 50,000 years. In addition to that, carbon dating is part of the 10% of dating systems that say all these artifacts are so old, while the other 90% point to the earth and its fossils being very young.

You do not know whehter dinosuars lived 250-65 millions of years ago, you have no proof.

oh jeeze don't get into another carbon dating argument.

I know, hes starting it up from the beginning, the least he could do is start off where we left off.

AudienceOfOne wrote:

SourWorms wrote:

AudienceOfOne wrote:

SourWorms wrote:

Trackaholic wrote:The bible contradictions link is baloney:

For instance:

"The bat is not a bird"

First of all, Carolus Linnaeus did not come around until the 18th century, when classifications such as fowls and brids where set in stone. Beforhand, in biblical times, it is quite possible people considered bats to be birds. And seeing as the bible is composed of accounts written by men, it is easily understandable how such TRIVIAL errors could have occured.

Same with "insects do not have four feet"

"Snails do not melt"? are you kidding me, we are doubting the bible based on the premise that snails do not melt in a literal sense? what the fuck is wrong with you? Take any snail, put some salt on the bastard, watch it dissolve. its not literally melting, but how could people in biblical times have known that!

"The shape of the earth"

This one made me laugh, this is satan we are talking about, if he wanted to show someone all the worlds glories, he will. He is not constricted by the spherical shape of the earth!

"snakes dont eat dirt"

wow, no real comment. Again, this is just some jackass taking the bible way to literally. Can he not understand that the bible uses symbolism? this is not a contradiction, this is an idiot being dense and a literalist.

I dont feel like typing out explanations for all these so called "contradictions". So do me a favor, browse through them yourself, if you find one that you think can stump me, just post it. I can provide a logical response for every single fucking "contradiction" found on that webpage. just try me.

You say he is taking it way to literally and yet you believe that Noah took 189032849032894032984 animals on a boat with him. and then proceeded to commit incest again with his family to start a new world

that boat was huge. my youth group did something about that a couple years ago, we went out to a wide open space and stood at the exact dimensions of how th ark was. it was crazy.

Because everyone knows the correct dimensions right? That part of the bible is obviously made up, no one has ever seen anything that proves how big the Arc was. And even if that fictitious number was that large, with out God it is not possible to collect every species of every animal and put them on an ark that is big enough to house them all

fixed

exactly

Trackaholic wrote:

SourWorms wrote:

Trackaholic wrote:

Pinthin wrote:

AudienceOfOne wrote:

Pinthin wrote:

AudienceOfOne wrote:

SourWorms wrote:

Pinthin wrote:

AudienceOfOne wrote:

Pinthin wrote:^ true, I wish they would at least accept that their relgion might not be the 'right religion'. But thats out of the question

it is. why would we follow a fake God? because that's what we would be doing if we didn't think this was the right "religion".

So I guess every other religion is following a fake god then huh?? Wow you should tell them they're just wasting their time.

Mohammed claimed to be the messiah, why don't you guys just randomly believe him?

because we KNOW jesus is God. all the other "gods" are dead. mine is alive.

I thought you guys had "open" minds about others religions? Or were at least a little more accepting. At least this is what my religous friends tell me christians are all about

no one ever told me to have an open mind to other religions. it's like having an open mind to 2+2 being 5.

"love the sinner, hate the sin". love the others, don't lov their religion.

well maybe thats why christians have so many followers, because they dont actually open their minds and glance at other religions.

This explains alot..

At least we don't deny the possibility of any god based on circular reasoning, unproven theories and chimpanzee skeletons.

Scientists have accepted Lucy as a primitive human, walking upright. Reputable scientists mind you, not God fearing ones. And you do deny the possibility of any other god just because you do, you have no reason to believe in your god and not believe in any other one just based on the fact that your parents told you so.

God fearing scientists can be just as reputable as any athiest. If you believe christian scientists are baised towards there findings, well I say to you, so are athiest scientists.

Lucy is a complete fraud:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/1651429/posts

i have to study more, i have no idea what lucy is.....

Trackaholic wrote:

SourWorms wrote:But i thought this was all just years after Adam and Eve? We know dinosaurs lived from 250-65 milllion years ago. It seems like this great flood must have happened after this fact. Or maybe God didnt come into existance or care until 50,000 years ago when hunter-gatherers began to appear on earth.

ugh, weve already been over this sourworms. Carbon dating blah blah blah. According to any reputable scientist, carbon dating is only good for 50,000 years. In addition to that, carbon dating is part of the 10% of dating systems that say all these artifacts are so old, while the other 90% point to the earth and its fossils being very young.

You do not know whehter dinosuars lived 250-65 millions of years ago, you have no proof.

you are correct, C-14 dating does not work for dinosaur bones. Hence why rock layers are studied to determine the approximate age of dinosaur bones. At this point, the earth was a toxic hostile environment still with a relatively unstable core, causing for frequent eruptions and lava deposits. In order to date dinosaur bones in sedimentary rocks, scientists look at surrounding areas to find ash deposits and lava deposits at the same level with include the elements uranium-238, uranium-235 and potassium-40. These have half lifes of millions of years and can be used to determine the approximate age of the sediment layer.

I think that is proof, unless you want to say that it is somehow corrupt

all you did was explain to me how carbon dating works. I already knew all that, and I told you carbon dating was faulty and why it was faulty. I am not going to repeat myself for the third time, save me some time and go back to my posts to just because.

also, you date your dinosuar bones by the sedimentary layers surrounding the fossils and bones. however, in order to use carbon dating, a scientist must first guess how old they believe the sedimentary layers to be prior to using the carbon dating system. They must already have a rough estimate of how old the rock layers are in order for the carbon dating to "work" properly (disregarding the fact that it does not work anyway, like I said, very faulty system with millions of variables)....they get their estimate by looking at the dinosuar bones and fossils. which is circular logic/reasoning.

Trackaholic wrote:

SourWorms wrote:

Trackaholic wrote:

Pinthin wrote:

AudienceOfOne wrote:

Pinthin wrote:

AudienceOfOne wrote:

SourWorms wrote:

Pinthin wrote:

AudienceOfOne wrote:

Pinthin wrote:^ true, I wish they would at least accept that their relgion might not be the 'right religion'. But thats out of the question

it is. why would we follow a fake God? because that's what we would be doing if we didn't think this was the right "religion".

So I guess every other religion is following a fake god then huh?? Wow you should tell them they're just wasting their time.

Mohammed claimed to be the messiah, why don't you guys just randomly believe him?

because we KNOW jesus is God. all the other "gods" are dead. mine is alive.

I thought you guys had "open" minds about others religions? Or were at least a little more accepting. At least this is what my religous friends tell me christians are all about

no one ever told me to have an open mind to other religions. it's like having an open mind to 2+2 being 5.

"love the sinner, hate the sin". love the others, don't lov their religion.

well maybe thats why christians have so many followers, because they dont actually open their minds and glance at other religions.

This explains alot..

At least we don't deny the possibility of any god based on circular reasoning, unproven theories and chimpanzee skeletons.

Scientists have accepted Lucy as a primitive human, walking upright. Reputable scientists mind you, not God fearing ones. And you do deny the possibility of any other god just because you do, you have no reason to believe in your god and not believe in any other one just based on the fact that your parents told you so.

God fearing scientists can be just as reputable as any athiest. If you believe christian scientists are baised towards there findings, well I say to you, so are athiest scientists.

Lucy is a complete fraud:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/1651429/posts

I'm surprised that link is written by a doctor at Brown, it's one of the most liberal schools in the country.

Noah's Arc could've been the Bible equivalent to a parable.

Trackaholic wrote:all you did was explain to me how carbon dating works. I already knew all that, and I told you carbon dating was faulty and why it was faulty. I am not going to repeat myself for the third time, save me some time and go back to my posts to just because.

also, you date your dinosuar bones by the sedimentary layers surrounding the fossils and bones. however, in order to use carbon dating, a scientist must first guess how old they believe the sedimentary layers to be prior to using the carbon dating system. They must already have a rough estimate of how old the rock layers are in order for the carbon dating to "work" properly (disregarding the fact that it does not work anyway, like I said, very faulty system with millions of variables)....they get their estimate by looking at the dinosuar bones and fossils. which is circular logic/reasoning.

I didn't explain carbon dating. I explained the use of Uranium and Potassium dating. It uses the same concept, and is accurate to within a million years or so, which is pretty damn good when speaking about the age of the universe. And scientists do not guess the age of sedimentary layers of rock, they are found using radiometric dating. It is quite obvious that my post went above your head. Read it again and come back to me.

The USGS might be able to explain it a little more clearly than I did.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/dinosaur-bone-age.htm/printable
http://www.howstuffworks.com/framed.htm?parent=dinosaur-bone-age.htm&url=http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html

Read those and tell me they are wrong also

FK wrote:Noah's Arc could've been the Bible equivalent to a parable.

You mean as in a story that never happened but nonetheless teaches a valid point? Could that be the whole point of the Bible? Because the Catholic Church seems to think so...

SourWorms wrote:

FK wrote:Noah's Arc could've been the Bible equivalent to a parable.

You mean as in a story that never happened but nonetheless teaches a valid point? Could that be the whole point of the Bible? Because the Catholic Church seems to think so...

I'm Catholic.

I know but the Roman Catholic Church has mostly dismissed much of the OT as stories and not historical fact. Important stories that teach a very important lesson though.

SourWorms wrote:

Trackaholic wrote:all you did was explain to me how carbon dating works. I already knew all that, and I told you carbon dating was faulty and why it was faulty. I am not going to repeat myself for the third time, save me some time and go back to my posts to just because.

also, you date your dinosuar bones by the sedimentary layers surrounding the fossils and bones. however, in order to use carbon dating, a scientist must first guess how old they believe the sedimentary layers to be prior to using the carbon dating system. They must already have a rough estimate of how old the rock layers are in order for the carbon dating to "work" properly (disregarding the fact that it does not work anyway, like I said, very faulty system with millions of variables)....they get their estimate by looking at the dinosuar bones and fossils. which is circular logic/reasoning.

I didn't explain carbon dating. I explained the use of Uranium and Potassium dating. It uses the same concept, and is accurate to within a million years or so, which is pretty damn good when speaking about the age of the universe. And scientists do not guess the age of sedimentary layers of rock, they are found using radiometric dating. It is quite obvious that my post went above your head. Read it again and come back to me.

The USGS might be able to explain it a little more clearly than I did.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/dinosaur-bone-age.htm/printable
http://www.howstuffworks.com/framed.htm?parent=dinosaur-bone-age.htm&url=http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html

Read those and tell me they are wrong also

In regards to radiometric dating of rock, its completely unreliable. And that is not a hyperbole. All radiometric dating, as well as potassium an uranium, rely's on three assumptions that cannot be proven:

1)That the rate of decay has been constant through time
2) That the isotope abundances in the specimen dated have not been altered during its history by addition or removal of either parent or daughter isotopes
3)That when the rock first formed it contained a known amount of daughter material (and since it is impossible to have known that amount, the whole system hits a gaping black hole.)



your second link in fact supports my point, ironically:

"So far scientists have not found a way to determine the exact age of the Earth directly from Earth rocks because Earth's oldest rocks have been recycled and destroyed by the process of plate tectonics. If there are any of Earth's primordial rocks left in their original state, they have not yet been found. Nevertheless, scientists have been able to determine the probable age of the Solar System and to calculate an age for the Earth by assuming that the Earth and the rest of the solid bodies in the Solar System formed at the same time and are, therefore, of the same age."

well assumptions fall short of fact.

"The ages of Earth and Moon rocks and of meteorites are measured by the decay of long-lived radioactive isotopes of elements that occur naturally in rocks and minerals"

Reference 1, 2, and 3 above.

"These dating techniques, which are firmly grounded in physics and are known collectively as radiometric dating..."

"Today's knowledge of fossil ages comes primarily from radiometric dating, also known as radioactive dating. Radiometric dating relies on the properties of isotopes."

...age(via radiometric dating) is computed under the assumption that the parent substance (say, uranium) gradually decays to the daughter substance (say, lead), so the higher the ratio of lead to uranium, the older the rock must be. Of course, there are many problems with such dating methods, such as parent or daughter substances entering or leaving the rock, as well as daughter product being present at the beginning.

Reference 1, 2 and 3 above

assumptions, assumptions, assumptions

SourWorms wrote:I know but the Roman Catholic Church has mostly dismissed much of the OT as stories and not historical fact. Important stories that teach a very important lesson though.

I believe all of those "stories". however, the NT cannot be treated so callously.

Hey tracko, just wondering (I might have missed the post), how old do you think the world is?

Trackaholic wrote:

SourWorms wrote:

Trackaholic wrote:all you did was explain to me how carbon dating works. I already knew all that, and I told you carbon dating was faulty and why it was faulty. I am not going to repeat myself for the third time, save me some time and go back to my posts to just because.

also, you date your dinosuar bones by the sedimentary layers surrounding the fossils and bones. however, in order to use carbon dating, a scientist must first guess how old they believe the sedimentary layers to be prior to using the carbon dating system. They must already have a rough estimate of how old the rock layers are in order for the carbon dating to "work" properly (disregarding the fact that it does not work anyway, like I said, very faulty system with millions of variables)....they get their estimate by looking at the dinosuar bones and fossils. which is circular logic/reasoning.

I didn't explain carbon dating. I explained the use of Uranium and Potassium dating. It uses the same concept, and is accurate to within a million years or so, which is pretty damn good when speaking about the age of the universe. And scientists do not guess the age of sedimentary layers of rock, they are found using radiometric dating. It is quite obvious that my post went above your head. Read it again and come back to me.

The USGS might be able to explain it a little more clearly than I did.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/dinosaur-bone-age.htm/printable
http://www.howstuffworks.com/framed.htm?parent=dinosaur-bone-age.htm&url=http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html

Read those and tell me they are wrong also

In regards to radiometric dating of rock, its completely unreliable. And that is not a hyperbole. All radiometric dating, as well as potassium an uranium, rely's on three assumptions that cannot be proven:

1)That the rate of decay has been constant through time
2) That the isotope abundances in the specimen dated have not been altered during its history by addition or removal of either parent or daughter isotopes
3)That when the rock first formed it contained a known amount of daughter material (and since it is impossible to have known that amount, the whole system hits a gaping black hole.)



your second link in fact supports my point, ironically:

"So far scientists have not found a way to determine the exact age of the Earth directly from Earth rocks because Earth's oldest rocks have been recycled and destroyed by the process of plate tectonics. If there are any of Earth's primordial rocks left in their original state, they have not yet been found. Nevertheless, scientists have been able to determine the probable age of the Solar System and to calculate an age for the Earth by assuming that the Earth and the rest of the solid bodies in the Solar System formed at the same time and are, therefore, of the same age."

well assumptions fall short of fact.

"The ages of Earth and Moon rocks and of meteorites are measured by the decay of long-lived radioactive isotopes of elements that occur naturally in rocks and minerals"

Reference 1, 2, and 3 above.

"These dating techniques, which are firmly grounded in physics and are known collectively as radiometric dating..."

"Today's knowledge of fossil ages comes primarily from radiometric dating, also known as radioactive dating. Radiometric dating relies on the properties of isotopes."

...age(via radiometric dating) is computed under the assumption that the parent substance (say, uranium) gradually decays to the daughter substance (say, lead), so the higher the ratio of lead to uranium, the older the rock must be. Of course, there are many problems with such dating methods, such as parent or daughter substances entering or leaving the rock, as well as daughter product being present at the beginning.

Reference 1, 2 and 3 above

The daughter and parent isotopes do not enter or leave the rock unless there is some magic force that I am unaware of. If you can explain this phenomenom please share because I am confident you do not know.

"So far scientists have not found a way to determine the exact age of the Earth directly from Earth rocks because Earth's oldest rocks have been recycled and destroyed by the process of plate tectonics. If there are any of Earth's primordial rocks left in their original state, they have not yet been found. Nevertheless, scientists have been able to determine the probable age of the Solar System and to calculate an age for the Earth by assuming that the Earth and the rest of the solid bodies in the Solar System formed at the same time and are, therefore, of the same age."

How does this prove your point? If there are rocks found that are 4.5 billion years old then it proves that the earth is AT LEAST 4.5 billion years old. There have been thousands of samples taken and you cannot call shens on all of these. And the rocks did not contain an unknown amount of daughter material at the beginning. It is irrelevant because you are comparing localized samples and the ratios of the daughter and parent isotopes. And scientists are not studying actual sedimentary layers, but rather volcanic ash that is at the same levels as the sediment in order to approximate the age of these fossils.

You cannot possibly say that every test and every scientist is wrong. There is no evidence that even comes close to explaining an earth that is only 50,000 years old.

Trackaholic wrote:assumptions, assumptions, assumptions

And what exactly do your theories rely on? Fairytales? Certainly not facts.

This should be fun: Adonai and Tracko arguing. Everyone else sit back and enjoy.

Just Because wrote:This should be fun: Adonai and Tracko arguing. Everyone else sit back and enjoy.

Tracko is darth vader. I am Luke.

Adonai wrote:

Just Because wrote:This should be fun: Adonai and Tracko arguing. Everyone else sit back and enjoy.

Tracko is darth vader. I am Luke.

What an insightful response. Thank you for the contribution

SourWorms wrote:What an insightful response. Thank you for the contribution

You're very welcome.

Before I begin I need to say THANKS for verifying my account.

Now then, onto the debate.

You guys are argueing something that has been played out SO MANY times. But since it is here I am going to enter it. Many Christians claim that the reason they don't need to prove their views is because they have faith. Blind faith. Their faith is not at all backed up. I have faith that the sun will rise tommorow because it always has and there has never been an incident where the sun did not rise. They have faith that is not based on fact and that is why the scientific view point is stronger.

They can point holes in the scientific veiw and I accept that. There are many holes. However, I have faith in the fact science WILL awnser it. The difference between my faith and religiouse faith is that mine is justified. Science has awnsered questions that just 200 years ago we were blaming of "life force" and "essential energy". My faith is backed by how many times science has come through to explain what happens.

Now religiouse folk can tell me that ttheir faith is backed by the bible. But their faith in the bible itself is again, blind faith, that is not backed up by any previouse occurence. Along with that, we now know so much about phychology that it is ignorant to say that religion is not a product of the human mind and our ability to adapt by telling ourselves we have a supreme being whatching over us.

Now shimmying back to the first two paragraphs. Religouse folks will tell me that "stuff cannot come from nothing, this a law of the universe." This is true, right now. For all we know science may yet prove that under precise cercumstances that indeed, stuff can come from nothing. Again, this is my proven faith in science that lets me claim stuff like this.

You can argue past this. And I'm fine with that. But know that I will just think you're rambling about the same points you've brought up and have been shot down time and time again.

Now onto morals. You can say that being an atheist makes it so I cannot be a good person. I call your arrogence in thinking this. Being a good person is a human trait that has been in our genes since we became what we've became. Those who did not kill, rape or disrespected other created a more productive environment that allowed them to have more kids and pass these genes on. Indeed, productivity is the essence of being who we are.

Christianity is the product of a councle of men who came together and decided what stories would control people. It is a made up religion.

I've probably missed some of the points made in this thread but if you reply with one that I have not already addressed I will take care of it.

Peace.