Religion

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Ar-Cunin: [img]graemlins/director.gif[/img] A few FACTS the Earth isn't 6000 or a few millions years old - it's ca. 4,5 billion years old. It's was created out of the 'left-over' materials from the creation of the Sun (ca. 5 billion years ago) - as indeed was all the other planets as well. Carbon-dating is based on the FACT that every living organism contain Carcon-atoms. The majority of those are C-12. But some of them are C-14. When the organism dies these C-14 begins to decay - at a fixed rate. Therefore scientists are able to determine approximately how long an organism have been dead. It is also great for exposing fakes such as the Turin Shroud. ---------- Some people may think that evolution it just a 'theory' - I look on it as facts that some (religious) people are too afraid to accept. We do decent from apes/monkeys/mammels/etc. - feel free to incert any 'missing links' Hmmm.... I think I'll stop now, before I get too [img]graemlins/5bloodymurder.gif[/img]

See, the speculated age of the earth and universe is not a fact. It is not quantifiable. It is an educated guess at best. An assesment of data and a speculative assumption.

Even with the error ridden carbon dating process, there is no true way of proving how old the earth is, for we were not around to record it.

Hardly a fact.

Besides, for all we know the universe began a moment ago, and all our memories are implanted.

Originally posted by Lady Blue03: I really don't want to get my head bitten off here, but if there is no proof of the Evolution theory, what proof is there of the Creation Theory? I myself am an Athiest, quite strongly, and I think there is a reason humans resemble apes so closley. You may find it hard to believe that a fish crawled out of the water and learned to walk and evolve, but i similarly find it hard to believe some being just created the earth in 7 days *frowns*

LB I don't see how anyone could fault you for your views. All you did was state your belief, you didn't run any one else down for theirs.

Yorick, you also have topoint out that there is no way to carbon date the earth since, per scientific theory, if the earth is roughly 4bil years old, there were no life forms of any kind for at least a billion or three years.

[Yorick]

[quote]Originally posted by MagiK:

Pretty much the same way you can prove what the temperature of the sun is, or what the speed of light is, or how you can prove proxima centauri is about 4 light years away from us, or that the earth is roundish and not rectangular. You use the best scientific principles available, USUALLY this give you the ability to be right more often than you are wrong.

Magik, science relies on many things to ascertain truth, one being REVERSE PROOF. You'd need to disprove alternate possibilities before making a theory a theorum - Fact.

Carbon dating is NOT foolproof, and is not able to be backed up by any other source of information.

As such it requires FAITH to believe in Carbon Dating. FAITH in the physical sciences, faith in the scientists who constructed the experiments.

Is not money a stern taskmaster? What temptation to miscontrue information for funding. Sucess must be shown...or else. Scientists are human. Like Preachers,Teachers, Judges, Lawyers and the Founding Fathers of America. Fallible.

So has anyone here conducted a carbon dating experiement themselves?

If not then you are a person of faith relying on human testimony, no differently than a person who accepts a human testimony regarding God healing them, or Christ rising from the dead.

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Lady Blue - To the best of my knowledge, there is no "scientific proof" for the Theory of Creation. There is only the Bible. Now, I happen to believe the Bible because of the relationship I've developed with God through Jesus Christ. I've seen His hand guiding many events in my life (and intervening when necessary). I've felt God's presence in my life and I've found the promises He made in the Bible to be true in my life when I've tested them. Therefore, I accept the Bible as the literal Word of God. I don't expect that to prove anything to you, but it is more than enough for me. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Bardan - How do you know (for a fact) that the stars are really billions of years old. Was anyone there to see there creation? And if you accept the theories of science and physics, can you tell me that you fully understand these theories? If not, then you are "putting faith" in the scientists who have developed and tested them. I have done much the same thing. I have put my faith in God and I've tested Him when the need arose. So far, He has never let me down.

I do find it interesting, though...that you can easily accept the fact that the galaxy operates on a scale that is "incomprehensible" to us - yet you completely reject God for much the same reason...because you cannot accept a "cosmic being" that is "incomprehensible to mankind". (This is a summation based on some of your comments from the past. If I've mis-interpreted, I apologize in advance).

Ar-Cunin - I understand the concept behind carbon dating. I also understand that it has been proven to be extremely IN-accurate at times. It's interesting that the only "fake" you mention it exposing is a religious artifact. What about the blind tests mentioned earlier by Nachtrafe where the results were basically hit-or-miss? Was that another example of carbon dating "exposing fakes", or did it point out some flaws in the methodology of carbon dating?

I don't mind anyone "challenging" my beliefs. I also don't mind anyone rejecting my beliefs out-of-hand for themselves. But I do ask that each person examines their own beliefs as closely as critics would have Christians examine theirs. Are your beliefs based on your own personal experiences and observations...or are they based (in part, at least) on the work of others? If so, then how can you be sure those works are accurate? Scientific theories have changed greatly over the years as Mankind's knowledge increased, but the writings in the Bible have remained the same since the day they were written.

Ah well, all that really matters is that we treat each other with compassion and respect. If we do that, then discussions like this can be enlightening (for both sides) as well as entertaining.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by MagiK: Yorick, you also have topoint out that there is no way to carbon date the earth since, per scientific theory, if the earth is roughly 4bil years old, there were no life forms of any kind for at least a billion or three years.

Sorry (cough) er... There is no way to carbon date the earth since per scientific theory, if the earth is 4billion years old, there were no life forms of any kind for at least three billion years....

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: Lady Blue - To the best of my knowledge, there is no "scientific proof" for the Theory of Creation. There is only the Bible.

Actually yes there is. There are a large number of scientists who are creation scientists. Creation Science is a valid theory, based on the physical world (like the amount of space dust on the moon etc), not the bible.

There is evidence of a global flood as well.

I was of the school of thought that the flood of the bible was regional until I attended lectures given by Creation Scientists. Very compelling, and backed up by the Sciological proof that every culture in histroy has had both a creation and flood myth.

There's no smoke without a fire....

[ 12-03-2002, 06:35 PM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

[Ar-Cunin]

Originally posted by Yorick: Actually yes there is. There are a large number of scientists who are creation scientists. Creation Science is a valid theory, based on the physical world (like the amount of space dust on the moon etc), not the bible.

I wouldn't call them scientists -and they are in a clear minority worldwide (I don't think there's a single one in DK)

There is evidence of a global flood as well.

Not in the geological records - cetainly not in recent time. And yes - I have studied geology as part of my Master's Degree.

I was of the school of thought that the flood of the bible was regional until I attended lectures given by Creation Scientists. Very compelling, and backed up by the Sciological proof that every culture in histroy has had both a creation and flood myth.

Every primitive culture needs to explain how it has come to be - thus creation-myths are created. And every primitive culture has likely expirienced floods (even bad ones) - thus myths are created.

Another myth that occurs on differnt continents is that Earth is flat (and carried on the back of a turtle) - That doesn't make it true.

There's no smoke without a fire....

Yes there is - it is called fog ....... that which obscures facts [img]smile.gif[/img]

P.S. Good Night (it's 1 am over here)

[ 12-03-2002, 06:53 PM: Message edited by: Ar-Cunin ]

[The Hierophant]

Originally posted by Nachtrafe: Evolution is bunk. Fish do not evolve into monkeys, trees do not evolve into eagles, and people do not evolve from apes. Now, if we're talking about generational evolution i.e. Giraffe's getting longer and longer necks as successive generations need to reach higher and higher to eat), then I agree...that is a completely viable, and proven theory. But the general theory of Evolution is bunk.

No, fish do not evolve into monkeys, how true. Fish live in the sea as fish. Every few thousand years or so (which is pretty much the temporal age of human 'civilization' so far, to put the time-frame into perspective) a fish will develope a 'significant' mutation in it's genetic code via a number of possible courses (like say, a 'mistake' in reproductive DNA generation perhaps). If this mutation proves beneficial, ie: gives the fish some sort of survival/thriving advantage (and doesn't kill it outright, that's always a plus [img]smile.gif[/img] ) then chances are that it will be passed onto it's offspring, although it may very well not be passed on, the fish could fall afoul of undersea currents and get swept up by a hungry shark, bad luck.
Anyway, as these mutations accumulate over thousands, even millions of years, the fish starts to take on characteristics quite noticably different from those of it's predecessors thousands/millions of years ago. It may, by chance, discover that it is able to breath in open-air, or develope tentacle-like apparatus for a different technique of swimming. Now, as time goes by, these newfound characteristics separate the 'new' lifeform from it's other, non-mutated bretheren. It can still mate, to some degree, with it's old compadres (and thus produce similar offspring), but gradually it drifts away from it's old school, so to speak. As more and more of these mutated 'fish' band together, they gradually move toward establishing their own 'communities', and mate with each other on a more exclusive basis. Eventually, after thousands of years of this sort of gene-separation, the 'new' fish have become so genetically different from the 'old' (who have not mutated in such a manner, nor mated with those who have mutated in such a manner) that they can no longer mate with one another. Thus an entirely different species is 'born'. It is a slow process, it is an accumulative process, one which is completely unnoticable when viewd in only a few short generations. It takes literally thousands of generations to create a new species, and even then it relies upon the chance of genetic mutation occuring in order to take effect.
Over thousands of millions of years (think about it, thousands of millions , not just thousands, not just millions, but thousands of millions... that's a loooong time [img]smile.gif[/img] ), these genetic mutations lead to the development of whole new techniques of life-generation (mammalian warm-bloodedness, reptilian yolk-eggs etc). Thus, fish do not evolve into monkeys, but it would appear that they have evolved into something, which evolved into something else which evolved into blah blah blah... which eventually evolved into monkeys....which are in turn evolving into something else as we speak (as are we all). Fascinating
Now of course, absolutely none of this theory of evolution proves nor disproves the existance of Gods, demons, the supernatural etc. It merely makes an attempt (and a pretty bloody good attempt in my opinion) to explain the ways in which life has diversified itself over time. It is certainly NOT bunk! Yet it could very well not in fact be true . *shrugs*. I choose to accept it on faith (faith being, as Yorick and Cerek have mentioned, the cornerstone of any and all supposed human 'knowledge').

Ps: sorry for the long post, I know it's a fair slog to get through, but thank you for your patience [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 12-04-2002, 02:40 AM: Message edited by: The Hierophant ]

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Ar-Cunin - Just out of curiosity, why do Creation Scientists not qualify as scientists in your opinion? They are trying to prove a hypothesis based on the study of physical evidence rather than theological evidence. Is that not the definition of a scientist? Is it just because the field is in the minority in the science community? Or is it because they are trying to prove Creation rather than Evolution? IF they go about their studies and data collection using the same methodology and protocol as other scientists, why do they not qualify as scientists? I am sincerely curious about this.

Heirophant - Excellent post. [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img] It was a perfect illustration of exactly why it is essential to the Theory of Evolution that the Earth be declared millions of years old. Without a sufficiently long timeline to work with, the Theory of Evolution collapses in on itself. So - theoretically speaking - if scientists could conclusively prove (through whatever means is considered acceptable) that the Earth was less than one million years old, it would completely invalidate the Theory of Evolution.

I wasn't aware of that fact myself until just a few months ago. I was researching another Biblical question when I came across an article explaining that the theory of the Earth being several million years old was actually a relatively new development. This idea is less than 100yrs old IIRC. The article went on to say that the scientific community never considered the Earth to be that old until the Theory of Evolution began to gain popularity. I forget what the prevailing theory of the Earth's age was at that time, but it certainly wasn't "millions of years". But, as the Theory of Evolution gained popularity, scientists realized it could not be true unless they "extended" the current hypothesis of the Earth's age by several million years. Carbon dating became the "accepted dating methodology" shortly thereafter.

In the interest of "full disclosure", this article was on a Christian website, so it can't be considered objective. But I did find the information interesting.

Ar-Cunin gave a good explanation of why carbon dating is used and how it works. Scientists use carbon dating because all life forms contain carbon in their make-up and carbon breaks down at a very consistent rate. That's well and good, but this answer begs another question. MagiK and Yorick pointed out that the Earth is generally considered to be about 4.5 billion years old, but there were NO living organisms around for the first 3 billion years (give or take a millenium ). If "carbon based life" has only been around for approx. 1/4 of the Earth's existence, why is it considered an accurate indicator of how old the planet really is? Surely there are other elements that are present in Earth's strata that have the same reliable half-life progression as Carbon, but that are found in objects that could conceivably pre-date life on Earth. Why do we not use one of those elements instead?