Who was your daddy? Evolution or Creationism.

[meltdown75]

evolution is God's way of creating. 😛

/runs

 

[HardcoreRobot]

i call shens on creation. to be blunt, it is NOT POSSIBLE

 

[steelio]

I'm from KS what is evolution? Is that when farmer dan was "helping his sheep over the fence" and a few months later there were some but ugly sheep with his face on them? I dont understand.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: meltdown75
evolution is God's way of creating. 😛

/runs

agreed.

Originally posted by: Gibsons
I think it comes down to a fundamental misunderstanding about entropy. Entropy is (mistakenly) thought to mean you can't get big molecules from small molecules without somehow violating the second law. Throw in another misunderstanding about what constitutes a "closed system" and you've got "thermodynamics says evolution can't happen."

IMO, anyway...

agreed.

Originally posted by: BD2003
Because life didnt arise by pure luck. That would be like denying the existence of your parents when youre pondering how you came to be. Which sounds creationist, but just follow that line of reasoning back to the start of life.

All it took to get on the track for life was one single molecule that could replicate itself. Thats it. By the virtue of the fact that it could replicate itself, it spread, because that is quite obviously the consequence of replication. So then youve got millions of them, billions of them, even trillions of them. Then all it took was something to happen, some little mutation or addition that made it so the new molecule replicated itself just a bit better. Over god awful amounts of times, since its just better at replicating itself, it became prevalent. Give it a few billion years, which is a nearly unfathomable amount of time, and youve got us. I dont see the point where faith or divine intervention is necessary. Youre right, the vast majority of combinations and trials are not going to work. But youre ignoring the vast, disgustingly huge amount of "trials" that have occurred, and all it takes is one, out of zillions.

And youre just wrong about energy. Itll "spend itself" whenever it has the chance, unless something else is holding it back. And Im still not sure why thermodynamics always creeps into debates about evolution, since theyre practically unrelated in theory.

energy needs a reason to express itself = energy has to have the opportunity to express itself. in other words, there's no pointless waste of energy. it's all a kind of universal homeostatic mechanism. what you might think would be one random expression of energy would have an effect on the environment and, ultimately, the universe (ball lightning, quarks, etc).

i understand that the time of evolution permitted an unfathomable amount of reaction combinations and mutations. however, what you might not be realizing is that combinations and genetic mutations don't happen unless there's a purpose or a need (overabundance of an ion or chemical, deficiency of an ion or chemical, etc). these mutations happen daily, but my suggestion (and belief) is that the mutations that actually go on to completely change one phylum into another repeatedly, to eventually end up with us, must have an architect.... to me, that architect is God.... not chance.

 

[misterj]

Originally posted by: FoBoT
both

Originally posted by: meltdown75
evolution is God's way of creating. 😛

/runs

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: eits
...my suggestion (and belief) is that the mutations that actually go on to completely change one phylum into another repeatedly, to eventually end up with us, must have an architect.... to me, that architect is God.... not chance.

I'll give you the long version...

Suppose that Mr. Evolution and Mr. Creation are standing together out in a large field, and Mr. Evolution just happens to have a bow and an arrow. To demonstrate my small point, Mr. Evolution dons a blindfold, and the proceeds to do about a dozen pirouettes, stopping to face in a random direction.

Then, Mr. Evolution aims his arrow skyward at an arbitrary angle, and he lets his arrow fly (Mr. Creation is standing just next to Mr. Evolution, so he is in no danger). Naturally, gravity takes its course, and the arrow falls sticks into the ground some distance from the two of them.

Without missing a beat, Mr. Creation runs over to the arrow, and quickly paints a target around it.

"Oh, my WORD!" exclaims Mr. Creation, "The arrow hit the bullseye! Why, the odds of that happening are astronomical! There's absolutely no way that an arrow fired blindly in a random direction could hit the bullseye so precisely! I must conclude that God guided this arrow! Praise the Lord!!"

"What's the big deal?" asks Mr. Evolution. "The arrow had to land somewhere. It was inevitable. Maybe God guided it, maybe He didn't, but we can't conclude that He did just because you decided that the place it happened to land is of some special significance."

You are exactly like Mr. Creation. You are painting the target around the arrow, and then marvelling at the precision with which the arrow hit the bullseye. In reality, the arrow could have landed in many places, and we have no objective basis to conclude that where it did happen to land is more "special" than any of the other of places that were possible.

Do you realize what types of things happen every day against what would seem like impossible odds? What do you think the chances are that all of the air molecules in your room/office/whatever would be inexactly their respective locations at any given moment? Yet, do you regularly go about proclaiming the handiwork of God in such mundane details? I doubt it.

-Garth

 

[BD2003]

Now you are not only wrong about energy, but youre also wrong about mutations. Unless I am entirely misunderstanding you (doesnt seem like I am), you are assigning purpose to things which do not require them, and that do not have them.

energy needs a reason to express itself = energy has to have the opportunity to express itself. in other words, there's no pointless waste of energy. it's all a kind of universal homeostatic mechanism. what you might think would be one random expression of energy would have an effect on the environment and, ultimately, the universe (ball lightning, quarks, etc).

Youre assigning purpose, value and reasoning to energy, which is absolutely, utterly wrong. Energy does not "express itself". There is energy in a system, in various forms. It can exist in kinetic energy/heat, or potential, stored energy. There is nothing that decides what is a waste of energy. In absolutely all cases, the energy of a system will move towards having higher entropy, in other words, more even distribution, randomness. In a closed system, the total amount of energy cannot change. If its not in the heat of the system, its stored in the bonds of the molecules. The only way a molecule is reacting or changing conformation, its because something gave it enough energy to get over the activation energy hump to change conformation or split already. Any particles/molecules that are not already in the absolute lowest energy, most stable possible state are that way because they are stable as they are, and there is no enough surrounding energy to kick them out of their stable state into another.

Youre right in understanding that energy lost here = energy gained there, but like evolution, its an absolutely mindless process that proceeds through concrete, absolute rules, with no point of decision or choice made by anything in any way. Its one thing to misunderstand evolution, but another thing to misunderstand thermodynamics. You'd have to be a real loon to pick up that fight, since theres pretty much zero leeway for any alternative explanation.

i understand that the time of evolution permitted an unfathomable amount of reaction combinations and mutations. however, what you might not be realizing is that combinations and genetic mutations don't happen unless there's a purpose or a need (overabundance of an ion or chemical, deficiency of an ion or chemical, etc). these mutations happen daily, but my suggestion (and belief) is that the mutations that actually go on to completely change one phylum into another repeatedly, to eventually end up with us, must have an architect.... to me, that architect is God.... not chance.

Again, youre wrong. You should have listened a bit closer in bio class since you obviously took it, otherwise you wouldnt be talking about ions.

There is absolutely no purpose behind evolution. It might seem that way, because organisms evolve to changing conditions, but its not cause they decided so. Its completely indirect. An organism does not decide that because ion concentrations are different in this one environment than another, that they are going to evolve and take over that niche. There is no need to throw a creator/architect into the mix either. Rather, those that can survive in the new environment reproduce more. Therefore theres more of them. The genes that give an organism the ability to survive in the new environment indirectly become more numerous because they are having more babies, not because something decided it so beforehand. If the environments are so different eventually you will have speciation, because the two populations are reproductively isolated. Allopatric speciation. 😛

Now the difference between what youre saying, and what Im saying is twofold. First, mine requires no leap of faith. Its all based on testable, reproducible conditions, with unsurmountable evidence in favor of it. Its generally accepted by scientists because it works.

There are things about evolution and thermodynamics that are not fully understood, but those things in no way undermine the whole. That is the key fallacy that creationists try to exploit, but its based on a logical flaw.

You can believe what you want of course, but theres a big difference between believing (requires faith) and understanding (requires thought/logic/reasoning), and an even bigger difference between facts and opinions. Evolution and Thermodynamics require understanding NOT belief.

Ive said it before, and Ill say it again. If you truely understand evolution, you will see why it is impossible to deny. Not overwhelmingly hard to deny, but impossible. For you to deny it would require lying to yourself, and pretending to not know or ignore things completely independent of evolution, that you know for sure, and would be crazy to deny. Like arithmetic. Once you tell me 2+2 is not 4, then we cant even talk.

 

[JackBurton]

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: eits
...my suggestion (and belief) is that the mutations that actually go on to completely change one phylum into another repeatedly, to eventually end up with us, must have an architect.... to me, that architect is God.... not chance.

I'll give you the long version...

Suppose that Mr. Evolution and Mr. Creation are standing together out in a large field, and Mr. Evolution just happens to have a bow and an arrow. To demonstrate my small point, Mr. Evolution dons a blindfold, and the proceeds to do about a dozen pirouettes, stopping to face in a random direction.

Then, Mr. Evolution aims his arrow skyward at an arbitrary angle, and he lets his arrow fly (Mr. Creation is standing just next to Mr. Evolution, so he is in no danger). Naturally, gravity takes its course, and the arrow falls sticks into the ground some distance from the two of them.

Without missing a beat, Mr. Creation runs over to the arrow, and quickly paints a target around it.

"Oh, my WORD!" exclaims Mr. Creation, "The arrow hit the bullseye! Why, the odds of that happening are astronomical! There's absolutely no way that an arrow fired blindly in a random direction could hit the bullseye so precisely! I must conclude that God guided this arrow! Praise the Lord!!"

"What's the big deal?" asks Mr. Evolution. "The arrow had to land somewhere. It was inevitable. Maybe God guided it, maybe He didn't, but we can't conclude that He did just because you decided that the place it happened to land is of some special significance."

You are exactly like Mr. Creation. You are painting the target around the arrow, and then marvelling at the precision with which the arrow hit the bullseye. In reality, the arrow could have landed in many places, and we have no objective basis to conclude that where it did happen to land is more "special" than any of the other of places that were possible.

Do you realize what types of things happen every day against what would seem like impossible odds? What do you think the chances are that all of the air molecules in your room/office/whatever would be inexactly their respective locations at any given moment? Yet, do you regularly go about proclaiming the handiwork of God in such mundane details? I doubt it.

-Garth

Garth, I'd like to commend you on your patience with these people. I'm incaplable of exercising such restraint.

 

[MrToilet]

Originally posted by: BD2003
Its one thing to misunderstand evolution, but another thing to misunderstand thermodynamics. You'd have to be a real loon to pick up that fight, since theres pretty much zero leeway for any alternative explanation.

There are things about evolution and thermodynamics that are not fully understood, but those things in no way undermine the whole. That is the key fallacy that creationists try to exploit, but its based on a logical flaw.

You can believe what you want of course, but theres a big difference between believing (requires faith) and understanding (requires thought/logic/reasoning), and an even bigger difference between facts and opinions. Evolution and Thermodynamics require understanding NOT belief.

Ive said it before, and Ill say it again. If you truely understand evolution, you will see why it is impossible to deny. Not overwhelmingly hard to deny, but impossible. For you to deny it would require lying to yourself, and pretending to not know or ignore things completely independent of evolution, that you know for sure, and would be crazy to deny. Like arithmetic. Once you tell me 2+2 is not 4, then we cant even talk.

Actually- the 2nd law of Thermodynamics coincides perfectly with evolution from simpler structures to more complex- if you consider that there is a constant input of energy from the Sun, which allows for less entropy and greater order- albeit until such time as the Sun burns out. So technically the Earth is not a "closed system", and can generate both order and complexity.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: MrToilet

Originally posted by: BD2003
Its one thing to misunderstand evolution, but another thing to misunderstand thermodynamics. You'd have to be a real loon to pick up that fight, since theres pretty much zero leeway for any alternative explanation.

There are things about evolution and thermodynamics that are not fully understood, but those things in no way undermine the whole. That is the key fallacy that creationists try to exploit, but its based on a logical flaw.

You can believe what you want of course, but theres a big difference between believing (requires faith) and understanding (requires thought/logic/reasoning), and an even bigger difference between facts and opinions. Evolution and Thermodynamics require understanding NOT belief.

Ive said it before, and Ill say it again. If you truely understand evolution, you will see why it is impossible to deny. Not overwhelmingly hard to deny, but impossible. For you to deny it would require lying to yourself, and pretending to not know or ignore things completely independent of evolution, that you know for sure, and would be crazy to deny. Like arithmetic. Once you tell me 2+2 is not 4, then we cant even talk.

Actually- the 2nd law of Thermodynamics coincides perfectly with evolution from simpler structures to more complex- if you consider that there is a constant input of energy from the Sun, which allows for less entropy and greater order- albeit until such time as the Sun burns out. So technically the Earth is not a "closed system", and can generate both order and complexity.

Absolutely. The closed system I was referring to was in effect the entire universe. 😛

 

[MrToilet]

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: MrToilet

Originally posted by: BD2003
Its one thing to misunderstand evolution, but another thing to misunderstand thermodynamics. You'd have to be a real loon to pick up that fight, since theres pretty much zero leeway for any alternative explanation.

There are things about evolution and thermodynamics that are not fully understood, but those things in no way undermine the whole. That is the key fallacy that creationists try to exploit, but its based on a logical flaw.

You can believe what you want of course, but theres a big difference between believing (requires faith) and understanding (requires thought/logic/reasoning), and an even bigger difference between facts and opinions. Evolution and Thermodynamics require understanding NOT belief.

Ive said it before, and Ill say it again. If you truely understand evolution, you will see why it is impossible to deny. Not overwhelmingly hard to deny, but impossible. For you to deny it would require lying to yourself, and pretending to not know or ignore things completely independent of evolution, that you know for sure, and would be crazy to deny. Like arithmetic. Once you tell me 2+2 is not 4, then we cant even talk.

Actually- the 2nd law of Thermodynamics coincides perfectly with evolution from simpler structures to more complex- if you consider that there is a constant input of energy from the Sun, which allows for less entropy and greater order- albeit until such time as the Sun burns out. So technically the Earth is not a "closed system", and can generate both order and complexity.

Absolutely. The closed system I was referring to was in effect the entire universe. 😛

Gotcha. Like I said earlier in this thread, it's often difficult for people to comprehend the length/breadth of geological and astronomical time. I mean, a billion years to most people is just a number, and they don't realize how long that is.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: MrToilet

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: MrToilet

Originally posted by: BD2003
Its one thing to misunderstand evolution, but another thing to misunderstand thermodynamics. You'd have to be a real loon to pick up that fight, since theres pretty much zero leeway for any alternative explanation.

There are things about evolution and thermodynamics that are not fully understood, but those things in no way undermine the whole. That is the key fallacy that creationists try to exploit, but its based on a logical flaw.

You can believe what you want of course, but theres a big difference between believing (requires faith) and understanding (requires thought/logic/reasoning), and an even bigger difference between facts and opinions. Evolution and Thermodynamics require understanding NOT belief.

Ive said it before, and Ill say it again. If you truely understand evolution, you will see why it is impossible to deny. Not overwhelmingly hard to deny, but impossible. For you to deny it would require lying to yourself, and pretending to not know or ignore things completely independent of evolution, that you know for sure, and would be crazy to deny. Like arithmetic. Once you tell me 2+2 is not 4, then we cant even talk.

Actually- the 2nd law of Thermodynamics coincides perfectly with evolution from simpler structures to more complex- if you consider that there is a constant input of energy from the Sun, which allows for less entropy and greater order- albeit until such time as the Sun burns out. So technically the Earth is not a "closed system", and can generate both order and complexity.

Absolutely. The closed system I was referring to was in effect the entire universe. 😛

Gotcha. Like I said earlier in this thread, it's often difficult for people to comprehend the length/breadth of geological and astronomical time. I mean, a billion years to most people is just a number, and they don't realize how long that is.

And on top of that, they dont realize how damn fast micro-organisms go through generations, along with the sheer number of individuals.

Its not as if theres a million humans having a few babies every 3 years for a billion years that led to the major changes in evolution, its more like quintillions of bacteria splitting themselves after a day for a billion years. Do the math. 🙂

The numbers are so ridiculously large and well, ridiculous, that all of a sudden it isnt hard to see how a few little random changes here or there, even though the vast majority of them are maladaptive, could lead to vertebrates.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: MrToilet

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: MrToilet

Originally posted by: BD2003
Its one thing to misunderstand evolution, but another thing to misunderstand thermodynamics. You'd have to be a real loon to pick up that fight, since theres pretty much zero leeway for any alternative explanation.

There are things about evolution and thermodynamics that are not fully understood, but those things in no way undermine the whole. That is the key fallacy that creationists try to exploit, but its based on a logical flaw.

You can believe what you want of course, but theres a big difference between believing (requires faith) and understanding (requires thought/logic/reasoning), and an even bigger difference between facts and opinions. Evolution and Thermodynamics require understanding NOT belief.

Ive said it before, and Ill say it again. If you truely understand evolution, you will see why it is impossible to deny. Not overwhelmingly hard to deny, but impossible. For you to deny it would require lying to yourself, and pretending to not know or ignore things completely independent of evolution, that you know for sure, and would be crazy to deny. Like arithmetic. Once you tell me 2+2 is not 4, then we cant even talk.

Actually- the 2nd law of Thermodynamics coincides perfectly with evolution from simpler structures to more complex- if you consider that there is a constant input of energy from the Sun, which allows for less entropy and greater order- albeit until such time as the Sun burns out. So technically the Earth is not a "closed system", and can generate both order and complexity.

Absolutely. The closed system I was referring to was in effect the entire universe. 😛

Gotcha. Like I said earlier in this thread, it's often difficult for people to comprehend the length/breadth of geological and astronomical time. I mean, a billion years to most people is just a number, and they don't realize how long that is.

And on top of that, they dont realize how damn fast micro-organisms go through generations, along with the sheer number of individuals.

Its not as if theres a million humans having a few babies every 3 years for a billion years that led to the major changes in evolution, its more like quintillions of bacteria splitting themselves after a day for a billion years. Do the math. 🙂

The numbers are so ridiculously large and well, ridiculous, that all of a sudden it isnt hard to see how a few little random changes here or there, even though the vast majority of them are maladaptive, could lead to vertebrates.

A little tidbit of info that I picked up the other day when working at improving my brewer skills, yeast can go though a billion (1,000,000,000) generations in just 10 hours. It can mutate so fast as to cause problems for a brewer by changing fermentation properties (and therefore flavor) of a beer between batches.
Why is it so hard to believe that a billion years of this could create something very different from the original?

 

[FrustratedUser]

Originally posted by: SMOGZINN

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: MrToilet

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: MrToilet

Originally posted by: BD2003
Its one thing to misunderstand evolution, but another thing to misunderstand thermodynamics. You'd have to be a real loon to pick up that fight, since theres pretty much zero leeway for any alternative explanation.

There are things about evolution and thermodynamics that are not fully understood, but those things in no way undermine the whole. That is the key fallacy that creationists try to exploit, but its based on a logical flaw.

You can believe what you want of course, but theres a big difference between believing (requires faith) and understanding (requires thought/logic/reasoning), and an even bigger difference between facts and opinions. Evolution and Thermodynamics require understanding NOT belief.

Ive said it before, and Ill say it again. If you truely understand evolution, you will see why it is impossible to deny. Not overwhelmingly hard to deny, but impossible. For you to deny it would require lying to yourself, and pretending to not know or ignore things completely independent of evolution, that you know for sure, and would be crazy to deny. Like arithmetic. Once you tell me 2+2 is not 4, then we cant even talk.

Actually- the 2nd law of Thermodynamics coincides perfectly with evolution from simpler structures to more complex- if you consider that there is a constant input of energy from the Sun, which allows for less entropy and greater order- albeit until such time as the Sun burns out. So technically the Earth is not a "closed system", and can generate both order and complexity.

Absolutely. The closed system I was referring to was in effect the entire universe. 😛

Gotcha. Like I said earlier in this thread, it's often difficult for people to comprehend the length/breadth of geological and astronomical time. I mean, a billion years to most people is just a number, and they don't realize how long that is.

And on top of that, they dont realize how damn fast micro-organisms go through generations, along with the sheer number of individuals.

Its not as if theres a million humans having a few babies every 3 years for a billion years that led to the major changes in evolution, its more like quintillions of bacteria splitting themselves after a day for a billion years. Do the math. 🙂

The numbers are so ridiculously large and well, ridiculous, that all of a sudden it isnt hard to see how a few little random changes here or there, even though the vast majority of them are maladaptive, could lead to vertebrates.

A little tidbit of info that I picked up the other day when working at improving my brewer skills, yeast can go though a billion (1,000,000,000) generations in just 10 hours. It can mutate so fast as to cause problems for a brewer by changing fermentation properties (and therefore flavor) of a beer between batches.
Why is it so hard to believe that a billion years of this could create something very different from the original?

It's called 'faith'.

 

[jcwagers]

Creationism. 🙂

 

[qaa541]

Evolution

 

[A Scream]

Wow, no way I could have read all that. Ya'll are killing me.

A few questions...
1. How old is the earth? (I've heard 6000 years, to 10 billion.)
2. How do you prove "macro"-evolution? (I don't see being able to look at yourself and say, "I'm here, so that means... Uhhh... I've been created!!! or, I must have "evolved"!!!" Seems to me, that's reverse logic.)
3. How do you use the fossil record to prove anything? (Isn't most of it crustations?)
4. Do you believe in a natual catastrophy?

And, How can you call yourself a Christian and believe in Evolution? lol, If you don't believe in the firfst book of the bible, why would you believe in the rest? I mean come on... a guy coming to life to "save" us from our sins? and what about that story of "jonah and the whale"? Since when do "big fish" swallow people and spit em out on land?


And when you evaluate the what someone else is saying, view it with an open mind. Don't shut em down just cause there a creationist, or cause there an evolutionist.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: A Scream
Wow, no way I could have read all that. Ya'll are killing me.

A few questions...
1. How old is the earth? (I've heard 6000 years, to 10 billion.)

Roughly 4.5 billion years.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

2. How do you prove "macro"-evolution? (I don't see being able to look at yourself and say, "I'm here, so that means... Uhhh... I've been created!!! or, I must have "evolved"!!!" Seems to me, that's reverse logic.)

First things first: forget "proof." When dealing with facts about the real world, there is no such thing as proof. It is logically conceivable that even the things we take for granted are just illusions created for our senses in a Matrix-type scenario. What we must deal with is reasonable interpretation of available evidence.

That said, the best evidence for macro-evolution is the twin nested hierarchy (IMO).

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#nested_hierarchy

3. How do you use the fossil record to prove anything? (Isn't most of it crustations?)

The fossil record is important for several reasons. It's sorting relative to the geologic column is probably the most important. It allows us to date the appearance of new phyla in relation to other phyla. One never finds a mammalian fossil among pre-cambrian fossils, for example. There's no reason why this should be if all species were created at the same time, but it could be no other way under evolutionary theory.

4. Do you believe in a natual catastrophy?

Not sure what the point of this question is. I think everyone that is moderately aware of current events knows of the tsunami and the recent quake, for examples. If you're talking of a global flood, then no. There is no evidence of one ever happening.

And, How can you call yourself a Christian and believe in Evolution? lol, If you don't believe in the firfst book of the bible, why would you believe in the rest?

It's a matter of interpretation. A person can believe one interpretation but not another. That a person doesn't believe YOUR interpretation doesn't mean that they "don't believe the Bible."

I mean come on... a guy coming to life to "save" us from our sins? and what about that story of "jonah and the whale"? Since when do "big fish" swallow people and spit em out on land?

Do you take everything in the Bible literally as it is written? (Think very carefully before you answer this question, it is a trick)

-Garth

 

[Forsythe]

Where's the "Hey, i ordered a cheese burger" vote option?

 

[A Scream]

Originally posted by: Garth
Roughly 4.5 billion years.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

Looking at that they said that there are three main elements for saying what the age of the earth is...
1. Carbon dating
Which was proven false with Mt, Saint Helen, they took carbon samples from the rocks just formed and found way outta sink.

2. Three isotopes
I would accept this except...

The most direct means for calculating the Earth's age is a Pb/Pb isochron age, derived from samples of the Earth and meteorites. This involves measurement of three isotopes of lead (Pb-206, Pb-207, and either Pb-208 or Pb-204). A plot is constructed of Pb-206/Pb-204 versus Pb-207/Pb-204.

If the solar system formed from a common pool of matter, which was uniformly distributed in terms of Pb isotope ratios, then the initial plots for all objects from that pool of matter would fall on a single point.

the big bad assumption, you cannot assume something to be correct then prove it based from that ideas that it is correct. (circular reasoning.) They are assuming that the universe started all together, and slowly seperated... What happens if they started apart? everything they said there is correct except they went to far with their graph...

They are saying that everything started with the same amount of decay of the isotope (I'm guessing, not to familiar with this.) And by looking at the amounts found of the metors they can determine how long ago it was before they seperated? Please cprrect me if I'm wrong.


lol, I'll reply to the rest tomorrow as I'm still under my parent's management, and they say it's time for bed an hour ago.

P.S. I take everything literal, in the sence that a parable is a parable and a prophesy is a prophesy, e.g. the book of revelation will occer exactly as written.

For the above reason, I'll go into deeper later.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: A Scream

Originally posted by: Garth
Roughly 4.5 billion years.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

Looking at that they said that there are three main elements for saying what the age of the earth is...
1. Carbon dating
Which was proven false with Mt, Saint Helen, they took carbon samples from the rocks just formed and found way outta sink.

Okay, here already your ignorance is manifest. ROCKS ARE NOT DATED USING RADIOCARBON. Only organic matter is dated using radiocarbon dating, andthe method is already known to be useful dating samples less than approximately 60,000 years old.

2. Three isotopes
I would accept this except...

The most direct means for calculating the Earth's age is a Pb/Pb isochron age, derived from samples of the Earth and meteorites. This involves measurement of three isotopes of lead (Pb-206, Pb-207, and either Pb-208 or Pb-204). A plot is constructed of Pb-206/Pb-204 versus Pb-207/Pb-204.

If the solar system formed from a common pool of matter, which was uniformly distributed in terms of Pb isotope ratios, then the initial plots for all objects from that pool of matter would fall on a single point.

the big bad assumption, you cannot assume something to be correct then prove it based from that ideas that it is correct. (circular reasoning.)

Just stop. Stop before I think less of you than I already do.

Read the rest:

However, the test for these assumptions is the plot of the data itself. The actual underlying assumption is that, if those requirements have not been met, there is no reason for the data points to fall on a line.

Why else would the evidence appear exactly as predicted, if it were not the case that the assumptions that precipitated the predictions were themselves correct?

They are assuming that the universe started all together, and slowly seperated...

No, this hypothesis is supported by all of the available evidence.

{snip}

They are saying that everything started with the same amount of decay of the isotope (I'm guessing, not to familiar with this.) And by looking at the amounts found of the metors they can determine how long ago it was before they seperated? Please cprrect me if I'm wrong.

You're wrong. They are analyzing the half-lives of the isotopes. Therefore, they need to make no assumptions about the "starting amount of decay."


{snip}

P.S. I take everything literal, in the sence that a parable is a parable and a prophesy is a prophesy, e.g. the book of revelation will occer exactly as written.

Ah, so you must believe that bats are birds, that rabbits chew the cud, that mustard seeds are the smallest seeds, and that the Earth is flat. No wonder you're so confused.

For the above reason, I'll go into deeper later.

Oh, goody. I can't wait.

 

[FrustratedUser]

The ignorance is strong in this one.

 

[MrToilet]

Okay, here's the gauntlet being thrown down:

To the people who believe in divine creation: Where is the evidence? Show me, clear, indisputable, verifiable, evidence that the world was created by God, as shown in the Bible. And use sources *other* than the Bible. Trying to point out inconsistencies with evolution does *not*, I repeat does *not* support divine Creation.

 

[SuperStrokey]

Originally posted by: Sheepathon
Why can't people accept the possibility that perhaps god created the earth and set the scientific parameters to allow evolution?

word, im down with that

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: eits
...my suggestion (and belief) is that the mutations that actually go on to completely change one phylum into another repeatedly, to eventually end up with us, must have an architect.... to me, that architect is God.... not chance.

I'll give you the long version...

Suppose that Mr. Evolution and Mr. Creation are standing together out in a large field, and Mr. Evolution just happens to have a bow and an arrow. To demonstrate my small point, Mr. Evolution dons a blindfold, and the proceeds to do about a dozen pirouettes, stopping to face in a random direction.

Then, Mr. Evolution aims his arrow skyward at an arbitrary angle, and he lets his arrow fly (Mr. Creation is standing just next to Mr. Evolution, so he is in no danger). Naturally, gravity takes its course, and the arrow falls sticks into the ground some distance from the two of them.

Without missing a beat, Mr. Creation runs over to the arrow, and quickly paints a target around it.

"Oh, my WORD!" exclaims Mr. Creation, "The arrow hit the bullseye! Why, the odds of that happening are astronomical! There's absolutely no way that an arrow fired blindly in a random direction could hit the bullseye so precisely! I must conclude that God guided this arrow! Praise the Lord!!"

"What's the big deal?" asks Mr. Evolution. "The arrow had to land somewhere. It was inevitable. Maybe God guided it, maybe He didn't, but we can't conclude that He did just because you decided that the place it happened to land is of some special significance."

You are exactly like Mr. Creation. You are painting the target around the arrow, and then marvelling at the precision with which the arrow hit the bullseye. In reality, the arrow could have landed in many places, and we have no objective basis to conclude that where it did happen to land is more "special" than any of the other of places that were possible.

Do you realize what types of things happen every day against what would seem like impossible odds? What do you think the chances are that all of the air molecules in your room/office/whatever would be inexactly their respective locations at any given moment? Yet, do you regularly go about proclaiming the handiwork of God in such mundane details? I doubt it.

-Garth

that analogy is missing a vital point... and that point is that those types of chances do not happen at the atomic level within an already established and living organism, thus creating a genetic or species mutations.

i'm a little drunk right now, so i'm just gonna stop at that before i start talking about some bullshens that don't even relate haha