I think we can pretty well establish with scripture that the earth is only 4000 years old...
Carter slams Georgia's 'evolution' proposal
- Thread starter MMike
- Start date
You really haven't been paying attention have you N8?
The discussion is about creationism not the bible.:devil:
Evolution has been observed in finches in the galapogos islands. They change physical characteristics based on how conditions change. There is even a species that has specially adapted its size and beak type to tackle the seed of a plant introduced by explorers a few hundred years ago, and it tends to only breed with other finches with the same adaptions. Speciation. Evolution has also been observed to a GREAT degree experiemntally in the lab using bacteria.
Historically, many intermediate fossils that fall somewhere between previously known species have been found. This suggests iterative changes. Look at how me extinct humonoids there are that are not homo-sapien, but also aren't ape. I think they are up to something like 20 different KNOWN homonid species now- and those are just the ones we know about it. It is highly likely there are many more as yet undiscovered.
i wonder if Eve had a nice rack.
Finally a voice of reason!Originally posted by Skookum
i wonder if Eve had a nice rack.
read michael behe's book, "darwin's black box" a couple years back. Got me thinking about the concept of irreducible complexity.
dr behe is the professor of the Biochemistry Department of Biological Sciences, Lehigh University.
anyone have a clear grasp on the differences tween creationism v intelligent design?
dr behe is the professor of the Biochemistry Department of Biological Sciences, Lehigh University.
anyone have a clear grasp on the differences tween creationism v intelligent design?
HOLY CRAP!!!! are serious or are you on crack?????????????????????????????????????????????????????
where there supposed to be funny faces on your post?
if not, well then am speechless,
I thought I did, but started googling and realized there's many interpretations and have seen references in google several times to darwins black box. So, do share whatcha know.
I think N8 was thinking 4000BC, which is, of course, 6000 yrs old. But other than that typo, why do you insult him so?Originally posted by ALEXIS_DH
HOLY CRAP!!!! are serious or are you on crack?????????????????????????????????????????????????????
where there supposed to be funny faces on your post?
if not, well then am speechless,
as it turns out, one of my token flamin lib friends has the book now, and have to pry it from his hands before i can comment on specifics. All i can offer for these next few days (i.e. the life of this thread) is what i can find on google. A greatest hits, if you will.
i have to hit&run on this, as i'd like to find out the evolutional theory behind the bombadier beetle - that brother's badass!
Originally posted by LordOpie
I thought I did, but started googling and realized there's many interpretations and have seen references in google several times to darwins black box. So, do share whatcha know.
I think N8 was thinking 4000BC, which is, of course, 6000 yrs old. But other than that typo, why do you insult him so?
i just dont know what to say.
i could have never believed there were people believing that after the middle ages.
at least not within the civilized world, maybe in some theistic nomad tribe in sumatra, or south america.
in fact, if, before i came to college here, somebody would have told there were soooooooo many people believing that here, i would had not believed it at all.
again, i just dont know what to say.
hmm, well all i know is the chinese are living in the year 4700-something, and that they even have record of a few thousand years before that and they dont seem to recall a big bang or a flood anywhere.
jews are in the year 5765 too.
am wondering how did those guys missed the begining of the universe.
kinda reminds me of those wacky flat-landers, or the gold alchemists.
have you noticed the coincidence of the 5765 year of jews, and how close is it to your 6000 year figure???
having in mind that the jews actually wrote the genesis, makes me think jews believed simbolically as the beggining of the universe their own begginig as a culture?
not long ago, i was having a similar conversation with my rabbi, religion ONLY explains whys, and science the hows.
the historical begining of the earth is a HOW that must be solved in the grounds of sound reason and science.
why did it happen? thats a matter of religion.
I dont see how evolution contradictes the torah or bible, because they dont overlap. the bible is not a precise HOW, is just the physophical interpretation of mankinds deepest questions. WHY.
stretching the bible to a HOW, is just ridiculous, as is definately not its purpose. in fact, those who stretch it over science are just plain retarded, because they answer different questions, and go thru different paths for this.
having in mind that the jews actually wrote the genesis, makes me think jews believed simbolically as the beggining of the universe their own begginig as a culture?
not long ago, i was having a similar conversation with my rabbi, religion ONLY explains whys, and science the hows.
the historical begining of the earth is a HOW that must be solved in the grounds of sound reason and science.
why did it happen? thats a matter of religion.
I dont see how evolution contradictes the torah or bible, because they dont overlap. the bible is not a precise HOW, is just the physophical interpretation of mankinds deepest questions. WHY.
stretching the bible to a HOW, is just ridiculous, as is definately not its purpose. in fact, those who stretch it over science are just plain retarded, because they answer different questions, and go thru different paths for this.
So really what has been seen is mutation and natural selection. Nobody's arguing about those and they do not contradict, let alone disprove, creationism.
Intermediate fossils prove nothing, they suggest a few things, one of which returns us to the paragraph above.
So...
Umm, if N8 made a minor error, which he did, so no biggie, then the world is ~6000yrs old, so it's older than the Chinese and Jews.
Now that we're back to the ~6000 mark, please explain why it's impossible?
Eh, nevermind, you'll bring up carbon dating, I'll bring up Einstein, I'll mention how if the only thing in the universe 6000 years ago was the earth, how "one day" was really a million years in carbon time cuz the universe was so small, you'll call people* who believe that idiots, instead of discussing it, you'll disappear again for a month as you always do and return to call people retarded once more... thanks for your monthly visit. Hence forth, ALEXIS will be now known as "Aunt Flo"... visits once a month and does nothing but bitch.
* I don't know what I think but any reasonable person shouldn't dismiss something because it doesn't make sense to you. Study Einstein and then you're realize that it might be wrong, might be far fetched, but it just might be. That's science, eh?
I think N8 was being sarcastic about the bible version of creation which some people have used to 'prove' the earth is however many years old.Originally posted by ALEXIS_DH
HOLY CRAP!!!! are serious or are you on crack?????????????????????????????????????????????????????
where there supposed to be funny faces on your post?
if not, well then am speechless,
Unusually for N8 he included no smilies so I could be wrong.
And I think he is on crack on a regular basis...:devil:
Aha! A good question.
It's not the most widely accepted amongst the scientific community, which tells us something.
The thing is creationism can differ very mildly from other theories, it simply requires an intelligence to be at work. I personally think part of the reason scientists get so wound up about it is that it bugs them that some people believe in a higher power than them...
Fluff, to clarify, a theory is proven valid through the testing of hypothesese. The more hypothesese proven to hold, the more valid the theory. That is, once you have an idea, you must use it to predict FUTURE phenomena. If you're prediction holds true, then your idea becomes a valid theory.
All it takes is one case where your hypothesis does NOT match predicted phenomena and the theory is PROVEN false. Of course, the second part, is that you can then alter your theory and retest it, until it can accurately predict phenomena.
Because of this evolution theory IS continually changing, as it has at times failed to predict certain phenomena. As long as ALL observed phenomena fit the theory, it is still valid, and when it actually predicts phenomena is when it becomes accepted theory.
The problem with creationism is that it has NEVER predicted a phenomena. It has only been adapted retroactively to observed phenomena, whereas evolution has both predicted and adapted. This is why evolution theory is more accepted than creation.
All it takes is one case where your hypothesis does NOT match predicted phenomena and the theory is PROVEN false. Of course, the second part, is that you can then alter your theory and retest it, until it can accurately predict phenomena.
Because of this evolution theory IS continually changing, as it has at times failed to predict certain phenomena. As long as ALL observed phenomena fit the theory, it is still valid, and when it actually predicts phenomena is when it becomes accepted theory.
The problem with creationism is that it has NEVER predicted a phenomena. It has only been adapted retroactively to observed phenomena, whereas evolution has both predicted and adapted. This is why evolution theory is more accepted than creation.
hmm, there is this little thing called dopler effect, which causes
a red shift, an increase in the wavelenght of all light from bodies we can see in the universe.
this redshift thing was predicted by einsteins relativity.
there are several ways you can meassure the distance to stars. u can take 2 different positions, and use trigonometry. some asses says its crap because you CANT meassure that small angles, but they are full of crap, because modern intruments can meassure things thousands times smaller.
2nd way of meassuring: (courtesy of cut and paste).
For stars, we use the diameter of the earths orbit as baseline (DIAGRAM)
If we know a star is nearby, we can use the stellar parallax method to determine its distance
Stellar parallax (p) is defined as half the total shift of a star against the background stars.
D = 1/p
Parallax measured in arc seconds (60 seconds of arc = 1 minute = 1/60 degree)
Distance is measured in parsec (1 pc = 3.26 ly)
4. From earth we can measure distance to about 100 pc (1000 stars), since the limit due to atmospheric distortion is 0.01 seconds or arc.
5. From space (Hipparcos) we can measure to about 500 pc (100,000 stars), since the limit (from diffraction only) is about 0.002 seconds of arc.
6. Remember resolving power (alpha = 11.6/D) alpha in seconds of arc, D in cemtimeters.
7. For Hipparcos, D is about100 cm, alpha is about 0.1 arcsec. By averaging over many measurements, can reduce this by about a factor of 50 to 0.002 arcsec.
8. Example from Hipparcos page (Have this ready to go)
Look at Vega (RA = 279, Dec = 39.8)
Trigonometric parallax = 128.93 milliarcseconds = .12893 arcsec
D = 1/p = 7.75 parsec = 25.3 ly
Table A-9 says Vega is 26.5 ly à pretty close
there are a few more, but i dont think pasting it would make my post readable, so here they are courtesy of university of chicago.
http://kopion.uchicago.edu/drallen/Astro302/Lectures/week4.doc
quite surprinsgly, all this methods give consistent results for the distance of planets.
a few of them are very far, way more than 6000 years away. if we can see them, that means their light have to being travelling for more than 6000 years. if they have been travelling for more than 6000 years, then, the universe has to be at least as old, as the distance in years from the farthest light that reach us.
ok, u might argue the universe if expanding, and the light we saw, was indeed a few millions miles away in the beggining.
alright, we can adjust this, and give some uncertainty for those values, but when the farthest galaxy has been meassured to be 13 billion years away.,
hmmm, thats about 2 million times more than 6 thousand years. and this is completely out of the uncertainty range introduced by an expanding universe.
i can read einstein, but the problem is what about him you are gonna read, and how out of context are you gonna take it.
i can read just one line, and take it out completely of context to shield my own idea, but thats cheating.
very funny about the aunt flo thing. yeah, make the best of the time, cuz am gonna dissapear for a while in about 10 days.
am not gonna say the universe is absolutely X years old, because that kind of certainty is far from modern instrumentation and human perception.
age of universe is a boundary problem, we cannot tell absolutely whats the age, we have to establish a lower boundary, which is as old, as our oldest meassure can be.
so far, seems to be about 13 +-3 billion years. but thats the least old it can be as we can meassure. that our lowest boundary so far.
so, we can tell is at least, more than 6000 years for sure.
try not only to read edited "scientific" facts that support your preconception.
go to the source, instead of reading the edited version of dr. dino or those baptist creationism videos.
age of universe is a boundary problem, we cannot tell absolutely whats the age, we have to establish a lower boundary, which is as old, as our oldest meassure can be.
so far, seems to be about 13 +-3 billion years. but thats the least old it can be as we can meassure. that our lowest boundary so far.
so, we can tell is at least, more than 6000 years for sure.
try not only to read edited "scientific" facts that support your preconception.
go to the source, instead of reading the edited version of dr. dino or those baptist creationism videos.
Exactly...Creationism is essentially impossible to prove scientifically. You pose questions regarding the hows and the whys...but if the answer is always "God did it"...you really don't get anywhere....
Praise be....
I agree with what you say but the difference is small.
I'd hazard a guess you're an evolutionist?
Personally I don't care either way, just don't like hot air.
Originally posted by LordOpie
ALEXIS, you explained why you believe what you believe, but you didn't explain why others shouldn't believe something else. You don't have to step on their beliefs to make yours feel that much more solid, ya know, like calling them idiots
ok, i apologize, but i do explain why others should not believe creatinism, am not trying to say what i think is the way to go, but point the impossibilities of a literal interpretation of the bible.
am not saying there is not god or some creation, am just saying, its impossible it happened in a literal way, with the 6000 years implication, the flood and that crap.
its actually more likely, those who wrote about that, tried to explain their own reality (the jews), and maybe there was a big rain in their corner of the world, they thought a worldwide flood.
who knows?,
but definately, it cannot be 6000 years, there are a lot of things older than that, and there was people recording history long before that.
all i know it could not have been that way. it has been disproved consistently many times.
how hard is to accept that??? the only thing saying the universe is 6000 years old is a book written by ancient people, which actually authority is not guaranteed by anything other than your personal beliefs. and personal beliefs are not impartial or reliable. consistent data, in the other hand, is.
Yes, I am an evolutionist... mostly because I don't see the difference as small.
Theories that the earth is the center of the universe can be adapted through extremely complex orbits to work and explain observed phenomenon. However, it is not until you accept that the earth is NOT the center of the universe that you can PREDICT phenomenon. I see those two theories as differing similarly to evolution and creation.
actually, you cannot disprove creationism, that's why some of us believe it's not a "science"... since one could simply say, "the earth and universe may very well be 6000 yrs old. G-d could have his reasons for making 'scientists' think it's billions of yrs old."
Yes, but if God is willing to go through such extensive lengths to mislead people (pre-plant all the evidence of age), then we must accept that it is entirely possible that the entire bible is also a lie. Can't have it both ways. Even more strangely, you must also accept the following possiblity as equally valid: We are all only one second old. All of your memories were just pre-planted by God to give the impression of age.
I don't buy the artifically aged world/universe bit.
Oh yeah- it is not up to me to disprove creationism. It is up to its proponents to prove it. You can't prove that something doesn't exist.
Just a small point, but the Bible story of creation is not the only creationist 'theory'*. Creationism could be a simple as the silly example I posted back a page or two.
BTW. I do not believe the earth is only 6000 years old.
*Call it myth if you like but it's still not the only one...
BTW. I do not believe the earth is only 6000 years old.
*Call it myth if you like but it's still not the only one...
now, that IS non-sense, in that "god wanted it that way" nothing can be proven or disproven in the universe, because there will always be the "maybe god wanted to fool us", which would be the ultimate uncertainty in everything, including the "absolute true" creationism. maybe god didnt wanted you to know the earth is billion years old, and gave made you believe is 6000 years.
we are trying to analize an idea, and when we find a disprove of it, but you try to disprove the original disproof in the grounds of the original idea????
now, thats circle reasoning. a logical fallacy. philosophy 101.
http://www2.sjsu.edu/depts/itl/graphics/adhom/circular.html
remembers me of some people who thought dinosaur fossils.