65
   

Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

 
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Apr, 2007 09:56 am
cicerone imposter wrote:
Some people have difficulty with "relationships." They seem to miss the most important point; 6,000 vs 4.5 billion years old.

Different methods may yield different results, but there must be a hiararchy of which one is deemed to produce the most accurate data. o=Or in combination, the best estimate. DUH!
The bible does not limit the age of the earth as you say.

Many religionists have misinterpreted the bible to suit their own ends. That is not the fault of the bible or its author. It is a huge error to discard the bible based on their mistakes.

Oh, how I wish Frank were here so he could make my points.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Apr, 2007 07:50 pm
neologist wrote:
Many religionists have misinterpreted the bible to suit their own ends.
One word makes your above claim false, can you guess which one?
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Apr, 2007 07:54 pm
Chumly wrote:
neologist wrote:
Many religionists have misinterpreted the bible to suit their own ends.
One word makes your above claim false, can you guess which one?
Saying many instead of all?

But you don't know enough about the bible to be sure, do you?

You just think you know.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Apr, 2007 08:03 pm
Unless you claim that religionists have no ends of their own to serve as per their religious idealizations, then by default they must interpret the bible to suit their own ends. Thus a defacto misinterpretation is inevitable.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Apr, 2007 05:10 am
real life
Quote:
Specimens of known recent origin commonly yield 'dates' of hundreds of millions or even billions of years using various 'dating methods'.
.Outlier data actually occur quite infrequently and they have always had a reason for the error (contamination, adsorption of liquid sample onto substrates , replenishment of radionuclides etc).Your just hanging on to some Creationist myth. The Hell Creek Formation has long been .been established by NON radionuclide methods like magnetism, traditional stratigraphy,structural features, depositional environments etc.

Its apparent that you have to hang on to these beleifs . Im sure that youll post some web site full of garbage about how radionuclide dating is not correct. I understand that you are COMPELLED to believe this, so I wont mess with your beliefs. But please dont pass this around with an air of ascientific incredulity, youll be laughed at for your purposeful obtuseness.

All I have to do is to remind you that we have very compelling non radionuclide data that shows the earth is much older than you YEC's believe (by at least 160 times)
Some facts (apologies to Roger Wiems)

1All of the radiometric data methods agree Errors that occur, only occur in the per cent (low percent) levels, In order to have YEC beliefs correct, these data would have to be orders of magnitude in disagreement

2Thousands of labs all over the earthg do radiometric dating None disagree with the objectively established ages of the earth by remnant radioactive daughter products (IE, ITs really HARD to futx with data from multiple samplings and multiple labs )None of these guys know what their samples represent

3The nuclear clocks have been calibrated since the methods had been discovered around WWII, no discrepencies have been discovered yet

4Radionuclides have been calibrated to other means of dating with no significant errors (were talking about literally millions of individual samples and maybe there are 10 anomalous samples in the entire world. All of these anomalies have been rectified by follow-on sampling)

5 The math for doing the calcs is really easy to understand and do. Its often used in first year physical geology or physics labs.

.
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Apr, 2007 05:43 am
Genesis 1:11
And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

Comment: Sounds like evolution to me...
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Apr, 2007 07:38 am
RexRed wrote:
Genesis 1:11
And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

Comment: Sounds like evolution to me...


Sure does........
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Apr, 2007 06:29 pm
Quote:
And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

Comment: Sounds like evolution to me...
Rex Rex Rex, you magnificent Mainiac, why dont you mention that the Bible, in Genesis 1-11 the Sun hadnt even been formed yet? And why did the Big Man create angiosperms before gymnosperms or algae?.



OH but of Course, this was the "First Story of Creation", In the second account , HE created man before birds and other animules.

That Crazy Science, when we have this inerrant Bible to glean from.
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Apr, 2007 07:10 pm
farmerman wrote:
Quote:
And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

Comment: Sounds like evolution to me...
Rex Rex Rex, you magnificent Mainiac, why dont you mention that the Bible, in Genesis 1-11 the Sun hadnt even been formed yet? And why did the Big Man create angiosperms before gymnosperms or algae?.



OH but of Course, this was the "First Story of Creation", In the second account , HE created man before birds and other animules.

That Crazy Science, when we have this inerrant Bible to glean Trom.


FM (how you been?) in all respect the only thing God "created" in Eden was the spirit in humans, other than that all other things were either formed or made and God does not exactly say "when" he formed/made them he just states they were formed and made. The seven days are mentioned because that was when humans became aware of calendars and the motions of the stars (including the sun and moon). You are maybe not trying hard enough to understand yet you seem more aware than you let on.. Humans are mentioned before birds because humans are God's greatest masterpiece.

The Bible explains why it took millions of years before humans formed a language and became tool makers. It was this spirit created about six to ten thousand years ago. History bears this fact and so does evolution and also the Bible. So there actually is not really a "debate". Both evolution "and" creation are how we got here.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Apr, 2007 11:10 pm
Farmerman wrote:
All of the radiometric data methods agree


This has got to be the funniest thing I've read in a long time.

Dates from all these methods almost NEVER agree. They are simply accepted because they are OLD.

If an old date ISN'T produced, it is automatically ASSUMED to be erroneous.

---------------------------------------------------

Even specimens of known recent origin yield OLD dates. Go figure.

Living creatures are 'dated' as being thousands of years old, and formations that were produced in this generation yield very OLD dates.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Apr, 2007 04:50 am
Real Life, Im glad I could give you some cheer. However the ignorance that you display aint pretty. You seem to wish to dwell and roll in it despite the evidence. (Do you have a channel to some alternate science base?)
For your information various institutions in the US maintain several data bases, all searchable by google . Use a query string like "Geochronology data base- then add a descriptor like USGS" Ive listed below the major US data bases on geochronology and radiometric dating. It may help if you learn a little before you convince yourself that its all wrong. However , Im not going to do your homework, I have to make a living and lifting you out of ignorance on geochronology isnt high on my list of things to do.

Remember that the labs dont even know what the duplicate samples represent. They arent told what to expect (by lab protocols they arent given expected "answers" despite your assertions to the contrary). Also, they are given multiples of samples and QA samples and method samples. You first have to "understand" the technique before youre allowed to criticize. What if Ebert and Roeper never went to the movies they critique? would that not lessen their credibility? Id say yes. Maybe you have other ideas about both movies and science.
Also, each country has its own data base on radiometric dating and a number of GSA publications have reviewed the significance of these data. Did you notice how the USGS "Earth's Time scale" has been refined within the last 15 years to include more precise absolute radiometric dates for ends of epochs? One doesnt use an incorrect assumption to backup a geologic time scale that is used by resource hunters and investors, let alone university researchers.
I wonder what the CReationist miners and "geologists" are doing for a living?
Quote:
USGS, Denver
2 Univ. Arizona
3 Krueger Enterprises, Inc., Geochron Lab
5 govt reserach DOE
6 USGS, Reston,
7 New Mexico Tech
8 USGS, Menlo Park
9 Univ. New Mexico
10 Teledyne
11 Oxford Univ., Great Britain
12 Canberra, Australia
13 Lawrence Livermore
14 Univ. Southern California
15 Case Western Reserve Univ.
16 SUNY
17 UCLA
18 Southern Methodist Univ.
19 Univ. Texas, Austin
20 Beta Analytic Laboratories
21 Los Alamos Nat. Lab.
22 Columbia Univ.
23 Brookhaven Nat. Lab.
24 Univ. Toronto
25 Univ. Pittsburgh
26 San Diego State Univ.
27 Geol. Surv. Israel
28 Yale
29 Univ. Georgia
30 Iowa State Univ.
31 Mobil
32 Continental Oil Company
33 Univ. British Columbia
34 Shell
35 FM Consultants, Great Britain
36 Univ. Kansas
37 Berkeley
38 Argonne Nat. Lab
39 Harwell, Great Britain
40 Florida State Univ.
41 Univ. Oslo, Norway
42 Geol. Surv. Japan
43 Miami Univ.
44 Carnegie Institute
45 Caltech
46 M.I.T.
47 Univ. Texas, Dallas
48 Univ. Calfornia, Santa Barbara
49 Washington Univ.
50 Kriti, Houston
51 Univ. North Carolina
53 Osaka Univ., Japan
54 Quaternary Isotope Lab, Seattle
55 Ohio State Univ.
56 Univ. of Michigan
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Apr, 2007 05:48 am
I suppose Real will tell us this all came about because of The Flood.

Quote:
Ancient Rainforest Revealed in Coal Mine
By Jeanna Bryner
LiveScience Staff
23 April 2007

Scientists exploring a mine have uncovered a natural Sistine chapel showing not religious paintings, but incredibly well preserved images of sprawling tree trunks and fallen leaves that once breathed life into an ancient rainforest.

Replete with a diverse mix of extinct plants, the 300-million-year-old fossilized forest is revealing clues about the ecology of Earth's first rainforests . The discovery and details of the forest are published in the May issue of the journal Geology.

"We're looking at one instance in time over a large area. It's literally a snapshot in time of a multiple square mile area," said study team member Scott Elrick of the Illinois State Geological Survey (ISGS).

Forest find
Over millions of years as sediments and plant material pile up, layer upon layer, the resulting bands become time indicators with the newest, youngest layer on the top and the oldest layer at the bottom. Typically geologists peel away a vertical slice of rocky material to look at material, including fossils, over a period of time.

A coal mine offers a unique view of the past. Instead of a time sequence, illuminated in the layer upon layer of sediments, the roof of an underground mine reveals a large area within one of those sediment layers, or time periods.

Miners in Illinois are used to seeing a few plant fossils strewn along a mine's ceiling, but as they burrowed farther into this one, the sheer density and area covered by such fossils struck them as phenomenal, Elrick said.

That's when they called paleobotanist Howard Falcon-Lang from the University of Bristol in the United Kingdom and William DiMichele, a curator of fossil plants at the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History.

"It was an amazing experience. We drove down the mine in an armored vehicle, until we were a hundred meters below the surface," Falcon-Lang said. "The fossil forest was rooted on top of the coal seam, so where the coal had been mined away the fossilized forest was visible in the ceiling of the mine."

Forest snapshot Flash freeze
The scientists think a major earthquake about 300 million years ago caused the region to drop below sea level where it was buried in mud. They estimate that within a period of months the forest was buried, preserving it "forever."

"Some of these tree stumps have been covered geologically speaking in a flash," Elrick said.

Because the spatial layout of the forest has been maintained, the scientists can learn about entire plant communities, not just individual plants.

"This spectacular discovery allows us to track how the species make-up of the forest changed across the landscape, and how that species make-up is affected by subtle differences in the local environment," Falcon-Lang said.

The fossil forest extends along the ceiling of two adjacent mines, the Riola mine and the Vermillion Grove mine, which are located in Vermillion County, just south of Danville, Ill.

http://www.livescience.com/othernews/070423_fossil_forest.html

http://images.livescience.com/images/070423_fossil_fern_02.jpg
One of the fossils coating the mine's ceiling was a pteridosperm, an extinct seed-producing fern-like plant.
Credit: Howard Falcon-Lang
0 Replies
 
baddog1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Apr, 2007 08:27 am
xingu wrote:
I suppose Real will tell us this all came about because of The Flood.


IF Real tells us this all came about because of the Flood - it is at least as plausible as any other theory out there. It just depends on which side of the fence you're on. :wink:
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Apr, 2007 08:28 am
Don't tell me there is no proof for creation... Smile

We exist don't we, something created the materials that evolved into humans?

Creation equals existence, no creation equals non existence.
0 Replies
 
baddog1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Apr, 2007 08:30 am
RexRed wrote:
Don't tell me there is no proof for creation... Smile

We exist don't we, something created the materials that evolved into humans?

Creation equals existence, no creation equals non existence.


Precisely correct. :wink: :wink: :wink:
0 Replies
 
OGIONIK
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Apr, 2007 08:39 am
RexRed wrote:
Don't tell me there is no proof for creation... Smile

We exist don't we, something created the materials that evolved into humans?

Creation equals existence, no creation equals non existence.


i think maybe the debate is whether or not we were created, but whether we had, in fact, a "creator", and whether or not this creator is an intelligent sentient being or random events
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Apr, 2007 08:39 am
baddog1 wrote:
xingu wrote:
I suppose Real will tell us this all came about because of The Flood.


IF Real tells us this all came about because of the Flood - it is at least as plausible as any other theory out there. It just depends on which side of the fence you're on. :wink:


No, it's not as plausible because it's not consistant with the physical evidence.

Unless of course, you're basing your measure of plausibility on non-scientific methodologies like poofism. Smile
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Apr, 2007 08:51 am
OGIONIK wrote:
RexRed wrote:
Don't tell me there is no proof for creation... Smile

We exist don't we, something created the materials that evolved into humans?

Creation equals existence, no creation equals non existence.


i think maybe the debate is whether or not we were created, but whether we had, in fact, a "creator", and whether or not this creator is an intelligent sentient being or random events


Something created the cosmos and considering the intelligence within the universe (science certainly is intrigued) one would surmise that whatever brought creation into being would be not only a source of incalculable power but all intelligence and omnipresence.
0 Replies
 
baddog1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Apr, 2007 08:55 am
rosborne979 wrote:
baddog1 wrote:
xingu wrote:
I suppose Real will tell us this all came about because of The Flood.


IF Real tells us this all came about because of the Flood - it is at least as plausible as any other theory out there. It just depends on which side of the fence you're on. :wink:


No, it's not as plausible because it's not consistant with the physical evidence.

Unless of course, you're basing your measure of plausibility on non-scientific methodologies like poofism. Smile


Speaking of "poofism"; what is the scientific methodology that began this whole source of life? You know - what started the process of evolution? Shocked
0 Replies
 
OGIONIK
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Apr, 2007 08:57 am
umm.... yeah. i think this creator is just another name for mathematics.

the universe is just numbers if you dig deep enough.
if u dig really deep it all comes down to the numero uno.
even deep and u reach, zero.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 11/25/2024 at 02:36:52