we can argue about this till the cows come home but we will never convince each other that our way is better because we are too set in our ways, so lets just stop arguing about this ok?
Eeems wrote:
DShiznit wrote:
You are so retarded it's not even funny. Evolution does have holes, but every other proposed theory either is a great big giant hole, or is complete lunacy. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology
its just evolutions got more than most, and the bible isn't a theory, its got too much evidence to prove it, especially because it corresponds with so many other beliefs of ancient races.
sorry im not trying to push my beliefs on you or anything
i don't know about this Occam's Razor but cloning isn't creating from nothing. and fossils are not planted to test our faith they are real because what happened to the people and animals that died during the flood?? they probably fossilized
DShiznit: by the way, posting a Wikipedia article isn't the best way of replying because Wikipedia is just kind of tacky
DShiznit: by the way, posting a Wikipedia article isn't the best way of replying because Wikipedia is just kind of tacky
Eeems wrote:
i don't know about this Occam's Razor but cloning isn't creating from nothing. and fossils are not planted to test our faith they are real because what happened to the people and animals that died during the flood?? they probably fossilized
DShiznit: by the way, posting a Wikipedia article isn't the best way of replying because Wikipedia is just kind of tacky
Wikipedia may be "tacky" (do you mean unscholarly?), but it still has 98% good and reliable information. Yes, it seems likely that there was a historical flood wherein the Red Sea or some nearby body of water overflowed onto adjoining plains, but apparently you're not very well-versed in the thousands of years that are required for complete fossilization, in which the proteins and molecules of bones are replaced with minerals. And science has shown a vast range of ages for fossils; surely you don't think that early forms of humans were contemporary with dinosaurs? What about carbon dating? DShiznit: by the way, posting a Wikipedia article isn't the best way of replying because Wikipedia is just kind of tacky
carbon dating isn't that reliable, they've had some pretty bad dating on it, and fossilization could have happened a lot quicker then we think and dinosaurs were just big lizards, so with the perfect climate they would have been bigger then they are now. also yes Wikipedia is usually factual but its kind of unimaginative to just post a link to an article instead of elaborating on it yourself
how bout we stop this argument because we're never going to resolve it
how bout we stop this argument because we're never going to resolve it
Eeems wrote:
carbon dating isn't that reliable, they've had some pretty bad dating on it, and fossilization could have happened a lot quicker then we think and dinosaurs were just big lizards, so with the perfect climate they would have been bigger then they are now. also yes Wikipedia is usually factual but its kind of unimaginative to just post a link to an article instead of elaborating on it yourself
how bout we stop this argument because we're never going to resolve it
No, we're never going to resolve it, but it's still intellectual fun to spar over it. how bout we stop this argument because we're never going to resolve it
Dinosaurs were, as you say, "big lizards," but you don't see any big lizards now, do you? Where did they go? Where did our small lizards come from? Carbon dating is not perfect, but it's provably correct to within a few tens to a few hundreds of years, which is pretty good when the age you're measuring is in the millions of years; that's <<1% error.
as i said before there aren't any big lizards any more because the climate will not support their growth to that size and when you carbon date things really recent your error margin is way bigger
i also don't like sparring mentally when I'm the only one on my side.
by the way Kerm, I'm a big fan of your work
i also don't like sparring mentally when I'm the only one on my side.
by the way Kerm, I'm a big fan of your work
actually.....radiocarbon dating can't date more than about 40,000 years into the past. Are you think of Potassium-argon dating?
Eeems wrote:
as i said before there aren't any big lizards any more because the climate will not support their growth to that size and when you carbon date things really recent your error margin is way bigger
i also don't like sparring mentally when I'm the only one on my side.
by the way Kerm, I'm a big fan of your work
Oh thanks, I'm glad to hear it; please let me know if you have any suggestions, comments, or requests.
i also don't like sparring mentally when I'm the only one on my side.
by the way Kerm, I'm a big fan of your work
Back ontopic, one of my two classes was cancelled today because of the "snow" and "ice", as those who follow me on twitter or Facebook already know. Woot.
Edit: @Elfprince: Yes, my mistake, I was forgetting about the half-life of carbon. That is indeed what I meant.
- 28 Jan 2009 02:40:50 pm
- Last edited by elfprince13 on 28 Jan 2009 03:23:33 pm; edited 1 time in total
driving home in the snow today was pretty awesome....the normally hour long drive back from burlington took an hour and a half. On the upside, the roads were empty, and watching waves of snow wash over your car is really cool when you don't have to worry about hitting anyone else.
[edit]
might as well throw in my $0.10 on the science/religion thing.
Quoted from myself on the Philoticweb Forums
and quoted from myself on digg
[edit]
might as well throw in my $0.10 on the science/religion thing.
Quoted from myself on the Philoticweb Forums
elfprince13 wrote:
One example of this, which I don't think has been touched on yet (every seems to be arguing for either the literal English interpretation of Genesis, or for a completely un-divinely-guided creation), is the fact that Old Earth Creationism (based on the interpretation of the Hebrew word "yom" meaning any period of time, rather than a single day) checks out perfectly with the "scientific" account of the universe's history? and why shouldn't it? According the Bible, the God who inspired Genesis to be written is the God who set in place the laws of physics. It makes perfect sense to me that he should follow his own rules in the construction of a universe that must also abide by them.
and quoted from myself on digg
elfprince13 wrote:
I buried this article as inaccurate. There should never be a conflict between science and religion, and the people who create them tend to be ignorant of one or the other (or bother). Christian's at least believe in a God who created the laws of physics, and we even have a term for learning about God through the study of science: "natural revelation"
Galileo, Newton, Francis Collins, Donald Knuth, Robert Boyle, and Max Planck are some of the brilliant religious (Christian in this case) minds who would violently disagree with anyone who claimed that belief in God and science are some how opposed to each other.
Galileo, Newton, Francis Collins, Donald Knuth, Robert Boyle, and Max Planck are some of the brilliant religious (Christian in this case) minds who would violently disagree with anyone who claimed that belief in God and science are some how opposed to each other.
Hehe, is inflation that bad, $0.02->$0.10? And sure, regardless of one's personal beliefs, if you're rational enough not to insist on blind fundamentalism (ie, strictly literal interpretation of scripture) there's no inherent conflict between faith and science.
And sure, regardless of one's personal beliefs, if you're rational enough not to insist on blind fundamentalism (ie, strictly literal interpretation of scripture) there's no inherent conflict between faith and science.
interesting elfprince13, just to point out i don't disagree with science, only with evolution, which i don't think is a real science. after all it was based off of adaptation, which never actually changes a species. its way easier talking to you and Kerm, because you guys are a lot more civil and level headed then the others.
EDIT: to put that last bit a bit more tactfully i meant to say u guys don't fake swear all the time and u guys don't insult me thinking its going to change my mind
EDIT: to put that last bit a bit more tactfully i meant to say u guys don't fake swear all the time and u guys don't insult me thinking its going to change my mind
KermMartian wrote:
Hehe, is inflation that bad, $0.02->$0.10?
no, I just had a lot more then $0.02 to throw in
KermMartian wrote:
And sure, regardless of one's personal beliefs, if you're rational enough not to insist on blind fundamentalism (ie, strictly literal interpretation of scripture) there's no inherent conflict between faith and science.
not exactly what I was saying, but sure.
Eeems wrote:
interesting elfprince13, just to point out i don't disagree with science, only with evolution
and evidently astrophysics if you think the world is only 6000 years old
Be aware that Darwinian evolution and big bang theory are separate theories.
Eeems wrote:
after all it was based off of adaptation, which never actually changes a species.
I actually saw an article recently about how (I'm working from memory here, if someone has the original article please link to it) certain lizard species in the southern United States are already adapting and developing longer legs in response to the incursion of fire ants. And even if you believe that evolution is the vehicle through which species change and develop, it doesn't mean that it can't be driven and guided by God's hand instead of purposeless chance of events
Eeems wrote:
its way easier talking to you and Kerm, because you guys are alot more civil and level headed then the others.
We try
Eeems wrote:
yeah the lizards are changing but they are still the same creature
No, that's the point, the ones with shorter legs are more likely to be killed by the fire ants, and so only the long legged ones pass on their genes, and over several generations the whole population changes to carry this trait. Granted its only a very small portion of the genome that's affected, but this is the process by which evolution works.
yeah but when the need for longer legs aren't needed what happens?? and yeah the species are still the same
Eeems wrote:
yeah but when the need for longer legs aren't needed what happens??
That's the whole point of evolution. Species adapt to survive in the situations they're exposed to. That's what it means to evolve.
Eeems wrote:
and yeah the species are still the same
Evolution doesn't have to result in a new species. But if you had to separate populations of lizards, originally from the same species, but subjected to vastly different conditions, they'd evolve different traits. This can be scene in gull populations around the arctic circle. There are many different subspecies of gulls, who can interbreed with neighboring populations of a different subspecies, but gulls from farther away have actually evolved differently enough so that they can't reproduce with each other.
Eeems wrote:
they aren't evolving they're adapting, well adaptation is also known as micro evolution
These are what we like to call synonyms
Quote:
Biological evolution consists of change in the hereditary characteristics of groups of organisms over the course of generations. From long-term perspective, evolution is the descent with modification of different lineages from common ancestors. From a short-term perspective, evolution is the ongoing adaptation of organisms to environmental challenges and changes.
Macro-evolution is just micro-evolution over many generations.
[edit]
Please don't feel like I'm attacking you here, as an old-earth creationist I'm fully aware of the stigma surrounding scientific accounts of creation in a lot of church communities (and for that matter, the stigma surrounding religious accounts of creation in scientific communities....I'm used to getting whacked with both ends of the stick). also, I kind of feel like this topic deserves to be split...
yeah but what happens if the climate/ecosystem goes back to the way it was before? then they'll change back and nothing will come from the change... anyways we cant prove evolutions existence because we haven't ever seen it happen, we have seen adaptation but not full scale evolution from one species to another
EDIT: yeah we should probably stop because we are beginning to go in circles.
EDIT: yeah we should probably stop because we are beginning to go in circles.
Register to Join the Conversation
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Advertisement