# Reading > Philosophical Literature >  Darwin,Atheism and Religion

## cacian

1) does Theology cancels Darwin Evoltutionary Theory and vice versa?

2) Is an atheist as as result of Darwin's Evolution?
in other word would there be Atheism if there was no Darwinism?

3) Is Religion the root cause/drive to Darwin's thinking of Evolution?

----------


## JCamilo

> 1) does Theology cancels Darwin Evoltutionary Theory and vice versa?
> 
> 2) Is an atheist as as result of Darwin's Evolution?
> in other word would there be Atheism if there was no Darwinism?
> 
> 3) Is Religion the root cause/drive to Darwin's thinking of Evolution?



1 - Theological theories that afirms something contrary to it is canceled by Darwin Natural Selection Theory. No theology can really cancel his theory however and some do not even care about it. 

2 - Atheism predates Darwin. 

3 - No, Darwin was never very religious. He had friends who worked with evolutin before him and even his greatfather. Also, his family had a genetic disease due to the marriage among cousins and this affect and killed one of his daughters. Trying to understand it was a big impulse for his research.

----------


## YesNo

I think I agree with JCamillo's answers. Atheism comes long before Darwin and the sort of materialistic atheism that I'm opposed to probably had its high point around 1800 when it most agreed with deterministic scientific theories.

I don't see why evolution should be a problem for religion except for those that insist on a literal interpretation of Genesis. Personally, I think we have all been around the block many times incarnated as many different species. Evolution fits in nicely with that.

----------


## cacian

I see.
Would say however that the three are somehow linked?

----------


## cacian

> 1 - Theological theories that afirms something contrary to it is canceled by Darwin Natural Selection Theory. No theology can really cancel his theory however and some do not even care about it. 
> 
> 2 - Atheism predates Darwin. 
> 
> 3 - No, Darwin was never very religious. He had friends who worked with evolutin before him and even his greatfather. Also, his family had a genetic disease due to the marriage among cousins and this affect and killed one of his daughters. Trying to understand it was a big impulse for his research.


Thank you for that.
About Darwin and Religion.
I meant it the other way like this.
Wasn't Darwin out to prove that Religion/or the concept of God did not exist hence his theory on Evolution.

----------


## JCamilo

No, the concept of evolution does proof or disproof God and has roots even in some religious stories. And evolution was a well accepted fact before Darwin, he just went to investigate it. His theory (natural selection) only showed that there was natural cause behind the living organisms variety and it was not a product of a designer. 

Darwin became atheist more as result of his research and pain due the loss of a daughter, as he saw less and less of God's actions in the world.

----------


## cacian

> No, the concept of evolution does proof or disproof God and has roots even in some religious stories. And evolution was a well accepted fact before Darwin, he just went to investigate it. His theory (natural selection) only showed that there was natural cause behind the living organisms variety and it was not a product of a designer. 
> 
> Darwin became atheist more as result of his research and pain due the loss of a daughter, as he saw less and less of God's actions in the world.


It does suprise me that Darwin blamed god for a genetic mismatch.
He of all people should have understood that same blood mixing is bound to fail eventually.
I thought he was a scientist where does he get off blaming God.
That does not make senseto me.
Youwould have thought he would have devoted his time trying to work genes and why they fail betwneen humans rather trying to prove some kind of evolution that does not help or improve the state of humans genes and their progress.
It is just a thought.

----------


## Climacus

> 1) does Theology cancels Darwin Evolutionary Theory and vice versa?
> 
> 2) Is an atheist as as result of Darwin's Evolution?
> in other word would there be Atheism if there was no Darwinism?
> 
> 3) Is Religion the root cause/drive to Darwin's thinking of Evolution?


As for (1), _theism_ and evolution are obviously compatible. Of course, certain particular theologies - southern fundamentalist baptism, for instance - are not compatible with evolution. Too bad for them.

About (2), both atheism _and_ evolutionary theory antedate Darwin.

Your last question (3) is debatable - if I understand what you're asking. Nobody's completely unpartisan. And Darwin's theories _may_ have had ulterior anti-theistic motives - but this in no way alters the truth or falsity thereof. At any rate, Darwin was (or became) anti-theistic. He wrote such things as: "I have lately read Morley’s Life of Voltaire & he insists strongly that direct attacks on Christianity . . . produce little permanent effect: real good seems only to follow from slow & silent side attacks.— I have been talking on this head with Litchfield, & he strongly concurs."

http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-9105

----------


## JCamilo

> It does suprise me that Darwin blamed god for a genetic mismatch.
> He of all people should have understood that same blood mixing is bound to fail eventually.
> I thought he was a scientist where does he get off blaming God.
> That does not make senseto me.
> Youwould have thought he would have devoted his time trying to work genes and why they fail betwneen humans rather trying to prove some kind of evolution that does not help or improve the state of humans genes and their progress.
> It is just a thought.



He didnt blame God and I didnt said he did. He just saw his wife praying every night and nothing happening and considered that maybe it was because there was nobody hearing. Even so, there is no reason to believe that Darwin became atheist due a single motive in his life. 

And he obviously knew that same blood mixing was a problem, after all, it is much thanks to him that we have this notion. Because after all, he dedicated all his life to study the mechanims that explained the transmition of traits between living beings and what could cause to failures an this became much of his theory. You know, the very theory he was famous for?

----------


## Varenne Rodin

I would have been atheist without Darwinism. It doesn't make sense to base belief on something that was said to have happened in an illiterate culture in a desert, especially when the Chinese were already well established and had a rich, documented history and written language that said nothing of Christianity. That doesn't mean I would be a Buddhist either. I don't know. No one has presented sufficient evidence for such fantastical claims for ANY theology. Darwin is one scientist in a long line of people documenting, exploring, and questioning science. If he hadn't made certain advances, someone else would have. 

Atheists who remain atheists don't retain anger at a god. That's nonsensical. My motivating factor for not swallowing theism is that it sounds cultish, judgmental, and absurd. It flies in the face of reason. People can try to rationalize it, but it can't ever be in line with reasoning in the physical reality we exist in.

----------


## Climacus

> My motivating factor for not swallowing theism is that it sounds cultish, judgmental, and absurd.


How does theism sound cultish, judgemental, and absurd? I can understand some religions sounding this way. But theism? There are many species in the genus, and some are areligious, some purely philosophical, and so on. 



> It flies in the face of reason. People can try to rationalize it, but it can't ever be in line with reasoning in the physical reality we exist in.


You're generalising again. No doubt, some religions are irrational, in whole or in part. But philosophical theism is not irrational - or if it is, it has never been demonstrated to be. That doesn't mean it's true. But it's not irrational.

----------


## Varenne Rodin

> How does theism sound cultish, judgemental, and absurd? I can understand some religions sounding this way. But theism? There are many species in the genus, and some are areligious, some purely philosophical, and so on. 
> 
> You're generalising again. No doubt, some religions are irrational, in whole or in part. But philosophical theism is not irrational - or if it is, it has never been demonstrated to be. That doesn't mean it's true. But it's not irrational.


I did not specifically say it was irrational. Of course people can rationalize it. Some of those rationalizations are sick and breed hatred and judgement of others. I said theism is unREASONable in our physical reality. There is fact, as we know it, and there is not fact. There is a god, or there is no god. 

"Exceptional claims demand exceptional evidence." Hitchens again.

----------


## Calidore

A thought I just had: It doesn't make sense to consider atheism as a reaction to any religion, because atheism actually predates all religions. It's the other way around; before there were belief systems, there weren't any.

----------


## Climacus

> A thought I just had: It doesn't make sense to consider atheism as a reaction to any religion, because atheism actually predates all religions. It's the other way around; before there were belief systems, there weren't any.


The traditional, historical definition of an atheist is one who ascribes to the proposition, "There is no God." If we re-define atheism as merely a lack of belief, then rocks and trees are atheists. But rocks and trees are not atheists. Therefore, etc.

----------


## Varenne Rodin

A person can exist without knowledge of a god. It's still atheism. It certainly isn't theism. Let's not be silly.

There is theism or atheism. It's pretty cut and dry at this point.

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> You see Bien, its quite simple. Scientists have uncovered thousands of fossil remains going back millions of years. Remains of anatomically modern humans only go back around 250 000 years or so. You go back farther and you find humanoid remains, not quite the same as us but similar. Go back even farther and the skeletons look less and less like ours. 
> 
> As the dates of the skeletons get closer to the present age they begin to appear more and more human. Its like this with all the species we have good fossil records of. I can't have the remains fed-exed to you, but you wanted evidence and here it is.


Again...this is merely your claim that there is evidence. Some of these fossils are nothing but one tooth. There's Lucy that is supposedly a pre-sapien human, but later study shows that it was nothing more than an ape. You can manipulate the fossils to be what you want them to be, that doesn't prove anything. Without something to discuss, your evidence is nothing more than hearsay. Let's discuss an actual piece of evidence.

----------


## Darcy88

> No, science is merely knowledge. What you are referring to is not science, but interpretation of evidence. I don't agree with the interpretation of the scientists that you are presenting. And the argument that they are recognized as well educated, and that they are in the majority doesn't stand. The recognized scholars of one time believed that the earth was flat, and that you could heal someone by bleeding them. There are more than just "fringe" and "hacks" that question the accuracy of these dating methods. Maybe you out to broaden your research.


Yes, people once thought the earth was flat. Back before the scientific revolution, before the rapid rise of technology, back when science was making its first baby steps if it can even be said to have yet been born. 

The evidence for the flatness of the earth is nothing like the evidence for carbon dating. Its a false analogy. 

You get evidence and then you proceed to question it by questioning the very principle of evidence itself. "Science is wrong. They once told us the earth was flat!"

----------


## Darcy88

> Again...this is merely your claim that there is evidence. Some of these fossils are nothing but one tooth. There's Lucy that is supposedly a pre-sapien human, but later study shows that it was nothing more than an ape. You can manipulate the fossils to be what you want them to be, that doesn't prove anything. Without something to discuss, your evidence is nothing more than hearsay. Let's discuss an actual piece of evidence.


Its not hearsay. Its solid, concrete, physical evidence. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean there's nothing to it.

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> Yes, people once thought the earth was flat. Back before the scientific revolution, before the rapid rise of technology, back when science was making its first baby steps if it can even said to have yet been born. 
> 
> The evidence for the flatness of the earth is nothing like the evidence for carbon dating. Its a false analogy. 
> 
> You get evidence and then you proceed to question it by questioning the very principle of evidence itself. "Science is wrong. They once told us the earth was flat!"


If you want to appear to quote me, then actually quote me. If you can't quote me correctly, why should I believe anything that you claim to quote.

"...science is merely knowledge..." I never said that Science was wrong, I said that the interpretation of the evidence was inaccurate.

Let's discuss one of the pieces of evidence that you have. I'm tired to going over you claims of the evidence. Let's look at something real.

----------


## Darcy88

Have you ever talked to an actual scientist? I took a few first year science courses and remember how knowledgable some of my professors were. My physics prof would go off on these 1000 mile an hour tangents, shooting off theories rapid-fire and scrawling equations across the board. They're not stupid. Maybe it would take me hours, but if I went carefully step by step I could add the pieces until the truth of some principle was revealed, soild as pyamid. Science is complicated, bafflingly so. But its well-founded. For something like carbon-dating to become as accepted as it is its had to pass through countless trials, a veritable gauntlet of obsessively nit-picking experts each ready to pounce on the slightest flaw. 

We've come a long way since the flat earth days. Back then there was little to seperate fact from fantasy. Today we have methods and technologies that seem not centuries but rather light-years ahead of what they had then.

----------


## Darcy88

I don't see the point in discussing individual items of evidence. You don't trust the dating method anyway.

----------


## Paulclem

> And when the Buddha attempted to starve himself? That was not a form of nihilism? 
> I know, don't tell me. It was a way to accompany and have compassion for all the people that were being starved by their government. He probably wanted to train them like the donkey that learned how not to eat and then die. Ha!
> Enough. Have fun.


Ah the Coup de Grace. Unfortunately that is only part of the story. He rejected that path and then adopted The Middle Way between the extremes of indulgence and self inflicted pain. 

Buddhism as it was then grew within a Hindu society, and so had no connection to the rulers, although it was supported by patrons later. In that sense it was a subversive religion. 

I'm afraid your sarcasm is misplaced.

----------


## JuniperWoolf

> What you are referring to is not science, but interpretation of evidence. I don't agree with the interpretation of the scientists that you are presenting.


So that would be about 99.99% of scientists you disagree with. You're saying that they all worked together and managed to execute a huge, impossible lie (and trust me, for scientists, especially ones from different fields, "working together" is impossible enough even if the lie in question WASN'T way too huge for even a small group to maintain, which in this case it is). For what purpose? 

Carbon dating can't really be refuted, it's a relatively simple mathematical equation. Carbon-14 decomposes at a fixed rate, and this has been observed millions of times by millions of people, anyone who has ever studied carbon-14 in chemistry, or biology, or anthropology, or archaeology, &c. If you measure how much carbon-14 is left in a thing verses how much it had to start with, you can take that fixed rate into account and determine how long that thing has existed. It's like an hour glass, except instead of sand leaving the top part and falling into the bottom, carbon-14 is leaving the thing that you're carbon dating. It's an easy concept, and can be used to date things up until about 60,000 years. That is 52,000 years older than you claim the earth to be.

I could easily ramble on about dozens of topics and dozens of examples for why the earth is older than 8000 years and why evolution exists. I could mention how there has never been a single fossil of a modern organism buried in a lower (older) strata level than it's ancestor (and each strata has a different, obviously observable composition depending upon the age in which it was produced - you've seen them, they look like lines in cliff faces). I could bring up the fact that we have literally watched evolution happen, we have CAUSED it to happen by breeding new species which no longer have the ability to mate with it's previous incarnation (and _a new species_ created from an old one as in artificial selection is evolution, except that on a large scale there would be no humans around to employ artificial selection so they would change via the much slower natural selection which is also observable). It literally takes almost no effort at all to refute your claim that the earth is 8000 years old. Almost every person on the face of the earth (coincidentally everyone except for the people in your tiny religious niche) is of the opinion that your idea of a young earth is impossible.

----------


## Mutatis-Mutandis

> Darcy, while it is true that many fossils have been unearthed, the dating of those fossils is not accurate. Therefore you haven't provided one shred of evidence, you just made a claim.





> But you didn't offer any evidence. You claimed that there was evidence.





> Oh, I believe that there are fossils, but I also believe that the methods used for dating required certain variable data and assumptions for the calculations to be made. However, you still haven't offered any evidence. You have only stated that there are fossils, and that there are some scientists who have dated them to certain eras. However, you ignore that there are other scientists that disagree with them. You haven't shown me what the fossils are of, who said that they are dated to what period, or what method that they used to date the fossils.
> 
> Yes, it's like shouting across a street, but I can clearly hear you. But you still haven't offered any evidence. Please show me at least one of the fossils, and then explain how that one fossil proves your claim. How does a fossil prove that which you claim, and what exactly is it that you are claiming (based on that fossil)?





> No, science is merely knowledge. What you are referring to is not science, but interpretation of evidence. I don't agree with the interpretation of the scientists that you are presenting. And the argument that they are recognized as well educated, and that they are in the majority doesn't stand. The recognized scholars of one time believed that the earth was flat, and that you could heal someone by bleeding them. There are more than just "fringe" and "hacks" that question the accuracy of these dating methods. Maybe you out to broaden your research.





> Again...this is merely your claim that there is evidence. Some of these fossils are nothing but one tooth. There's Lucy that is supposedly a pre-sapien human, but later study shows that it was nothing more than an ape. You can manipulate the fossils to be what you want them to be, that doesn't prove anything. Without something to discuss, your evidence is nothing more than hearsay. Let's discuss an actual piece of evidence.


 :FRlol:  Pot, meet kettle! 

Don't bother posting anything, Darcy, because if you do post something damning to his ideas, he just ignores it.

----------


## Varenne Rodin

> No, science is merely knowledge. What you are referring to is not science, but interpretation of evidence. I don't agree with the interpretation of the scientists that you are presenting. And the argument that they are recognized as well educated, and that they are in the majority doesn't stand. The recognized scholars of one time believed that the earth was flat, and that you could heal someone by bleeding them. There are more than just "fringe" and "hacks" that question the accuracy of these dating methods. Maybe you out to broaden your research.


....but you are questioning them to better cling to your dogmas. The opinions you are presenting are biased, unsubstantiated, not objective and, therefore, should be discarded.

----------


## Varenne Rodin

> So that would be about 99.99% of scientists you disagree with. You're saying that they all worked together and managed to execute a huge, impossible lie (and trust me, for scientists, especially ones from different fields, "working together" is impossible enough even if the lie in question WASN'T way too huge for even a small group to maintain, which in this case it is). For what purpose? 
> 
> Carbon dating can't really be refuted, it's a relatively simple mathematical equation. Carbon-14 decomposes at a fixed rate, and this has been observed millions of times by millions of people, anyone who has ever studied carbon-14 in chemistry, or biology, or anthropology, or archaeology, &c. If you measure how much carbon-14 is left in a thing verses how much it had to start with, you can take that fixed rate into account and determine how long that thing has existed. It's like an hour glass, except instead of sand leaving the top part and falling into the bottom, carbon-14 is leaving the thing that you're carbon dating. It's an easy concept, and can be used to date things up until about 60,000 years. That is 52,000 years older than you claim the earth to be.
> 
> I could easily ramble on about dozens of topics and dozens of examples for why the earth is older than 8000 years and why evolution exists. I could mention how there has never been a single fossil of a modern organism buried in a lower (older) strata level than it's ancestor (and each strata has a different, obviously observable composition depending upon the age in which it was produced - you've seen them, they look like lines in cliff faces). I could bring up the fact that we have literally watched evolution happen, we have CAUSED it to happen by breeding new species which no longer have the ability to mate with it's previous incarnation (and _a new species_ created from an old one as in artificial selection is evolution, except that on a large scale there would be no humans around to employ artificial selection so they would change via the much slower natural selection which is also observable). It literally takes almost no effort at all to refute your claim that the earth is 8000 years old. Almost every person on the face of the earth (coincidentally everyone except for the people in your tiny religious niche) is of the opinion that your idea of a young earth is impossible.


Brilliant. Thank you!

----------


## cafolini

> So that would be about 99.99% of scientists you disagree with. You're saying that they all worked together and managed to execute a huge, impossible lie (and trust me, for scientists, especially ones from different fields, "working together" is impossible enough even if the lie in question WASN'T way too huge for even a small group to maintain, which in this case it is). For what purpose? 
> 
> Carbon dating can't really be refuted, it's a relatively simple mathematical equation. Carbon-14 decomposes at a fixed rate, and this has been observed millions of times by millions of people, anyone who has ever studied carbon-14 in chemistry, or biology, or anthropology, or archaeology, &c. If you measure how much carbon-14 is left in a thing verses how much it had to start with, you can take that fixed rate into account and determine how long that thing has existed. It's like an hour glass, except instead of sand leaving the top part and falling into the bottom, carbon-14 is leaving the thing that you're carbon dating. It's an easy concept, and can be used to date things up until about 60,000 years. That is 52,000 years older than you claim the earth to be.
> 
> I could easily ramble on about dozens of topics and dozens of examples for why the earth is older than 8000 years and why evolution exists. I could mention how there has never been a single fossil of a modern organism buried in a lower (older) strata level than it's ancestor (and each strata has a different, obviously observable composition depending upon the age in which it was produced - you've seen them, they look like lines in cliff faces). I could bring up the fact that we have literally watched evolution happen, we have CAUSED it to happen by breeding new species which no longer have the ability to mate with it's previous incarnation (and _a new species_ created from an old one as in artificial selection is evolution, except that on a large scale there would be no humans around to employ artificial selection so they would change via the much slower natural selection which is also observable). It literally takes almost no effort at all to refute your claim that the earth is 8000 years old. Almost every person on the face of the earth (coincidentally everyone except for the people in your tiny religious niche) is of the opinion that your idea of a young earth is impossible.


This is indeed a very good post. Far more than an opinion.
What's interesting is that these quacking freaks would argue against this but wouldn't argue about the craziness of Jurassic, where they have actually guessed the anatomy of animals as if it were a fact. Not to speak about how they readily ate Freud's stuff of philogenetic fantasy, where the fetus in the womb goes through every stage of prehistory. Insanity finds no bounds and often becomes famous.

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> So that would be about 99.99% of scientists you disagree with.


Did you pull that 99% figure out of thin air?




> Carbon dating can't really be refuted, it's a relatively simple mathematical equation.


You're right, it is an equation, but there are too many variable, and some assumptions have to be made to plug in for some of the variables. That is where the inaccuracies begin.




> I could easily ramble on about dozens of topics and dozens of examples


And you are rambling. Do you know that for sure? Do you have any evidence of that?

You see the problem with that logic is that we define the age of the strata based on what we find in it....and we define the age of that which we find in a strata based on the age of the strata. That is circular reasoning....and absolutely no evidence at all.

----------


## hillwalker

> You see the problem with that logic is that we define the age of the strata based on what we find in it....and we define the age of that which we find in a strata based on the age of the strata. That is circular reasoning....and absolutely no evidence at all.


Ever hear the quote 'a little knowledge is a dangerous thing?' That statement you have just posted is living proof.

To simplify how geology works, if we focus on two simple scenarios:

1) dating strata from its fossils:

Some fossilised remains can be dated using Carbon dating (giving an accurate age - which obviously you may choose to refute because you consider science nothing more than conjecture).

_But as far as scientists are concerned the facts are irrefutable, and there arent too many variables to cast doubt on these facts.
Science is too self-critical and indeed too b1tchy to accept shoddy research as a basis for establishing facts.
Carbon dating is as accurate as counting the rings in a sawn-off tree stump to give the age of the tree. Unless of course you think dendrochronology is also flawed._

So it seems reasonable to conclude that any strata of rock containing fossils found to be of a certain age will belong to the same geological period as the fossils found within it. And the same will apply to any other set of strata containing fossils of that same age.
Thats how it is possible to conclude that rocks in Pennsylvania and in the UK both belong to the same geological period (Carboniferous) because they share fossils of the same age.

2) dating fossils from the strata in which they are found:

On this basis other fossils found within the same strata will be accepted as belonging to the same geological period even though they might differ in appearance and indeed be of different species from fossils that have already been accurately dated. The logical assumption being that they were buried at the same time, so co-existed.

Its not circular reasoning - a case of one relying on the other and vice versa. It's called applying scientific knowledge logically.

H

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> Ever hear the quote 'a little knowledge is a dangerous thing?' That statement you have just posted is living proof.
> 
> To simplify how geology works, if we focus on two simple scenarios:
> 
> 1) dating strata from its fossils:
> 
> Some fossilised remains can be dated using Carbon dating (giving an accurate age - which obviously you may choose to refute because you consider science nothing more than conjecture).
> 
> _But as far as scientists are concerned the facts are irrefutable, and there arent too many variables to cast doubt on these facts.
> ...


I guess it's really impossible to discuss these things in generalities. We can claim whatever we want to if we don't have to look at specific examples. I understand what you are saying, but we cannot really discuss it unless we have a real example to look at.

----------


## Varenne Rodin

At what point do we start charging tuition?

----------


## JuniperWoolf

> Did you pull that 99% figure out of thin air?


I guess we could argue that the people who get their "science" degrees from religious institutions don't actually count as "scientists," so in that case the figure would actually be 100%.




> You're right, it is an equation, but there are too many variable, and some assumptions have to be made to plug in for some of the variables.


No, there are _two_ variables. The rate of carbon-14 decomposition is fixed, so the only VARIABLES are the original quantity of carbon-14 and the remaining quantity of carbon-14. 




> Do you know that for sure?


Yes.

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> I guess we could argue that the people who get their "science" degrees from religious institutions don't actually count as "scientists," so in that case the figure would actually be 100%.


Yeah...I guess you are totally blowing smoke...

There's no real discussion here.

----------


## JuniperWoolf

> There's no real discussion here.


No kidding. Your viewpoint is doomed, it doesn't fit into reality. I give it two more generations.

----------


## YesNo

I think there are two kinds of people: (1) those who want to change other people's minds, and (2) those who want to be open enough to change their own minds. Of course one shouldn't change one's mind without a good reason to do so.

JuniperWoolf provided evidence that the earth is older than 8000 years using carbon-14's rate of decay and hillwalker provided evidence on how fossil stratification can lead to comparative geological dating. I think they did a good job of accepting BienvenuJDC's challenge to provide evidence rather than just expect him to accept their authority on what is right. However, the fact that he doesn't accept the evidence should not lead to frustration. It is an opportunity for those who accept the evidence to understand it better. There should ultimately be no need to change his mind.

----------


## Alexander III

I think it might have been mentioned before but arguing with Bien about science, is like arguing with the sky.

At the end of the day you always loose. Because a man shouting at the sky is never a winner.

----------


## cafolini

> No kidding. Your viewpoint is doomed, it doesn't fit into reality. I give it two more generations.


Excuse me. This one is a funny one. It's already been dead for two at least. I think you have impossible hopes. Loved it, so to speak.

----------


## Mutatis-Mutandis

> Excuse me. This one is a funny one. It's already been dead for two at least. I think you have impossible hopes. Loved it, so to speak.


If it's been dead for two generations, how come I've encountered multiple people in my own generation who still think the way Bien does?

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> If it's been dead for two generations, how come I've encountered multiple people in my own generation who still think the way Bien does?


Good point! There are many more that you guys don't encounter. Eventually, people are going to start seeing the holes in the "theory". And just like I've experienced here, people are going to start seeing that the lack of evidence provided and the lack of substance. Again..."claims" of evidence (which is all that has been provided here, is not the same as evidence. Y'all are in a very small minority, just a very noisy minority.

----------


## Darcy88

> Good point! There are many more that you guys don't encounter. Eventually, people are going to start seeing the holes in the "theory". And just like I've experienced here, people are going to start seeing that the lack of evidence provided and the lack of substance. Again..."claims" of evidence (which is all that has been provided here, is not the same as evidence. Y'all are in a very small minority, just a very noisy minority.


Bien, Juniper and Jack of Hearts dropped two atom bombs of enlightening posts direct upon your head. With this they blew away any veneer of credibility that may have hung to your beliefs. They provided straightforward, solid refutations of your objections to the theory. Your unwillingness to accept it is your fault, not theirs. 

We are not the minority. Juniper is most likely correct in her assertion that 100 percent of credible scientists affirm the legitimacy of carbon dating and evolution. Were the research heads of all the institutions of higher learning and all the scientists who submit articles for peer review polled, I'd bet this figure of 100 percent would result. 

Its one thing to affirm one's faith in the face of the facts. There's a certain honour and honesty to that. Its quite another to deny the facts, to distort reality and refashion it in accordance to one's liking.

----------


## Varenne Rodin

Atheism is the fastest growing position on religion in America. I don't know how it is in other countries, but the polls here currently show religion on the decline and secularism on the rise. I think religion is a long way from being over, but it will be conquered. The spread of information can't be stopped so easily anymore.

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> Bien, Juniper and Jack of Hearts dropped two atom bombs of enlightening posts direct upon your head. With this they blew away any veneer of credibility that may have hung to your beliefs. They provided straightforward, solid refutations of your objections to the theory. Your unwillingness to accept it is your fault, not theirs. 
> 
> We are not the minority. Juniper is most likely correct in her assertion that 100 percent of credible scientists affirm the legitimacy of carbon dating and evolution. Were the research heads of all the institutions of higher learning and all the scientists who submit articles for peer review polled, I'd bet this figure of 100 percent would result. 
> 
> Its one thing to affirm one's faith in the face of the facts. There's a certain honour and honesty to that. Its quite another to deny the facts, to distort reality and refashion it in accordance to one's liking.


I've provided facts, but (without any documentation) there was posted a claim of discredit. All you guys can do is provide vague claims of what scientists say. You have provided no evidence or documentation of evidence. Claims of evidence mean absolutely nothing. All I see is a blind faith in claims of scientific theory. Scientific theoretical claims are meaningless without actual evidence. 

"Juniper is most likely correct in her assertion that 100 percent of credible scientists affirm the legitimacy of carbon dating and evolution."

Seriously? You don't even have faith in your statement. "most likely"??? She made an absolutely undocumented claim with NO SUPPORT. Please show how carbon dating is accurate beyond 5,000 years. CLAIMING that scientists believe that it is accurate isn't any kind of evidence.



If you actually read this site, you'll see that there is a legitimate question to the accuracy of Carbon 14.

http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/carbondating.html

I'm sure that you're explanation is that these things aren't by legitimate scientists. That explanation isn't going to work, especially since no one has documented anything that they've claimed.

----------


## Darcy88

> Atheism is the fastest growing position on religion in America. I don't know how it is in other countries, but the polls here currently show religion on the decline and secularism on the rise. I think religion is a long way from being over, but it will be conquered. The spread of information can't be stopped so easily anymore.


What a thing to say on this the eve of our Lord and Saviour's birthday! At least we'll have good company for solace as we writhe in the flames of hell. Ah, an eternity of hell-fire as payment for our adherence to what in most striking and obvious certainty seems the undeniable truth. A just and loving God indeed.

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> What a thing to say on this the eve of our Lord and Saviour's birthday! At least we'll have good company for solace as we writhe in the flames of hell. Ah, an eternity of hell-fire as payment for our adherence to what in most striking and obvious certainty seems the undeniable truth. A just and loving God indeed.


You mock God, and you then question HIS justice and love. That's irony.

----------


## Darcy88

Its an appeal to authority, but if the overwhelming majority of learned phd-accredited scientists affirm the legitimacy of carbon dating, well then that's good enough for me.

So you're saying that all these pre-human fossil remains which resemble us ever progressively more close, those which least match our anatomy buried deeper, those more alike to us nearer the surface, that all these are a mere coincidence if not an outright hoax? How do you explain this? It is reasonable to take them as evidence of evolution. Only by abject bias can they be interpreted as anything else.

----------


## Darcy88

> You mock God, and you then question HIS justice and love. That's irony.


I note to myself His profound lack of love and justice, then I openly mock Him and follow it up by stating from whence this mockery proceeds.

----------


## Varenne Rodin

I couldn't get that site to load on my computing device. Whatever the case, I doubt it could prove to me that god exists and I should drop speaking up for education based on reality. Best of luck with it though.

----------


## Darcy88

God's existence is somewhat of an open matter. His character, however, his character is certain. Just as we can't say with 100 percent certainty whether the boogyman exists or not, but we know for a fact that if he does he is one mean sob.

----------


## Varenne Rodin

> What a thing to say on this the eve of our Lord and Saviour's birthday! At least we'll have good company for solace as we writhe in the flames of hell. Ah, an eternity of hell-fire as payment for our adherence to what in most striking and obvious certainty seems the undeniable truth. A just and loving God indeed.


Very good company, Mr. Darcy.  :Wink:

----------


## JuniperWoolf

> Atheism is the fastest growing position on religion in America. I don't know how it is in other countries, but the polls here currently show religion on the decline and secularism on the rise.


According to the 2001 census, 21.6% of Albertans are secular (that's where I'm from) and we're by far the most conservative province. 




> 


A grainy screenshot of a random person's correspondence that you found on a Christian website. That's a... uh... good point you got there...

Einstein defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results, so we really shouldn't expect ourselves to be able to change Bien's mind. He's like fifty years old and he's faced direct proof that his position is invalid since he was a child, if he hasn't conceded by now then he won't concede. It's eerie, but I'm still adamant in my belief that people like this won't make a dent in scientific and technological advancement because no one takes them seriously (this is especially true outside of the United States).

----------


## Varenne Rodin

Man, I love Canada. I just need a place in Canada that has California weather and I'll be all set.

----------


## Darcy88

> Man, I love Canada. I just need a place in Canada that has California weather and I'll be all set.


I'm afraid no place in Canada has California weather. My area is the most temperate, and we still have to deal with 5 straight months of cold and rain.

I agree Juniper. He won't change his mind. Its not only evolution and carbon dating he's pitted himself against. Its a whole plethora of well-established theories (facts.) Continental drift, astrophysics, the formation of mountains, archaeology, genetics. Pretty much all of science. His faith is a quixotic candle stubbornly defying a category 5 hurricane.

----------


## Varenne Rodin

Rain I can handle, cold too. Too much snow (to the point where I can't leave home for weeks) or too much heat and humidity get me down.

----------


## OrphanPip

Radiometric dating doesn't solely rely on Carbon-14 dating either, there are a number of radioactive isotopes that can be used to accurately date compounds over large time scales. They also provide consistent results when cross-examined.

----------


## cafolini

> Radiometric dating doesn't solely rely on Carbon-14 dating either, there are a number of radioactive isotopes that can be used to accurately date compounds over large time scales. They also provide consistent results when cross-examined.


Excellent post. The cross-examination is the key to its correctness.

----------


## Darcy88

> Rain I can handle, cold too. Too much snow (to the point where I can't leave home for weeks) or too much heat and humidity get me down.


You say that now. Coming from California I bet half-way into a BC winter you'd be cursing the dark grey sky. I've quit thinking of our seasons as being four in number. Instead I consider them but two - wet and dry.

----------


## The Bystander

> According to the 2001 census, 21.6% of Albertans are secular (that's where I'm from) and we're by far the most conservative province. 
> 
> 
> 
> A grainy screenshot of a random person's correspondence that you found on a Christian website. That's a... uh... good point you got there...
> 
> Einstein defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results, so we really shouldn't expect ourselves to be able to change Bien's mind. He's like fifty years old and he's faced direct proof that his position is invalid since he was a child, if he hasn't conceded by now then he won't concede. It's eerie, but I'm still adamant in my belief that people like this won't make a dent in scientific and technological advancement because no one takes them seriously (this is especially true outside of the United States).


No he's not "like fifty years old, he'll be 39 on Wednesday.

----------


## KCurtis

> Atheism is the fastest growing position on religion in America. I don't know how it is in other countries, but the polls here currently show religion on the decline and secularism on the rise. I think religion is a long way from being over, but it will be conquered. The spread of information can't be stopped so easily anymore.


I don't think so, and I don't know if I want it to be. As a non-religious person, I can freely state my beliefs and opinions. I want everyone to be able to do the same. The problem arises when one view over takes every other. That will not happen, and it shouldn't-except in school concerning the topic of evolution. As an educator in a middle school in Massachusetts, we keep religion out of evolution- and we teach evolution in science class. We do not talk about or criticize a religious belief concerning it though-that is the way it should be. Those students who question it and state they don't believe in scientific evolution are told to discuss it with their parents. Maybe I just opened up a can of worms here, oh well.

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> A grainy screenshot of a random person's correspondence that you found on a Christian website. That's a... uh... good point you got there...


The validity of the evidence has nothing to do with 
* how grainy it is
* where it was posted

You did NOTHING to check out the real validity 




> He's like fifty years old


As was shown above, you are incorrect, you do a very poor job at research even though there is information that is easily obtained.




> and he's faced direct proof that his position is invalid since he was a child,


There HASN'T been any direct proof shown. You have not provided any proof of anything. You don't seem to understand that making a claim that something (that is undocumented) is evidence, isn't evidence, nor is it proof. You take for granted that Carbon 14 and the like has been accurately applied to date things, even though I have shown you one example that the dating method was used to date bones (that are supposedly millions of years old) and the Carbon 14 dating method brought about the results that they were only nine thousand years old. You REFUSE to accept evidence that there may be inaccuracies in the methods used by scientists...because the evidence is....grainy? Your mindset seems quite unchangeable and you're 23 years old. I bet that you will have the ability to change someday though...if you open your mind.

----------


## Zemouli Chahra

[QUOTE=Varenne Rodin;1101119]I couldn't get that site to load on my computing device. Whatever the case, I doubt it could prove to me that god exists and I should drop speaking up for education based on reality. Best of luck with it though.[/QUO
*Make yourself relaxed.... beside nature... look deeply around you.... to your body and how it is wee made... every thing is controled.. how you breathe .. you move and speak ... then you will know that you are not a chance or accident... you are created by a Great creatore... By God.

*

----------


## cacian

> God's existence is somewhat of an open matter. His character, however, his character is certain. Just as we can't say with 100 percent certainty whether the boogyman exists or not, but we know for a fact that if he does he is one mean sob.


How do you mean his character?
His character as in a book?
Funny that everyone assumes that God is masculin.
Could it noe be both a man or a woman?

----------


## KCurtis

> There HASN'T been any direct proof shown. You have not provided any proof of anything. You don't seem to understand that making a claim that something (that is undocumented) is evidence, isn't evidence, nor is it proof. You take for granted that Carbon 14 and the like has been accurately applied to date things, even though I have shown you one example that the dating method was used to date bones (that are supposedly millions of years old) and the Carbon 14 dating method brought about the results that they were only nine thousand years old. You REFUSE to accept evidence that there may be inaccuracies in the methods used by scientists...because the evidence is....grainy? Your mindset seems quite unchangeable and you're 23 years old. I bet that you will have the ability to change someday though...if you open your mind.


Speak for yourself. I guess the only science you will accept and learn about is the limited science that won't challenge your belief system. Religion and evolution coexist for many people who also consider themselves christians.

----------


## cafolini

> I don't think so, and I don't know if I want it to be. As a non-religious person, I can freely state my beliefs and opinions. I want everyone to be able to do the same. The problem arises when one view over takes every other. That will not happen, and it shouldn't-except in school concerning the topic of evolution. As an educator in a middle school in Massachusetts, we keep religion out of evolution- and we teach evolution in science class. We do not talk about or criticize a religious belief concerning it though-that is the way it should be. Those students who question it and state they don't believe in scientific evolution are told to discuss it with their parents. Maybe I just opened up a can of worms here, oh well.


No, I don't think you opened a can a of worms. I think you pretty well closed it with a good alternative. Freedom of religion implies that religion cannot be a curriculum because who will teach it fairly and with what bias when there are hundreds of them around? If religion were taught, many, among those who are believers, would not be free to believe as they choose. Good points.

----------


## Varenne Rodin

> How do you mean his character?
> His character as in a book?
> Funny that everyone assumes that God is masculin.
> Could it noe be both a man or a woman?


Character as in the nature of his persona if he exists. If he exists, he allows and visits horrors on the people he has made. It doesn't matter whether he's male or female, though in Christianity he has often been called a he. That's not the kind of character classification Darcy was making.

----------


## KCurtis

> No, I don't think you opened a can a of worms. I think you pretty well closed it with a good alternative. Freedom of religion implies that religion cannot be a curriculum because who will teach it fairly and with what bias when there are hundreds of them around? If religion were taught, many, among those who are believers, would not be free to believe as they choose. Good points.


Why thank  :Grouphug: you.

----------


## Mutatis-Mutandis

> The validity of the evidence has nothing to do with 
> * how grainy it is
> * where it was posted
> 
> You did NOTHING to check out the real validity 
> 
> 
> 
> As was shown above, you are incorrect, you do a very poor job at research even though there is information that is easily obtained.
> ...


And what about the websites I posted and you just ignored? I have a feeling that's why no one else goes to the effort of doing research, even a small amount like me, because you just IGNORE it. So, what's the point? Why should anyone go to the trouble?

----------


## Darcy88

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence

http://science.howstuffworks.com/env.../carbon-14.htm



"It is possible to find out how a particular group of organisms evolved by arranging its fossil records in a chronological sequence. Such a sequence can be determined because fossils are mainly found in sedimentary rock. Sedimentary rock is formed by layers of silt or mud on top of each other; thus, the resulting rock contains a series of horizontal layers, or strata. Each layer contains fossils which are typical for a specific time period during which they were made. The lowest strata contain the oldest rock and the earliest fossils, while the highest strata contain the youngest rock and more recent fossils.
A succession of animals and plants can also be seen from fossil discoveries. By studying the number and complexity of different fossils at different stratigraphic levels, it has been shown that older fossil-bearing rocks contain fewer types of fossilized organisms, and they all have a simpler structure, whereas younger rocks contain a greater variety of fossils, often with increasingly complex structures.[49]
For many years, geologists could only roughly estimate the ages of various strata and the fossils found. They did so, for instance, by estimating the time for the formation of sedimentary rock layer by layer. Today, by measuring the proportions of radioactive and stable elements in a given rock, the ages of fossils can be more precisely dated by scientists. This technique is known as radiometric dating.
Throughout the fossil record, many species that appear at an early stratigraphic level disappear at a later level. This is interpreted in evolutionary terms as indicating the times at which species originated and became extinct. Geographical regions and climatic conditions have varied throughout the Earth's history. Since organisms are adapted to particular environments, the constantly changing conditions favoured species which adapted to new environments through the mechanism of natural selection."




"According to a recent article published in Science, the Colorado River began to cut its course through the Grand Canyon 17 million years ago. The authors base their claim on radiometric dating of cave formations found in the canyon walls.

Polyak, V.; Hill, C.; Asmerom, Y. Age and Evolution of the Grand Canyon Revealed by U-Pb Dating of Water Table-Type Speleotherms. Science 2008, 319, 1377-1380.
Their method, a type of radiometric dating called uranium-lead (U-Pb) dating, relies on the fact that uranium isotopes radioactively decay to form lead isotopes. By comparing the amount of each isotope in a sample, the age of the sample can be calculated.1

Radiometric dating not only supports the geologic "evolution" of the Grand Canyon, it validates a central tenet in a much different theory of evolution - a theory introduced by Charles Robert Darwin in his 1859 publication, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life:

"I am fully convinced that species are not immutable; but that those belonging to what are called the same genera are lineal descendants of some other and generally extinct species, in the same manner as the acknowledged varieties of any one species are the descendants of that species. Furthermore, I am convinced that Natural Selection has been the main but not exclusive means of modification."2
An important criticism of Darwin's theory of evolution was its requirement for "an almost infinite number of generations", when evidence at the time suggested earth was less than 100 million years old. Nearly 50 years after Darwin published On the Origin of Species, research on radioactive elements in rocks provided the first reliable evidence that the earth was old enough to accommodate the evolution of complex organisms. In 1907, Bertram Boltwood published an article describing a novel, radiometric method for determining the age of minerals - a method he used to date a rock sample at more than 2 billion years:

"Knowing the rate of disintegration of uranium, it would be possible to calculate the time required for the production of the proportions of lead found in the different uranium minerals, or in other words the ages of the minerals."3
Boltwood's method is conceptually similar to the dating method used by Clair Patterson in 1956 to determine the currently accepted age of the earth.4 Darwin would likely agree that Patterson's calculation of 4.55 billion years satisfies evolution's requirement for a "vast lapse of time".2


Contributed by
Peter S. Carlton, Ph.D.
CAS Communications"


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth


http://teachthemscience.org/evidence

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/
> 
> http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence
> 
> http://science.howstuffworks.com/env.../carbon-14.htm
> 
> 
> 
> "It is possible to find out how a particular group of organisms evolved by arranging its fossil records in a chronological sequence. Such a sequence can be determined because fossils are mainly found in sedimentary rock. Sedimentary rock is formed by layers of silt or mud on top of each other; thus, the resulting rock contains a series of horizontal layers, or strata. Each layer contains fossils which are typical for a specific time period during which they were made. The lowest strata contain the oldest rock and the earliest fossils, while the highest strata contain the youngest rock and more recent fossils.
> ...


Shall I respond as you guys do?

Oh, all of that is invalid because it's from an evolutionist website!

Ok, we could take each little part bit by bit...let's start with this one from your site...




> The usual creationist response to hominid fossils is to claim that there are no intermediates; each one is either a human or an ape. It doesn't matter that some of the "humans" have a brain size well below the normal human range, heavy brow ridges, no chin, and teeth larger than modern ones set in a projecting jaw, or that some of the "apes" were bipedal, with very humanlike teeth, and brains larger than those of similar sized apes. There are some skulls which cannot be reliably assigned to either genus. (Willis 1989)
> 
> This is exactly what we would expect if evolution had occurred. If, on the other hand, creationism was true and there was a large gap between humans and apes, it should be easy to separate hominid fossils into humans and apes. This is not the case. As will be shown, creationists themselves cannot agree which fossils are humans and which are apes. It would not matter even if creationists could decide where to put the dividing line between humans and apes. No matter where it is placed, the humans just above the line and the apes just below it will be more similar to one another than they will be to other humans or other apes.


There is a claim here that there would be a large gap between humans and apes in respects to sizes. This is a ridiculous claim. There are humans of many different sizes and shapes. There are currently people who have frames that could be similar to that of some apes. Genetics are mixed and interbred to make many different characteristics. If scientists are using such logic to make their assumptions, then their "scientific" methods need to be discredited. As I read the evolutionist evidence, this is the poorest example of "evidence" that I have ever seen.

----------


## Darcy88

> Shall I respond as you guys do?
> 
> Oh, all of that is invalid because it's from an evolutionist website!
> 
> Ok, we could take each little part bit by bit...let's start with this one from your site...
> 
> 
> 
> There is a claim here that there would be a large gap between humans and apes in respects to sizes. This is a ridiculous claim. There are humans of many different sizes and shapes. There are currently people who have frames that could be similar to that of some apes. Genetics are mixed and interbred to make many different characteristics. If scientists are using such logic to make their assumptions, then their "scientific" methods need to be discredited. As I read the evolutionist evidence, this is the poorest example of "evidence" that I have ever seen.


Scientists can tell the difference between the skeleton of a human and that of an ape. For one thing apes have much longer arms, since they walk around on all fours.

We were supposed to have learned all this stuff in school. I was under the impression that basic science was still taught in American public schools.

You must either believe that scientists as a whole are stupid or that they are engaged in some vast international multi-generation conspiracy to fabricate theories on weak or non-existent evidence. This would have to be the single largest conspiracy ever devised. It would encompass thousands of individuals and span entire centuries. Or biologists must on average be of a level of intelligence far below the norm. If you've ever studied the hard sciences, even at a high school or first year university level, you'd know this is not the case.

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> Scientists can tell the difference between the skeleton of a human and that of an ape. For one thing apes have much longer arms, since they walk around on all fours.
> 
> We were supposed to have learned all this stuff in school. I was under the impression basic science was still taught in American public schools.


However, the parts that were being compared were skulls. There are so many different parts that are compared, most times there are fragments that are analyzed without the full set of bones. Assumptions are made...that's the current scientific method...make assumptions that support your theories.

----------


## Darcy88

> ...that's the current scientific method...make assumptions that support your theories.


There we have it. You simply do not trust science. You have no understanding of the process of peer review or any of the other measures out there by which theories are deemed reliable or are discarded.

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> There we have it. You simply do not trust science. You have no understanding of the process of peer review or any of the other measures out there by which theories are deemed reliable or are discarded.


I do not trust the type of science that I have seen here. I'll admit that. There are many scientists that deem these scientists unreliable. Science still teaches us that it takes billions of years for coal to form in the ground.

----------


## Darcy88

But which is it Bien, - stupidity or conspiracy?

----------


## JuniperWoolf

> You say that now. Coming from California I bet half-way into a BC winter you'd be cursing the dark grey sky. I've quit thinking of our seasons as being four in number. Instead I consider them but two - wet and dry.


I've heard that. I'm moving to Van in August to go to UBC. My boyfriend has already lived there and we've had a five-year debate about what's worse, the -40 temperature and six feet of snow or the perpetual greyness and rain. I'll concede that Christmas won't quite be the same with mud instead of snow. 




> No he's not "like fifty years old, he'll be 39 on Wednesday.


Thanks Mr. Completely-misses-the-point. Welcome to litnet, that's a swell first post. Great job with those quotation marks by the way. 




> I don't think so, and I don't know if I want it to be. As a non-religious person, I can freely state my beliefs and opinions. I want everyone to be able to do the same. The problem arises when one view over takes every other. That will not happen, and it shouldn't-except in school concerning the topic of evolution.


I think this is a good point. 




> Radiometric dating doesn't solely rely on Carbon-14 dating either, there are a number of radioactive isotopes that can be used to accurately date compounds over large time scales. They also provide consistent results when cross-examined.


That's true, besides radiocarbon dating (the one that new-earth people talk about the most for some reason) the same age range overlap is revealed using:

- Uranium-lead dating
- Samarium-neodymium dating
- Potassium-argon dating
- Rubidium-strontium dating
- Uranium-thorium dating
- Fission track dating 
- Chlorine-36 dating 
- Luminescence dating 
- dozens more, blah blah chemistry blah blah
- The Law of Superposition (pay special attention to that word "Law," it has a specific meaning in science) which we've already covered. That's the "strata" (stratigraphy) we mentioned earlier, the things that look like lines on cliff faces. 
- Isochron dating, which takes global events into account. For example, if you're pretty sure that something was exposed during an intense period of volcanism (or any other huge event which would have affected mineral composition), you can check that thing out to see if it contains materials which would have been prevalent if there was intense volcanism. 

It's best to nip young-earth theories in the bud because they're sophistry. Superficially it looks like it could be plausible. To someone who has no deeper education, even if they're smart they might swallow it if it goes un-answered. I think that we have sufficiently proven the invalidity of the young-earth theory in this thread, however it would be impossible to type out all of the information there is in this post about the above dating methods in order to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt to all young-earth suporters that they believe somthing that our species has already proven is impossible. 

So listen: if you still have doubts, if you're still _certain_ that the entire world belives a lie, get yourself some math and science education and try to disprove each dating method independantly from within the scientific community itself. If you can write a peer-reviewed paper which completely disproves radiometric, stratigraphy and isochron dating you will become one of the most influential people on earth, you will rake in millions of dollars, billions of people will know your name throughout the centuries and you will have proven that your position is _not_ something to be laughed at. 

So go on, do what science was designed for and prove everyone wrong. 




> As was shown above, you are incorrect, you do a very poor job at research even though there is information that is easily obtained.


Sure, just type "examples of straws that young-earth supporters grab at" into google. 

What was your problem from that twenty-three year old letter that was written by some guy I've never heard of again? If you want me to dictate the 4-6 years of education that you're going to need in order to understand radiometric dating, you're going to have to start paying me. Most Canadian universities charge about five grand/year, so that'll be fine. You'll still need to do a lot of studying on your own though.

----------


## Alexander III

> Einstein defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results


Look at this thread. Look at all other threads regarding religion which are in this sub-forum. 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007...

It appears that being a convinced atheist or a convinced theist and participating regularly in discussions about said outlook, is likely to induce insanity.

----------


## JuniperWoolf

> It appears that being a convinced atheist or a convinced theist and participating regularly in discussions about said outlook, is likely to induce insanity.


Meh, I'm neither and I hang out here a lot. I like the philosophy, religious and serious discussions sub-forums because debate is fun. It's like fencing, and religion is one of those common topics of discussion on which everyone has an opinion in some context like politics (and _like_ politics the cause-and-effect web of religion is intricate and far-reaching).

----------


## PoeticPassions

> Look at this thread. Look at all other threads regarding religion which are in this sub-forum. 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007...
> 
> It appears that being a convinced atheist or a convinced theist and participating regularly in discussions about said outlook, is likely to induce insanity.


Agreed. I have a hard time understanding why people debate and discuss these issues over and over again, without any new or progressive outcome.

''Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.'' -Albert Einstein

But, hey, I'm all for freedom of speech and sharing of opinions... so if people like to engage in these discussions, then great. I just don't even have the patience or the nerves for it... It's exasperating just to read...

----------


## JuniperWoolf

> I just don't even have the patience or the nerves for it... It's exasperating just to read...


*shrug* Then don't read.

----------


## PoeticPassions

> *shrug* Then don't read.


When it's slow at work, I read... meh, I guess sometimes we like to inflict frustration on ourselves. Besides, I do think some of the arguments put out there are pretty good (taking the side of science, of course)

----------


## KCurtis

> I do not trust the type of science that I have seen here. I'll admit that. There are many scientists that deem these scientists unreliable.  Science still teaches us that it takes billions of years for coal to form in the ground.


Who are these scientists? Please reference.

----------


## KCurtis

> originally posted by Juniperwolf
> So listen: if you still have doubts, if you're still certain that the entire world belives a lie, get yourself some math and science education and try to disprove each dating method independantly from within the scientific community itself. If you can write a peer-reviewed paper which completely disproves radiometric, stratigraphy and isochron dating you will become one of the most influential people on earth, you will rake in millions of dollars, billions of people will know your name throughout the centuries and you will have proven that your position is not something to be laughed at. 
> 
> So go on, do what science was designed for and prove everyone wrong.


Good one!! I like this- if you cannot do the above, there is something to think about!!!

----------


## Mutatis-Mutandis

I think Bien has put me on the ignore list. Or maybe he hasn't. He's ignoring me, either way. It's sort of freeing.

----------


## Alexander III

> Meh, I'm neither and I hang out here a lot. I like the philosophy, religious and serious discussions sub-forums because debate is fun. It's like fencing, and religion is one of those common topics of discussion on which everyone has an opinion in some context like politics (and _like_ politics the cause-and-effect web of religion is intricate and far-reaching).


I prefer real fencing, at least there you have an opponent worthy of you.

----------


## Varenne Rodin

For me, these conversations end here, but I know that certain groups of religious people go out and continue to preach and to try to convert others. It's important to me to try to persuade them in text to curb that behavior. Their religion should be a personal thing. As long as it isn't, it will be criticized.

----------


## cafolini

> For me, these conversations end here, but I know that certain groups of religious people go out and continue to preach and to try to convert others. It's important to me to try to persuade them in text to curb that behavior. Their religion should be a personal thing. As long as it isn't, it will be criticized.


There is a lot of money in PTL. The Jehovas are not PTL but if they visit, you can always climb the Watchtower, look at the Bambi and urge them to have some feast before Godot repents and eats it all by himself.

----------


## Varenne Rodin

> There is a lot of money in PTL. The Jehovas are not PTL but if they visit, you can always climb the Watchtower, look at the Bambi and urge them to have some feast before Godot repents and eats it all by himself.


I have no idea what any of that means.

----------


## KCurtis

> I have no idea what any of that means.


I think he has had a few.

----------


## cafolini

Gangs, oh gangs all over the place. One more.

----------


## KCurtis

> Gangs, oh gangs all over the place. One more.


Just one, then go to bed.

----------


## cafolini

> Just one, then go to bed.


Obviously you know what you are talking about.

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> I think Bien has put me on the ignore list. Or maybe he hasn't. He's ignoring me, either way. It's sort of freeing.


You just haven't said anything worth responding to yet.

----------


## Darcy88

> That's true, besides radiocarbon dating (the one that new-earth people talk about the most for some reason) the same age range overlap is revealed using:
> 
> - Uranium-lead dating
> - Samarium-neodymium dating
> - Potassium-argon dating
> - Rubidium-strontium dating
> - Uranium-thorium dating
> - Fission track dating 
> - Chlorine-36 dating 
> - Luminescence dating


This settles it. The earth is a heck of a lot older than the fundamentalists say. What I don't understand is why some Christians feel it necessary to resist the obvious. Science disproves neither God nor Christ's resurrection, the two central pillars of the Christian faith. The strongest of faiths is that which accepts the truths revealed by science and then affirms God in spite of them. By denying science the fundamentalist is conceding that fact threatens faith.

----------


## Mutatis-Mutandis

> You just haven't said anything worth responding to yet.


Right, Bien. I only responded in the way YOU wanted, with support for my argument. That's the message you've decided to ignore. You're just being rude now.

I'll ask a different question, you said that you didn't trust the science presented here. Why is that? What kind of science would you accept?

----------


## Varenne Rodin

Today my toddler son drank a bunch of sea monkeys. Cycle of life.

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> Today my toddler son drank a bunch of sea monkeys. Cycle of life.


Ok...that is funny and not-so-funny at the same time. I hope that he's alright. As they say..."out of the mouths of babes"...I guess this time it's "into the mouths of babes"...

----------


## Calidore

He'll be fine. Sea monkeys are just brine shrimp. Probably good for you.

----------


## Varenne Rodin

Haha. Yeah. I freaked out at first, but he seems fine. He's a little confused as to why I would be sad over him drinking water. Sorry to derail the thread. I just figured this was of supreme importance. We can get back to universal truths and myths and stuff now.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Calidore

Somehow, I don't think comic book ads are that out of place here.

----------


## hillwalker

One thing that baffles me about those of Bien's persuasion who denigrate science because it clashes with the 'facts' in the Bible... 

They believe God made Man, and Man is fallible... so just as scientists can be fallible (but are working at it) why can't those who wrote the Bible also be fallible? Are we saying intelligence peaked when the Bible was written and we've all become increasingly moronic since the days of Moses or whoever?

H

----------


## Alexander III

> One thing that baffles me about those of Bien's persuasion who denigrate science because it clashes with the 'facts' in the Bible... 
> 
> They believe God made Man, and Man is fallible... so just as scientists can be fallible (but are working at it) why can't those who wrote the Bible also be fallible? Are we saying intelligence peaked when the Bible was written and we've all become increasingly moronic since the days of Moses or whoever?
> 
> H


Apparently men didn't write the bible, God did.

That would be the answer I suppose, though I would have expected God to be a better poet than Dante...

But still God is definitely amongst the top 5 poets. He best work for me is the Quran, but in term of sales his most popular book is the New Testament. In the Old Testament (His first published work) we see that trait which many young and promising writers suffer from, to much egotism and teenage angst. But still a great first book.

----------


## KCurtis

These posts are so funny. I like reading what you all have to say-some very clever people here. And a young edge that I like and miss- Oh to be young again!! I think I am until I look in the mirror. :Yikes: 
Seriously though, most people my age are stuck- and they listen to Neil Diamond. NOT ME!!!

----------


## YesNo

> One thing that baffles me about those of Bien's persuasion who denigrate science because it clashes with the 'facts' in the Bible... 
> 
> They believe God made Man, and Man is fallible... so just as scientists can be fallible (but are working at it) why can't those who wrote the Bible also be fallible? Are we saying intelligence peaked when the Bible was written and we've all become increasingly moronic since the days of Moses or whoever?
> 
> H


The only thing that should matter from your position is whether you think the bible is fallible or not, not whether BienvenuJDC does or not. 

We are all offering each other a lot of interesting characters. I wouldn't want any of them quieted. For some of us, these characters may influence future stories or poems. For others, they may give us ideas that change the way we think. But for most, if not all of us, those characters that we each find annoying test our patience and give us an opportunity to practice patience -- or not.

----------


## Varenne Rodin

> One thing that baffles me about those of Bien's persuasion who denigrate science because it clashes with the 'facts' in the Bible... 
> 
> They believe God made Man, and Man is fallible... so just as scientists can be fallible (but are working at it) why can't those who wrote the Bible also be fallible? Are we saying intelligence peaked when the Bible was written and we've all become increasingly moronic since the days of Moses or whoever?
> 
> H


Excellent question. It will be ignored and/or railed against by the zealots. To add to it, if God himself wrote the bible, why doesn't he write another? Why doesn't he choose to make sense and be visible in modern times?

----------


## cafolini

> Agreed. I have a hard time understanding why people debate and discuss these issues over and over again, without any new or progressive outcome.
> 
> ''Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.'' -Albert Einstein
> 
> But, hey, I'm all for freedom of speech and sharing of opinions... so if people like to engage in these discussions, then great. I just don't even have the patience or the nerves for it... It's exasperating just to read...


I agree. But to me they are like baboonic jokes. Actually not all who disagree are obliged to disagree in all respects. I for example can't take Einstein's BS regarding science, but I am forced to say that in the quote you present here I can't find a pinch of disagreement except that of course there is much more to it. What about the usual jackass who's rhetoric has such an unending amplitude of variations and disguises that he actually manages to repeat himself endlessly while appearing to said something different each new time? So the problem seems to somehow involve IQ in determining insanity. If he can fool people with a 125+, he's normal.

Perhaps one of my favorite observers of all times put it best: "You know, you don't have to spend much time in Washington to understand the prophetic visions of the men who designed all the streets in there. They go in circles." ~ Ronald Reagan

----------


## Calidore

An important thing to remember about the Bible is there have been several layers of human intervention involved in giving us what we have. Humans wrote what they claimed God said (at the time, men thought the world was flat and the center of the universe, but obviously the Creator knew better, so there's one example of man's limitations poisoning the well right off the bat); other humans decided which of these "books" would and would not be included in the Bible (hence the Apocrypha, accepted by some but not others); still other humans translated the original ancient Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek into other languages (we have dozens of English translations alone, all with their own translation philosophies, styles, and agendas). So whatever the adulterated word of God may have been, good luck separating it from all the political shenanigans.

----------


## Varenne Rodin

...and if god talked to those guys, he should talk to us. I don't think he did talk to those guys, though. I think they were either liars, lunatics, or entertainers in a boring time. Someone turned it into quite a money maker.

----------


## cafolini

> ...and if god talked to those guys, he should talk to us. I don't think he did talk to those guys, though. I think they were either liars, lunatics, or entertainers in a boring time. Someone turned it into quite a money maker.


Not all jesters are aware that they are jesting.

----------


## Varenne Rodin

Those are the lunatics.

----------


## cafolini

> Those are the lunatics.


The enlightened from too much reflection.

----------

