BoneDog Posted 18 January 2009 Posted 18 January 2009 to presume we are in the enlightened age is rather arrogant, and probably wrong. i suspect we still have rather a lot to learn about a lot of things.a MORE enlightened would be more accurate, i mean some people can't even do plumbing! I agree. Every age looks back on the ones before and thinks they have more truth. And then in fifty years or so science changes yet again. There are just some things we will never know and how we got here is one of them. Every time science makes a discovery it unlocks more questions.
Phube Posted 18 January 2009 Posted 18 January 2009 to presume we are in the enlightened age is rather arrogant, and probably wrong. i suspect we still have rather a lot to learn about a lot of things.a MORE enlightened would be more accurate, i mean some people can't even do plumbing! I bow to your... wait a mo'!!! <_< But maybe... but in 300 years they'll look back and think we were un-enlightened too!
BoneDog Posted 18 January 2009 Posted 18 January 2009 No but likewise you shouldn't expect us to believe everything that you write either. I don't expect that. I'm just saying that the evolution theory is very flawed, and if you want to see why just look at some of the links I put up. I've got many more. They are not my work! I just read about these things and come to my own conclusions.
StanSP Posted 18 January 2009 Posted 18 January 2009 No but likewise you shouldn't expect us to believe everything that you write either. Agreed. I mentioned earlier that we all have our different religious views. But at the same time, we shouldn't let other people negate them.
Phube Posted 18 January 2009 Posted 18 January 2009 I agree.Every age looks back on the ones before and thinks they have more truth. And then in fifty years or so science changes yet again. There are just some things we will never know and how we got here is one of them. Every time science makes a discovery it unlocks more questions. How we got here is easy... Darwin! Why... who knows!
BoneDog Posted 18 January 2009 Posted 18 January 2009 Einstein - "The idea of a personal God [the one religions believe in] is quite alien to me and seems even naive." I don't know when he said that? But I know that in the last five years of his life he started to believe that there was some power that everything came from.
BoneDog Posted 18 January 2009 Posted 18 January 2009 How we got here is easy... Darwin!Why... who knows! Hahaha!
StanSP Posted 18 January 2009 Posted 18 January 2009 Religion will always ask why Science will always ask how. Nothing will ever change that. In years to come, the creation/origin theories will still be discussed. It's one of the world's great mysteries. There isn't 100% proof of either, as there will always be arguments against.
AoWW Posted 18 January 2009 Posted 18 January 2009 I'm confused as to how we got to this point (in the thread - not in the evolutionary sense!) when we started with an ad in a bus.
Webbo Posted 18 January 2009 Posted 18 January 2009 All colours exist... but if there are 3 primary colours how can they be split into 7 'separate' colours.So he chose to split the purple end where our eyes can't distinguish easily into Indigo and violet! Color Wavelength violet 380–450 nm blue 450–495 nm green 495–570 nm yellow 570–590 nm orange 590–620 nm red 620–750 nm Official colours! I think you'll find that there are 2 colours(if that's the right word) of the rainbow that are invisible to the human eye, namely ultra violet and infra red.
Milky Posted 18 January 2009 Posted 18 January 2009 The number of the beast isn't 666, it's 611 or 616 but can't remember which. QI said so.
stez Posted 18 January 2009 Posted 18 January 2009 The number of the beast isn't 666, it's 611 or 616 but can't remember which. QI said so. now QI; that IS gospel!
BoneDog Posted 18 January 2009 Posted 18 January 2009 If anyone watches this video in full please tell me how this could happen or appear without intelligent design. I'm not trying to preach! What is being explained is more complex than any man-made design and can never be copied. Living creatures are the ultimate construction. Fact! It's only a youtube link cos I don't know where else to find it before anyone has a go at me for using youtube again.
davieG Posted 18 January 2009 Author Posted 18 January 2009 I don't know why anybody bothers with this be it creation or evolution, a combination of the two - why not? Or something else that humans would be incapable of comprehending. You're never going to find out so what's the point. No one can prove anything 100%. Having been brought up in a very religious environment (CofE) my everlasting impression is one of hypocrisy and evolution of the species has happened to a degree or more but how much who knows or cares other than those that feel the need to have a religion and scientists with an inquisitive mind. The sign on the bus should have added and you're great20 grandaddy probably wasn't a monkey.
Daggers Posted 18 January 2009 Posted 18 January 2009 Let's not forget that all the best scientists we have ever known all believed in a Creator. Newton, Einstein and may more. Moronic.
StanSP Posted 18 January 2009 Posted 18 January 2009 I don't know why anybody bothers with this be it creation or evolution, a combination of the two - why not? Or something else that humans would be incapable of comprehending. You're never going to find out so what's the point. No one can prove anything 100%. I think Richard Swinburne, theologian and philosopher, did say that this could be the case. God was Creator of the world and he caused the singularity at the very first second of time, and then evolution has taken place since then. I am going to open a whole can of worms here - but if God of Classical Theism is timeless and perfect, why does he act within time to cause miracles and feel the need to sometimes 'intervene (if that is what he does actually do)?
Flynny Posted 18 January 2009 Posted 18 January 2009 Who has debunked his arguements? And where is the 'proof' that the earth is half a billion years old?"Evidence of the Young Age of the Earth There are many natural processes which can be used to estimate the age of the earth. Henry M. Morris, Ph.D. of the Institute for Creation Research has an article called "The Young Earth" at http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-017.htm. In it, he shows a table of 76 different processes in nature that can be used to estimate the age of the earth. The table includes processes such as the influx of various elements into the oceans, the decay of the earth's magnetic field, the accumulation of meteoric materials on the earth, and many other processes. Of these 76 processes: 26 show the earth to be less than 10,000 years old 15 show the earth to be more than 10,000 up to 100,000 years old 11 show the earth to be more than 100,000 up to one million years old 5 show the earth to be more than one million up to 10 million years old 13 show the earth to be more than 10 million up to 100 million years old 6 show the earth to be more than 100 million up to half a billion years old None of the 76 processes show the earth to be more than half a billion years old. More than half of these processes show the earth to be less than 100,000 years old. It should be noted that these processes assume uniformity and further assume that none of the daughter component (the substance being formed) was present in the sample in the beginning. If any of the daughter component was present in the sample in the beginning, then that would cause the actual age to be even younger. The assumption of uniformity, that all conditions remained constant over the period of the measurement, is much more likely to be correct for short time periods than for long time periods. Therefore, the estimates that yield younger ages are more likely to be accurate. Yet the evolutionists say the earth is ten times older than even the longest of the estimates shown above. But they certainly do not say this by preponderance of the evidence. " Processes that aren't necessarily constant are no match for radiometric dating, which is always constant. I can't read that article, can't verify it, can't check its sources. Link's not working at the rest of the site doesn't cite any sources. It's characteristic of the worst kind of psuedoscience so far. If I'm wrong, link me or save me the article and its sources if I can get them somehow, and I'll give it more than a cursory glance. Promise.
BoneDog Posted 18 January 2009 Posted 18 January 2009 Radiometric Dating One of the primary "evidences" that evolutionists like to point to show that the earth is very old is radiometric dating. As the table in the preceding section showed, there are many geological systems which could be used to estimate the age of the earth. But with each of them, there are potential problems that could throw off the results. Radiometric dating is no exception. Picture in your mind a simple hourglass that has half of the sand in the top half and half of the sand in the bottom half. We might assume from looking at it that it, has been sitting there for half an hour. This would be assuming uniformity, but would this really be a correct assumption? (A.) Someone could have poured all that sand in the top shortly before you looked at it. In this case, the hourglass may have really been sitting there for several days before you looked. (B.) Someone may have poured all of that sand in the bottom shortly before you looked at it. In this case, the hourglass may not have been sitting there but a second or two before you looked. © Someone could have tampered with the opening in the middle of the hourglass, either clogging or widening it. In this case, the hourglass may have been sitting there either much longer or much shorter than is apparent. (D.) Perhaps the hourglass has always looked just as it now appears, and therefore gives no real indication of how long it has been there. Radiometric dating involves the process of a radioactive element, such as uranium, decaying into another element, such as lead. Uranium-lead radiometric dating would be a good clock for estimating the age of rocks if we knew the following. (A.) The rate at which uranium decays into lead. (B.) How much lead was in the rock when it was formed. (C.) All of the lead that was not in the rock when the rock was formed came from decaying uranium. (D.) There is no way any extra lead or uranium could have gotten into the rock from the outside. (E.) There is no way any of the original lead or uranium could have gotten out of the rock, such as by differential leaching. (F.) The process has always been uniform. In other words, A, C, D, and E have each always remained constant throughout the age of the rock. However, most of these requirements are either unknown, or are known not to be true. But there is a flip-side to the uranium-lead dating method. Uranium decays into lead, which is a very common element on the earth. When the uranium decays, it also produces helium-4 as a by-product. But unlike lead, helium-4 is very rare. Rocks which the uranium-lead dating method estimates to be more than 100 million years old, contain only enough helium to account for a tiny fraction of that time. The evolutionists claim that the helium must have escaped from the rocks. But if that were the case, we should be able to find vast amounts of helium-4 in the atmosphere. But the tiny amount of helium-4 present on the earth indicates only a few thousand years of uranium decay, not 4 to 5 billion years. Even uranium-lead radiometric dating provides evidence that the earth is young when one considers the lack of helium-4 on the planet. Another radiometric dating method is the Potassium-Argon method. With this method, ages found from samples taken from a single rock may differ drastically. Rocks formed from the active Kilauea volcano in Hawaii were found to increase in age as the depth of the rock increased. Lava flows known to be less than 200 years old yielded dates of up to 22 million years using this method. Part of the problem is that argon, which is abundant in the atmosphere, can be incorporated into the rocks under pressure, making the Potassium-Argon method yield older dates. The radio-carbon (C-14) dating method is another very inaccurate dating method. Results differ greatly even in the same rock layer. In rocks that are supposed to be 110 million years old, dinosaur bones and wood were taken and dated to 19,000 years old and 890 years old respectively using this method. In addition, the shells of living mollusks regularly date to more than 2000 years old using the radio-carbon method. One other interesting note about C-14 is that its level on the earth is presently increasing exponentially, and is now 30 per cent short of equilibrium. It has been estimated that it would have taken less than 8000 years for the C-14 to reach its present level of concentration. This link should work http://www.icr.org/i/pdf/research/ICC08_Nu...Test_Theory.pdf
Daggers Posted 18 January 2009 Posted 18 January 2009 [more stuff] Copy-pasting is bad enough - but using idiot material such as this and passing it off as your own arguments is really, really laughable You are TommyG and I claim my £10.00!
BoneDog Posted 18 January 2009 Posted 18 January 2009 Copy-pasting is bad enough - but using idiot material such as this and passing it off as your own arguments is really, really laughable You are TommyG and I claim my £10.00! You asked me for some of my sources of info on page 3 of this thread you nutter! And the you go on about me putting stuff up. Funny. I haven't heard one decent arguement from you, only insults you big fanny. I don't know how the above link is laughable? It's written by these people : John Sanford, Ph. D., Department of Horticultural Science, NYSAES, Cornell University, Geneva, NY 14456 John Baumgardner, Ph. D., Institute for Creation Research, 1806 Royal Lane, Dallas, TX 75229 Wesley Brewer, Ph. D., Department of Computer Science, Handong University, Pohong, South Korea Paul Gibson, Ph. D., Department of Plant, Soil and Agricultural Systems, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL 62901 How are they laughable? Who's TommyG, you've lost me there?
Hullfox Posted 18 January 2009 Posted 18 January 2009 Radiometric Dating Seriously, have you not considered internet dating?
davieG Posted 18 January 2009 Author Posted 18 January 2009 Seriously, have you not considered internet dating? or even Blind Dating.
Head Honcho Posted 19 January 2009 Posted 19 January 2009 Which god are we talking about here? The Muslim Jewish Buddist or Christian one?
Flynny Posted 19 January 2009 Posted 19 January 2009 El Empty - http://toarchive.org/faqs/helium/zircons.html Also, since we're here, I've found a video thats giving me doubts all over again. http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=kF3L359yKjs
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.