Atheist Religion

[Annah]

Both sides make assumptions to try to fit the "evidence" into their mind set. Neither can be proven by direct evidence. No one has been alive long enough to have seen it. Both are events. Events can not by definition be proven scientifically. They are not repeatable. Any variables that may change it needs to be taken into account. Can it be "proven" that the earth is the same today as it was 5,000,10,000 or even 100,000 years ago? Can one actually be sure that the methods of testing are accurate or that the assumptions used to define the tests are accurate? Have the samples been altered to begin with? Did the dinosaur fall into the mud or it was buried by a flood? Can it be proven by the evidence left behind? Or is the evidence that is left behind really nothing more than a sign post that depends on the interpretation and assumptions that one starts with?

So what does it come down to? Most often it's the most likely scenario that "fits" preconceived interpretations of the evidence that is left behind. Not that it truly proves either or disproves either.

they can prove the "ageness of the earth"...and the tests are accurate as pregnancy tests. Carbon, Uranium and Potassium testing has some error...but it isn't as bad as conservative religious people make it out to be. It's a very stable testing platform. Whether we may debate if the earth is 6 billion or 900 million years old is one thing....saying the earth is 10-20,000 years old is way off base.  Even the 10,000 year old earth conservative GAP theory is also way off base.

No, the dinosaurs did not drown Noah's flood.  Uranium-238, uranium-235 and potassium-40 dating and other tests plus fossilization processes shows these bones to be millions of years old....not six to ten thousand years old like some suggests the age of Noah's story.

[SarahM777]

they can prove the "ageness of the earth"...and yes the tests are accurate. Carbon, Uranium and Potassium testing has some error...but it isn't as bad as conservative religious people make it out to be. It's a very stable testing platform. Whether we may debate if the earth is 6 billion or 900 million years old is one thing....saying the earth is 10-20,000 years old is way off base.

No, the dinosaurs did not drown in the flood.  Uranium-238, uranium-235 and potassium-40 dating and other tests plus fossilization processes shows these bones to be millions of years old....not six to seven thousand years old like some suggests.

The tests are only accurate if you know what the starting amount Uranium-238,Uranium -235,and Potassium-40,if not you can not say that they are accurate because it is based on an assumption that can not be proven. They were not be tested at the time they were buried or fossilized. It is only assumed that they had a certain amount. And then does weather factor into the rate of decay? Does solar radiation affect the rate of decay and by how much? If the tests are based on a constant that does not exist in nature it throws off the tests and they are not reliable.

Add to that when testing fossils most of what remains is rock not bone it will skew the tests also. Rock by necessity MUST be older than the animals that were fossilized.

Take a pot of water place it outside at 33 degrees F with a calm wind will not evaporate as quickly as the same pot at 72 degrees F with a 5 MPH wind,do so with the same pot at 95 degrees F with a 25 MPH wind and it's quicker. Change one parameter of the test and it can not help but to change the end result,change multiple parameters and the the end results are even worse.

[Annah]

the simple fact that Uranium and Potassium requires a half life of 700 million years and other forms of Uranium has a half life of 4.47 billion years and carbon is 5,730 years, they do have the testing method down to a science.

Trust me, I used to be a conservative. I know all the propaganda and laymen illustrations to try to disprove dating.

The simple fact is, the scientists is far more superior in their dating methods through dating, mathematical formulas and the atomic structure analysis while the conservative creationism looks at a book written by one culture thousands of years ago and say "this is right."

I just don't buy into the creation story as literal. Sorry.

[Padma]

Rock by necessity MUST be older than the animals that were fossilized.

I'm not getting into the main argument here - I'm just going to point out that rock by necessity MUST be exactly the *same age* as the animals that were fossilised - at least insofar as it's rock, and their remains are embedded in it. Though obviously, the component elements of both the rock and the animals pre-date them as entities.

[tekla]

Awe heck, everyone knows that smoking, fatty foods and a strict following of the homosexual agenda killed off the dinosaurs.

And science is always open to new ideas and theories as long as you are willing to test them.  And when people start to look it's pretty amazing what they can find.  All sorts of theories for the end of the dinosaurs have been tossed out there.  Some come out looking more possible, some less.  Will we ever be able to know with 100% dead accuracy?  Most likely no, but people of reason and rationality are comfortable with that.  It's faith and religion (some of them at least) that offer that kind of certainty.

If you look at the theories and research of the DinoNuts, you'll find that there are two schools of thought, both based on climate, but one seeing a gradual and natural change, the other pointing to a catastrophic event ushering in an Ice Age.  But they do seem to be in agreement that in some way - due to something - the environment changed in a way that the dinosaurs could not adapt to.  Which is in harmony with basic evolutionary thinking, that species that survive and thrive are not necessarily 'the fittest' but those that are the most adaptable and find a niche.  While that does discount the Noah and the animals 2x2 story, it's not the radical departure from observable world to find that living things adapt, and those that adapt the best thrive.


And most of atheism in the West is not about the denial of god, but rather a profound doubt about the major stories that have come out of the Bronze Age.  I'm down with the Deli Lama (about a lot of things as it turns out), and it seems sensible that if some major tenet is proven to be wrong or in error, then perhaps the wise thing to do is change it.  Even the Catholic Church eventually gave into Galileo and his brash claims of a heliocentric solar system- though with it's usual glacial pace it took them quite a few centuries to do it.  The pictures from Chandra and Hubble don't prove that god does or does not exist - they do however show us a universe that is much, much, much larger than we thought (and the thinking of average/norm hasn't even begun to come to grips with what those photos show.  See: The Hubble Ultra-Deep Field (HUDF)), and the larger the universe is, the less likely it is that whoever, or whatever, created it really wants a personal relationship with you, and it's also highly unlikely that any such entity is sitting in judgement over your sex habits.

[SarahM777]

I'm not getting into the main argument here - I'm just going to point out that rock by necessity MUST be exactly the *same age* as the animals that were fossilised - at least insofar as it's rock, and their remains are embedded in it. Though obviously, the component elements of both the rock and the animals pre-date them as entities.

Not necessarily so. Most believe the rocks were formed earlier,if they did form earlier they already had a certain amount of decay. If the rocks particles that formed the fossils were 100,000,000 years older than the dinosaurs (in theory). Then by dating those rocks it could show that the dinosaurs were living 100,000,000 years before they actually did.

[Padma]

Are you taking about rock in general, or about the rock in which fossils are fossilised? I was assuming the latter. Obviously there's existing rock that spans a vast age range. But for animals to die and be fossilised in rock, the rock must form around the dead bodies (starting as sediment), so as rock, that particular rock can't pre-date the fossils.

[Felix]

Awe heck, everyone knows that smoking, fatty foods and a strict following of the homosexual agenda killed off the dinosaurs.

Homosexuals are a vital part of the water cycle.

[Padma]

Into each life, a little homosexuality must fall...

[peky]

the simple fact that Uranium and Potassium requires a half life of 700 million years and other forms of Uranium has a half life of 4.47 billion years and carbon is 5,730 years, they do have the testing method down to a science.

Trust me, I used to be a conservative. I know all the propaganda and laymen illustrations to try to disprove dating.

The simple fact is, the scientists is far more superior in their dating methods through dating, mathematical formulas and the atomic structure analysis while the conservative creationism looks at a book written by one culture thousands of years ago and say "this is right."

I just don't buy into the creation story as literal. Sorry.

I salute you for your enlightenment. I guess there is hope for Christianity after all

[SarahM777]

the simple fact that Uranium and Potassium requires a half life of 700 million years and other forms of Uranium has a half life of 4.47 billion years and carbon is 5,730 years, they do have the testing method down to a science.

Trust me, I used to be a conservative. I know all the propaganda and laymen illustrations to try to disprove dating.

The simple fact is, the scientists is far more superior in their dating methods through dating, mathematical formulas and the atomic structure analysis while the conservative creationism looks at a book written by one culture thousands of years ago and say "this is right."

I just don't buy into the creation story as literal. Sorry.

It's still based on assumptions. Even if the half lives are accurate,there is one fly in the ointment. If the earth was created to our eyes with the appearance of age,no matter how many tests you do it will be a "false reading". I can not  prove it nor on the other hand is it disprovable. It is based totally and completely on assumptions. No one saw how the earth came into being. The rest is nothing more than sign posts,that will either persuade you to believe creation or evolution,based mostly on preconceived ideas that may or may not actually fit the "evidence". Neither is 100% provable by what little "evidence"
is available at this point. Both have to be taken by faith that the starting assumptions are true.

And both sides saying they have the "proof" is disingenuous,when all we have is sign posts and people reading things into the sign posts that may or may not be true.

[SarahM777]

If evolution is true please if you can explain any of the following,with a plausible explanation that fits in with the laws of nature that we do know at this point? And I am not asking for proof just an explanation. How did inorganic compounds come together and somehow spring to life? How did a single cell organism become a multicelled organism? How did they go from asexual reproduction to sexual reproduction? How is it possible that a male and female would have been produced at exactly the same time? How did the male and female find each other at the same time in over 332,000,000 cubic miles of water? How did a water based creature become a land based creature in a way that was not detrimental to the organism? How is it that a bird came out of a reptile egg that it was not eaten? Why is it that in all the time that man has been doing both natural and unnatural testing on single cells organisms that not one new organism has been produced yet man went through more changes in less generations to come from an ape? How is it possible that mutual symbiotic relationships with insects and  plants that some how they both evolved at the same time that was not destructive to both? These are just some of the questions that evolution must explain. If you are to convince me that evolution is true then please explain.

[peky]

If evolution is true please if you can explain any of the following,with a plausible explanation that fits in with the laws of nature that we do know at this point? And I am not asking for proof just an explanation. How did inorganic compounds come together and somehow spring to life? How did a single cell organism become a multicelled organism? How did they go from asexual reproduction to sexual reproduction? How is it possible that a male and female would have been produced at exactly the same time? How did the male and female find each other at the same time in over 332,000,000 cubic miles of water? How did a water based creature become a land based creature in a way that was not detrimental to the organism? How is it that a bird came out of a reptile egg that it was not eaten? Why is it that in all the time that man has been doing both natural and unnatural testing on single cells organisms that not one new organism has been produced yet man went through more changes in less generations to come from an ape? How is it possible that mutual symbiotic relationships with insects and  plants that some how they both evolved at the same time that was not destructive to both? These are just some of the questions that evolution must explain. If you are to convince me that evolution is true then please explain.

Take a college level Biology 101 woman!!!

[Padma]

Please let's keep communication here civil. This is a topic that stirs passions all round.

[Nicolette]

Many of these question were covered by the second year of my secondary school. I suggest you drop by a good book store in your neck of the woods or a library.

[SarahM777]

I am not looking for the generalized answers that are given,I am asking how did they get from point A-B,and how did they survive in a half way point? How does a fish with a single joint fin go to a multi jointed amphibian,step by step,and how was a fish with a leg,fin combo able to swim or walk and could they survive in a half way stage? What I am asking for is to spell it out a bit more specifically than just the general answer of they muted that way.

[peky]

I am not looking for the generalized answers that are given,I am asking how did they get from point A-B,and how did they survive in a half way point? How does a fish with a single joint fin go to a multi jointed amphibian,step by step,and how was a fish with a leg,fin combo able to swim or walk and could they survive in a half way stage? What I am asking for is to spell it out a bit more specifically than just the general answer of they muted that way.

         

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

[Annah]

It's still based on assumptions. Even if the half lives are accurate,there is one fly in the ointment. If the earth was created to our eyes with the appearance of age,no matter how many tests you do it will be a "false reading". I can not  prove it nor on the other hand is it disprovable. It is based totally and completely on assumptions. No one saw how the earth came into being. The rest is nothing more than sign posts,that will either persuade you to believe creation or evolution,based mostly on preconceived ideas that may or may not actually fit the "evidence". Neither is 100% provable by what little "evidence"
is available at this point. Both have to be taken by faith that the starting assumptions are true.

And both sides saying they have the "proof" is disingenuous,when all we have is sign posts and people reading things into the sign posts that may or may not be true.

Actually, the molecular constructs of Uranium, Potassium and Carbon and how they are applied to scientific dating is NOT an assumption. It's a fact.

That is like getting an xray and your doctor says "you have a broken wrist" and you reply, "it's only an assumption because you could have gotten the process and formula wrong through the analysis of xray bombardments by means of a chaotic catalyst.

The dating methods are an actual fact. There is absolutely no way you can get around that. A scientist may be off a couple hundred years but if an item registers at 100,000 years old or 1 million years old, it is safe to assume the item existed prior to the literalist view of the world being created 7,000 years ago. Which disproves creationism.

There is no assumption in this.

This is why Christianity is the laughing stock of the world when it comes to scientific progress. We do not believe when it is right there front of us. Even the Catholic Church denounce Galileo and labeled him as a heretic because he believed the Sun was the center of our system...not earth.  We see this even today.

Lord Cardinal Bellarmine stated, "To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin."  We see this with literalist who say "you can't be a Christian and believe in evolution. It's like taking that quote and saying "To assert that the earth and it's inhabitants evolved is as erroneous as to claim that Adam and Eve was not the first born."

I would then reply just as Galileo (a devout Christian till he died): "It is surely harmful to souls to make it a heresy to believe what is proved"

Aquinas would be rolling in his grave.

[Annah]

loved the video Peky. Thank you

There you go, Sarah. Evolution and the questions you raised explained to you in that video.


...but something inside of me will say "I still don't see it."

[Nicolette]

I saw that video years ago. I just love the four legged whale embryo! I find it incredible that one can almost witness the evolutionary stages of a species through the development of an embryo.