Evolution is a Religion for those who believe in it.

[lpearson]

Websters definition: "any system of beliefs".



4 Billion years agooooooooooooooo. Was any one there? How do they know? Evolutionists throw out numbers with not the slightest bit of proof. Millions and Millions of years ago-----------oh, really, prove it.





Since they can't and they believe in it,----------it's their religion!



Here we go.



Lowell

 

[BigCarl64]

I believe radiocarbon and radiometric dating is a well accepted scientific standard.

 

[MCummings]

Oh boy,, here we go.



Creation, and how we came about is a belief. It cannot be reproduced, so any scientific proof is near invalid, and unusable for the reasoning of how we came about,, but I'll gamble with you.



How do we prove the earth is Billions of years old?



How do we prove it's only 7,500 Years old?



Alot more discoveries, and common sense reasonings show that, the cycles we are seeing with global warming, Ozone layers, forest fires, and such, have reason to show that the earth is only 7,500 Years old.



However, scientific books would have us believe through circular reasoning that the earth is over a billion years old. .



The scientific periodic table is found in many text books, but can you guess where it isn't found?





Merrick

 

[lpearson]

Originally posted by BigCarl64

I believe radiocarbon and radiometric dating is a well accepted scientific standard.

Those dating methods are limited to so many years. Carbon dating is not that accurate. If you believe in them please tell us how many years science says they are good to date?



Lowell

 

[lpearson]

I know, I know, but-----

Originally posted by MCummings

Oh boy,, here we go.



The scientific periodic table is found in many text books, but can you guess where it isn't found?

Merrick

I know but I want to see someone else give the answer.



Lowell

 

[BigCarl64]

Radiocarbon dating is good fro about 50,000 years, which is well beyond the 7,500 years creationists like to believe.



Radiometric dating is good for about 14. 6 billion years depending on which isotope is used to date.



Of course, creationists argue both method are inaccurate and incorrect, but I have never heard a valid argument as to explain the millions of fossils and geologic data that is known to exist which clearly indicates the earth is approx 4 billion years old.

 

[MCummings]

The problem I have with all the fossils, and the large amount of years it was supposed to be created is the fact that,, at one place, the fossilas are in a certain order, yet, 5-10 miles away, the fossils are all mixed up.



Also, I've read in some books that, the way for Fossils to happen is that they have to be covered very quickly. An animal cannot just die, lay there, and slowly get covered with dirt. It's skin and bones will rot away long before it can fossilize.



Land slides, mudslides, or the like is nessacary for fossils to occur in 99% of situations.





Where are Fossils found?



Why does the Earth look like a giant jigsaw puzzle?



Merrick

 

[klenger]

A very good book on this issue is "The Genesis Flood: The Biblical Record and Its Scientific Implications" by Henry Morris. I could not begin to explain the relationship of creating to evolution as well as this book does. If anyone is seriously interested in this topic, it's a very good source of information.

 

[BigCarl64]

I am more inclined to believe the "Black Sea" theory which is built on scientific evidence by William Ryan and Walter Pitman. This theory doesn't dispute the fact that a huge flood occurred, but that it did not happen as the story is written in Genesis. There are many articles on the web about this.

 

[GIT-R-DONE]

? Why are we not still evolving? When was the last time ya went to the zoo and saw the chimp looking more and more like someone you know? Looks like the same ole chimp that was there before to me. Guess that explains that. :-laf



Yeah, here we go. So, lets see, I don't understand how a scientist can tell ya the difference between something that is 4 MILLION years old and something that is 8 Million years old. Just boggles my mind to know that someone out there can distinguish 4 millions years from 2 separate items.



Personally, I think its a whole lot of bull being fed to the public, so the government keeps feeding the "scientist" the money. Keeps people in work ya know. Same goes with cancer. If they actually had a cure for all the cancer, think of how many people would be out of work and how many tax write offs people would loose. Think about it.

 

[Jumbo Jet]

If they actually had a cure for all the cancer, think of how many people would be out of work and how many tax write offs people would loose.

Think of what would happen with Social Security!?

 

[MCummings]

I think Cancer, Aids, and other diseases are a result of punishment for sins by us.



Cancer just happens to be a side effect of our "weaker" bodies. We were designed to live much longer. It is said that a normal life span is 75 years, and anything over that is a blessing from God.



Aids? If I remeber correctly, the first reported case was between two gay men in California...



I'll have to research the "Black Sea" theory. I haven't read about that before.



Merrick

 

[loncray]

But we ARE still evolving. The chimpanzee today is much more advanced than the equivalent animal of a few million years ago. Even in a very short time geologically, humans are losing hair, wisdom teeth, appendixes - these things are evolving out of our genome. At this point they're starting to figure all kinds of interesting things out about humans and other animals - like the idea that certain dog species that are similar to Egyptian statuary are in fact not ancient at all, but are only a few hundred years old at most.



As to cancer and such being punishment - I'm trying to not attack another's beliefs, but I can't say as I agree with that. Go try telling that theory to a family that just buried a child who died from leukemia.



I specifically disagree with the next statement - we were actually designed (by evolution) to live a lot LESS - people have been living longer than ever these days.



Oh, and the Earth looks like a giant jigsaw puzzle because it's been doing it's own evolving on a much slower scale.

 

[lpearson]

Couldn't let this one go.

Originally posted by BigCarl64

Radiocarbon dating is good fro about 50,000 years, which is well beyond the 7,500 years creationists like to believe.



Radiometric dating is good for about 14. 6 billion years depending on which isotope is used to date.

I don't know where you got your information and since you didn't offer any proof source. I will bring up what I have found.



Radiocarbon dating was invented by Willard Libby at the University of Chicago. Willard Libby said that carbon dating was only accurate for OBJECTS A FEW THOUSAND YEARS OLD.



Interesting you stated 50,000 years, the inventor said about 2000. Who should I believe?



Living penguins have been carbon dated as being 8000 years old.



There are flaws in the c14 dating methods. 1. The atmospheric c14 is in equilibrium. This assmuption is wrong. The amount of c14 in the atmoshpere is still increasing. 2. The decay rate remains constant. This assumption is also untrue, the decay rate may not be constant. 3. The initial amounts of c14 can be known. Again this assumption has been demonstrated to be wrong. Different parts of the same sample often yeild different ratios. 4. The sample being tested has not been contaminated for thousands of years. This assumption is mostly impossible to prove. Parent or daughter products may have leached in or out of the sample. Lab tests have confirmed that this can happen.



Radiometric dating; you stated 14. 6 Billion years. Interesting, since you claim that the earth is 4 Billion years. Is there something else that's 10. 6 Billion years older that has been tested? Obviously, it couldn't be from this planet.



Which Isotope to use (radiometric dating)??????? The two most popular methods are uranium-lead and potassium-argon.



At least six different radiometric dating methods are available. The ASSUMED age of the sample will dictate which dating method is used because each will give a DIFFERENT RESULT.



Since these methods have been believed and touted as the best dating techniques, there has been experimentation to verify these claims. Example: Hawaiian lava flows, which are known to be less than 200 years old, have been dated by the potassium-argon method at up to 3 billion years old.



Example: when dinosaur bones containing carbon are found, they are not carbon dated because the result would be only a few thousand years. Because this would not match the assumed age based on the geologic column, scientists use another method of dating to give an age closer to the desired result. All radio-metric results that do not match the PREASSIGNED ages of the geologic column are discarded. (circular reasoning)



It's a religion, a system of beliefs.



Lowell

 

[lpearson]

Originally posted by loncray

But we ARE still evolving. The chimpanzee today is much more advanced than the equivalent animal of a few million years ago. Even in a very short time geologically, humans are losing hair, wisdom teeth, appendixes - these things are evolving out of our genome.



I specifically disagree with the next statement - we were actually designed (by evolution) to live a lot LESS - people have been living longer than ever these days.

Hi,

If anything we are devolving in my opinion. Again, the chimpanzee of a few million years ago. Who says? How do they know? Was anyone there to observe. How were they able to test which one was more advanced. These are true science questions. IT HAS TO BE OBSERVED.



Millions and Millions of years ago are in the text books and children are brainwashed into believing that the writers of the books know for a fact about Millions and Millions of years ago.

Gee whiz.





On a Biblical note. The antideluvian civilization (before the flood) lived to be an average of 904 years old (12month years of 30 days each). Check out Gen. records.

After the Flood because the earth became what it is today instead of the utopic conditions before,-- we live to be 70 or so avg. Some countries like former republics of the USSR, people live to the average age of 54. Conditions change life.



Lowell

 

[BigCarl64]

Creationism is 100% crap. So-called "scientific" creationists do not base their objections on scientific reasoning or data. Their ideas are based on religious dogma, and their approach is simply to attack evolution. The types of arguments they use fall into several categories: distortions of scientific principles ( the second law of thermodynamics argument), straw man versions of evolution (the "too improbable to evolve by chance" argument), dishonest selective use of data (the declining speed of light argument) appeals to emotion or wishful thinking ("I don't want to be related to an ape"), appeals to personal incredulity ("I don't see how this could have evolved"), dishonestly quoting scientists out of context (Darwin's comments on the evolution of the eye) and simply fabricating data to suit their arguments (Gish's "bullfrog proteins").



Most importantly, creationists do not have a testable, scientific theory to replace evolution with. Even if evolution turned out to be wrong, it would simply be replaced by another scientific theory. Creationists do not conduct scientific experiments, nor do they seek publication in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Much of their output is "preaching to the choir. "



The most persuasive creationist argument is a non-scientific one -- the appeal to fair play. "Shouldn't we present both sides of the argument?," they ask. The answer is no -- the fair thing to do is exclude creationism from public school science courses. Scientists have studied and tested evolution for 150 years. There is voluminous evidence for it. Within the scientific community, there are no competing theories. Until creationists formulate a scientific theory, and submit it for testing, they have no right to demand equal time in science class to present their ideas. Evolution has earned a place in the science curriculum. Creationism has not.



Science is based on an open and honest look at the data. Much of creationism is built on dishonest debating techniques and special pleading for a case the data does not support. Science belongs in science classes. Evolution is science. Creationism is not. It's that simple.



The creationist attack on public school education means that school children are denied the possibility of learning about the most powerful and elegant theory in biology. Politicians are willing to allow the scientifically ignorant, but politically strong, to wreck the educational system in exchange for votes. People interested in evolution, and science education in general, need to closely watch school board elections. Creationist "stealth" candidates have been elected in several regions. Thankfully, many have been voted out once their views became apparent.



The majority of Americans are religious, but only a minority are religious nuts. The version of religion the far right wants to impose on America is as repulsive to most mainstream Christians as it is to members of other religions, atheists and agnostics. Most informed religious people see no reason for biological facts and theories to interfere with their religious beliefs.

 

[BigCarl64]

And what is your background? Are you a scientist? Are you an expert on the bible? The bible was written by humans, who tend to embellish on stories to make them sound better. I do believe most of the stories captured in the bible are true, but you must understand the context in which the stories are written. People believed the weather was a sign of "God" which we know today is false. Stories and tales are just that. Scientific theories are based on facts and details. Plain and simple. So I guess we are supposed to believe that Einstein and other scientists are kooks because their findings don't mesh with the bible? Whatever!

 

[klenger]

BigCarl64:



Creation is not based on science, and most creationists do not contend that it is. The belief in creation is based on the written word of God. Many of us beleive it to be true, many others do not. You cannot convince us that creation is not true by using science, because we never claimed it was a scientific event.

 

[BigCarl64]

I concur, klenger. Just the same as you cannot convince me that creation is true just because it is written in a book. Science is rooted in provable facts, those which I can see and understand.

 

[GIT-R-DONE]

I dont buy it...

Originally posted by loncray

But we ARE still evolving. The chimpanzee today is much more advanced than the equivalent animal of a few million years ago.



Prove it ! What was the equivalent animal of the now a days Chimp? A few million years ago? Science to me is an "educated" guess by people that don't believe in creationism. They are out to prove the religious right, wrong. I don't believe they have done that. The idea that a person/scientist can tell you how old a fossil or bone is to me is ludicrous. A guess on top of a guess, doesn't make it fact, as science would like you to believe.