Christian Age of Earth?

[phoenix_fire]

Isher, as I have demonstrated, the term "theory" is used very loosely. I gave several examples of theories that, while accepted in varying degrees, cannot be proven. True, some theories are givens: gravity being one of them. But some are not nearly so well backed and evolution is one of them.

[Jack]

Yet all theories in science abide by the same definition. Just because we "accept gravity as a given" does not make it any more or less a theory than evolution.

[Sonart]

Quote by: phoenix_fire But some are not nearly so well backed and evolution is one of them.

To the contrary, evolution is extremely well supported, is the backbone of modern biology, and is "not nearly so well backed" only in the minds of religious opponents, for the simple reason that it conflicts with their can't-be-questioned religious dogma.

.

[Flip Jackson]

Soccer, I thought my answer was fair enough that the animals could have been used to climate that were similar in ages before the continents broke apart. Why is this blind faith? I will say I don't know the answer, and was just having fun speculating.

And have I ever said that we should blindly teach any one anything. I have never supported the idea that religion is the only answer. I think religion can answer a lot of important questions, but answers almost no questions about how our world works. That is why we have science and math. I think religion tells us "why" things happen, and science tells us "how." Both are very important and neither should be left out.

Phoenix, I would like to point out that I am a Christian, but I readily admt that evolution is nearly indisputable. The only real argument is that evolution can't give a perfect trail of every animal's ancestry, but this isn't a good complaint since we are constantly learning more in this area.

Now I think there is a difference between gravitational theory and the theory of evolution. Gravitational theory doesn't really try to explain why or how gravity works. It just says that gravity does work, and we can predict it with certain equations and numbers. Evolutionary theory tries to explain what happend and how it happened. It can't really predict future occurences since they rely on mutations. I don't think this discredits evolution, but does set it apart from gravity a bit.

[Starboy]

Quote by: Flip Jackson Evolutionary theory tries to explain what happend and how it happened. It can't really predict future occurences since they rely on mutations. I don't think this discredits evolution, but does set it apart from gravity a bit.

If I were going to compare ToE with a theory of physics I would say that a more fair comparison would be Quantum Mechanics. At the quantum scale you can't predict the outcome of a single quantum event. You can compute the probability distribution. You can compute the end states that have zero probability. A similar situation exists with ToE. You can't predict the outcome for a particular animal. And it does rule out certain kinds of changes. And like QM if you aggregate a great number of events you can predict what will happen to a group of animals as a whole over time. Now the current state of ToE is still not as advanced as QM. That is because the basic mechanisms of change occur at the bimolecular level and there is still much to be learned about that. However I am confident that there will be a time in the not too distant future when there will be computer models that can predict the range of variation that can occur in a given average genome of a given species. That it will be possible to predict how those genetic changes will manifest in the larger organism. And then based on the a specific environmental change it will be possible to compute which genetic changes will improve the survival and reproductive chances of a particular animal with those traits. It is a lot to figure out and maybe it is a leap to think that it will be figured out but if you follow the literature they are tearing it up.

I tell people that thirty years ago people would have no problem saying that biology is an imprecise, not very well understood field of science as compared to physics. But the tables are turning. Physicists still can't make gravity from scratch but it will not be that long till biologists are making life from scratch.

Starboy

[northtexan]

Quote by: phoenix_fire Actually, the flood is probably one of the less disputable things about the Bible. Other cultures have flood stories. Look at the epic of Gilgamesh. This fact points to the idea that there probably really was a massive flood. In addition, we do not know exactly how long ago this was supposed to be. According to the Bible, people lived for hundreds of years in this time. It would not be so difficult to imagine how the various animals got to Noah if perhaps the continents were still joined at this time. A massive flood would be compatible with the break up and shift of the continents. Allow for several thousand years of migration and it is not hard to imagine. As for the fish, the flood was supposed to be precipitated by, well, precipitation: fresh water. And no, the resurrection of Christ is not a metaphor. If you don't believe me, ssssshhooooooww me the BODY!!!

Well, there't the story of the tourist in Mexico who stopped at a stand selling human skulls. The owner said 'Now here is the skull of Pancho Villa. I can let you have it really cheap.'

The tourist asked about a smaller skull, only to be told: 'That's Pancho Villa.'

"But you said the bigger one was Pancho Villa!" objected the tourist.

'Ah, yes,' replied the merchant, 'but the small one is Pancho Villa as a little boy.'

[Starboy]

Quote by: phoenix_fire And no, the resurrection of Christ is not a metaphor. If you don't believe me, ssssshhooooooww me the BODY!!!

Christians say the darndest things!

Starboy

[northtexan]

Quote by: Compugasm Even evolution gets outsourced.

Well, sure, that's one way to look at it. But one CAN be nicer and simply refer to it as 'recycling.'

Quote by: Compugasm There must have been millions of pairs of animals on board Noah's ship. Some animals, eat other animals. There was an absolutely staggering volume of food of various types on board the ship. How'd they feed them all? Where did they store the food? What did they do with the poop? Even if Noahs Ark was an entire continent, it still wouldn't be climate sufficient.

Hey, isn't it obvious what Noah did? He had a poop deck!

Quote by: phoenix_fire Isher, as I have demonstrated, the term "theory" is used very loosely. I gave several examples of theories that, while accepted in varying degrees, cannot be proven. True, some theories are givens: gravity being one of them. But some are not nearly so well backed and evolution is one of them.

There are theories and there are facts. Both gravity and evolution are well-supported facts. In the realm of theories, however, natural selection is much-better supported than is any account of gravity -- although relativity has done quite well, it is expected to be supplanted because it is not really compatible with quantum theory.

[LetThereBe]

Quote by: SoccerfreakAB2 Dthmstr254 seems to think that creation occured 8000 years ago or something. Can we all clear this misconception up for him? Where did the dinos go? No ice age? Human repopulation and exploration in such a short period of time? How did humans get to the "New World?" So many more questions!!!

i've heard some creationist scientists (yes they exist) try to answer those questions. First, most dinosaurs would have died during the flood, and the few that remained could't adapt to climate change. Second, as for the ice age some say that the ice age is still going on.... but most creationists say the majority of erosion said to be caused over millions of years by glaciers happened in the cataclysms of the flood. I don't see how exploration could possibly present a problem... but I can see how repopulation is. If its true that people lived into the 700's and were having children that late, population would occur much faster. Also, if sea level were only a little lower, the entire globe would be connected by the continental shelf. If water were being stored above the earth's atmosphere, or below its crust, then broke out and came to the earth, than that would raise the ocean level. Humans could have come to the western hemisphere pre-flood.

[Athena]

Quote by: SteveA The Earth was created about 7,000-8,000 years ago and then a bit later God buried dinosaur bones around. This happened a bit before recorded history. Also, the universe orbits around the Earth, or to be more exact, humans. Whenever someone jumps up and down, the person doesn't truly move, the universe simply bounces off their feet.

Whoo, what great humor. Especially that last statement about the universe bouncing off people's feet, sends this humorous arrangement of reasoning over the top.

I love humor, and somedays the seriousness of our discussions begs the lifting effect of good humor. However, being creative with the rules of these forums, and making someone the butt of derogratory comments, is destructive to everything we value. The only hope of the world is good reasoning. We need to engage disagreeing people in discussion if there is any hope of redeeming the world with reasoning. When we ridicule another, we damage the desired goal of these discussions.

If we tolerate ridiculing another for any reason, we announce to the world, this is not a save place to be, it is not safe to say to what we think, if we do not conform to the dominating dogma of others, we risk being ridiculed and degraded. Do you want me to demonstrate more clearly? I have years of experience at beheading and castrating those who annoy me. Is being better at tearing down others down, a desirable quality? Or would rather I stay off your case, and continue working on being a better human being myself? That is the mad face. :) This is the friendly face. Which would rather promote in these discussions? Which do you think will be best of our experience of life?

[LetThereBe]

As for the animals aboard said ark, it never says every species was on the ark. It says animals by there kinds. The concept of species did not exist back then. Also, it would have been very sensible for God to have sent animals that were still cubs. They would take less food, and they would take up less space. For example, Noah probably did not take eighteen different varieties of chickens. He took one. He did not take eight kinds of cows. He took one (well, maybe he took some extra of those for sacrafices) So, the problem of Noah's ark isn't so ridiculous as it at first seems.
These "kinds" of animals all have the ability for genetic variation. This is microevolution, which has been empiracally tested and shown to be true. Macro evolution however, is not so much a certain thing. We have no evidence all life came from one bacteria. We have no evidence dinosaurs become birds (archeopteryx is pathetic. They've dated real birds that were older.) We have no evidence man came from ape.

[RickSp]

An article from yesterday's NY Times that I find equal parts amusing and sad. It follows two different rafting trips in the Grand Canyon - one lead by a geologist explaining the development of the canyon and one lead by a church group with a creationist explaining how the canyon was formed during the flood 4,500 years ago.

Seeing Creation and Evolution in Grand Canyon

GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK, Ariz. - Tom Vail, who has been leading rafting trips down the Colorado River here for 23 years, corralled his charges under a rocky outcrop at Carbon Creek and pointed out the remarkable 90-degree folds in the cliff overhead. Geologists date this sandstone to 550 million years ago and explain the folding as a result of pressure from shifting faults underneath. But to Mr. Vail, the folds suggest the Grand Canyon was carved 4,500 years ago by the great global flood described in Genesis as God's punishment for humanity's sin. Two groups examining the same evidence. Traveling nearly identical itineraries, snoozing under the same stars and bathing in the same chocolate-colored river. Yet, standing at opposite ends of the growing creation-evolution debate, they seemed to speak in different tongues. Science unequivocally dates the earth's age at 4.5 billion years, and the canyon's layers at some two billion years. Even the intelligent design movement, which argues that evolution alone cannot explain life's complexity, does not challenge the long history of the earth. But a core of creationists like Mr. Vail continue to champion a Bible-based theory of the canyon's carving. And polls show many Americans are unconvinced by scientific knowledge.

[LetThereBe]

Quote by: RickSp An article from yesterday's NY Times that I find equal parts amusing and sad. It follows two different rafting trips in the Grand Canyon - one lead by a geologist explaining the development of the canyon and one lead by a church group with a creationist explaining how the canyon was formed during the flood 4,500 years ago. Seeing Creation and Evolution in Grand Canyon

Do you imply that truth is dictated by the majority? Or that having a different interpretation of similar data is unscientific?

[Starboy]

Quote by: LetThereBe As for the animals aboard said ark, it never says every species was on the ark. It says animals by there kinds. The concept of species did not exist back then. Also, it would have been very sensible for God to have sent animals that were still cubs. They would take less food, and they would take up less space. For example, Noah probably did not take eighteen different varieties of chickens. He took one. He did not take eight kinds of cows. He took one (well, maybe he took some extra of those for sacrafices) So, the problem of Noah's ark isn't so ridiculous as it at first seems. These "kinds" of animals all have the ability for genetic variation. This is microevolution, which has been empiracally tested and shown to be true. Macro evolution however, is not so much a certain thing. We have no evidence all life came from one bacteria. We have no evidence dinosaurs become birds (archeopteryx is pathetic. They've dated real birds that were older.) We have no evidence man came from ape.

That sounds great. So if there was only one variety of say an elephant and "microevolution" is how the other varieties came to be there still is not enough time between the flood and now to account for the great varieties that currently exist or that have fossil evidence that indicates they existed after the presumed date of this great flood but became extinct in the interim time period. That both the fossil record and the biota are not consistent with that very fantastic and tall tale of the flood. And of course the problem is not just with animals. There are the plants as well to consider. One has a similar problem on a much vaster scale. Sure seeds can take a soaking but not for months at a time. And of course the biblical account claims that god intended it to kill everything on the earth yet there is no mention of Noah taking any plants on board not intended for consumption. There is also the problem of how the animals spread. Noah landed somewhere near the middle east. How did the beavers get to the new world? Did they swim? Did they construct reed rafts? Did swallows carry them? These may seem like such niggling details to someone whos understanding of biology comes from the Bronze Age.

Starboy

[Athena]

About those dinos. The skulls of mastodons littered the land around Greece. They are what gave rise to the stories of giant cyclopes. The hole that was trunk area was mistaken as the area of a giant eye. Another outstanding feature of the mastodon was the huge grinding teeth. "Better to eat you my, dear." (mixing of the cyclopes story and the "Little Red Hood" story). The mastodon beast is thought to be a one eyed giant with huge teeth, and obviously a threat to humans.

Now here is the threat of truth- all mythology, religious or other wise, is the expression of the best wisdom a civilization has. To civilize, means to make the individual like everyone else, and the process is essential to all civilizations. Myths, religious or otherwise, are essential to the civilizing process. Sometimes truth, reveals a myth as a false belief. This is clearly a threat to the civilization dependent on this mythology/religion for its order and civilizing of citizens. It means, the authorities who gave us these myths and who wrote our holy books, were only human and made errors. This puts everything they said to question, and whole fabric of civilization, be it Jewish, Christian, Muslim, or Hindu can unravel when the truth of their holy books and their religious authoriy is questioned.

We must not only seek truth, but at the same time address the fears and concerns that arise when religous truth is questioned. Democracy does this, because it includes all our moral concerns. However, science without philosophy, does not. Science without religion or philosophy is amoral and dehumanizing. It can make people technological smart, but it doesn't make them wise. Those who are pushing for the extreme of technological correctness are as dogmatic and in error, as those who do not want to recouncil their religous belief with scientific fact.

We are in the last days, when the past blends with the future, masculine blends with feminine, heaven blends with earth. I Ching or if you like Mayan calender or New Age
2012.

[LetThereBe]

Quote by: Starboy That sounds great. So if there was only one variety of say an elephant and "microevolution" is how the other varieties came to be there still is not enough time between the flood and now to account for the great varieties that currently exist or that have fossil evidence that indicates they existed after the presumed date of this great flood but became extinct in the interim time period. That both the fossil record and the biota are not consistent with that very fantastic and tall tale of the flood. And of course the problem is not just with animals. There are the plants as well to consider. One has a similar problem on a much vaster scale. Sure seeds can take a soaking but not for months at a time. And of course the biblical account claims that god intended it to kill everything on the earth yet there is no mention of Noah taking any plants on board not intended for consumption. There is also the problem of how the animals spread. Noah landed somewhere near the middle east. How did the beavers get to the new world? Did they swim? Did they construct reed rafts? Did swallows carry them? These may seem like such niggling details to someone whos understanding of biology comes from the Bronze Age. Starboy

Ha. I'm waiting for the day when one of your comments doesn't end in an insult, but I don't expect to live that long. Oh well. Microevolution has been shown to work quite rapidly. When certain genetic traits become geographically isolated, then it speeds up the process. Dogs are a beautiful example. When humans purposely interfered, new varieties (with VASTLY different traits) developed in a single generation. As for the seeds, some can take a much longer soaking.... some can't. I can't say for certain that I know how long a seed can remain wet. Cocunuts I'm sure can go practically indefinitely... and I would imagine so could most with a hard casing. Perhaps some seeds floated on top of things. Perhaps noah had enough seeds remaining to begin planting. and lastly (u'll hate this) perhaps God himself directly intervened.
I think the fossil record could be interpreted to support a global flood. Fossilization occurs most often in a cataclysmic event. If a body just sits there, it rots. When it is buried under sediment it has the chance to be fossilized. What do you say to fossils that lie vertical to geoligic layers? Did that body sit there while "millions of years" worth of sediments piled around it? That seems mighty unlikely, and there have been numerous fossils found that go though "millions of years" of rock.
Lastly, as for the spread of animals, I have not heard any very good explanations, and I will admit this. Once again, if sea level had been lower then perhaps animals could have walked across the continental shelf. Perhaps it was the direct intervention of God.

[phoenix_fire]

I mean it. I want a body. It shouldn't be that hard.

[RickSp]

Quote by: LetThereBe Do you imply that truth is dictated by the majority? Or that having a different interpretation of similar data is unscientific?

I think making stuff up so that it agrees with your interpretation of the bible is pretty stupid, if that is what you mean. I do have considerable respect for the science of geology. A different interpretation of similar data is indeed unscientific if the interpretation is shaped to fit religious dogma rather than chemistry and physics.

[Starboy]

Quote by: LetThereBe Ha. I'm waiting for the day when one of your comments doesn't end in an insult, but I don't expect to live that long. Oh well.

What insult? Are you trying to tell me that somehow you are not bending reality to conform to the world view of people from the Bronze Age?

Microevolution has been shown to work quite rapidly. When certain genetic traits become geographically isolated, then it speeds up the process. Dogs are a beautiful example. When humans purposely interfered, new varieties (with VASTLY different traits) developed in a single generation.

Sure, human intervention can account for rapid changes but we are talking about all of the plants and animals that currently exist on the earth or existed and went extinct since the purported flood. There is also the problem that after the flood there just were not all that many people and I am sure they had their hands full just trying to stay alive. After all, everything had been killed on the earth.

As for the seeds, some can take a much longer soaking.... some can't. I can't say for certain that I know how long a seed can remain wet. Cocunuts I'm sure can go practically indefinitely... and I would imagine so could most with a hard casing. Perhaps some seeds floated on top of things. Perhaps noah had enough seeds remaining to begin planting. and lastly (u'll hate this) perhaps God himself directly intervened.

Invoking god is the only way you're gonna be able to account for it, because there is no science that can. However it amazes me that people who are already convinced of hocus pocus would go to so much trouble to try to justify their beliefs using actual reality when all they have to say is "goddidit".

I think the fossil record could be interpreted to support a global flood. Fossilization occurs most often in a cataclysmic event. If a body just sits there, it rots. When it is buried under sediment it has the chance to be fossilized. What do you say to fossils that lie vertical to geoligic layers? Did that body sit there while "millions of years" worth of sediments piled around it? That seems mighty unlikely, and there have been numerous fossils found that go though "millions of years" of rock.

A fossil does not have to be fossilized. It is simply some remnant of a previously living organism. The remnant could be nothing more than an impression in a stone, to a mineralized bone to an entire creature perfectly preserved in ice. But if there is a remnant then it lived and one can get a rough idea as to when it died. And the variety of fossils in the record that indicated that the animal died after the flood just does not mesh with "microevolution".

Lastly, as for the spread of animals, I have not heard any very good explanations, and I will admit this. Once again, if sea level had been lower then perhaps animals could have walked across the continental shelf. Perhaps it was the direct intervention of God.

Hey some honesty. But with the most convincing and great explanative power of the "goddidit" explanation on your side why bother with scientific explanations at all?

Starboy

[Starboy]

Quote by: phoenix_fire I mean it. I want a body. It shouldn't be that hard.

Let me see. If it were a myth then there would be no body. But hey, if it happened then the body is in heaven. But sorry I'm an atheist, they won't let me go and look there. How about this. You make yourself right with your god, I kill you, you go look and bring it back if it is there. How does that sound?

Starboy