creat-volution

Watching a dinasaur doc and it occurs to me as it always does that science that looks beyond what we can actually see and touch is a lot of speculation.

Find a bone on the plains of Africa and speculate and build an animal around it

Prof: Yes what we have found is obviously the third metatarsal bone of a tree climbing mamal from the cretasous period. From the shape of the bone we have surmised that he was a meat eater who specialized his diet to tiny sqquirrel like creatures that could fly. We have not settled on a name as yet but for now we are calling him falsus epitmus.

or

spot a planet

Prof yes, the planet BS-191. We have put the images we got from the Hubble through our spectral filters and determined it to be blue in hue and therefore it must have water and therfore has lfe. We have discovered life on another planet a zillion miles from here.

or even carbon dating how do we know it works? what do we have to compare?

Now that said, this is not a treatise for or against the existance of God. But it seems to me that creationism and evolution are equal in their validity as far a proof is concerned

what do you think?

 

In the words of Bill Nye: "You don't have to believe in science, science believes in you."

...

I think some people are True Believers (Def. #2).

Also relevant (Slide #2).

 

Unfortunately you might have to study the basic sciences a bit to understand how much these people really know about what they are doing when they are speculating. It's all built on previously proven science. If you are really interested in how carbon dating and amino acid racemization works, then look them up, but be prepared to do some work to understand. You will have to understand some chemistry and half lifes and how they were determined.

If you think evolution and creationism are equal, as far as proof goes, it is only because you don't know what the proofs of evolution are. The proofs are astoundingly large for evo, nothing proves creationism. By definition creationism doesn't require proof, just faith.

There are many fine vids on youtube, if you want to watch: http://www.youtube.com/user/NatCen4ScienceEd

 

Interesting post.
Would I be out of bounds asking what level of education you achieved, and where you were educated?

 

been

gonna have to come back and watch the vid later, maybe you're right. Maybe I don't realize how smart these guys are. Or maybe they have all been reading the same books and theroies. On carbon dating I cold be wrong also. Maybe there is an object or artifact that's been in the public square for 6 billion years and someone used that to compare the carbon dating testing.

Yeah nothing proves creationism, but nothing disproves it either, but in the meantime, please show me one proof of evolution

One thing more on carbon dating, in my math classes way back when they told us that values can change spontaneously when other are changed, whose to say that the carbon/radioactive carbon ratios can't change over a given period of time or under a different set of circumstances.

ie @100 yrs ratio=1:1
@ 10,000 ratio=1: 100,00 and so on. I think it's a legitamate question

same as the decay rate slowing down during an espessially cold time

I don't not believe in science I just don't accept the absolute-ness of it's conclusions, as far as being a true beliver, maybe.

no time to edit
--- merged: Sep 3, 2011 5:25 PM ---

not sure why this matters but I didn't finish school, I hadd stuff going on and I am too old now to be bother with going back

 

The common cold. Drug-resistant bacteria. Fruit flies.

Radiological decay is different than biological decay. Radiological (meaning the change in the atoms) isn't affected by temperature. There's no "sweet spot" for it the way that there is for biological decay - about 80F with high humidity. You've asked a legitimate question, but it's one that's easily answerable. The values that we're discussing don't spontaneously change, and they're all very obversable.

 

science is all about being "righter" than you were before. it wouldn't be science if people were never wrong about stuff, its just that these scientists have so many years of making mistakes and seeing trends in what they do, that they can make a pretty damn good guess about what was going on. you're never 100% sure that your car/vehicle/smooth spot will work the next day, but based on what you've experienced/observed in the past, you know pretty much what will happen

 

Science isn't something that comes obviously to everyone. Having more of a formal education may have made you more appreciative of science, but then again it might not have.
I think everyone should have a shot at understanding science during the growing up years. It doesn't always happen that way, and that's unfortunate.

 

Mmm... I want a time machine... so I can go back in time and replace with the Bible with a certain Stephen King novel, a good portion of Americans would identify The Walkin' Dude as the ultimate evil. And that would be a helluva lot more interesting than that Genesis-to-Revelation book.

 

That's my point.
Proponents and those with the counter argument look for absolute proof of the others point of veiw and stand firm on their own with 'faith' and speculation.

My own position is constantly in flux. How's this?

Could God (however you define Him/It) have triggered the Big Bang? could what we call evolution be a number of similar speices that simply died off in favor of stronger ones

Is there a middle ground for evo and cre-o?
Once again I have not defined my question/position fully. I do in fact stand behind one of these veiws but have hesitated to say which. Mine is a question only, not a statement of a fact or faith.

This can be simplified to:

Was there, billions of years ago, material so dense that it woould later populate the entire universe, billions of light years across, condensed small enough to fit on the head of a pin?

or

Did someone speak/wave their hand and all this came to be?

Is one really more valdi than the other?
I like the middle.

 

There is no middle. You can't really half-believe. You're either in bed with Bearded Teenage Jesus on Noah's Zoo Ark (only two of each, guys!) or you realize things like MTV and nuclear weapons came from the opposable thumbs of the hairless creatures that evolved from chimpanzees and bonobos.

Religions change over the years. First we had food and water. Then we had Gods. Then we had God. Then we had land. Then we had wealth. Money is still pretty big but influence is a better descriptor of today's religion. Eventually we'll have food and water again. God fills the place of science until science kills god. Man kills each other (and themselves) with science. If man survives, he'll have god again until he recovers science. Rinse, repeat.

I like to think that god is kinda like Homo sapiens mad libs: "____ created the universe." You put god in there until the science catches up.

Just my 2 cents. I grew up as a dorky middle class white kid... I'm the ultimate atheist because I never needed a god for anything.

 

There is a middle, buddy. We just have to use our imaginations. Please come & shoot me. Then turn yourself in.
Frankly, my dear, I give a damn.

 

Many people treat science as a philosophy, and to each their own I suppose. I'd rather think of it as a tool. As tool creationism is about as useful as a spork. So when God builds me a satellite with lasers that can scratch my ass from outer space I'll have to reassess my position.

 

If their faith is so weak that the science not opposing it offends it, it's got to go. Gadflies produce themselves.

 

It is very easy to hold that science is a faith, when you come from a position of profound ignorance on the subject at hand. Scientists are always trying to disprove theories, to challenge them to make sure they are right. When you come up with a hypothesis, which is basically and educated guess, you have to propose the things that will disprove it. You then test for these things. You publish, and others test to disprove your hypothesis. Wash, rinse, repeat, until your idea is "proven", then it's called a theory. A scientific theory is the strongest, evidence supported model there is. When you say "just a theory", that, in itself proves your ignorance of the subject.

On the other hand, one of the things that turns people off of the Xtian religion is knowledge. Reading that damned book is what finally put the nail in the coffin of religion for me. Reading the whole thing several times ( I did ) should make your head explode, if you pay attention to what you read.

 

Hey guys... I'm beginning to seriously doubt whether Italy is a real country. I mean... I've never seen it, have you?

 

Why is it that people don't doubt electric theory, or magnetic theory? The same scientific process produced these things too. My guess is that it doesn't interfere with what they want to believe, so they are perfectly fine with them.
--- merged: Sep 4, 2011 1:47 PM ---

And what about France? I'm not sure such a place could exist. I mean really, where do people come up with these things? ( Plus, it's not mentioned in Tha Bybell, so it cain't be true )