I believe in Creation ...and Evolution

[Tawn]

I can get my head around it just fine. It's not that hard to comprehend.

Good for you. Comment was directed at ES though..

 

[Ceridwen018]

I can get my head around it just fine. It's not that hard to comprehend.

I find creationism to be incredibly hard to comprehend. Could you explain it to me?

You believe man came from a bacteria, I believe man is dirt. Look at the world... now, what does man sound like to you?

Compared to dirt, humans resemble bacteria infinitely more. Humans eat, excrete waste, reproduce, have metabolism--basically perform all of the basic functions for life. Bacteria do all of these things too. Dirt, on the other hand, is immobile, unable to reproduce, doesn't have a metabolism, doesn't ingest or absorb energy of any kind, and certainly doesn't excrete waste. Bacteria are living, dirt is not. Humans are living, dirt is not. Your insinuated argument that humans resemble dirt over bacteria is outrageous.

 

[Passerbye]

Mankind may well be going downhill... but I cant say the testimony of older people is proof of that.. people always like to think that things were better in their day.. because society constantly changes and is shaped by the younger generations.. older generations always look at what the youth is upto and disagree.. simply because it is different to what they valued when they were young..

Okay, logicly if every generation says the morals of the generation after them are worse, then I think that must say something about the world.

Ah... but I believe man is of the dirt too.

Ahh, so you believe in the dirt of man. So why could we not have come strait from dirt?

 

[Passerbye]

Compared to dirt, humans resemble bacteria infinitely more. Humans eat, excrete waste, reproduce, have metabolism--basically perform all of the basic functions for life. Bacteria do all of these things too. Dirt, on the other hand, is immobile, unable to reproduce, doesn't have a metabolism, doesn't ingest or absorb energy of any kind, and certainly doesn't excrete waste. Bacteria are living, dirt is not. Humans are living, dirt is not. Your insinuated argument that humans resemble dirt over bacteria is outrageous.

That was but a "play on words" but thanks for the laugh.

 

[Passerbye]

I find creationism to be incredibly hard to comprehend. Could you explain it to me?

Okay. I can try. What part is giving you the most trouble?

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Woof - I stop long enough to eat lunch, and I come back three pages worth of posts later!!

... Many denominations are based on what the Bible clearly states as wrong, but it is still considered Christian to evolutionists.

This is an example of my earlier point - you are working from the premise that all Christians reject evolution, when the reality is something quite different. "Evolutionists" as you call us, and Christians are not mutually exclusive groups.

Oh, so it's the rate of occurrence that makes it not a miracle. Evolution happens a lot less than birth, is that a miracle?

No, evolution is not a miracle. Like the birth of a new living thing, it is explained quite clearly by science. Using the first definition that you posted regarding the term "miracle":
"An event that appears inexplicable by the laws of nature and so is held to be supernatural in origin or an act of God" - I would say that it is obvious that neither qualifies as a miracle.

So... enlighten me.

http://www.c14dating.com/ is a site that explains (quite well) how C-14 dating works. It also discusses age calculation, calibration, corrections, and applications - without pulling any punches. If you wish to discredit Carbon 14 dating, you will want to pay close attention to the "corrections" page. It gives a detailed listing of sources of variation in the measurements, and just how much each effects the accuracy of a given measurement. It also shows how scientists safeguard against each potential variance, but you can ignore that, as many others have.
http://id-archserve.ucsb.edu/Anth3/Courseware/Chronology/09_Potassium_Argon_Dating.html is a good site that explains Potassium Argon dating, and it's limitations. It also has several good clips that you can watch, which explain the process.

Ok, if you don't want religion in a science class, stop teaching evolution in it.

Oh yeah - if I don't want religion in a science class, I should also rail against teaching science in a science class as well... Just because you choose to ignore good, solid science does not invalidate the work of so many scientists. If it's all the same to you, I'll ask my local school system to continue to teach the latest scientific theories as well as those that have far more evidence - like evolution.

True, God does seem to like variety.

If He exists, he also appears to like confusion.

Okay, what calculater have you been using, and can I get one. It might increase my odds in poker too. But, seriously where did you get this from?

Well, truth be told, I didn't use a calculator, and even if I did, your odds in poker wouldn't change.
I just googled this up, from Ask Yahoo:
Like the number of grains of sand on the beach or angels that can dance on the head of a pin, the number of stars in the sky remains a great unknown. Discussing the number of stars in the Milky Way alone, astronomer William Keel, writing for the sci.astro Galaxies FAQ, claims that there are "about as many as the number of hamburgers sold by McDonald's."


Then he elaborates. The usual way to determine the number of stars in the universe is to consider how many stars there are in the Milky Way, and then to multiply that number by our best guesstimate at the number of galaxies in the universe. This FAQ suggests there are probably about 400 billion stars in the Milky Way, although "a 50% error either way is quite plausible." As for the number of galaxies in the universe, well that's a whole separate mathematical puzzle.

Other star enumerators we located on the Web offer numbers ranging from more than 200 billion stars in our galaxy to 3 thousand million billion stars (3 followed by 16 zeroes), in the universe. NASA alleges there are zillions of uncountable stars.

From a recent astronomy news article on CNN.com, we learned about the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, an ambitious astronomy project currently mapping the night sky, to determine the "positions and absolute brightnesses of more than 100 million celestial objects."

So now you have several answers, some slightly lower than mine, some much higher. Either way, the odds of intelligent life forming somewhere else in this vast universe are approaching certainty.

Paul Bunyan... I didn't know he was even an issue.

Oh yes - God created Paul Bunyan, so we must include him in this discussion.

TVOR

 

[The Voice of Reason]

... How else do you explain every generation of old people, back to at least King Solomon, saying "Things were better back in my day!"?

Sentimentality.

TVOR

 

[EnhancedSpirit]

"a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years as a day" Was in context to Jesus saying he will come back soon. People were thinking he was coming back in a few days or months, when this clears up that it could be thousands of years. Genesis says "and there was morning, and there was evening. The ___ day." How can it be interpreted as any different?

Have you ever been to alaska, sometimes there is no day. The time known as 'day' describes the earth's rotation around the sun. But we don't know for sure how much this has changed over the millenium. God resides in a place where time is irrelevent, and I do not trivialize over man's feebal attempt to define or describe it. All words fall short.

 

[Passerbye]

It is 12:30 AM here so I will pick this back up in the morning. Please try not to post more than 2 pages worth while I am gone.

 

[EnhancedSpirit]

No, evolution is not a miracle. Like the birth of a new living thing, it is explained quite clearly by science. Using the first definition that you posted regarding the term "miracle":

Show me where science explains how stem cells turn into every other cell in the body. Tell me where science explains how the white blood cells know where to go to heal a wound. Science is simply observing and labeling their observations. Does not take away from the miracle. Miracle is synonomous with wonderous, so there is no difference but one has a religious connotation behind it. I gotta go make dinner. I have no significant other, and my kids want to eat.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

It is 12:30 AM here so I will pick this back up in the morning. Please try not to post more than 2 pages worth while I am gone.

LOL - I empathize with you, Passerbye. I stopped to eat, and came back three pages later. Sleep well, my friend.

TVOR

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Show me where science explains how stem cells turn into every other cell in the body. Tell me where science explains how the white blood cells know where to go to heal a wound. Science is simply observing and labeling their observations. Does not take away from the miracle. Miracle is synonomous with wonderous, so there is no difference but one has a religious connotation behind it.

If you want to take this working definition of "miracle", I'd have to say that, for me, this computer I'm typing on is a miracle.

TVOR

 

[Tawn]

Okay, logicly if every generation says the morals of the generation after them are worse, then I think that must say something about the world.

No, for the reason I stated before.. human society is constantly in a state of flux. Thing may always be changing, but just because people dislike the changes doent mean they are inherantly bad.

Ahh, so you believe in the dirt of man. So why could we not have come strait from dirt?

Well we did. You eat animals and plants. Animals eat plants.. so a lot of the particles that make up your body come from plants. The rest is from water and the air.
Plants grow from sunlight, air and dirt.
Hence we are partially dirt.. :jiggy:

 

[Tawn]

Science is simply observing and labeling their observations. Does not take away from the miracle. Miracle is synonomous with wonderous, so there is no difference but one has a religious connotation behind it.

Agree completely.. accept im happy using only the word wonderous for now.. until someone or something can convince me there is indeed a God... then I might start viewing things as miracles too!

 

[Faust]

Go back a few thousand years and I bet people would agree with me.

And my local pharmacist would be condemned for witchcraft.
Faust.

 

[EnhancedSpirit]

If you want to take this working definition of "miracle", I'd have to say that, for me, this computer I'm typing on is a miracle.

TVOR

Yes, TVOR you are right about that one. My grandmother is 93 years old, she was able to celebrate her birthday with family from all over the world, we that couldn't make it to see her joined on a confrence. She said to us that it was a miracle that she could have her entire family with her and she had never felt so loved and complete as she did at that moment.

 

[EnhancedSpirit]

The computer was started by the government, in order to better their communication and information gathering techniques. And we got a window to the world. It's almost like teleporting. Any information you could want is at the push of a button. Including the word of God. So even the bad things work to God's advantage. I talk to 10-30 people a day, I would not do that on a normal day off the computer.

 

[Yerda]

Show me where science explains how stem cells turn into every other cell in the body.

A biology text could give you the basic on cellular differentiation, beyond that maybe biochemistry or cell biology. My understanding is that it all comes down to signalling and is not that complicated.

Tell me where science explains how the white blood cells know where to go to heal a wound.

'Know' is an odd word to use. They arrive at wounds because they're going that way anyway.

 

[Passerbye]

This is an example of my earlier point - you are working from the premise that all Christians reject evolution, when the reality is something quite different. "Evolutionists" as you call us, and Christians are not mutually exclusive groups.

Actually, that is part of the discussion right now.

"An event that appears inexplicable by the laws of nature and so is held to be supernatural in origin or an act of God" - I would say that it is obvious that neither qualifies as a miracle.

Correct, currently science can explain both up to a certain point.



About the Carbon 14 information you gave me. This is from that site. http://www.c14dating.com/egg.html

Horowitz et al. (1978) have dated ostrich eggshell fragments excavated from the prehistoric site of Voigtspost, in Orange Free State, R.S.A. Sample Pta-1483 was dated at 1220±50 BP (d13C=-6.7 per mille), while Pta-1520 gave a date of 6350±75 BP (d13C=-8.3 per mille) (Horowitz et al., 1978:154). Two modern samples of eggshell were also dated. After correction for isotopic fractionation, they gave an apparent age of 200 years in comparison to modern atmospheric carbon. Horowitz et al. (1978) concluded ostrich eggshell dates may be too old by this amount and advised caution in interpretion. There are a number of possible explanations for the old date of modern eggshell. It may have been caused by the bird drinking water from sources such as inland freshwater lake systems, which can contain dissolved bicarbonate or CO2, depleted in 14C.

They can only speculate as to why they got such old dates.



http://www.c14dating.com/mud.html

Lake muds are composed of the organic remains of plants which grew under water in lake or pond systems. Radiocarbon determinations from this type of environment must be analysed with care because of the variable sources of carbon available to the plants which form the gyttja. Sources of carbon include; bicarbonate in the water, dissolved CO2 from the atmosphere, dissolved bicarbonate from limestone and other weathered rocks, old or young organic carbon from humus within the vicinity. These 'inputs' to the lake system may make radiocarbon dates of lake muds problematic. In addition, there may be errors due to post-depositional movement in situ and leaching and adsorption of humic remains in the profile. Humic acids are the decayed remains of old plants.

Physical and chemical pretreatment methods usually involving acid-base-acid routines will be required to remove some of these contaminants and validate radiocarbon results.

Radiocarbon dating seems to have some problems with lake muds.


http://www.c14dating.com/shell.html

There are a number of uncertainties for dating shell. First, there has been uncertainty over exact

reservoir corrections. Second, there are local errors of varying magnitude introduced by dissolved bicarbonate from calcareous rock formations. Third, there is the problem of upwelling.

Ok, if things like this can cause discrepancies what do you think a cataclysmic flood, capable of moving continents and killing everything, would do? Do you think it would make things easier to date?


http://www.c14dating.com/charc.html

Its major source of error has been 'inbuilt', or 'presample' age (McFadgen, 1982). This may be the result of growth age; in which the age of dead wood in the centre of the living tree is dated, or storage age; which refers to the amount of time elapsed from the death of the tree to its use by people (McFadgen, 1982). Inbuilt age may result in errors of up to hundreds of years unless only short-lived species, or twigs, are selected for dating. Even then, there remains an inbuilt age effect, albeit somewhat reduced.

Radiocarbon measurements are always reported in terms of years `before present' (BP). This figure is directly based on the proportion of radiocarbon found in the sample. It is calculated on the assumption that the atmospheric radiocarbon concentration has always been the same as it was in 1950 and that the half-life of radiocarbon is 5568 years. For this purpose `present' refers to 1950 so you do not have to know the year in which the measurement was made.

And if it wasn’t the same?

Many types of tree reliably lay down one tree ring every year. The wood in these rings once laid down remains unchanged during the life of the tree. This is very useful as a record of the radiocarbon concentration in the past. If we have a tree that is 500 years old we can measure the radiocarbon in the 500 rings and see what radiocarbon concentration corresponds to each calendar year.

How can it be sure that the tree growths didn’t speed up or slow down at any point due to the atmospheric conditions? If that happened wrong dates would be given, according to this.


It’s not a foolproof method. I will withhold my trust in it until errors like this can be worked out at least and not just given excuses for.

Oh, and why do these “scientists” not spell-check? Do they not know how to use it or something?


Also, the Potassium Argon dating relies on the assumption that the amount of Ar-40 started out as zero in the rocks, and that it all came from K-40, plus that the K-40 hasn’t decayed from something else that would be undetectable by now. Too many unknowns, as I see it, are involved in these methods of dating. Scientists may see it as almost foolproof, but I don’t.

Oh yeah - if I don't want religion in a science class, I should also rail against teaching science in a science class as well

I don’t mind the teaching of evolution in science class. I just mind the teachers not teaching it as strong theories in stead of absolute facts.

 

[Passerbye]

If He exists, he also appears to like confusion.

That is based on what is confusing to man.

Either way, the odds of intelligent life forming somewhere else in this vast universe are approaching certainty.

Okay, you believe it could happen. That seems to go along with evolution just fine, but still it is not proven, that I have seen, that life comes from non-life. Also, it was stated that “Painted Wolf” posted some proof that life can come from the non-living. I have not found this. Please point me in the right direction to this information.

Oh yes - God created Paul Bunyan, so we must include him in this discussion.

Who do you think would win in a fight: Paul Bunyan or Johnny Apple Seed?

Sentimentality.

A valid argument.

Have you ever been to alaska, sometimes there is no day.

Another valid argument; however, God made the sun and everything after he already set Morning and Evening, and thus would probably have set the earth to rotate at a rate that would put the sun into the term day, not change the day in view of the sun. The morning and evening measured would thus be represented from the focal point of the middle of the earth around the equator, because that is what the day is balanced on. North or south from the points and you would have longer days, so it is safe to base it on what God created. Also, he set the Sabbath rules to follow the way he created the earth, and for this reason, it seems, he didn’t take a longer or shorter amount of time. He wanted man to follow in his footsteps. Rest on the 7th day, not the billionth year. This topic has been debated a long time, but I have not seen any scriptures that point to it taking billions of years.

Thing may always be changing, but just because people dislike the changes doent mean they are inherantly bad.

A valid point. I agree. But I also tend to think at times after seeing all the changes being made… “If it a’nt broke, why we be fix it?”

Hence we are partially dirt..

!!!YAY!!!

And my local pharmacist would be condemned for witchcraft.

Hey, maybe he should. Some doctors, “pill pushers”, need to be condemned for something. I just hope your local pharmacist doesn’t fall into that category.

A biology text could give you the basic on cellular differentiation, beyond that maybe biochemistry or cell biology. My understanding is that it all comes down to signalling and is not that complicated.

Yes, but who told it how to signal? Did it learn that all by itself?

'Know' is an odd word to use. They arrive at wounds because they're going that way anyway.

True, as far as I know.



Wow, that took a long time.