Evolution vs. Creation

bohart wrote:

<quoted text>
" the first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist ,but at the bottom of the glass, God is waiting for you"
Heisenberg
One of the greatest if not the greatest theoretical physicists of all time.

And you think this means anything? Heisenberg is famous for one thing - being uncertain.

FREE SERVANT wrote:

<quoted text>To claim that everything is an accident and man was once just like the ape of today is grossness of mind and an exasperating obtuseness or lack of comprehension.

You religious people are the ones claiming it was all an accident, lest, where did your god come from if not an accident?

bohart wrote:

<quoted text>
" the first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist ,but at the bottom of the glass, God is waiting for you"
Heisenberg
One of the greatest if not the greatest theoretical physicists of all time.

Appealing to authority does not help your case at all. It makes you look desperate and too stupid to actually present in of your own ideas.

FREE SERVANT wrote:

<quoted text>The Bible is not a fairy tale, It is the story of the greatest love from up above us,but,I guess you can't take notice of the beauty of life with meaning.

The cosmos was magically conjured into existence with a magic "word".

The first man was conjured up out of a pile of dirt.

The first woman was conjured up from a rib taken out of the man.

Magic fruit that makes the eater really intelligent or immortal.

A talking snake.

Incest, incest and more incest was a very good thing at one point in human history.

Angels and demons.

Giants and unicorns.

Satyrs and cockatrices.

Witches and wizards.

Angels having sex with mortal women.

People living 600+ years.

People and dinosaurs living together.

A big global flood that destroys everything except the passengers of a wooden boat.

The sun standing still in the sky to provide more light for more productive mass genocide.

A talking burning bush.

A talking donkey.

A man living inside of the stomach of a fish for three days.

Letting livestock copulated in front of a stick painted with stripes produces offspring with striped coats.

Sprinkling the blood of a sacrificed dove on a lepers toes cures his leprosy.

Etc., etc., etc..

Yup, sure sounds like a FAIRY TALE to me ... except for the "incest, incest and more incest" and the "angels have sex with mortal women" parts; that sounds more like very bad bronze age pornography.

wolverine wrote:

<quoted text>
LOL....Ted, You Make My Point Clearly. You And Many Like You Seem To Think That Scientific Theory Is The " End All " Of Our Knowledge.
Religious Folks Know This To Be False Because Of Spirituallity That Tells Them There Is Much More To The Story Then Can Be Told By Scientists.

So, which "religious folks" are right? They all seem to have different "explanations".

.
.
.

Personally, from an agnostic (late lapsed RC) I think the Buddhists are "right" and the "fundamentalist christians and radical muslims" are full of solid bovine excrement.

wolverine wrote:

<quoted text>
LOL....Ted, You Make My Point Clearly. You And Many Like You Seem To Think That Scientific Theory Is The " End All " Of Our Knowledge.
Religious Folks Know This To Be False Because Of Spirituallity That Tells Them There Is Much More To The Story Then Can Be Told By Scientists.
While I Believe Your An Educated Man....Your Education Has Been Hijacked By Liberal Bias And Ideology. You Cannot Even Fathom That Much Of Reality Lies Outside Of Our Comprehension.....This Is Troubling For Those Who Cannot Explain The Universe And Expect Others To Automatically Except Theory As Plausible Explanations For The Unknown.
Im Glad Your Comfortable With Your Assumptions And Refuse To Think Outside Of The Box.

Actually scientific theories are more than plausible explanations, they are explanations that match all the currently available evidence. What you are doing is proving that you understand little about science.

I asked for what is beyond our possible comprehension and you toss spirituality into the mix, something that has no evidence. Spirituality says nothing, other than sells a bunch of books to people who wish it was real. Where is your evidence, where is your support, where are your explanations of all things spiritual? They do not exist. If they did, you would not hesitate to trot them out here. But instead you bring out innuendo, wishful thinking, and conjecture.

As for thinking outside the box, what do you call the box you are looking at right now. Science is always looking outside the box, that's where new inventions, medicines, technologies all come from. Certainly not from waiting for some 'spirit' to come and deliver the box from Dell.

FREE SERVANT wrote:

<quoted text>So, If I bring somthing here that debunks "evolution", What will it be worth?

Probably a Nobel Prize, but relax, no one is holding their breath.

FREE SERVANT wrote:

<quoted text>The Bible is not a fairy tale, It is the story of the greatest love from up above us,but,I guess you can't take notice of the beauty of life with meaning.

Hey, I don't believe there is a sky god up above and my life has plenty of meaning. Gods are not needed to make men moral or have meaning...you really need to get this through your head.

And it is a tall tale that doesn't have a lot of positive proofs behind it.

The Dude wrote:

<quoted text>
So that's why carbon dating is the wrong method for dating dino's.
Duh.

hahaha!! Carbon dating a dino fossil! What a bunch of dishonest people!

Clearly they fooled Langolier.

Hidingfromyou wrote:

<quoted text>
hahaha!! Carbon dating a dino fossil! What a bunch of dishonest people!
Clearly they fooled Langolier.

Doesn't seem to take much to fool Langolier. I wonder if he would bite on a Bridge I have for sale in Brooklyn?

Hidingfromyou wrote:

<quoted text>hahaha!! Carbon dating a dino fossil! What a bunch of dishonest people!

Clearly they fooled Langolier.

I have not Been fooled.

Langoliers wrote:

<quoted text>
I have not Been fooled.

Of course you wouldn't know you had been, until someone told you you had been.

Aura Mytha wrote:

<quoted text>
Clearly you have no concept of the Higgs Boson.

Why would you say that?

Eighthman wrote:

<quoted text>Why would you say that?

Because you said this.

"God created evolution. At least that's what the latest findings in Switzerland at the Atlas Accelerator has indicated with the discovery of the Higgs Boson Particle"

It has nothing to do with evolution, but here is something that was said about it.

Lederman said he gave it the nickname "The God Particle" because the particle is "so central to the state of physics today, so crucial to our understanding of the structure of matter, yet so elusive," but jokingly added that a second reason was because "the publisher wouldn't let us call it the Goddamn Particle, though that might be a more appropriate title, given its villainous nature and the expense it is causing."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson

The thing about it , is that it's detection means ..that things can just pop into existence from basically nothing.
Which makes the need for a god to cause something less.
But Christians think for some reason because it was coined
"the god particle" that it favors them. Only remaining in a state of ignorance they favor.

Langoliers wrote:

<quoted text>
I have not Been fooled.

Yes, you quite clearly have. You don't seem to understand how dating methods are done at all, why they're done, how they were worked out, etc.

You don't seem to understand the physics behind absolute dating. The very idea of carbon dating a fossil older than 70kya is absurd for so many reasons, it's hard to know where to start:

1. The physics just doesn't work. You can date anything you like, but if it's older than 70kya, you're not going to get anything approaching accuracy.
2. Dino bones are usually mineralized. There's no carbon in them. Good luck!
3. The rare dino bones that aren't fully mineralized won't have any isotopic carbon in them that is not from an external source. So you're dating something other than the fossil.

But, whatever, don't believe science. Just make stuff up and pretend you're doing science.

Langoliers wrote:

<quoted text>
I have not Been fooled.

ya you have. you're here rehashing the c14 stuff clearly showing that youve been fooled

Hidingfromyou wrote:

<quoted text>
hahaha!! Carbon dating a dino fossil! What a bunch of dishonest people!
Clearly they fooled Langolier.

Obviously. Carbon dating yields that T-Rex lived 3,000 years ago.

And..Their teeth were used to squash pumpkins.

Langoliers wrote:

<quoted text>
I have not Been fooled.

Did you think that people used Carbon datingon dinosaur fossils?

If yes, then you were fooled.

Have you ever been to a museum?

Doctor Who Two wrote:

<quoted text>
Keep in mind that the same thing that applies in a court of law applies to archeology: Lack of evidence is no evidence of lack. The fact that I haven’t found Abraham’s camel saddle doesn’t mean Abraham didn’t have a camel or a saddle. And, indeed, there is a huge amount of circumstantial evidence supporting the basic historicity of the Bible.
Archeology doesn’t definitively prove the Bible, and it certainly doesn’t discredit it. In fact the more we find, the more we see that there’s a tremendous amount of historicity in the text.
In summary, the Bible is a book of history, it contains history and culture, which is more or less borne out by archeology. It’s a book of teachings, and it’s the ideal way to learn the patterns of history. And if we understand that the reason why we’re learning history is to learn lessons, then we have to pay extra special attention to what is going on in the Bible.

Archaeology supports the historical claims of the Bible in some cases, and refutes it in others. Likewise that similar-in-kind mythico/historical narrative called the Illiad.

By archeological analysis, Jericho was little more than an abandoned old city centuries before Joshua ever got there. The Israelites filled in the story to match their own mythology of how they came to occupy Israel.

In general, the older the account, the less likely it is to be historically accurate. By the time you get to Genesis, its plainly myth.

Double Fine wrote:

<quoted text>
Did you think that people used Carbon datingon dinosaur fossils?
If yes, then you were fooled.
Have you ever been to a museum?

I'm concerned that Langoliers has never even been out of the basement.