PROOF that Evolution is a Myth

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by NickYoung

But how can things get worse? It's God. The all powerful? Do you mean that God doesn't have the power to stop evil?

I mean, is that what God is really all about... getting as close to as many humans as possible? That seems like a complete waste of time. He can just make it happen. I mean, if God can't do enough good to make us love Him or stop people from being 'driven away', what kind of All Powerful almighty is that? A very human sounding one. And if there was a God, he would not suffer any human frailty caused by our evolution.

We are created in His image...

The problem is that He loves us, so He gave us free will, but with that, He also lost control over our feelings for Him. (He knew that going in though. If we have free will, He can't force us to love Him) Everything He does, or has done since, is to get us back. If there was a world without evil, would we believe in Him? Would we love Him? Only He knows the answer to that, but I would suggest the answer is no. Otherwise, why wouldn't He remove evil?

And as per the Bible, as per the reason He created humans in His image within the book, was to have companionship. If He loses that companionship, He's defeated His own purpose, no? So if that was the first and only goal behind 'creating' humans, why would He then turn around and ignore His goal?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

Interesting Newsweek poll.

Do you believe in God? Yes:91% No:6%

Also the Evolution question:

That poll is almost enough to make me puke.

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

That poll is almost enough to make me puke.

hmmmm... why's that?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

hmmmm... why's that?

It says that 48% of Americans believe that God created humans pretty much in their present form within the last 10 000 years.

[calgaryrocks]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

It says that 48% of Americans believe that God created humans pretty much in their present form within the last 10 000 years.

so?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by calgaryrocks

so?

Did you read the rest of this thread? I think my opinion on the matter is pretty clear.

[SoCalFlamesFan]

Originally Posted by calgaryrocks

so?

Um. Well science proves otherwise. Even if you discount human evolution, skeletal remains of humans much older than 10,000 years have been found and carbon dated. Modern Humans existed in Europe 40,000 years ago according to those records. Homo Sapiens probably came into existence at least 100,000 years ago... 90,000 years ago modern humans were moving into Asia. Gosh, modern humans lived right here in Calgary more than 10,000 years ago.

And… the bible is not all of human history, yet obviously almost half of all Americans think it is. The bible is the history (loosely anyway) of only one group of people, today called the Jews. It seems ignorant to think that all of human history can be represented by stats cultivated from the bible, most books of which were only written 2,500 to 2,200 years ago.

[Burninator]

"We succeeded in taking that picture [from deep space], and, if you look at it, you see a dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever lived, lived out their lives. The aggregate of all our joys and sufferings, thousands of confident religions, ideologies and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilizations, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every hopeful child, every mother and father, every inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every superstar, every supreme leader, every saint and sinner in the history of our species, lived there on a mote of dust, suspended in a sunbeam.

The earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena. Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that in glory and in triumph they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot. Think of the endless cruelties visited by the inhabitants of one corner of the dot on scarcely distinguishable inhabitants of some other corner of the dot. How frequent their misunderstandings, how eager they are to kill one another, how fervent their hatreds. Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the universe, are challenged by this point of pale light. Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity -- in all this vastness -- there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves. It is up to us. It's been said that astronomy is a humbling, and I might add, a character-building experience. To my mind, there is perhaps no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world. To me, it underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly and compassionately with one another and to preserve and cherish that pale blue dot, the only home we've ever known." -Carl Sagan

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Whenever I look at pictures of outer space that show just how unbelievably huge the universe is and how insignificant we are, it floors me. Out of this massive universe of galaxies, planets, stars that we are the sole importance and occupants, is impossible to me. There must be other life out there, and to think we are wasting our time not finding it because we arguing and disputing about religion is sad. I cannot comprehend that some greater being created all this for one tiny planet. And the fact that 48% of a country which is about 175 million people in said country are sticking to their guns about something so archaic as the belief that humans were created 10,000 years ago makes me sad.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

It says that 48% of Americans believe that God created humans pretty much in their present form within the last 10 000 years.

To be fair, Newsweek has about as much Journalistic integrity as USA Today and the New York Post

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

To be fair, Newsweek has about as much Journalistic integrity as USA Today and the New York Post

Yeah I thought of that too. But they didn't do the survey and these "numbers" have been reported elsewhere. I hope they are wrong but I don't think so.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by NickYoung

Um. Well science proves otherwise. Even if you discount human evolution, skeletal remains of humans much older than 10,000 years have been found and carbon dated. Modern Humans existed in Europe 40,000 years ago according to those records. Homo Sapiens probably came into existence at least 100,000 years ago... 90,000 years ago modern humans were moving into Asia. Gosh, modern humans lived right here in Calgary more than 10,000 years ago.

And here I was under the impression that carbon dating could only be
used to measure things up to 5000 years old. Are you sure about your
facts?

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

It says that 48% of Americans believe that God created humans pretty much in their present form within the last 10 000 years.

48% of Americans is a pretty high number... my guess is that if you surveyed 10000 people in the SE United States, you might find that... if not more... but stats can say a lot, depending on who they asked.

Plus, I bet one could produce a statistic in which at least 48% of "Canadians" think the capital of Australia is Sydney. Its a meaningless stat, but if someone with an agenda of boosting education was able to get that result, they might try to run with it to prove their point.

FYI, Burninator... even if that stat is accurate (which I highly doubt) 48% of the US population is 145 million, not 175 million. 30 million is a big difference. (US est. pop: 301.4m)

Also, if you notice, most non-evangelicals were a lot more open about science... Most Catholics and Non-Evangelical Protestants believed that evolution explains the "how" in God's plan, as well, a majority of Catholics and N.E. Protestants believed that the science of evolution was sound.

Anyway, my points are as follows...

I think these evangelicals are whackjobs... and nothing more. I think they give moderate christianity a bad name, and fuel to the fire of some "atheist zealots" who seem obsessed on disproving any and all forms of religion, despite their inherent upside to society... (this isn't a shot at all atheists, but some, who like the lunatic fringe of Christianity, seem hellbent on disproving any belief but their own). I also find it funny that many of these "atheist zealots" are those who defend other lifestyle choices like homosexuality... which seems a little hypocritical, since attacking another person's choice of lifestyle, in this case religion, seems to be their modus operandi. (Note: I am not opposed to homosexuality)

To me, a "liberal atheist" would be akin to a true libertarian... they really don't care what anyone else believes, they believe there is no deity or deities, and that is their right. They'd expect their right respected, but would NOT actively oppose other beliefs, since they do not concern them, and since their individual right is protected.

I'm fairly agnostic, though I admittedly have a soft spot for liberal, contextual Christianity. I believe in people's right to practice whatever religion they want, including loony evangelicalism, voodoo, or even atheism, I could care less... I draw the line when they attempt to influence society. Having separate schools is not an example of influencing society though. The radical christian right is getting perilously close to this, and this is not a good thing. If I was an American voter today, despite my centre-right leaning, I would vote Democrat for that reason.

However, the argument the extreme christian right can successfully make is that secularism and atheism have attempted to root out christianity from the history books and almost make it taboo, forcing a more hardcore stand from those who refuse to adapt.

I'm more in the middle... I believe in total religious freedom, but at the same time, recognize that Canada (and the United States) were founded by Western Judeo-Christian culture and tradition, and that, whether one approves or disapproves, must recognize their positive (and negative) contributions to the nation(s) and allow them their traditional place in the lives of those who choose it. Even if Jesus never existed, the New Testament has value in its contextual teachings, just like how Santa Claus has meaning, despite his obvious non-existence.

Sadly, there are a lot of these evangelicals in the US, and a concerning amount up here too.

Phew, rant over.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

And here I was under the impression that carbon dating could only be
used to measure things up to 5000 years old. Are you sure about your
facts?

You are under the wrong impression.

[KevanGuy]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

And here I was under the impression that carbon dating could only be
used to measure things up to 5000 years old. Are you sure about your
facts?

Not sure where you got that impression:

Scientists can use different chemicals for absolute dating:

• The best-known absolute dating technique is carbon-14 dating, which archaeologists prefer to use. However, the half-life of carbon-14 is only 5730 years, so the method cannot be used for materials older than about 70,000 years.

http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/benton.html

At about 50 - 60 000 years, then, the limit of the technique is reached (beyond this time, other radiometric techniques must be used for dating).

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

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

48% of Americans is a pretty high number... my guess is that if you surveyed 10000 people in the SE United States, you might find that... if not more... but stats can say a lot, depending on who they asked.

Plus, I bet one could produce a statistic in which at least 48% of "Canadians" think the capital of Australia is Sydney. Its a meaningless stat, but if someone with an agenda of boosting education was able to get that result, they might try to run with it to prove their point.

.

It's also worth mentioning that the U.S. is the Mecca for protestant evangelism. While 48% is a large number, I would expect that when looking at Judeo-Christian Western Civilization as a whole, that is probably the highest number you'd see anywhere. Do this same survey in most predominantly Christian countries, and I would bet the numbers would be much less.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by KevanGuy

Not sure where you got that impression:

Scientists can use different chemicals for absolute dating:

• The best-known absolute dating technique is carbon-14 dating, which archaeologists prefer to use. However, the half-life of carbon-14 is only 5730 years, so the method cannot be used for materials older than about 70,000 years.

http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/benton.html

At about 50 - 60 000 years, then, the limit of the technique is reached (beyond this time, other radiometric techniques must be used for dating).

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

I don't believe Scientist are anywhere near "absolute dating" as you
call it. All the methods used are based on assumptions. The link below identifies three assumptions that have to be made in order to 'believe"
the accuracy of these dating methods: 1. The intial condition of the subject 2. The system has been closed(no change to its enviroment)
3. The radioactive decay rate has remained constant.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/crea...adioactive.asp

I could find many examples of failures using carbon 14 dating because
it has been used on objects we can date historically. Presumably the cause has been enviromental contamination. Yet it is assumed that these other methods which can't be verified are reliable.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

I don't believe Scientist are anywhere near "absolute dating" as you
call it. All the methods used are based on assumptions. The link below identifies three assumptions that have to be made in order to 'believe"
the accuracy of these dating methods: 1. The intial condition of the subject 2. The system has been closed(no change to its enviroment)
3. The radioactive decay rate has remained constant.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/crea...adioactive.asp

I could find many examples of failures using carbon 14 dating because
it has been used on objects we can date historically. Presumably the cause has been enviromental contamination. Yet it is assumed that these other methods which can't be verified are reliable.

Ah creationist science.

The fact of the matter is, at least researchers are applying a scientific method to attempt to figure things out, rather than relying on belief, they rely on proof.

Carbon dating is the best we have at the moment, and as technology increases, so will accuracy.

As well, whether or not there are cases of mis-dating because of environmental contamination, there are cases where even accounting for a lapse within a certain amount of time, the dating has been found to be much older than 5,000 years.

For god sakes, even without carbon dating, it can be proven that certain cultures date back well over 5,000 years, ie the Gradesnica Plaque, dating to 7,000 years ago. There have been records of time well before the current estimations based on what is written in the bible, taken into account by cultures other than in the middle east.

Sometimes I think people forget the rest of the world existed as well.

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

It says that 48% of Americans believe that God created humans pretty much in their present form within the last 10 000 years.

well, 48% does seem a bit high... might be skewed by the inherit inacurracy of these types of polls. leading questions, lazy surveyors, respondants that truely don't care, the difficulty of trying to stuff your beliefs on this into one of 3 fairly narrow categories, improper sample size, skewed demographic, etc, etc... there's a million and one possible reasons why this number might be off.

even still, even if this was an accurate representation... who cares? personally, i'm not troubled if the person who serves me coffee believes we were created exactly as we are today or if the guy that sweeps the hallway thinks the earth is flat.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Ah creationist science.

The fact of the matter is, at least researchers are applying a scientific method to attempt to figure things out, rather than relying on belief, they rely on proof.

Carbon dating is the best we have at the moment, and as technology increases, so will accuracy.

Yes it is and it is faulty. Furthermore these techniques used for dating
supposedly much older objects have know way to be tested for accuracy.
We don't know the original condition of the subject and enviroment; We don't know if the enviroment has stayed constant over the years.; We don't know if the decay rate has remained constant.

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

As well, whether or not there are cases of mis-dating because of environmental contamination, there are cases where even accounting for a lapse within a certain amount of time, the dating has been found to be much older than 5,000 years.

Actually where contamination occurs the dates jump drastically. The closer the contamination occurs to the original age of the subject the greater the numbers would likely be skewed. Also, enviromental contamination would most likely occur early in the subjects existance if it occured.

Could objects found to be much older than 5000 years demonstrate this early contamination? Or could they represent a false hypothesis concerning what the original subject looked like?

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

even without carbon dating, it can be proven that certain cultures date back well over 5,000 years, ie the Gradesnica Plaque, dating to 7,000 years ago. There have been records of time well before the current estimations based on what is written in the bible, taken into account by cultures other than in the middle east.

Was this plaque dated using the techniques we've been discussing or does it show a time line that would go back 7000 years? You know like a list of kings with the number of years they reigned or something?

[photon]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

I don't believe Scientist are anywhere near "absolute dating" as you
call it. All the methods used are based on assumptions. The link below identifies three assumptions that have to be made in order to 'believe"
the accuracy of these dating methods: 1. The intial condition of the subject 2. The system has been closed(no change to its enviroment)
3. The radioactive decay rate has remained constant.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/crea...adioactive.asp

I could find many examples of failures using carbon 14 dating because
it has been used on objects we can date historically. Presumably the cause has been enviromental contamination. Yet it is assumed that these other methods which can't be verified are reliable.

Radio carbon dating has been tested and is accurate. It has been calibrated with many different things that we know the age of. Tree ring data for example (which gives a nearly exact calendar for more than 11,000 years back), and historical objects where the age is known like the Dead Sea scrolls, wood from Egyptian tombs, etc. It is also consistent with other forms of dating. C-14 dating has been calibrated to 30,000 years by using uranium-thorium dating of corals, to 45,000 yeas ago by using lead-thorium dates of glacial lake varve sediments, and to 50,000 years ago using ocean cores from the Cariaco Basin which have been calibrated to the annual layers of the Greenland Ice Sheet. Care to explain how all of these unrelated methods can all produce consistent dates independantly?

1. They've known since 1969 that the dating has to be calibrated for the initial condition of the subject. So they calibrate it by determining the C-14/C-12 ratios at various times in the past.

2. No system is closed (even in a perfect lab condition), so scientists don't just assume the system is closed.

• Many rocks approximate a closed system so closely that various radiometric dating methods produce results to within 1% of each other. Just because some rocks may not be "closed", that doesn't mean none of them are.
• When testing a rock, if they test multiple minerals and they all agree within a few percent, the rock isn't contaminated. It's unlikely that multiple minerals are contaminated in different ways that all happen to come up at the exact same date.
• They go to great lengths to minimize the potential for contamination.
• They can use Isocron methods to find contamination. For example two isotopes of uranium decay into seperate isotopes of lead. In a closed system, plotting the ratio of the two different decay pairs will correlate. If it's contaminated, the plot will be off (since one ratio will differ from the other). http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/isochron-dating.html

3. Are you going to question gravity next? Or maybe the speed of light? Do you have anything to support an outrageous claim like "radioactive decay rate isn't consistent"? It's amazing to what lengths creationists will go to create FUD.

However, I will still answer it. Radioactive decay can be predicted from first principles from quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics is the most successful theory ever, your quality of life depends on it every single day.

For radioactive decay to change, fundumental constants of the universe would have to change. If they were changed to allow for a young earth with observed decay rates, then the earth would be a ball of molten slag due to heat.

Not only that, measurements of radioactive isotopes can be taken from supernovae and decay rates measured. Measurements from supernova SN1987A and SN1991T are consistent with current measurements, which means rates haven't changed for between 169,000 years and sixty million years, and even measurements from supernovae billions of years away show no change.

You make it sound like there's one or two scientists making all kinds of assumptions, when in reality there's hundreds of thousands of scientists from dozens of different disciplines (geology to astronomy to physics to biology to antropology) all testing these theories every single hour of every single day, trying to disprove them in any way they can (doing so would be an instant Nobel prize for some of them).