PROOF that Evolution is a Myth

[MagicallyAdept]

I haven't read the whole of this thread but it has gone from peanut butter to religion to carbon dating? Awesome.

The problem people have is trying to convert others to their way of thinking. Why can't people have differences but still get along?

I am not religious because i just cannot believe the stories. Too many flaws and plot holes and absence of Jack Bauer. Plus religion has been pretty much the cause of most wars.

Also how do we know about the laws of physics apart from what scientists have told us? They could have it all wrong but there theories just coincidently fit in with results at the moment. People thought the world was flat at one point.

[photon]

Originally Posted by MagicallyAdept

Also how do we know about the laws of physics apart from what scientists have told us? They could have it all wrong but there theories just coincidently fit in with results at the moment. People thought the world was flat at one point.

Of course, no scientist claims that any of our theories are anything more than a description of how we understand things. That's the whole point of science.

The point is science is self correcting; when someone comes along with a new theory, the new theory is tested and if it's better, it's adopted. Theories make predictions which are tested constantly, if a prediction is wrong then we know the theory is wrong or incomplete.

For example, we know that there's two theories to describe the universe.. General relativity for the big things, and quantum mechanics for the small things.. the problem is the two don't resolve to each other, so there's a fundamental need for a new theory which resolves the two with each other.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Yes it is and it is faulty.

Here's a question.. What piece of evidence would it take to convince you that the earth was older than 6000 years? Or that evolution is true? What piece of information, what data would be necessary.

[Burninator]

In regards to the polling of Americans and their thoughts of evolution/creationism, the number originally posted seems pretty accurate. This site gathers several polls here: Polling Report Science and Nature. The range of people believing in God creating us in present form is around the 45%-55% mark.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by photon

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?

Wow your giving me a lot to explain! Lets see Radio carbon dating has not been proved accurate. You've been lied to. Scientist routinely take multiply test samples and throw out those that are wild; In other words don't fit in to their time line. As far as these other technique go they are subjective as well. The Greenland ice sheet for instance doesn't have an annual layer of Ice but rather adds layers depending on the temperature fluctuations and moisture throughout the year. This supposed constant is far from constant. Objects found in the ice that we can date have shown this. I'm thinking of a plane in particular that went down in WW2 and was found under the ice. I'll look for the article. The point being that the dating techniques that can be verified have proven unreliable.

You also have to consider the possibility of the earth being created when looking at your data. If the world was created in a short period of time things like trees would have to been created in various stages of maturity. They are Dependant on each other. Other species are also Dependant on these various stages of maturity and on each other. Would a tree created without rings stand up in a wind? I remember hearing about a Japanese experiment to genetically alter a tree to grow square rather than round. The reason being less wood waste when milling boards. This experiment terminated because they discovered that square trees didn't stand up in the wind.( I know off topic but, I found it interesting)

Originally Posted by photon

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.

Which they surmise by looking at the layers of ice in Greenland or else ware and count each layer as one year. They have no way of knowing accurately what the C-14/C-12 ratios were 400 hundred years ago let alone 4000 years ago or beyond.

Originally Posted by photon

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

If environmental contamination has occurred it could be a localized event which multiply samples will detect or it could be a regional or even world wide event. These events wouldn't be identified by multiply samples because they would have effected all the samples equally. If one was to look they might find in such an instances large gaps in their time line with no apparent samples.

Originally Posted by photon

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.

Yup. Light has been recently shown to be slowing down and if I remember right gravity is weakening. Both were thought to be constants at one time. Now if the rate that gravity is weakening was a constant we could tell approximately how long the earth could harbor life. This wouldn't disprove Creation but it might alter the current time line of evolution. But of course we have no way of knowing if it has been consistently weakening. I'm not sure if there are any theories out there that explain why light is slowing down but, I'm sure if there is; they have just as much chance at being right as being wrong.

Regarding my "outrageous claim" I didn't say it wasn't a constant. I said we don't know. You don't know. We have only been observing it for a little over a hundred years. If you read my link(in the last post) it addressed the difficulty in making an assessment with such limited data. Who would have though light was slowing down a few years ago. We are still learning and part of that process is recognizing the fallibility of our own assumptions. Science needs to keep asking questions. The problem with the theory of evolution is that scientists have quit asking the questions and instead are giving the answers. Conclusions are fine but, not when they cease to be open to question the science has crossed the line into religion. Evidence of this can be found all over this board: Theories of creationists are mocked; There scientists are minimized; Motivations are imagined; Any links provided are disregarded because they use the word "creation" or "God".

This general behavior is akin to folks reaction to articles questioning the causes of global warming. The mantra is soon heard: " All the respected scientists agree" or "that scientist is being paid by big business". I was on a Christian message board yesterday in the cults section. Some fellow had started a thread called "the newest religion" . He suggested that environmentalism was the newest popular religion and that it was quickly sweeping the nation (He was from England). I didn't fully agree with him but, I did suggest some current growing religions that use environmentalism as a plank. Kind of like their gospel or purpose.

Evolution Isn't a religion in and of itself but, it is the gospel of the Atheists. Without Evolution Atheism would be much poorer. That is why it is defended so vigorously here and else ware. That is why contempt is found in so many posts. The atheist clings to the theory of evolution like I cling to the finished work of Jesus Christ. Unfortunately that means that many atheists become scientist and seek answers that work within their belief system. Conversely, they don't ask questions that jeopardize their world view and obviously are hostile to those questions them self and those who ask them.

You see Creation scientists as a fringe group of religious zealots that have exchanged their scientific integrity for a faith system. I see them as a group of men and women who have dared to think out of the box. They risk the monetary and public rewards of following the pack in order to ask questions that have been blacklisted by their peers.

[Bobblehead]

You are pretty quick to throw the, "You've been lied to." in there.

Would you care to substantiate your claim that scientists "routinely take multiply test samples and throw out those that are wild"? That sort of thing wouldn't pass peer review, so I'm curious about this happening "routinely".

And substantiation from a website that states "Upholding the authority of the bible from the very first verse" can hardly be considered unbiased.

[Kipper is King]

Evolution is a touchy topic, and so is religion. Let me state how I feel- these are my own thoughts and I hope I do not offend anyone. I certanly am not trying to.

I like science, and I think the scientific process makes sense. I also am a catholic. That being said, I don't think science and religion always have to clash with each other. Sometimes I think they can complement each other. What I mean is, why can't one say that evolution in fact did occur? The catch being that it occurred by the will of God?

[ernie]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

You are pretty quick to throw the, "You've been lied to." in there.

Would you care to substantiate your claim that scientists "routinely take multiply test samples and throw out those that are wild"? That sort of thing wouldn't pass peer review, so I'm curious about this happening "routinely".

And substantiation from a website that states "Upholding the authority of the bible from the very first verse" can hardly be considered unbiased.

I wish i could but, alas, I can not simply discard data because it doesn't look nice. Poor scientists do but not the good ones which makeup the large majority of the scientific world.

With a sufficiently large data set and rigorous statistical evaluation you may be able to discount or minimize some outliers but it's not like you can simply discard data you don't like or doesn't prove your point. In fact, the way science was taught to me was to pose what I thought was the solution or explanation and find any way possible to disprove it and invite others to do the same, in that way you build up evidence for your mechanism or model.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Wow your giving me a lot to explain! Lets see Radio carbon dating has not been proved accurate. You've been lied to. Scientist routinely take multiply test samples and throw out those that are wild; In other words don't fit in to their time line. As far as these other technique go they are subjective as well. The Greenland ice sheet for instance doesn't have an annual layer of Ice but rather adds layers depending on the temperature fluctuations and moisture throughout the year. This supposed constant is far from constant. Objects found in the ice that we can date have shown this. I'm thinking of a plane in particular that went down in WW2 and was found under the ice. I'll look for the article. The point being that the dating techniques that can be verified have proven unreliable.

You also have to consider the possibility of the earth being created when looking at your data. If the world was created in a short period of time things like trees would have to been created in various stages of maturity. They are Dependant on each other. Other species are also Dependant on these various stages of maturity and on each other. Would a tree created without rings stand up in a wind? I remember hearing about a Japanese experiment to genetically alter a tree to grow square rather than round. The reason being less wood waste when milling boards. This experiment terminated because they discovered that square trees didn't stand up in the wind.( I know off topic but, I found it interesting)




Which they surmise by looking at the layers of ice in Greenland or else ware and count each layer as one year. They have no way of knowing accurately what the C-14/C-12 ratios were 400 hundred years ago let alone 4000 years ago or beyond.

If environmental contamination has occurred it could be a localized event which multiply samples will detect or it could be a regional or even world wide event. These events wouldn't be identified by multiply samples because they would have effected all the samples equally. If one was to look they might find in such an instances large gaps in their time line with no apparent samples.



Yup. Light has been recently shown to be slowing down and if I remember right gravity is weakening. Both were thought to be constants at one time. Now if the rate that gravity is weakening was a constant we could tell approximately how long the earth could harbor life. This wouldn't disprove Creation but it might alter the current time line of evolution. But of course we have no way of knowing if it has been consistently weakening. I'm not sure if there are any theories out there that explain why light is slowing down but, I'm sure if there is; they have just as much chance at being right as being wrong.

Regarding my "outrageous claim" I didn't say it wasn't a constant. I said we don't know. You don't know. We have only been observing it for a little over a hundred years. If you read my link(in the last post) it addressed the difficulty in making an assessment with such limited data. Who would have though light was slowing down a few years ago. We are still learning and part of that process is recognizing the fallibility of our own assumptions. Science needs to keep asking questions. The problem with the theory of evolution is that scientists have quit asking the questions and instead are giving the answers. Conclusions are fine but, not when they cease to be open to question the science has crossed the line into religion. Evidence of this can be found all over this board: Theories of creationists are mocked; There scientists are minimized; Motivations are imagined; Any links provided are disregarded because they use the word "creation" or "God".

This general behavior is akin to folks reaction to articles questioning the causes of global warming. The mantra is soon heard: " All the respected scientists agree" or "that scientist is being paid by big business". I was on a Christian message board yesterday in the cults section. Some fellow had started a thread called "the newest religion" . He suggested that environmentalism was the newest popular religion and that it was quickly sweeping the nation (He was from England). I didn't fully agree with him but, I did suggest some current growing religions that use environmentalism as a plank. Kind of like their gospel or purpose.

Evolution Isn't a religion in and of itself but, it is the gospel of the Atheists. Without Evolution Atheism would be much poorer. That is why it is defended so vigorously here and else ware. That is why contempt is found in so many posts. The atheist clings to the theory of evolution like I cling to the finished work of Jesus Christ. Unfortunately that means that many atheists become scientist and seek answers that work within their belief system. Conversely, they don't ask questions that jeopardize their world view and obviously are hostile to those questions them self and those who ask them.

You see Creation scientists as a fringe group of religious zealots that have exchanged their scientific integrity for a faith system. I see them as a group of men and women who have dared to think out of the box. They risk the monetary and public rewards of following the pack in order to ask questions that have been blacklisted by their peers.

I'd like to know where it was that you read that light was slowing down and that gravity was decreasing (I assume you mean the gravitational constant). Cause those both seem like things I would have heard about. You know, cause they kind of affect the very fabric of the universe, so if they were happening, some physicists may have made a bit of a stink about it.

Edit: Allright, with a quick google search I did find some stuff on this, but so far it would seem to be a completely unsubstantiated theory. Far from the fact that you present it to be.

Another Edit: Hmmmm, it appears that all of the sites I could find that actualy advocated this theory were creationist websites, and none of them seemed to have doctors with any respectable credentials. So if you know of any astrophysicists that are willing to back this up (a like would be nice), I'd sure like to see it.

[Burninator]

Calgaryborn since you seem to be in the creationist camp and talking science, do you have evidence that backs up the creationist theory? And I mean real evidence by real scientists. Simply poking holes in evolution and carbon dating isn't evidence of creation. I ask this because the evidence I see from creationists is "no life in a peanut butter jar, the banana, and that the grand canyon was formed in a couple days" this "evidence" is not scientific in any way.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

You've been lied to.

Okay, but why? Who is behind this enormous conspiracy and what do they get out of it?

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Scientist routinely take multiply test samples and throw out those that are wild

If a decent scientist came up with credible proof that the theory of evolution is wrong he wouldn't throw it in the garbage. Why would he? Why do you think they work that way? It would be the discovery of a lifetime, not something to just ignore.

Do you work in a laboratory and see scientists routinely throwing out test samples that are wild? Do you know scientists who tell you that they get rid of evidence that doesn't fit a pre-determined outcome? If not, how do you know they do this?

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Burninator

Calgaryborn since you seem to be in the creationist camp and talking science, do you have evidence that backs up the creationist theory? And I mean real evidence by real scientists. Simply poking holes in evolution and carbon dating isn't evidence of creation. I ask this because the evidence I see from creationists is "no life in a peanut butter jar, the banana, and that the grand canyon was formed in a couple days" this "evidence" is not scientific in any way.

Please understand I've got a limited amount of time to post here. The only reason I'm not working today is that my two boys have a stomach flu. I find it frustrating that every time I join one of these on going discussions attacking Creation or attempting to shore up the theory of evolution I'm hit with several questions at once mingled with misrepresentations of my statements and such. Since my last post I've feed the one boy lunch only to have him spew it all over the living room. Needless to say I'm not having a good day.

Regarding your question about evidence: I see the evidence for a young earth as more compelling that that of an old earth. But, certainly I'm not familiar with all the evidence on either side. I believe from what I have and heard and read that neither side should be claiming absolute proof. Both theories have some sound arguments and other areas they can't explain as of yet. Again as I've said before scientists are at their best when they are asking questions rather than trying to prove their answers. Unfortunately human nature tends to gravitate us to wards proving our answers. That's why good science a discipline that not everyone masters.

As for some proofs I will refer you to the below site. I left it on a page which lists some scientist who accepts the young earth theory. At the top of the page there is a question and answer box. Scroll down to "Young Age Evidence and click. You can pick the article based on the author. Sometimes if you click on the authors name it will give you a brief
bio on the author including his/her education.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/

Also I seen pictures of fossilized trees in the Grand Canyon that extend though several layers of rock. This could not occurred if these layers were more than a few years different in age because of the erosion the tree would have been exposed to. It would make sense if sediment from a flood caused these layers of material though. I believe this same phenomenon has been witness in our time after Mount Saint Hellens erupted in the 70s. I remember a lot of excitement over what was discovered to happen in the flooding caused by that volcano. It was a geologist wet dream, so to speak.

[troutman]

The Age of the Earth FAQs:

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-youngearth.html

[photon]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Wow your giving me a lot to explain! Lets see Radio carbon dating has not been proved accurate. You've been lied to. Scientist routinely take multiply test samples and throw out those that are wild; In other words don't fit in to their time line. As far as these other technique go they are subjective as well. The Greenland ice sheet for instance doesn't have an annual layer of Ice but rather adds layers depending on the temperature fluctuations and moisture throughout the year. This supposed constant is far from constant. Objects found in the ice that we can date have shown this. I'm thinking of a plane in particular that went down in WW2 and was found under the ice. I'll look for the article. The point being that the dating techniques that can be verified have proven unreliable.

So the foundation of your claim that carbon dating is not accurate is scientists go against their own basic tenants, the things that made them scientists to begin with, and throw data out when it isn't convenient to them?

Sorry, but you demonstrate a failure to understand science. What you claim isn't possible. A scientist CAN'T LIE! They can try, but if they falsify results in a published work, they risk their career, plus since the whole work is published (all tests, all measurements, everything is transparent), eventually it will come out. A person going over the data will discover the false data, it has happened before.

How can you call all of the different radiometric dating processes "subjective" when they all independantly agree? You'll have to provide more detail than simply saying it. And I only gave a few examples. Another is islands formed by volcanic activity are dated and they correlate with the expected dates due to the the movement of the tectonic plate. Milankovitch cycles which depend only on things like the precession of the earth's tilt and orbital eccentricity. Plus others I don't even understand like luminescence dating.

When ALL of these things are tested independantly and agree, you can either conclude that it's an accurate depiction of reality, or you can believe there's a conspiracy to falsify the information. But then you aren't saying it's inaccurate based on evidence, but based on faith that since the evidence disagrees with what you want to believe, there must be some reason, however improbable, that the evidence is wrong.

As for the plane on Greenland, that's nothing more than wishful thinking.

http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/k...tin_comedy.htm

You also have to consider the possibility of the earth being created when looking at your data. If the world was created in a short period of time things like trees would have to been created in various stages of maturity. They are Dependant on each other. Other species are also Dependant on these various stages of maturity and on each other. Would a tree created without rings stand up in a wind? I remember hearing about a Japanese experiment to genetically alter a tree to grow square rather than round. The reason being less wood waste when milling boards. This experiment terminated because they discovered that square trees didn't stand up in the wind.( I know off topic but, I found it interesting)

See now that's a reasonable idea. That's true, if God did create the earth with fully grown trees, animals etc then one could propose they'd have their rings, belly buttons, and whatever else they needed.

So would you also say then that God created everything that way? Created everything to give the illusion that it is billions of years old? He presumably created the light between the stars, created stars that looked billions of years old (since they're at the end of their life span and ready to go or have just gone supernova). Did he also setup the ratios of radioactive isotops so that no matter what way it was looked at it appeared very old? Did he create the sediment layers that span 20 million years of visible uninterrupted history to look that way? Did he pre-sort the fossil record when creating the earth so the order they appear supports evolution?

If he did all these things, are you saying God created it all so that we would have to choose between scientific observation and faith in the literal interpretation of the creation story (which many Christians do not believe as literal)?

If environmental contamination has occurred it could be a localized event which multiply samples will detect or it could be a regional or even world wide event. These events wouldn't be identified by multiply samples because they would have effected all the samples equally. If one was to look they might find in such an instances large gaps in their time line with no apparent samples.

So there was some unknown magical event that contaminated all rocks (surface and inside the earth), altered tectonic plate movement, altered the ratio of radioactive substances in all rocks (not just one substance, multiple substances in the same rock, altered in different ways), all of these errors in the precise amount to alter the readings by the same amounts?

You can't falsify a theory just by making up things that might go against it. For that kind of claim, you'll have to provide some evidence of such an event.

Yup. Light has been recently shown to be slowing down and if I remember right gravity is weakening. Both were thought to be constants at one time. Now if the rate that gravity is weakening was a constant we could tell approximately how long the earth could harbor life. This wouldn't disprove Creation but it might alter the current time line of evolution. But of course we have no way of knowing if it has been consistently weakening. I'm not sure if there are any theories out there that explain why light is slowing down but, I'm sure if there is; they have just as much chance at being right as being wrong.

Lol.. again, you'll have to provide evidence for these things, imagining something doesn't equal evidence.

I've heard the idea that gravity is weakening before, though no one has been able to test for it yet or come up with evidence (you would be able to see it in early galaxies, they would rotate at higher rates but we don't see that).

For light, I assume you're talking about "c-decay" (for those who want to Google it). While interesting, it doesn't fit with observations. If light from supernova SN1987A left it at much higher than c and has slowed since then to the c we now see, we would see the supernova in slow motion. Plus they were able to calculate the half-life of cobolt-56 and cobolt-57 from the supernova, and both values match exactly what we observe on earth. You could again question the rates of decay, but I suggest you read this, it explains why that would do you no good:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovi...od-add.html#A6

"Regarding my "outrageous claim" I didn't say it wasn't a constant. I said we don't know. You don't know. We have only been observing it for a little over a hundred years. If you read my link(in the last post) it addressed the difficulty in making an assessment with such limited data. Who would have though light was slowing down a few years ago. We are still learning and part of that process is recognizing the fallibility of our own assumptions. Science needs to keep asking questions.

We have data from far far into the past.. either 15 billion years in the past, or if you believe in c-decay despite there being little evidence for it and much against, at the very least 6000 years into the past.

The problem with the theory of evolution is that scientists have quit asking the questions and instead are giving the answers. Conclusions are fine but, not when they cease to be open to question the science has crossed the line into religion.

No one has stopped asking questions. More quesitons have been asked of evolution in the past 10 years than the time before that to Darwin.

Evidence of this can be found all over this board: Theories of creationists are mocked; There scientists are minimized; Motivations are imagined; Any links provided are disregarded because they use the word "creation" or "God".

They are mocked not because they have a different theory, but because they have a theory that has no evidence. The only motivations imagined are the ones you imagine when you see tens of thousands of scientists all falsifying their data every day.

[photon]

Evolution Isn't a religion in and of itself but, it is the gospel of the Atheists. Without Evolution Atheism would be much poorer. That is why it is defended so vigorously here and else ware. That is why contempt is found in so many posts. The atheist clings to the theory of evolution like I cling to the finished work of Jesus Christ. Unfortunately that means that many atheists become scientist and seek answers that work within their belief system. Conversely, they don't ask questions that jeopardize their world view and obviously are hostile to those questions them self and those who ask them.

Yet the majority of Christians don't have a problem with evolution, so your claim that evolution is the gospel of the atheists rings hollow. Worldwide, Christians in general have no problem with evolution.

This is the foundation of your problem with evolution, and you project it into everyone else. Because you are a sane person, you cannot at the same time believe that the Bible is inerrant and believe in evolution, the two describe seperate realities and you have to choose which one best describes the one you live in. Then you discount evidence that goes against it, waiting for further evidence that will eventually justify your view. That's dogma.

Scientists on the other hand are fully willing to completely abandon their world view in favor of one that better describes reality. They've done it all throughout history.

So while religion was busy monitoring people so they didn't blaspheme to try and stop the plague, science was fully prepared to change to germ theory. When the church was killing people for summoning thunderstorms or causing droughts (they're obviously witches), science easily changed as the science behind climate became more understood.

You see Creation scientists as a fringe group of religious zealots that have exchanged their scientific integrity for a faith system. I see them as a group of men and women who have dared to think out of the box. They risk the monetary and public rewards of following the pack in order to ask questions that have been blacklisted by their peers.

I see them as a group who have accepted one thing as fact (a young earth) based on faith, then search for anything to find holes in the theories that go against that. If they spent time actually doing research... Falsifying a theory with new data is a GOOD THING and they will be rewarded, because it advances understanding! Like I said, they'd probably win a Nobel Prize for it.

[photon]

And I can appreciate if you don't want to do a full reply, there's a lot of info.

However if you do choose to reply to one question, make it the one I asked previously: What evidence would convince you that the earth is much older than 6000 years? What would it take to change your mind?

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by photon

And I can appreciate if you don't want to do a full reply, there's a lot of info.

However if you do choose to reply to one question, make it the one I asked previously: What evidence would convince you that the earth is much older than 6000 years? What would it take to change your mind?

Well theoretically, the earth would be very close to 7000 years old according to creation. Not to nitpick or anything...

[Sainters7]

Originally Posted by MagicallyAdept

I am not religious because i just cannot believe the stories. Too many flaws and plot holes and absence of Jack Bauer. Plus religion has been pretty much the cause of most wars.

Also how do we know about the laws of physics apart from what scientists have told us? They could have it all wrong but there theories just coincidently fit in with results at the moment. People thought the world was flat at one point.

I truly believe what you have just stated is the reason for this somewhat sudden mass shift away from secular belief. I think 9/11 really demonstrated to the Western public just how much damage fanatic support of a religion can lead to.

When you watch movies from 20, even 10 years ago, there seems to be alot more closer ties with Christianity. Even in Ghostbusters, the contents of the Bible is mentioned, and how this may be what is happening with all the ghosts being released. As well as the mayor of New York City in the movie seeking the council of the arch-bishop on what to make of the matter. I really doubt youd see that in a movie now.

[AC]

I'm actually quite surprised by the number of people who don't accept Evolution as fact nowadays.

I can understand accepting it while encorporating it into one's religious beliefs... but the idea that people still flat out deny it really boggles my mind.

[AC]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

You see Creation scientists as a fringe group of religious zealots that have exchanged their scientific integrity for a faith system. I see them as a group of men and women who have dared to think out of the box. They risk the monetary and public rewards of following the pack in order to ask questions that have been blacklisted by their peers.

Wait, what?

You realize when Evolution was first proposed and for years and years afterwards it was 'out of the box' thinking given the stranglehold that religion had on the scientific community in regards to free thinking.

The very concept of asking questions that would disagree with the religious stance was considered 'blacklisted'.

Clinging onto Creationism as an explanation for the world is akin to maintaining that the world is actually flat. Sure it takes guts, but it also take a complete blind eye to science and logic.