Evolution is Science, Creationists Delusional

reply to post by Barcs


So quick to judge.

I never claimed evolution didn't happen or darwins theory was wrong, I am the first to admit I had a fatal misunderstanding in the theory which was causing confusion for me. I have learned why my understanding was flawed, my education in evolutionary biology is minimal, and in the past couple years I've been much more interested in studying theology and Biblical academia, and notsomuch into Biology.....I apologize for being ignorant in a subject.....

I've been contemplating Theistic Evolution, and Darwins theory, and the current scientific theories for the past few months, and today a lot of things came together for me.....I can now say with 100% confidence I hold no view aside from Theistic Evolution....I am convinced OEC and YEC are not the correct versions of creationism, and I am also convinced science is telling us the truth of everything that happened.

Amen then

reply to post by Iason321


I gave you a star for your honesty. It takes a big person to admit mistakes, most people will not do it. You seem like a pretty rational person, so I apologize for my other responses to you nitpicking the baby ape / human thing. I have no problem at all with personal beliefs, I just hate seeing science misrepresented and try to correct those things as soon as I see em, you know?

Peace.

reply to post by Barcs


Definitely!

i am not just a believer of God, I am also a believer and crusader of Truth and knowledge!

I believe Jesus Christ is the way, the Truth, and the Life....

Anything being perceived as contradictory that the scientific world can prove to us, is only contradictory based on false interpretations of the Biblical texts...

Thanks and apology accepted, and I apologize for calling you a "jackaloon" in one of my replies to you, LOL!

Originally posted by theindependentjournal
reply to post by Yoda411

 

ROFLMAO... Thanks for putting it out like that, when you tell people that two rocks smashing together somehow makes ONE ROCK, well they know through a lifetime of throwing rocks that IT IS IMPOSSIBLE.

It's also impossible for someone who lacks the mental capacity to understand more complex concepts than they would care to take the time to event attempt to understand.

reply to post by Yoda411

The oldest hominid fossils are from Africa, dating 6 million years ago (Sahelanthropus tchadensis). This represents a split between apes and hominids. The earliest hominids could stand and walk upright. They were shorter, but had nicely developed knees that allowed the leg to straighten out fully.

baloney sandwich - "6 million year old fossil" - no such thing.

based on what - c14 dating?

tc.

Originally posted by edmc^2

baloney sandwich - "6 million year old fossil" - no such thing.

Because you're such an expert on fossils. Dinosaurs are less than 6,000 years old too, right?

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by edmc^2

baloney sandwich - "6 million year old fossil" - no such thing.

Because you're such an expert on fossils. Dinosaurs are less than 6,000 years old too, right?

Nope - not an expert - in fact it doesn't take an expert to spot an inaccurate statement.

And no - dinosaurs are a lot older than 6000 years - they are thousands of years - maybe more than 50k years. Man however according to known and verifiable irrefutable records is around 6,000 years old.

But since you're the expert - please tell me how did they determine that the so called "Sahelanthropus tchadensis" is around 6 million years old?

What dating method did they use to determine this?

C14 method?

tc.

reply to post by Yoda411

can you provide and present our missing link?

here is the closest the scientist have come...

(in which their science is based on theology and give birth to their quest)

en.wikipedia.org...


we're still waiting to see that chimp that turned into Cro-Magnons and Neanderthal... ect ect.

I saw a great quote recently by Penn Gillette. I'm usually not a huge fan of his as I think he's quite boorish. Just a personal thing. I'll bet he's a great guy if you know him...etc.

Anyway, I'm paraphrasing here but he gist of it is thus:
If all knowledge of religion and all knowledge of science were to disappear, eventually science would find its way back to the same conclusions. The same can't be said for religion.

Science keeps re-evaluating the data and forming conclusions based on available information. As more information becomes available, the conclusions change. For example: In the 60s we truly believe that the sauropod type dinosaurs were swamp/water dwelling to support their massive weight. As more fossils became available we found that they were able to thrive quite comfortably out of water. Modern paleontology espouses the idea that they were quite the opposite to 'swamp dwellers.' We learn. We change. We continue to search.
That search will continue to bring us back to the truth.

With religion we find that old ideas are clung to with blind fervour. When additional information becomes available, they will shoe-horn this information into vague references to make it fit with their credo. The Earth is only 4000 years old, according to some biblical scholars. When paleontology dates dinosaurs back millions of years, there's a sudden turn to "well, a day to God is not the same as a day to you..."
If all knowledge of religion were to disappear, there is no possible way that the same story would be reconstructed. They'd come up with something equally ridiculous, but it wouldn't be the same.

Originally posted by SisyphusRide
here is the closest the scientist have come...

(in which their science is based on theology and give birth to their quest)

en.wikipedia.org...

we're still waiting to see that chimp that turned into Cro-Magnons and Neanderthal... ect ect.

edit on 19-4-2012 by SisyphusRide because: (no reason given)

And evolutionists are still waiting to see some REAL evidence of god that is tangible, other then hearsay and words from a 2000 year old book.

Take the "Missing link" away and you are still left with millions upon millions of fact based studies that conclude we evolved over millions and millions of years.

Let my buddy Neil do the rest of the talking for me.

reply to post by Badgered1

yes but where did this science come from and what were the original questions posed...?

Originally posted by GR1ill3d
And evolutionists are still waiting to see some REAL evidence of god that is tangible, other then hearsay and words from a 2000 year old book.

and they will be burdened with the proof...

it is we the Theist which posed the question for the evolutionist.

the scientific method is not very old... Creationism goes to the dawn of written language and before on the other hand.

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

and I should remind every westerner here... it is the blood of Jesus Christ and the religious martyr's which let you do your research and pose questions against the establishment of truth and law.

Originally posted by SisyphusRide

Originally posted by GR1ill3d
And evolutionists are still waiting to see some REAL evidence of god that is tangible, other then hearsay and words from a 2000 year old book.

and they will be burdened with the proof...

it is we the Theist which posed the question for the evolutionist.

the scientific method is not very old... Creationism goes to the dawn of written language and before on the other hand.

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

and I should remind every westerner here... it is the blood of Jesus Christ and the religious martyr's which let you do your research and pose questions against the establishment of truth and law.

edit on 19-4-2012 by SisyphusRide because: (no reason given)

So because it's older, it makes it right? or better then the scientific way of doing things?

Without science, you would not have a car to drive, a phone to call people, a computer to post your creationist pseudo-science arguments. Without science and brilliant men like Charles Darwin, Leonardo Da Vinci, and countless others who challenged the church, out right defied them. We would very well be still sitting in the dark ages burning witches at the stake.

In fact some places still have these practices (only stoning is the preferred way of doing this).

I really hope you could watch the 5 minute video that I posted in my above post, maybe it will enlighten you and show how stupid of a "Designer" we really have.

I will not sit here and slander your religion, nor your way of thinking that some all mighty power made all of this just for us, on this little particle in the 14.5 billion year old universe with more stars in it then words that have been spoken by every human either living or dead.

I can only point you to facts and show you evidence, as you well have not.

reply to post by GR1ill3d

hell! I hardly made it thru the whole first line...

I like to keep it short direct and true, whilst keeping it based on known facts and in reality which is tendered with history.

I'll read it though

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

ps: you seem to be the one denying science and evolution for me? I never said I did... I only claimed evolution can not present nor provide the missing link.

reply to post by Yoda411

How do we know how old a fossil is?
Early geologists could date rock layers and their accompaning fossiles only in a relative way: Fossils found in deeper layers of rock were generally older than those found in shallower layers. With the discovery of radioactivity, it became possible to determine absolute dates, within certain limits. To determine absolute dates, scientists take advantage of their knowledge that the nuclei of radioactive elements spontaneously break down, or decay, into other elements.

Problem with this dating method is that it was meant for dating rock layers not "fossils".

Since the earth's strata or crust or rock layers are quite old, any so called "fossils" bracketed within these layers will reflect the age of that layer. Depending of course on how many recycle times the layers went through the age will vary - in the thousands all the way to millions of years.

As for the "fossil" - technically speaking it's NOT the actual (once living) organic material that's being dated but a copy of the specimen (the once living thing - be it a bone or a tree trunk). By means of a process called fossilization the "specimen" was replaced by minerals and in time turned into a hard material - a rock.

Using the radiometric dating - the long life radioactive isotopes present in rock layers are picked up and eventually used as the age of the so called "fossil".

So in reality it's the age of the rock that was dated, not the long gone - vaporized - once living organic material.

Thus it's NOT a surprise to hear reports like 6 million year old "fossil" because the rock is indeed that old.

Notice:

“Scientists can use different chemicals for absolute dating: · Radiometric dating involves the use of isotope series, such as rubidium/strontium, thorium/lead, potassium/argon, argon/argon, or uranium/lead, all of which have very long half-lives, ranging from 0.7 to 48.6 billion years. Subtle differences in the relative proportions of the two isotopes can give good dates for rocks of any age.

As for carbon dating - it's only accurate in the thousands of years due to the HALF-Life of carbon - excellent for dating organic materials like ancient artifacts and bones, tree rings, etc but not rock layers.

Notice:

“the half-life of carbon-14 is only 5730 years, so the method cannot be used for materials older than about 70,000 years”.

In short the two types of dating methodology mentioned above have their proper place. When used improperly to support something that it wasn't meant to - problem arises.

As for the following:

Organic Molecules Can Form Spontaneously under Prebiotic Conditions Inspired by the ideas of Oparin and Haldane, Stanley Miller and Harold Urey set out in 1953 to simulate prebiotic evolution in the laboratory. They knew that, on the basis of the chemical composition of the rocks that formed early in Earth's history, geochemists had concluded that the early atmosphere probably contained virtually no oxygen gas, but did contain other substances, including methane, ammonia, hydrogen, and water vapor. Miller and Urey simulated the oxygen-free atmosphere of early Earth by mixing these components in a flask. An electrical discharge mimicked the intense energy of early Earth's lightning storms. In this experimental microcosm, the researchers found that simple organic molecules appeared after just a few days.

If the earth's environment is the same as the conditions inside the experimental bottle then they might have a point. But as it turns out - the earth's environment - especially billions of years ago was chaotic and violent - according the same scientists. So there's no comparison

Besides, the environment inside the experimental "bottle" was controlled and monitored to prevent any disaster. It's also a close environment while the earth's was not. There's also radiation to deal with and other powerful environmental forces to deal with on earth while inside the bottle - it's all under control.

So if the premise or the basis of the OP hangs on these two factors - "Prebiotic Conditions" and the "fossil" record then it's a weak foundation - if not, not a foundation at all.

Edit:

Don't forget the important role of the people behind the experiment - without them the experiment will NOT work!

But evolutionist had eliminated any intelligence or guiding force when it comes to the real thing. They claim that life spontaneously appeared in the "Prebiotic Conditions". Something not possible in any experiment.



tc.

Originally posted by edmc^2
What dating method did they use to determine this?

If you honestly care, why didn't you track down the paper and check the materials & methods section? paper, another paper cited by the first, ..

p.s. at least one of the methods used was 40Ar/39Ar.

Originally posted by edmc^2
As for the "fossil" - technically speaking it's NOT the actual (once living) organic material that's being dated but a copy of the specimen (the once living thing - be it a bone or a tree trunk). By means of a process called fossilization the "specimen" was replaced by minerals and in time turned into a hard material - a rock.

Using the radiometric dating - the long life radioactive isotopes present in rock layers are picked up and eventually used as the age of the so called "fossil".

So in reality it's the age of the rock that was dated, not the long gone - vaporized - once living organic material.

Thus it's NOT a surprise to hear reports like 6 million year old "fossil" because the rock is indeed that old.

First of all, also organic material has been isolated from even dinosaur remains (proteins). Second, you acknowledge that the rock is indeed old, but why do you fail to realize that this implies that the fossil is at least as old as the rock it's formed from? I think even children are able to make such logical conclusions, but not you. No, it's beyond your intellectual abilities...

Originally posted by SisyphusRide
ps: you seem to be the one denying science and evolution for me? I never said I did... I only claimed evolution can not present nor provide the missing link.

Which 'missing link' are you talking about? Hundreds have been found, dozens alone in the human ancestry line.

Originally posted by Barcs

Originally posted by SisyphusRide
ps: you seem to be the one denying science and evolution for me? I never said I did... I only claimed evolution can not present nor provide the missing link.

Which 'missing link' are you talking about? Hundreds have been found, dozens alone in the human ancestry line.

edit on 20-4-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)

He's talking about the mythical missing link he heard about in Bible camp.