Evolution and Anti-Science

[Romjacks]

Just some food for thought, letting my mind wander. If you can answer it, that's fine. The hostility is getting a little high in here, I'm going to try to relax.

I was just thinking...
If God created man in His image, and God came to Earth in the flesh as Jesus Christ; the body of a man, then how can God be telling the truth that we were created in His image if we were just the result of millions/billions of years of evolution?

Even if God put a soul in man when they got to a certain point, then why does God say that he created us in His image?

Then again, God is spirit, so it's possible that he created us in a moral image... But I don't get how the beast of the earth and the foul of the air and the rest of the animals' origin could be explained, especially since they were made out of the water and the earth...  

[Romjacks]

Obviously neither side has made much progress, and it's turned into a war of confusion that cannot be resolved because neither of us likes each other's definition of what evolution is (or you just call me anti-science, no biggie). I'll concede this one, not because I'm wrong or not, but because I'm a little sick of the things that come out of certain contraversial topics like this. I'm not changing my viewpoint; call me ignorant all you want. I'm just sick of the topic. I have my own clan to run, I have exams to write, I'm working on a game project, and this kind of debate takes up way too much of my time.

You've made your points, and I've made mine. But this time I'll choose to live in my "ignorance."

God bless.  

[Fushigi na Butterfly]

This is the point where I find the two theories work together. God did create us in His image. Whether prehistoric man finally got to Adam and Eve after "five other days" or He just plopped us here makes no difference to me. I think we were made spiritually in His image- made by Him, for Him, to be loved by Him. The other animals were also created by God. It may have been a spontaneous thing or it may have taken some time. But only the guiding hand of a creative Architect could have come up with something so complex as our world.

I'm sorry you're leaving the discussion though. Even if things feel a little hostile, no one's intentionally attacking you- just your claims. This is a discussion guild, and it's likely this topic will come up again. The point isn't to prove anyone right or wrong, it's to learn other viewpoints and get something out of it. 3nodding So I hope you'll add more.  

[zz1000zz]

Spike Zantren

Obviously neither side has made much progress, and it's turned into a war of confusion that cannot be resolved because neither of us likes each other's definition of what evolution is (or you just call me anti-science, no biggie). I'll concede this one, not because I'm wrong or not, but because I'm a little sick of the things that come out of certain contraversial topics like this. I'm not changing my viewpoint; call me ignorant all you want. I'm just sick of the topic. I have my own clan to run, I have exams to write, I'm working on a game project, and this kind of debate takes up way too much of my time.

You've made your points, and I've made mine. But this time I'll choose to live in my "ignorance."

God bless.

This is such nonsense. You intentionally sabotaged the discussion, then you say you will leave because it has become a "war of confusion." The only "war of confusion" has been that caused by your repeated false claims and dishonesty.

Personally, I think this topic was a waste, which I anticipated from the beginning. I have no problem with discussing the relationship between science and religion (I do so on a regular basis), but fundamentalism relies so much on dishonesty I do not expect a fundamentalist to participate in an open and honest discussion.

As I said, making this topic was kind of silly.  

[Priestley]

zz1000zz

Spike Zantren

Obviously neither side has made much progress, and it's turned into a war of confusion that cannot be resolved because neither of us likes each other's definition of what evolution is (or you just call me anti-science, no biggie). I'll concede this one, not because I'm wrong or not, but because I'm a little sick of the things that come out of certain contraversial topics like this. I'm not changing my viewpoint; call me ignorant all you want. I'm just sick of the topic. I have my own clan to run, I have exams to write, I'm working on a game project, and this kind of debate takes up way too much of my time.

You've made your points, and I've made mine. But this time I'll choose to live in my "ignorance."

God bless.

This is such nonsense. You intentionally sabotaged the discussion, then you say you will leave because it has become a "war of confusion." The only "war of confusion" has been that caused by your repeated false claims and dishonesty.

Personally, I think this topic was a waste, which I anticipated from the beginning. I have no problem with discussing the relationship between science and religion (I do so on a regular basis), but fundamentalism relies so much on dishonesty I do not expect a fundamentalist to participate in an open and honest discussion.

As I said, making this topic was kind of silly.

The thread was a waste if your purpose was solely to try to get a specific someone to see some sense, but I personally learnt a lot from the discussion just by reading and watching. I took something away that has bettered me and, for that reason, I dont think it was a waste. smile  

[zz1000zz]

Priestley

zz1000zz

Spike Zantren

Obviously neither side has made much progress, and it's turned into a war of confusion that cannot be resolved because neither of us likes each other's definition of what evolution is (or you just call me anti-science, no biggie). I'll concede this one, not because I'm wrong or not, but because I'm a little sick of the things that come out of certain contraversial topics like this. I'm not changing my viewpoint; call me ignorant all you want. I'm just sick of the topic. I have my own clan to run, I have exams to write, I'm working on a game project, and this kind of debate takes up way too much of my time.

You've made your points, and I've made mine. But this time I'll choose to live in my "ignorance."

God bless.

This is such nonsense. You intentionally sabotaged the discussion, then you say you will leave because it has become a "war of confusion." The only "war of confusion" has been that caused by your repeated false claims and dishonesty.

Personally, I think this topic was a waste, which I anticipated from the beginning. I have no problem with discussing the relationship between science and religion (I do so on a regular basis), but fundamentalism relies so much on dishonesty I do not expect a fundamentalist to participate in an open and honest discussion.

As I said, making this topic was kind of silly.

The thread was a waste if your purpose was solely to try to get a specific someone to see some sense, but I personally learnt a lot from the discussion just by reading and watching. I took something away that has bettered me and, for that reason, I dont think it was a waste. smile

It was a waste for the primary participants. Other people can still benefit from it.  

[Fushigi na Butterfly]

Well, what were you hoping to get out of it then? confused I know I learned alot from it.  

[zz1000zz]

Fushigi na Butterfly

Well, what were you hoping to get out of it then? confused I know I learned alot from it.

There was that silly hope that perhaps a fundamentalist would actually participate in an open and honest discussion.

I guess I am just a dreamer.  

[Priestley]

I think it's important to note that no one knows what God looks like. We assume that we are similar to God in the way we look, that is, we assume God used Himself as a template for creating us or how we have ended up looking. It makes me wonder if any other sentient species would draw the same conclusion about themselves, in which case it is sentience/spirit that is the defining characteristic, not necessarily physical appearance.  

[ClaranceSH]

I claim no authortative stance on the issue but have my own beliefs which I won't go into fully here. I will however focus on a piece of the puzzle. Carbon dating and radiometric dating have serious flaws. There are far too many variables to truly calculate the age of something by them.

My reasoning is expressed better by Don Batten, Ph.D. and others like Ken Ham who I am sure I would find areas that I disagree with them on but here they seem to be accurate in pointing out the issues I have.

Here is a site with some of their stuff.
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c007.html

This site illistrates some of the same thoughts
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nuclear/cardat.html
remember certain assumptions must be made about levels being constant and starting conditions just so. As we know outside a lab conditions are far from perfect.

Basically for carbon dating the amount of 14carbon and 12carbon has varied throughout the centuries and millinea. More radiated nitrogen means more 14nitrogen means more 14c. A massive flood would bury all the rotting plant life making the 12c levels decrease changing the potential readings. Going through differing conditions as the earth goes through the milky way would increase and decrease the amounts of 14c. Along with the reading of a at the time recently departed man being read as 25,000 years old or something. These throw a wrench in the carbon dating. Of course that only accounts for things in the potential of being 50,000 years old and can only be done on things once living.

As for radiometric dating well that one has too many assumptions to stand.
Some of the assumptions are as follows: The starting conditions are known (for example, that there was no daughter isotope present at the start, or that we know how much was there). Decay rates have always been constant. Systems were closed or isolated so that no parent or daughter isotopes were lost or added. This last one is true in a way for carbon dating. It is assumed that nothing else has tainted a source. Something old enough could in effect be so inandated with some taint that it might not be noticible by todays testing if ever.

Now these are just pieces to a puzzle that I applaud the scientests and thinkers on both sides for looking into because I beleive God gave us a big world and universe with lots to discover that shows how great and wonderful He is. whether an evolutionist or creationist I find it hard to deny the amazingness of the world we live in. One that always gets me is that our heart has seven backups to make sure it keeps pumping, and the structure of a leaf. They all point as far as I can see to a creator. So I believe any evolutionist out there that has a belief in God knows that they are a creationist in the very simplest of meanings.

A theroy for dating that I have been trying to research is the one that I think puts the earth at a few hundred thouasand years old. I don't neccesarly agree or disagree with it but they are taking a diffrent approach in that they are doing their dating by the stars. Anyone have any good refrences for that?  

[ClaranceSH]

Sorry one other thought.

Has anyone considered the implications of the law of entropy? Everything goes from order to disorder.  

[zz1000zz]

Unless someone minds, I will stick with just responding to the post, not the websites this time. As always, I would be glad to answer any specific portions of the sites. Onto the main material:

ClaranceSH

I claim no authortative stance on the issue but have my own beliefs which I won't go into fully here. I will however focus on a piece of the puzzle. Carbon dating and radiometric dating have serious flaws. There are far too many variables to truly calculate the age of something by them.

I think it is important to make it clear carbon dating is a type of radiometric dating.

ClaranceSH

Basically for carbon dating the amount of 14carbon and 12carbon has varied throughout the centuries and millinea. More radiated nitrogen means more 14nitrogen means more 14c. A massive flood would bury all the rotting plant life making the 12c levels decrease changing the potential readings. Going through differing conditions as the earth goes through the milky way would increase and decrease the amounts of 14c. Along with the reading of a at the time recently departed man being read as 25,000 years old or something. These throw a wrench in the carbon dating. Of course that only accounts for things in the potential of being 50,000 years old and can only be done on things once living.

Citing a list of problems is meaningless. I could present far more impressive lists of problems for circuitry designs, but I suspect the motherboard of everyone's (or at least, those who are reading this's) computer works. The reason? Science deals with problems. Yes, there are a couple dozen, even hundreds of problems that have arisen with the carbon dating process. For each one of these, scientists have had to work to solve it.

Vague criticisms with no specific information are difficult to refute due to their lack of substance. Saying, "There are problems" just begs for the response of, "Duh?"

ClaranceSH

As for radiometric dating well that one has too many assumptions to stand.
Some of the assumptions are as follows: The starting conditions are known (for example, that there was no daughter isotope present at the start, or that we know how much was there). Decay rates have always been constant. Systems were closed or isolated so that no parent or daughter isotopes were lost or added. This last one is true in a way for carbon dating. It is assumed that nothing else has tainted a source. Something old enough could in effect be so inandated with some taint that it might not be noticible by todays testing if ever.

Again, it is important to make it clear carbon dating is radiometric dating. Radiometric dating is the process by which materials are dated by use of information about radioactive decay rates. Here are the "too many assumptions" supposedly making radiometric dating untenable.

Quote:

1) The starting conditions are known.
2) Decay rates have always been constant.
3) Systems were closed or isolated so that no parent or daughter isotopes were lost or added.

The simplest of thee to dismiss is the second. This is not an assumption, as all evidence indicates it. For example, radioactive decay rates have been constant the entire time scientists have measured them. In addition, radioactive decay rates can successfully predict isotope levels of supernovas, which happen over a hundred thousand years ago. Even more convincing, radioactive decay in different isotopes is different, meaning for this to be a flaw, some (unknown) variable would have to affect dozens of different things in different ways. And finally, radioactive decay rates can be calculated from first principles through quantum mechanics. Pardon me for being so wordy here, but I feel it is important to show just how untrue these criticisms can be.

As for the first and third assumptions, neither is made. Indeed, it is interesting to see these listed in the first website linked. The website claims scientists assume these things. It then criticizes scientists for adjusting their interpretation of data to fit what they know to be true. The adjustments discussed are made because scientists change what they think about the starting conditions (first point) or they change what they think about external factors (third point).

ClaranceSH

A theroy for dating that I have been trying to research is the one that I think puts the earth at a few hundred thouasand years old. I don't neccesarly agree or disagree with it but they are taking a diffrent approach in that they are doing their dating by the stars. Anyone have any good refrences for that?

There is no method of dating which claims the Earth is a few hundred thousand years old. I have no idea what you could mean by "dating by the stars," but I suspect it is not a real method.

ClaranceSH

Has anyone considered the implications of the law of entropy? Everything goes from order to disorder.

Indeed, and the human body is amazingly efficient at increasing entropy. However, the second law of thermodynamics does not say entropy will increase everywhere, all the time, but rather it will tend to increase overall. Also, it is important to note entropy is not "disorder."  

[ClaranceSH]

carbon dating is a form of radiometric dating but like a square is a rectangle but not all rectangles are squares. some textbooks refer to them somewhat seperatly because you can not use the first to date the world at millions of years. The flaws presented though show the unreliability and there for discredit those tools, though they are considered to be the best by some and that is why I believe they are still used.

zz1000zz

The simplest of thee to dismiss is the second. This is not an assumption, as all evidence indicates it. For example, radioactive decay rates have been constant the entire time scientists have measured them. In addition, radioactive decay rates can successfully predict isotope levels of supernovas, which happen over a hundred thousand years ago. Even more convincing, radioactive decay in different isotopes is different, meaning for this to be a flaw, some (unknown) variable would have to affect dozens of different things in different ways. And finally, radioactive decay rates can be calculated from first principles through quantum mechanics. Pardon me for being so wordy here, but I feel it is important to show just how untrue these criticisms can be.

Though these being new sciences we have nothing but the last 50 years of analysis to say that they are indeed constant. I was simply pointing out a concern that is neither proven false or true but a concern about an assumption.

I fail to understand how just because you say its untrue it is, when these are valid concerns. I didn't just say there are problems I pointed out where incalcuable variables come into play. They can make all the adjustments they want to fit a theory but they will still be adjustments made without knowing if they are infact correct. We do not have a record of all the starting conditions or the variables that have happened through out time no matter how old one believes the earth and the universe are.

As to the dating timeline by the stars I do not believe it was actually claiming it over the earth or over our galaxy. It was from a scientific jornal my very pro evolution biology professor gave out.

It was another professor who strove to put things in laymens terms when he refreed to order and disorder in the law of entropy. He was formely a histomologist but became a biolgist professor. And just thought thrown out there when applied to everything as a whole. As the universe drifts apart. He  

[zz1000zz]

ClaranceSH

carbon dating is a form of radiometric dating but like a square is a rectangle but not all rectangles are squares. some textbooks refer to them somewhat seperatly because you can not use the first to date the world at millions of years. The flaws presented though show the unreliability and there for discredit those tools, though they are considered to be the best by some and that is why I believe they are still used.

zz1000zz

The simplest of thee to dismiss is the second. This is not an assumption, as all evidence indicates it. For example, radioactive decay rates have been constant the entire time scientists have measured them. In addition, radioactive decay rates can successfully predict isotope levels of supernovas, which happen over a hundred thousand years ago. Even more convincing, radioactive decay in different isotopes is different, meaning for this to be a flaw, some (unknown) variable would have to affect dozens of different things in different ways. And finally, radioactive decay rates can be calculated from first principles through quantum mechanics. Pardon me for being so wordy here, but I feel it is important to show just how untrue these criticisms can be.

Though these being new sciences we have nothing but the last 50 years of analysis to say that they are indeed constant. I was simply pointing out a concern that is neither proven false or true but a concern about an assumption.

What do you mean, "nothing but the last 50 years of analysis?" Timeline issues aside, this is nonsense. I just provided four separate lines of support for radiometric dating (only two of which rely on "analysis"). You completely ignored them.

ClaranceSH

I fail to understand how just because you say its untrue it is, when these are valid concerns.

First, you pointed to problems without even attempting to understand how significant they are, or what measures have been taken to correct them. If your intent was to discuss these issues, we could. We could discuss the specific corrections used, their explanations and justifications, as well as their possible flaws.

However, when confronted with evidence so far, all you have done is ignored it. If you want to discuss specific problems, I am glad to. If you are just going to mindlessly throw spitballs, you are not going to accomplish much.  

[ClaranceSH]

You gave no information containing the ways in which they adjust for incalcuable variables that we would not know without being there. The 50 years is just a number surmising the shortness of the time this science of dating has been around. Though if your tactic is to make broad strokes about how it is taken care of and then insult me then so be it. I believe my point is more than made that the dating system is flawed to a level that it can't be considered remotly acurate due to too many variables. We will have to agree to disagree unless you have something substantial to add. Have a great weekend. Time to go home.