Creation vs. Evolution

[Soggy]

No surprise....

1. Secular Humanism (100%)
2. Unitarian Universalism (99%)
3. Liberal Quakers (87%)
4. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (81%)
5. Nontheist (73%)
6. Theravada Buddhism (72%)
7. Neo-Pagan (68%)
8. New Age (51%)
9. Bahá'í Faith (51%)
10. Taoism (50%)

 

[redacted]

That looks like what I ended up with. I was surprised at some of the softness in the belief of god in many of the categories.

 

[adza]

If you think that radiocarbon dating is all that you have to prove wrong in order to show that the Earth is only a few thousand years old you are severely deluded...

I never said radiocarbon dating is all that was used. I said that their are few methods used, from amongst a wide variety - but they're used because they support the long life universe model.

I take it you're not familiar with the relative recent findings about the speed of light not being a constant - to the stage where it may have been millions of times faster only a few millenium ago?

I want to see a single astronomer who thinks the Earth is 6000 years old. The entire idea is completely ******ing laughable from an astronomical and cosmological perspective...

Once again - only laughable to those who have been enclosed in a 'safe' environment where they're not quick to inform of other 'findings' in the scientific field that may proove one wrong.

Admitidally - the distance of planets was probably one of the biggest thorns when it came to a creationist point of view - and could certainly be used as a valid argument not long ago - however the recent findings no longer make that a one sided point of view or 'proof' for a long aged universe.

However - I'm sure that wont deter most evolutionist from using it as a valid scientific fact - as long as they're talking to people who aren't aware of this new finding.

Cheers

 

[The Chairman]

1. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (100%)
2. Liberal Quakers (88%)
3. Unitarian Universalism (80%)
4. Bah�'� Faith (73%)
5. Orthodox Quaker (71%)
6. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (63%)
7. Neo-Pagan (63%)
8. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (63%)
9. New Age (60%)
10. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (59%)

I would NEVER consider myself a Protestant. Really. Or a Catholic for that fact.

 

[Thalassamania]

the speed of light not being a constant - to the stage where it may have been millions of times faster only a few millenium ago?

Speed Of Light May Not Be Constant, Physicist Suggests

Was Einstein Wrong?

Speed of light may have changed recently

 

[adza]

I have not offered you any statistics, but you go ahead and make them up for use by us both, you’ve likely had a great deal of practice at that, and poor me, I must admit to having none.

Once again - misinformation... please point out to me where I have 'made up' statistics? Also show me where I've had a great deal of practice at this?

Once again, may I disrespectfully suggest that you read the previous posts in the thread.

BTW: I do not recall giving you leave to call me “friend.” When you stop being lazy and do the work, then perhaps we can be friends, like I am with folks like Mike and Pete, whom I respect.

Thalassamania - I can see that in some way I apparently have over stepped the line, and offended you. My posts are to try and open the eyes of people who think they've heard it all into looking at other aspects from another point of view before making conclusions.

The word 'my friend' is used in our culture even with strangers quite often. I sometimes forget that the internet is a global community where some postings can be read fine by others, but offensive by someone else.

In all sincerity - I'm sorry if I have offended you personally. Please accept my apology.

Check your ego at the door, you just can’t imagine the universe going on with out you, can you?

Why do you say this? What have I said (besides challenging your belief) that causes you to make such remarks?

 

[The Chairman]

If you think the speed of light is hard to pin down, what about the speed of heavy?

 

[lamont]

I never said radiocarbon dating is all that was used. I said that their are few methods used, from amongst a wide variety - but they're used because they support the long life universe model.

I take it you're not familiar with the relative recent findings about the speed of light not being a constant - to the stage where it may have been millions of times faster only a few millenium ago?

You don't realize how badly that would screw up quantum electrodynamics and astronomical observations. Those are not accepted "findings". Tweaking the speed of light tweaks the strength of the electromagnetic force and that tweaks chemistry and we can actually observe interstellar and intergalactic chemistry and it doesn't agree.

Once again - only laughable to those who have been enclosed in a 'safe' environment where they're not quick to inform of other 'findings' in the scientific field that may proove one wrong.

Really, i'm quite tired of this. I've spent 7 years of my life learning astronomy and physics at a college level. I've never met an anti-evolutionist, who believed in a 6000 year old Earth with even that level of credentials. I've actually been exposed to the field and to the evidence in that field and seen how it all ties together.

You're the one with the 'safe' environment where you're never exposed to scientific results which question your faith and you're spoonfed individual nuggets of garbage science to make sure that you keep believing.

Admitidally - the distance of planets was probably one of the biggest thorns when it came to a creationist point of view - and could certainly be used as a valid argument not long ago - however the recent findings no longer make that a one sided point of view or 'proof' for a long aged universe.

Yeah, some crackpot published a paper and solved all your issues for you? I'm not the one with the ideological blinders on here...

However - I'm sure that wont deter most evolutionist from using it as a valid scientific fact - as long as they're talking to people who aren't aware of this new finding.

Cheers

Its okay, just keep saying 'new finding' without knowing anything remotely enough about physics to be able to assess the validity of those 'new findings' for yourself -- but you're sure they're correct, because if they're wrong you'd have to change your entire worldview...

 

[lamont]

Speed Of Light May Not Be Constant, Physicist Suggests

Was Einstein Wrong?

Speed of light may have changed recently

Oh lord, is *that* the evidence he is talking about?

Yeah, that is actually reasonably good science. And they're finding the changes in the fine structure constant that I was talking about:

The suggestion that the speed of light can change is based on data collected by UNSW astronomer John Webb, who posed a conundrum when he found that light from a distant quasar, a star-like object, had absorbed the wrong type of photons from interstellar clouds on its 12 billion year journey to earth.

Davies said fundamentally Webb's observations meant that the structure of atoms emitting quasar light was slightly but ever so significantly different to the structure of atoms in humans.

The discrepancy could only be explained if either the electron charge, or the speed of light, had changed.

We're talking about small (but measurable) percentage differences in the speed of light going back 12 billion years. The latter article has some shakier evidence for a change of 45 parts per billion on human timescales.

This is actually good (although arguable) physics, but still don't change the fact that andromeda is 2.5 million light years away, the light from andromeda is 2.5 million years old and the universe is still about 12 billion years old. You have to get much further away from Earth and much further back in time before we start detecting the changes in chemistry which are indicative of differences in the speed of light. If the speed of light had actually changed significantly over the past 2.5 million years we would detect that in observations of Andromeda (and presumably if the kind of observations that were done to detect the variability in the speed of light 12 billion years ago are refined to the point where they can detect more precise variations we should be able to eventually detect variations in the speed of light over the past 2.5 million years, but we're still talking in terms of parts-per-billion, not something which substantially changes the distance to Andromeda.

Okay, so I've looked at the evidence, adza. It does not support your conclusions, it actually agrees with everything that I've written so far. Next?

 

[H2Andy]

This explanation is automatically disallowed by the theory of evolution since man and dinosaur are not to occupy Earth at the same time.

no, actually... the explanation is disallowed by the fossil record which proves beyond a reasonable doubt that humans and dinosaurs did not share the earth.

dinos died out 65,000,000 years or so ago ... proto-humans didn't make an appearance until 5,000,000 years or so ago ... modern humans are evolutionary babies, at only 200,000 years old.

we are separated by a vast gulf of roughly 60 million years

(have you ever bothered to look this stuff up before making theology out of it?)

Those who are not constrained in what they can or cannot believe might find the answer to your question in the book of Job.

or those who wish to believe what they want to believe despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary

of course, you can believe anything despite what the evidence says

dinosaurs and Job hanging out together, huh...

how DID they keep their camel herds safe from those nasty beasts?



if you close your eyes, Pug, and look inward, you can believe anything. you need not be challenged by the inconvenient truths of the world.