27-05-2002 13:04									#91
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by gonzo_for_civ Glaciers could be affected by too many things for accuracy. And i've seen MANY scientists that disagree with carbon dating methods. In fact, most creationists don't run around talking about it either...

I have only seen creationists make significant disagreemants with C14 dating on general princaples. The only thing that other scientists worry about with C14 is contamination and that can usually be shown to exist or not. Some cases its ambiguous as in the case of a pre-Columbian site on the East Coast that may or may not be 14,000 years old depending on whether there was contamination for a local coal deposit.

C14 dateing works on carbon that is of atmospheric origin. Consequently it can't be used for dating life from the sea as much of the carbon there comes from disolved carbon compounds and not atmospheric CO2. Which is why Creationist like to bring up shells. Shells can't be dated accuratly by C14 but trees can. So can bones if they are from land animals that didn't eat a lot of sea food.

	27-05-2002 13:10									#92
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by monkspider You anti-theists are just being silly though. Surely an all powerful diety can create a world that appeared as old as he saw fit. Don't ya think?

Sure it could. It could just as easily tell lies to the authors of the Bible though. Either way you are claiming a god that is hiding the truth. I admit I don't care for such a god so I won't assume one.

You go right ahead in worshipping a god you can't trust though.

Do this give you an idea why the ICR does make this claim. It clearly requires a dishonest god. One that could lie in the Bible just as easily in the world.

quote: And even if he didn't see fit, there is no reason not to think that seven days of genesis didn't mean seven epochs of time. There are passages in the bible that say "a day to god is like a thousand years" and stuff like that.

That still doesn't patch the flood and it makes this thread wrong. Given that time evolution MUST occur given the fact that mutations do happen.

	27-05-2002 13:16									#93
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

mutawhat? dont use difficult words ethel

	27-05-2002 13:17									#94
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by gonzo_for_civ Sounds like evolutionists don't know the definition of proven. If it's proven, it cannot be disproven, it is a fact! Therefore if it cannot be proven it is theory and nothing more.

The claim was that it was disprovable not that it had be dispoven. Of course the Flood is disprovable and it has been disproved.

quote: YAAAAWWWWWNNNNNNNNNN!!!!!!!!!!

Such a brilliant response. I am astounded by your wit and wisdom. Why I am so profoundly affected that I must run down to the Crystal Cathedral and ask Schuler to hire me on as a window washer as penance for ever going on evidence instead of a book written long ago by men that didn't know what the heck they were saying.

Nah. Instead I will wait to see some shred of this evidence that you and Skilord claim exists.

Where is some?

	27-05-2002 13:20									#95
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by gonzo_for_civ You missed the point. Good luck figuring it out. Good night!

I can't miss a point if you don't make it.

I am waiting for evidence to support the Bible.

Claiming the world is a lie is not the same as showing evidence. Its a sad thing that you must descend to this sort of nonsense.

	27-05-2002 13:24									#96
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by MarkG it's always fun reading these threads... gonzo quote: If it's proven, it cannot be disproven, it is a fact! it depends on the definition of "can"

Well in this case the "can" is actualy 'could' as it is now past tense. Too late for them to dispove as its proven now. They had their chance and they failed.

	27-05-2002 13:29									#97
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by SKILORD it would have been dishonest had he not told us. he probably needed an adault world to support your pathetic life and billions more like it, and what's more he said in genesis that he created an adault world.

Actually he said no such thing. Even the real authors did not claim that Jehovah or Elohim created the world to look billions of years old. You said that not the Bible.

Elohim by the way is plural for god. At least some of the people that wrote the Bible weren't monotheists.

quote: i meant evidenca against evolutionism bozo. night.

I am waiting for some. All you have managed is to call your god deceptive. That does not exactly constitute evidence against evolution. Nor even rational thought of any kind.

	27-05-2002 13:35									#98
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by MarkG mutawhat? dont use difficult words ethel

I don't know as you didn't quote it.

I am sorry my spelling and typing isn't better though. I know far more words than my fingers can deal with accuratly. I even deliberatly avoid using some that I can never get right.

Like

Neccissarily
Blatent but I use it blatantly anyway.
Concieve or is it concave that I meant to type
Too, to and two but I can't get away skipping over those
The which my fingers often spell hte

And I leave out words a lot. Important words like "not". Thats a really bad one to leave out.


I have this awfull feeling that when I look at this thread tommorow it will so large I won't be able to reach the end of it before it gets closed for reaching 500 posts.

	27-05-2002 13:43									#99
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

You know, evolution can still be disproved, otherwise it wouldn't be scientific anymore
However, current evidence gives strong support to it, so in my mind it's the "truth", at least for the moment

	27-05-2002 13:51									#100
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

All that I know is tentative and subject to change based on future evidence.

No matter how much I rant about it presently.



I can and have changed my mind I just need a good reason. For instance I no longer think that electrons orbit the nucleus of atoms. For a long time I thought the idea of an amorphous cloud of probable postions as opposed to a fixed orbit was a mere mathematical construct. I now know this was wrong. It just took the right bit of evidence. Orbiting electrons would emit sychrotron radiation.

	27-05-2002 14:29									#101
	Got spare money?

The Flood= Stolen story from the Saga of Gilgamesh
Jesus Christ= Stolen story from Mithras, he was born from a virgin too!

Creationists, tell me how did God create creatures? Did he assemble them atom by atom or molecule by molecule?

Thanks,

Last edited by -=Vagrant=- on 27-05-2002 at 19:28

	27-05-2002 14:44									#102
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Did he asseble them atom by atom or molecule by molecule?

Sometimes by transmutation apparently. The Bible says Adam was made from clay. Clay is mostly silica and alumina. Not much carbon or hydrogen there and we are almost entirely hydrogen, carbon, and oxygen.

	27-05-2002 15:02									#103
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Ned If evolution is religion, then religion is evolution. But evolution is science. Then science is religion, and religion is science. But science is fact. Then fact is religion, and religion is fact. But religion is God. Then fact is God, and God is fact. Something is wrong here.

Nothing is wrong.

Your *cough* logic *cough* shows that If evolution is religion, thn God is fact.

But since God is not fact, evolution is not religion.

	27-05-2002 15:13									#104
	Re: Evolution: A religion? Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by SKILORD I personally beleive it is. Evolution cannot be proven, it requires one to have faith in it, and therefore meets my standards for a religion.

First of all, your definition is screwed up. There are also Flat Earthers who believe that the Earth is flat, but that doesn't make it a religion.

Secondly, evolution is a fact. This summary gives a number of observed instances of speciation. That alone should destroy Creationism. [Didn't somebody assert that he read everything on the website? This proves him lying.]

Thirdly, there are a whole lot of threads on the same topic. Search the Off-Topic forum and the archives. Stop making the same old lame flame-baiting crap every month

	27-05-2002 15:40									#105
	Remove this text

quote: A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

I've always thought of science as a belief system. I also view religious concepts as primitive forms of scientific theory. Both are an attempt to explain natural phenomenon. Our ability to explain things is better now than in the past, and will be better in the future (hopefully).

The quoted definition for religion could fit evolution. There certainly are supporters of evolution who would fit the "pursued with zeal or concienteous devotion." The scientific process could also fit the definition regardless of the individual supporter's mindset. While there is no devotion to any given theory, there is devotion to the advancement of knowlege. A very well placed devotion if you ask me.

That said, it really doesn't matter how we categorize evolution. It's validity is the same whether we call it a religion or science. Someday we may look back at evolution in the same light as we look back on theories about a flat earth or zeus up on a mountain hurling lightning bolts. We'll have better and more complete explainations.

	27-05-2002 16:11									#106
	Got spare money?

More likely we will look back at it as we do Newtons Theory of Gravity. A very close aproximation of reality but not quite all there is to it, replaced by the biological equivalent of General Relativity which has not made Newton useless since we still use Newton for space navigation today.

In fact we allready think that way with Darwin and Wallace. Darwin and Wallace had a good idea and the general principles are still valid and there is no reason to think that will change. Darwin's main mistake was his insistance that evolution was very slow and gradual at all times. Puncuated equilibrium looks to be a much more accurate description of the pace of evolution.

We know that mutations occur. We know the some are bad and some are merely different. We also know the some are usefull. It is inherent in this that the bad will be selected out and the the good will remain and increase in the population. That is all that evolution is. The accumulation of usefull mutations over time.

Beyond our knowledge of genetics the key change from Darwin is that we now know that the environment changes. This means that what is usefull changes. It means what is bad changes. Therefor species must change to survive. They cannot not change since the genes that are not good in a changed environment will be selected out.(boy thats a lot of 'nots' in one sentence).

	27-05-2002 16:28									#107
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: We know that mutations occur.

You're right Ethelred, I didn't mean that we would look back on it as equally fallacious as zeus or a flat world. Just that our explainations will probably end up changing. The ancient Greeks knew that lightning did occur, their explaination just wasn't very good in light of our modern understanding of science.

	27-05-2002 17:04									#108
	Put an end to popups!

Sheesh, these creationists are like insects. You swat one and more come back, buzzing around your head and irritating you. And you have to swat them again. I want some fly spray, kill them all at once

	27-05-2002 17:17									#109
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

I wouldn't say evolution was a religion. Indeed, as has been pointed out already, it has been proven in the lab (ie that genetic mutation occurs). I would even say that Evolution by Natural Selection has fairly good evidence, although I personally believe that only some variant of the idea will be true.

I would however say that it is used by religion. I believe atheism is a religion - believing something for which one requires faith - and evolution is one of the tools which atheists (falsely) use to try and justify their beliefs. Only in that sense, is it part of a religion, and I don't think that really qualifies. After all, many religions have some aspect of their belief which is true.

	27-05-2002 17:22									#110
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

I'd have thought you'd have known better than playing into the idiot's hands RJ

	27-05-2002 17:37									#111
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Of course, it is a religion in the looser sense of the word, ie. in the same way that football is a 'religion'. It gains fanatical support from some people who focus their entire life around it, and give it much more attention than it deserves.

Isn't that right pH?

	27-05-2002 17:41									#112
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Rogan Josh It gains fanatical support from some people who focus their entire life around it, and give it much more attention than it deserves.

With this definition, all aspects of science could be referred to as "religion"

	27-05-2002 17:49									#113
	Increase Your PM Length

I just find it irritating that despite the huge piles of information and evidence, all intertwined and interlinking, people call it nonsense without checking up on the information, especially with regard to natural selection. Hence the insect analogy.

	27-05-2002 17:54									#114
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Rogan Josh I would however say that it is used by religion. I believe atheism is a religion - believing something for which one requires faith - and evolution is one of the tools which atheists (falsely) use to try and justify their beliefs..

I don't think Atheism qualifies as a religion. I have trolled a few Strong Atheists though by carefull use of terminology.

'Atheism is a relgious belief.'

That gets the less wary. It is a religious belief in that it is a belief about religions or at least an aspect of religion that is not founded in facts. However I am carefull not to call it a religion since it doesn't fit even the loosest definition of one.

	27-05-2002 17:55									#115
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Combat Ingrid With this definition, all aspects of science could be referred to as "religion"

Does it cover me? I still have an Amiga cluttering up my apartment.

	27-05-2002 17:57									#116
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Hehe, I guess so

	27-05-2002 17:58									#117
	Suffering from ads?

I've always felt that for most people, science is a religion. They believe scientific "facts" in virtually the same way that they believe in god. Science and religions are the opiates of the masses in the 20th and 21st centuries.

	27-05-2002 18:04									#118
	Suffering from ads?

No, I get no emotional comfort from science. It is a matter of intellectual integrity.

	27-05-2002 18:13									#119
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I don't think emotional comfort is a requirement of religion. I've known more than a few where their religion was just the opposite.

	27-05-2002 18:29									#120
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Too bad our guests left so quickly. When I troll an atheist forum I generally stay until they either resort to the childish "where did God come from" argument or they slowly fade off into the sunset.

There is certainly a fanatical element among evolutionists but I think most people believe it because it has been taught in school now for so long, just as it used to be taught that the Pope was the vicar of Christ in public schools.

Evolution will eventually go away when people begin to think for themselves and not read the talkorigins website as if it was their Bible. Free thinking can be a good thing!