Evolution or Creation?

[jotabe]

Could be referring to political divisions (i know the verb "divided" there is supposed to mean "divided by water"), for example the splitting of the babylonian empire, or even the akkadian empire, using the rivers as a divide, could be referring to a major water channeling, a small flood in the persian gulf... the possibilities are so widely different that speculation is purely gratuitous.

Furthermore, such a major event as the splitting of the lands would just deserve a footnote?
Coming back to the real world, this isn't "2012", tectonic plates move nowhere near that fast.

[Crazy Tom: C Toon]

Luther brings up a great point: the second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of a system can never decrease. Because entropy is the measure of the disorder of a system, it follows that NOTHING can go from disorder to order in a natural system; hence, evolution is impossible.

As to those dating tecniques you refer to, Jota:
1. they are EXTREMELY inaccurate.
2. we have no knowledge of the atmospheric composition of that time, so the absence of certain chemicals which would normally indicate a shorter existence is entirely explaniable.
3. very few methods cover time periods that far back, and cannot be trusted due to point 2.

as to the division it refers to, I think it most likely referring to babylon.

[Satya]

Thanks Luet.

[jotabe]

the second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of THE UNIVERSE can never decrease.

FTFY

The entropy in a system can decrese if you increase the entropy of the rest of the universe. That's how we manage to fix stuff that broke, create ordered structuctures, even writing ideas. Life brings order to the matter, yes, but at the expense of greatly increasing the entropy of the rest of the universe through means of the most degenerated form of energy: thermal dissipation.

1.- They are extremely inaccurate... depends on what you understand by inaccurate. When we are talking about hundreds and thousands, a large error like say 10% might not be significative. In any case that's why we use calibrated timescales. Dating doesn't use a single witness to date a sample of rock: many different tests are performed, with several radiometric markers, stratigraphic position and fossile presence. The summation of all gives a coherent image. Yes, science is a lot of work, but it's satisfying because it takes you closer to the truth.
2.- So you don't have an element you expect to have, and instead you have the element it naturally decays into. And you'd assume one thing has nothing to do with each other because?
Many markers concentration in the atmosphere is fairly constant across time, because they are noble gases and do not react, plus being light gases they will rarely get caught on rock, so most of their total number will always be in the atmosphere. In other cases yes, we need to know their atmospheric concentration, which can be profiled. A lot of work again.
3.- That's why the errors get larger. Not large enough to confuse 5 Myears with 5Kyears, though.

[Wil]

Carbon dating is inaccurate? What about Potassium-Argon Dating? Or maybe even various Uranium dating techniques. Ratiometric dating as a whole is actually very accurate depending on the method we are using, and is within standard deviation all of the time.

You're mostly correct about C14. However, we've had a largely nitrogen atmosphere for about 3 billion years (guess you wouldn't believe that though), and cosmic ray flux is fairly stable. C14 dating is basically valid over a little more than 2 orders of magnitude of C14 concentration, which takes us back over 20,000 years. For that to be incorrect, C14 concentrations would have to have varied by a factor of one hundred, which given the parameters of nitrogen, carbon levels, and cosmic rays, could only come from cosmic ray flux varying by a factor of 100 over a 5,000 year timescale, which is completely unrealistic.

You might want to take a look at this, as it covers pretty much any argument you could make against radiometric dating from a Christan's point of view: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/wiens2002.pdf

The sheer number of things we've observed that are longer than 6000 years should be overwhelming to anyone with eyes though. Stellar distances and the speed of light, tectonic drift of the continents, glacial formation of various geographies, erosion rates of river beds, wind and rain erosion of mountains (old ones are smooth, young ones are pointy and rocky). The quantity of meteor craters on the moon, the time it would take for the moon to tidal lock with the Earth so that the same side always faces us, etc.

It still surprises me that for as much proof as I and others have wasted time composing in this thread, you still hold firm to your foolish belief that The Bible trumps any scientific advancements we have made. The Bible is very, very interesting spiritually... but it can not be taken literally when placed up against long standing and proven science. Religions have fought scientific advancement since the beginning (does the Earth being the center of the universe, with the Sun rotating around the Earth ring any bells?), but science has always come out on top. It would be foolish to believe that this will change any time soon.

[Eaquae Legit]

For he hath given me certain knowledge of the things that are, namely, to know how the world was made, and the operation of the elements:
The beginning, ending, and midst of the times: the alterations of the turning of the sun, and the change of seasons:
The circuits of years, and the positions of stars:
The natures of living creatures, and the furies of wild beasts: the violence of winds, and the reasonings of men: the diversities of plants and the virtues of roots:
And all such things as are either secret or manifest, them I know.

(Wisdom of Solomon 7:17-21)

This is the most elegant experience I've had as to God's desire that we use the elements he has given us to understand the world. He created the world, and he would not have created it so that we would be unable to find a harmony between his word and his deeds. Christianity does not generally believe in a God of inconsistency.

Or as my favourite filk puts it, "human [hands] wrote the Bible, God wrote the rocks". There may be questions about the accuracy of translation of the Bible, the capacity for understanding ancient scribes had, or misinterpretation of passages, but God himself laid down the rocks.

[Crazy Tom: C Toon]

Many markers concentration in the atmosphere is fairly constant across time, because they are noble gases and do not react, plus being light gases they will rarely get caught on rock, so most of their total number will always be in the atmosphere. In other cases yes, we need to know their atmospheric concentration, which can be profiled. A lot of work again.

Im not sure how to ask just where on Earth you learned chemistry. Noble gasses make no difference whatsoever in half-life dating exept for radon, for which there is no method to date materials (to my knowledge).

However, we've had a largely nitrogen atmosphere for about 3 billion years, and cosmic ray flux is very stable

How could you possibly know that?! you weren't there! all you know is what school books tell you, and these are the same schoolbooks which teach evolution and the BBT as fact rather than theory.

As to the rest, the Bible shows God as creating everything as if it were already in existence, including the light from distant stars. The "old and new" mountain thing is a little crazy. EVERY mountain is sedemantary rock, (with the exception of those shield-mountains from volcanic activity), because they were all created during the flood.
As to your riverbed thing, I have heard the Grand Canyon as an excuse for a million year existence, but stop and ask yourself just how wide the CO river must have been to have created a cut that wide. it could not have happened. To further prove the existence of the worldwide flood, do you realize they have found FISH fossils on some of the lower Everest peaks? how could they have gotten there except from a flood?
The other dating methods are inherently inaccurate due to the point I made before about how we don't know the atmospheric or earthen compositions from more than a few thousand years ago.

Edit: The Bible also clearly talks about an entirely different climate than the one we have now, so it is not hard at all to believe that atmospheric and earthen compositions were greatly different before the flood.

[Luet]

Thanks Luet.

No problem.

[Eaquae Legit]

How could you possibly know that?! you weren't there! all you know is what school books tell you, and these are the same schoolbooks which teach evolution and the BBT as fact rather than theory.

As I understand it, Jota is a professional. He's gone rather beyond "schoolbooks."

As to the rest, the Bible shows God as creating everything as if it were already in existence, including the light from distant stars. The "old and new" mountain thing is a little crazy. EVERY mountain is sedemantary rock, (with the exception of those shield-mountains from volcanic activity), because they were all created during the flood.

Huh?

To further prove the existence of the worldwide flood, do you realize they have found FISH fossils on some of the lower Everest peaks? how could they have gotten there except from a flood?

Upthrust. Rocks that were once under water are now above water because of tectonic activity. It's pretty simple, really.

[Rei]

As to your riverbed thing, I have heard the Grand Canyon as an excuse for a million year existence, but stop and ask yourself just how wide the CO river must have been to have created a cut that wide. it could not have happened.

If you've ever run water down a narrow rut in the sand at the beach, you will have noticed that as you did it, the sides began to collapse and then the sand that collapses gets washed along and out of the way. Now imagine doing that for a really, really, really long time. You don't need a super wide river at the beginning or even ever as wide as the canyon currently is to get it to the size it is today. It's for similar reasons that a wise person will never build their house very near to a river, lest the ground beneath it slowly grow more unstable until the house collapses.

[Wil]

How could you possibly know that?! you weren't there! all you know is what school books tell you, and these are the same schoolbooks which teach evolution and the BBT as fact rather than theory.

First, the fact that you raise The Bible above school books is laughable. Hundreds of years of study from millions of different people VS one book which you have no way to prove? Logic, please use it.

Second, http://www.ux1.eiu.edu/~cfjps/1400/atmos_origin.html and http://www.universetoday.com/2005/05/05 ... -in-rocks/

As to your riverbed thing, I have heard the Grand Canyon as an excuse for a million year existence, but stop and ask yourself just how wide the CO river must have been to have created a cut that wide. it could not have happened.

http://www.watersheds.org/earth/erosion.htm

To further prove the existence of the worldwide flood, do you realize they have found FISH fossils on some of the lower Everest peaks? how could they have gotten there except from a flood?

http://www.universetoday.com/guide-to-s ... re-formed/

In a nutshell: The Earth's lithosphere is formed of tectonic plates. When two plates ram in to each other, the earth is pushed up forming... mountains! Mount Everest was at one point covered in an ocean.


Seriously. You have GOT to be trolling. Do you think scientists just make this stuff up? I'm not just pulling things from my ass, and neither are the centuries of scientists that have worked on these things.

[Crazy Tom: C Toon]

Seriously. You have GOT to be trolling. Do you think scientists just make this stuff up? I'm not just pulling things from my ass, and neither are the centuries of scientists that have worked on these things.

It is entirely possible scientists make this up as proven by the recent climategate scandal in which liberals tried to prove man-influenced global warming by falsifying their research.

If everest were formed by tectonic plates as you claim, it would be composed of Igneous rock. This is not the case; Everest is sedementary. Basic geology, people, come on.

[Eaquae Legit]

Sedimentary rock can be upthrust as well, you know. No one's arguing that Everest is igneous. It couldn't be, to have fossils on it.

[Crazy Tom: C Toon]

That's the point. It COULDNT be igneous. Thereofore, it is not. It is sedimentary. Also, upthrust includes only a very small layer of sediment on top. Most of the rest is igneous or, occasionally, marble (which is where we usually find marble mines). Everest has no such layers; it is entirely sedimentary.

[megxers]

Seriously. You have GOT to be trolling. Do you think scientists just make this stuff up? I'm not just pulling things from my ass, and neither are the centuries of scientists that have worked on these things.

If everest were formed by tectonic plates as you claim, it would be composed of Igneous rock. This is not the case; Everest is sedementary. Basic geology, people, come on.

Too basic geology, you mean. Everest is a convergent plate boundary, but unlike the Cascades, it is not composed of volcanic layers. Why? Because it is a boundary between two pieces of continental crust, so its sedimentary because it started somewhere else, and because they are of equal density, they are pushed up rather than subducted. Since I am not that familiar with that plate boundary, let me stray a bit. The Olympic Mountains for instance, are of volcanic origin, they were formed by seamounts/underwater volcanoes, and then scrapped off when the oceanic crust they sat on was subducted under the North American plate. Through GPS monitoring stations, we can watch the crust be pulled under because points on the Earth move at rates comparable to your fingernails, so we can see silent slip earthquakes that happen & don't even get felt up here as the subduction actually moves. To me, that is absolutely spectacular and awe inspiring.

Also, thank you for being a motivation to work on my grad schools apps. paleogeography/paleoclimatology love

[jotabe]

^What megxers and EL said.

Then, CT, you forget argon, with potassium-argon radiometric marker.
Also, welcome to believing in lastthursdayism. Creating the light (which is information, huge amounts of data) "as if" had been travelling for thousands of millions of years is just as much of a lie as if he had created the fossiles to look "old". And God cannot lie, you said.

It is entirely possible scientists make this up as proven by the recent climategate scandal in which liberals tried to prove man-influenced global warming by falsifying their research.

Also, LOL.

[Luther95]

the Bible shows God as creating everything as if it were already in existence, including the light from distant stars. The "old and new" mountain thing is a little crazy. EVERY mountain is sedemantary rock, (with the exception of those shield-mountains from volcanic activity), because they were all created during the flood.

Actually, thats a good point. God created with the appearance of time. Adam and Eve were not created embyos nor were the trees and plants created as seedlings, but fully grown and mature. When the heavens were created, the stars were made to be seen from earth, hence the appearance of light eminating from a star many light years away. the earth too, created and formed with the appearance of age. The flood, which came thousands of years after the creation, forming many of the current topographical features that we see today, including, no doubt, the Grand Canyon. The appearance of sediment and sea fossils on top of mountains are evidence of geologic upheaval during the time of the flood. Good book for this is "The Biblical Basis for Modern Science" by Morris.

[starlooker]

So, out of curiosity, Luther95 -- Missouri Synod, Wisconsin Synod, ELCA or Free Lutheran Church?

[jotabe]

Actually, thats a good point. God created with the appearance of time.

So our universe is make-believe. So much for God not lying.

[Crazy Tom: C Toon]

How does that make ANYTHING make-believe. And when does God ever say anything to the contrary of what Luther has said? How is God a liar?

[jotabe]

If i make a sculpture and through any means at my hand i make it appear older, and show it to other people so when they analyze it they will think it's older than it actually is, i am deceiving them.

In the same way if god makes a universe and through means known to him, he makes it so whenever we examine this universe it looks older than it actually is, God is deceiving us. He is giving us a young universe but making it look old. He's giving us a lie. If you believe that he created the photons from distant stars already on their way, you believe that God makes things that are not what they show to be. How can anything else of what he did be expected to be what it looks like?

After we are at this point, how can we be sure that the universe wasn't altogether created last thursday? or 5 mins ago? Everything could be photons already created in their path, nuclei already decaying, particles set up with a starting motion, implanted memories for ourselves.

[Wil]

Let us assume (Assumption A) that God made the Earth, and he did so in six days.

Let us assume (Assumption B) that science can see 14 billion years in to the past using telescopes. That we have techniques that date the Earth back 4 billion years. We have fossils of bacteria found on Earth that date back 3.5 billion years. Let us pretend that science has managed to date the first ancestors of humans (primates) to around 65 million years ago. In essence, science has shown that the Earth is old, and it took a long time for Humans to get around to coming in to existence.

Now, either assumption A is correct, or assumption B is correct. Either God created the Earth in six 24 Earth hours, making the whole of human scientific advancement false, or God "lied" when he had the Bible written or God "lied" by giving his brightest children the ability to make these observations and giving us the impression of all of these times being far larger than what The Bible states.

But, wait! There is something much simpler. If we can make one very subtle, and simple presupposition:

An hour is just a fraction of the time it takes for a body to rotate around its axis, and a day is just a fraction of the time it takes for a body to rotate around another body. The Earth rotates around its axis in a little more than 24 hours, and around the Sun in a little more than 365 days. Hours and days are relative.

If we take Genesis literally, God did not create the stars, a "greater light" (the Sun), and a "lesser light" (the Moon) until the fourth day. Thus, there was no way to determine the time it took for the Earth to rotate around its axis or the Sun. However, God had measured three whole days before then. As such, we can conclude that God measures days according to his own frame of reference.

Then, we can even take Genesis 1 literally and it really starts to make you think:

Scientific theory tells us that the Universe was created prior to the Earth, the so called "Big Bang Theory". (0) In fact, science tells us that there had to have been another larger star in our place prior to the existence of the Earth because there are elements heavier than our own star can produce on Earth. This star exploded, leaving nothing but gas and matter. (1) The resulting matter from the destruction of this previous star coalesced in to our own Sun. (2) While this was happening, our own planet was being formed as matter clumped together. Over a length of time, our planet grew to be very large. The planet was molten, with leftover material plummeting down upon the earth delivering water and other materials to the planet. There was much volcanic activity that was spewing gas out in to space, and that gas that couldn't escape the gravity of our planet formed out atmosphere (sky). (3) Through all of this, comets and other smaller bodies continued to crash to the Earth delivering more water and materials that could create life. (4) Our planet was impacted at this point by a large body, likely another planet whose orbit intersected our own, causing much of our mass and the planets to break off forming the moon and causing our axial tilt which gives us our seasons. (5) The planet settled down, the core cooled and condensed, and the building blocks of life were allowed to take over. (6)

Genesis 1:1 is reads very much like a thesis sentence - 'this is what happened, let me explain'. It's also interesting from a spiritual standpoint, as it all began with the formation of the universe (which we have called 'the heavens'): "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

Genesis 1:2 sounds like a very poetic way of describing event (1) of the previous paragraph: "Now the earth was [a] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters."

Genesis 1:3 sounds like a description of event (2) in the previous paragraph: "And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light."

Genesis 1:6 to 10 sounds an awful lot like event (3): "And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse "sky." [...] And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good. "

Genesis 1:11-12 is akin to event (4): "Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds."

Genesis 1:14-18 is very interesting when you think of event (5): "And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good."

Genesis 1:24 and beyond brings a close to our little talk by being strikingly similar to event (6): "And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. [... etc]"

So, as you can see, both the bible and science line up quite interestingly, both literally and spiritually, so long as you get past the whole six days bit... and I managed to make a reasonable explanation for that as well. There is absolutely no reason why both can't live in harmony.

[Eddie Pinz]

Bit Wil, how could you possibly know that? Were you there? All you know is what your school books tell you.

[Rei]

Wil: To go with that, there is what I said earlier about how the word for "day" and for "era" are the same in Biblical Hebrew, which would support an understanding along those lines.

[Crazy Tom: C Toon]

Wil: To go with that, there is what I said earlier about how the word for "day" and for "era" are the same in Biblical Hebrew, which would support an understanding along those lines.

Of course you left out something very important...the fact that whenever the word 'yom' is used in conjunctin with a number in hebrew literature (not just the Bible) is ALWAYS refers to a literal 24 hour time period.

[Crazy Tom: C Toon]

After we are at this point, how can we be sure that the universe wasn't altogether created last thursday? or 5 mins ago? Everything could be photons already created in their path, nuclei already decaying, particles set up with a starting motion, implanted memories for ourselves.

Because the Bible, the Word of God, has geneologies. Tracing these back and knowing how old they are, we can determine that the Earth is about 6-10 thousand years old. without this Biblical assurance, you are right. the Earth could conceivably have been created much sooner.

[jotabe]

But if God lies by creating photons so the universe appears to be much older than it actually is, he can lie as well making the bible to make Earth appear much older than it actually is. Because photons created by god are his word just as much as the bible is.

[Satya]

How is that lying? If He did it a certain way, that's just the way He did it. Why is it a lie? Because you don't believe it, and if it's true, it seems like a lie to you? That doesn't make it a lie.

[jotabe]

Not if you don't consider that we can know God through nature. If you consider than being given a make-believe thing is acceptable in comparison with the real deal. If you accept that a pretty lie is better than the ugly truth.

[Satya]

Jibber-jabber.

[jotabe]

Well, that's what you did. Asking how masking the truth is a lie...
so you are the only one with a letter of marque to do so?

[Boothby]

Sorry, Satya, you asked for it.

Boothby's Five Rules of Theological Debate:

RULE 1: Presume the existence of God. More specifically, presume the existence of your particular God. Don't say things like "I believe that God does this...", simply say, "God does this..." After all, everybody knows that God exists. Atheists are just wrong, and deep down inside they realize that. Yes, it's OK to pity them (just not yet--see RULE 5).


RULE 2: Never actually define what it is you mean by "God" or "Heaven," etc. If you define it, then it can be refuted. After all, you've already established that He exists (see RULE 1). Also, if challenged, you can always say, "That's not what I meant," or "I never said that He could do that..."


RULE 3: Once your opponent starts using observation and logic in his foolish attempt to refute what everybody already knows to be true, you can deny that both observation and logic are valid approaches to understanding. Typical responses are, "How can we ever really know anything," and "God does not operate under the rules of logic and rationality--He is beyond them." Also popular are the phrases "Jibber Jabber" and "Nyah nyah ne nyah nyah." Never, under any circumstances, attempt to explain just what the hell any of that means, because it really doesn't mean anything (that's the beauty of it). More importantly, do not try and understand it yourself, as your head may actually explode. Your opponent may respond to your first statement by asking, "then how do you know if anything is true?" To which you simply respond, "I just know."

Some other good responses under RULE 3 include "But is there really any difference between the earth and the concept of the earth?" and "If I have no way of knowing if there are monsters under my bed (short of looking) but if I genuinely believe they are there, the fear of them is no different than if they really are there."

One of the other advantages of invoking RULE 3 is that you are no longer constrained to actually have to make sense in what you say or write. By discrediting logic and reason, you are no longer bound by them yourself. If you can keep this up, many times your opponent will just walk away, shaking his head, thereby handing you the "win."


RULE 4: As things start to go downhill, you may have to use the old reliable notion that "God exists because people believe that He exists." There are deep theological problems with this approach, especially if other religions have more believers in their God than yours (except you know, of course, that they're totally wrong, anyhow). But still, it keeps you away from RULE 5.


RULE 5: If all else fails, you may just have to reveal your opponent for what he really is. An idiot. A Godless, liberal, democrat, communist, baby-eating, tree-hugging idiot.


To which I guess I should add RULE #6: You know that thing we were discussing that was so important. It's not really that important after all. Why are you so hung up on it? It's like you're obsessing, or something.

Funny--I had this link next to the list: http://www.philoticweb.net/openbb/read.php?TID=6209

[Crazy Tom: C Toon]

He's trying to say that God isnt masking the truth. He just says how it is. he makes nothing up. He just says, "hey, btw, all this stuff is actually brand new, I just made it look like it's been going for a while." no lie. no deceiving. just fact.

also, boothby, there are too many atheists for those rules to be any good.

[Mich]

also, boothby, there are too many atheists for those rules to be any good.

As one of the many silent observers, all I have to offer is this image of my reaction:

[jotabe]

He's trying to say that God isnt masking the truth. He just says how it is. he makes nothing up. He just says, "hey, btw, all this stuff is actually brand new, I just made it look like it's been going for a while." no lie. no deceiving. just fact.

also, boothby, there are too many atheists for those rules to be any good.

1987A is a supernova that exploded in 1987. The star itself was like 168.000 light years away from us. So, according to your idea, since the Creation 6k years ago till 1987, we had been receiving the light of a star that never had existed. And in 1987 we received the light of an explosion that never happened.
That's not a lie, of course

Good ole steve's rules