Author Fun2BMe Posted November 8, 2006 Author Share Posted November 8, 2006 You know it would be nice if people actually knew WTF they were talking about.... art... Carbon14 dating is only useful for dating living things back to about 60,000 BP (Before Present, Present being 1950). It's of no use for dating the age of this rock we live on. And it would be nice if you knew what you were talking about Einstein wanna-be. There are other forms of radioactive dating aside from Carbon 14, whose half lives go up to 105 billion years (compared to the half life of Carbon 14 which is about 5730 years) so read up on your geology and chemistry before claiming others don't know what they're talking about:rolleyes: with your 2 year old know it all attitude. It wouldn't make sense to use a half life that is say 1 million or billion years when dating something that is a few thousand years old, but those elements are used to date old rocks, and other things that are billions or several million years old depending on the object. That isn't an argument against evolution creating mankind because a gold ring is not alive and evolution applies to living things. I wasn't using the gold ring analgy to try to prove evolution doesn't exist. My point was that it takes an intelligent being to make even a simple wedding band otherwise it wouldn't exist in nature on its own, much like how an intelligent being would have to have created evolution which is far more complex and requires more design than a plain ring. No, as far as we know it's only around 12 to 14 billion years old, not trillions. Or that's the time from the big bang. What came before is indeterminate. That's the estimate of our galaxy but not the universe which is so large we can't even calculate what's out there let alone date them. Link to post Share on other sites
Author Fun2BMe Posted November 8, 2006 Author Share Posted November 8, 2006 Anyway - and for the last time - this thread has very little (if anything) to do with evolution. This thread has A LOT to do with evolution because most (not all) people who believe in God do not believe in evolution and most (not all) who believe in evolution don't believe in God. Some religions and sects even ban the study of evolution. Others incorporate it into their beliefs. It would be unusual if a discussion on the origins of life excluded evolution especially since the origins can be traced back through evolution, giving hints or opinions as to how it may have developed, whether by devine intervention or spontaneously or ?. Others believe God placed man and animals fully developed as we see them on Earth and that's how life started, so I think evolution has a prominent place in this discussion. I may of course be wrong. Link to post Share on other sites
alphamale Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 blind faith in anything with no discernible evidence will be a path to nowhere... Link to post Share on other sites
Moai Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 And it would be nice if you knew what you were talking about Einstein wanna-be. There are other forms of radioactive dating aside from Carbon 14, whose half lives go up to 105 billion years (compared to the half life of Carbon 14 which is about 5730 years) so read up on your geology and chemistry before claiming others don't know what they're talking about:rolleyes: with your 2 year old know it all attitude. It wouldn't make sense to use a half life that is say 1 million or billion years when dating something that is a few thousand years old, but those elements are used to date old rocks, and other things that are billions or several million years old depending on the object. All of the dating methods used to date the Earth give an age of 4.5 to 5 billion years. Of course, the Earth could be older than that, but the Earth is at least as old as the oldest thing on it, so there you go. I wasn't using the gold ring analgy to try to prove evolution doesn't exist. My point was that it takes an intelligent being to make even a simple wedding band otherwise it wouldn't exist in nature on its own, much like how an intelligent being would have to have created evolution which is far more complex and requires more design than a plain ring. The ring is obviously intelligently designed because it is so different from the world around you. To then make the leap from the ring to say that the world also must be designed because it is more copmlex than the ring is illogical. There is most certainly desing in nature, but it is not intelligent design. Evidence suggests that the universe as we know it is 15 billion years old. I am not a cosmologist, though. I think the god explanation for life raises more questions than it answers. First, it is not scientific, as no religious belief is falsifiable. In a nutshell, religious people assert that SOMEONE had to set all of this in motion. it couldn't have "just happened". If that is so, then who created god? And who created the god that created god, ad infinitum? And why not worship the god that created god, then? The answer I get is, "God has just always been. Nobody created Him." Maybe, but if that is so, why can't that be true of matter and energy? there has always been matter and energy, and because chemicals behave according to their properties, life will eventually exist. Simple. Link to post Share on other sites
Author Fun2BMe Posted November 8, 2006 Author Share Posted November 8, 2006 All of the dating methods used to date the Earth give an age of 4.5 to 5 billion years. Of course, the Earth could be older than that, but the Earth is at least as old as the oldest thing on it, so there you go. Yes, I agree with that age. I was responding to the person who thought we can't determine that because Carbon 14 can only date to 60,000 years so I pointed out there are other radioactive dating elements that can date further back having a half life as much as 105 million years compared to the half life of Carbon 14 at around 5700 years, the age most religious people believe the earth to be, saying radioactive dating is inaccurate. Link to post Share on other sites
Author Fun2BMe Posted November 8, 2006 Author Share Posted November 8, 2006 The ring is obviously intelligently designed because it is so different from the world around you. To then make the leap from the ring to say that the world also must be designed because it is more copmlex than the ring is illogical. I don't think it's illogical, but something worth thinking about. To conclude otherwise would be illogical IMO. there has always been matter and energy, and because chemicals behave according to their properties, life will eventually exist. Simple. I wish I thought of it so simply. Since there's no conclusive evidence to support your simple explanation and I have spiritual feelings despite my scientific knowledge, I am still in a state of confusion without having decided on what to believe. But it helps a lot to learn your views and others, more to take into consideration. Link to post Share on other sites
Moose Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 Well, I don't know if this helps Fun2BMe, but, here's how I look at it..... Science is just that.....science. It's not 100%, nothing is. We are extremely limited in our thinking, and niave to believe we're smart enough to figure it all out on our own. Yes, everything is relative as Einstein had tried to explain. This doen't mean there isn't a God. (Einstein is a known Christian) We will one day have an enlightened sense of all of these things, and it'll cause a lot of flat heads out there from people smacking themselves while sayin' DUUUUUUUHHHHH...... I say, don't waste your energy trying to figure it out or make sense of it. It is what it is and we'll understand it when the time comes.... Link to post Share on other sites
alphamale Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 (Einstein is a known Christian) actually he was a no-practicing Jew until the latter part of his life. Then he embraced Judiasm and Zionism... Link to post Share on other sites
ely Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 Some who believe in evolution say that the theory of evolution does not contradict what the Bible says about the creation of living things. However, those who believe what the Bible says is true and that the Bible is the word of god,I believe science in evolution is wrong and that the Bible narrative of creation is correct.The change from nonliving to a living cell is the most difficult for evolution to explain. Even the simplest cell is so complex that it is quite impossible for chance to have been involved. We now know something about DNA and the genetic code. This is a language that has been written inside the cell and it is a language that the cell has to be able to read if it is to develop into the organism that it is destined to become. Chance cannot be involed in meaningful language. For language to be meaningful, to convey informationm there has to be a programer. For there to be information, there has to be a source of information. The bible especially in the first book, Genesis tell us that God is the souce of that information and the source of the energy that became matter. Link to post Share on other sites
PussInHeels Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 Some who believe in evolution say that the theory of evolution does not contradict what the Bible says about the creation of living things. However, those who believe what the Bible says is true and that the Bible is the word of god,I believe science in evolution is wrong and that the Bible narrative of creation is correct.The change from nonliving to a living cell is the most difficult for evolution to explain. Even the simplest cell is so complex that it is quite impossible for chance to have been involved. We now know something about DNA and the genetic code. This is a language that has been written inside the cell and it is a language that the cell has to be able to read if it is to develop into the organism that it is destined to become. Chance cannot be involed in meaningful language. For language to be meaningful, to convey informationm there has to be a programer. For there to be information, there has to be a source of information. The bible especially in the first book, Genesis tell us that God is the souce of that information and the source of the energy that became matter. Ok, I wrote this debate off as silly, but I graduated with a BS in biotech and I don't recall any time in which I learned that a cell reading its genetic code is due to chance. Yes, mutations do happen, and they do happen by chance. Mutations can also be forced. Trust me, I've done it in the lab to yeast cells more times than I want to admit. But the "programmers" of those cells' DNA were the yeast cells of the generation before them. When I force bacteria to become resistant to an antibiotic, does make me God? No, all I did was introduce a plasmid. Bacteria can do this to each other, thus changing genetic information. And the "reading" of the DNA is not done by divine intervention. We have discovered these things called enzymes and ribosomes that do this. DNA is not really a language, it's more a stencil or template. Does this mean God doesn't exist? Of course not. But understand the science before you chalk it up to an act of God. Link to post Share on other sites
a4a Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 Ok, I wrote this debate off as silly, but I graduated with a BS in biotech and I don't recall any time in which I learned that a cell reading its genetic code is due to chance. Yes, mutations do happen, and they do happen by chance. Mutations can also be forced. Trust me, I've done it in the lab to yeast cells more times than I want to admit. But the "programmers" of those cells' DNA were the yeast cells of the generation before them. When I force bacteria to become resistant to an antibiotic, does make me God? No, all I did was introduce a plasmid. Bacteria can do this to each other, thus changing genetic information. And the "reading" of the DNA is not done by divine intervention. We have discovered these things called enzymes and ribosomes that do this. DNA is not really a language, it's more a stencil or template. Does this mean God doesn't exist? Of course not. But understand the science before you chalk it up to an act of God. Perhaps to the Yeast you are god? :lmao: Link to post Share on other sites
PussInHeels Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 Perhaps to the Yeast you are god? :lmao: I was wondering why one of the agar plates had a colony dispersion that looked kind of like my face.... Link to post Share on other sites
Author Fun2BMe Posted November 8, 2006 Author Share Posted November 8, 2006 If that is so, then who created god? And who created the god that created god, ad infinitum? And why not worship the god that created god, then? To me that argument is like someone trying to learn English stuck on why the word island is spelled with an s in there. They get fixated on that and never move on to learn any of the other words. God is God just like how island is spelled island yet you get stuck on focusing on the wrong side of the coin. Link to post Share on other sites
PussInHeels Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 Perhaps to the Yeast you are god? :lmao: Maybe they believe that if they're bad they'll go to the autoclave. Link to post Share on other sites
Moai Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 I don't think it's illogical, but something worth thinking about. To conclude otherwise would be illogical IMO. I wish I thought of it so simply. Since there's no conclusive evidence to support your simple explanation and I have spiritual feelings despite my scientific knowledge, I am still in a state of confusion without having decided on what to believe. But it helps a lot to learn your views and others, more to take into consideration. The evidence is the fact that life exists. I have spiritual feelings, too, and I am an atheist. I don't think that spirituality necessitates a diety, or an afterlife. Everyone has to determine meaning for themselves, obviously. I will say that you seem to be a very thoughtful, kind person, and that is something to be proud of. I appreciate your candor and honesty. Link to post Share on other sites
a4a Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 Maybe they believe that if they're bad they'll go to the autoclave. :lmao: :lmao: diet soda has been sucessfully spewed on my keyboard oh my....... no no not the autoclave....... Link to post Share on other sites
PussInHeels Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 The evidence is the fact that life exists. I have spiritual feelings, too, and I am an atheist. I don't think that spirituality necessitates a diety, or an afterlife. Everyone has to determine meaning for themselves, obviously. I will say that you seem to be a very thoughtful, kind person, and that is something to be proud of. I appreciate your candor and honesty. You are absolutely right. You don't have to be religious to be spiritual, nor does believing in a deity in general necessary affiliate you with a particular religion. Link to post Share on other sites
PussInHeels Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 :lmao: :lmao: diet soda has been sucessfully spewed on my keyboard oh my....... no no not the autoclave....... And if they're good yeast, they'll be used to make beer and bread. Link to post Share on other sites
a4a Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 You are absolutely right. You don't have to be religious to be spiritual, nor does believing in a deity in general necessary affiliate you with a particular religion. there is a huge difference between being spiritual and being religious..... at times the two may mix, but most of the time I don't believe they mix equally. Link to post Share on other sites
Author Fun2BMe Posted November 8, 2006 Author Share Posted November 8, 2006 there is a huge difference between being spiritual and being religious..... at times the two may mix, but most of the time I don't believe they mix equally. The common denominator would be that all in those categories believe in the same God. The difference is the countless way through which they express/not express it and come to believe in the God, whether through someone else's version or through their own version of events or what God means to them. Link to post Share on other sites
PussInHeels Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 The common denominator would be that all in those categories believe in the same God. The difference is the countless way through which they express/not express it and come to believe in the God, whether through someone else's version or through their own version of events or what God means to them. At first I was going to disagree, but then thinking about the limitlessness of human perception, I think I can see your point. The concept of God, while still the same concept, can be expressed in many ways or, in the case of spiritual atheists, modified to format a spiritual world without a God. Link to post Share on other sites
Author Fun2BMe Posted November 8, 2006 Author Share Posted November 8, 2006 At first I was going to disagree, but then thinking about the limitlessness of human perception, I think I can see your point. The concept of God, while still the same concept, can be expressed in many ways or, in the case of spiritual atheists, modified to format a spiritual world without a God. At first I thought you are taking my statement out of context applying atheist to the meaning of spiritual which I don't think applies, but I would have to know what you mean or what it means to be spiritual without believing in God. Link to post Share on other sites
PussInHeels Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 At first I thought you are taking my statement out of context applying atheist to the meaning of spiritual which I don't think applies, but I would have to know what you mean or what it means to be spiritual without believing in God. I think I person can believe in fate, things happening for a reason, some sort of design, etc. without believing in God. (e.g. Taoists, Buddhists, Confucianists (although debated on whether or not it's an actual religion)). Link to post Share on other sites
PussInHeels Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 What I meant was the concept of that design or fate could be construed as a modified perception of God just in that there is something else that controls or presides over the world around us. I'm not saying I subscribe to this, but I'm just saying it could be seen that way. Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted November 8, 2006 Share Posted November 8, 2006 What I meant was the concept of that design or fate could be construed as a modified perception of God just in that there is something else that controls or presides over the world around us. I'm not saying I subscribe to this, but I'm just saying it could be seen that way. God made man and dinosaurs, but he did not make man narrow minded Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts