Krugman: Views Differ on Age of Planet

[SeanL]

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/201...BAC147F7D479B0

[dalmations202]

Just a FYI- (IMO after reading his article)
the guy writing the article is an absolute dumba$$ who has done no actual logic flows or true scientific research and absolutely has an agenda.

Too bad too many others listen to drivel and consider it fact.

Science today is a huge amount of hypothesis that are swayed to get to whatever answer the guy wanting the $$$$ wants it to be.

Prove a hypothesis wrong, and well it isn't wrong unless you have a better option science likes. Use circular logic and well, it must be fact. Utilize a variable and call it a constant and you can get rich. Pure ignorance, IMO.

Too bad so few use their brains anymore for anything but making $$$$.

[SeanL]

Originally Posted by dalmations202

Just a FYI- (IMO after reading his article)
the guy writing the article is an absolute dumba$$ who has done no actual logic flows or true scientific research and absolutely has an agenda.

Too bad too many others listen to drivel and consider it fact.

Science today is a huge amount of hypothesis that are swayed to get to whatever answer the guy wanting the $$$$ wants it to be.

Prove a hypothesis wrong, and well it isn't wrong unless you have a better option science likes. Use circular logic and well, it must be fact. Utilize a variable and call it a constant and you can get rich. Pure ignorance, IMO.

Too bad so few use their brains anymore for anything but making $$$$.

Scientific research is one big conspiracy right? [takes off tin foil helmet]

Your post is why people view the conservative movement as the anti-science neanderthal movement.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by dalmations202

Prove a hypothesis wrong, and well it isn't wrong unless you have a better option science likes.

You are barking up the wrong tree here. Proving hypotheses wrong and then going in another direction is what scientists do all day, every day.

Use circular logic and well, it must be fact.

If a scientist used circular logic to make a claim, there would be a thousand other scientists call him on it. It's...sorta the way the whole thing works.

Utilize a variable and call it a constant and you can get rich.

Not sure exactly what you are getting at here.

[dalmations202]

Really ---......I want you to tell me some FACTS then since apparently my background doesn't seem to keep me informed. LOL

How old are the dinosaurs? How old is each layer of the earth?
Scientific circular logic --- these dinosaur bones are this old -- because they were found in this layer of ground. This layer of ground is this old because these fossils were found in the layer. Circular logic. Look it up if you would like. It has been happening for years. Please research carbon dating before you start telling me about scientist using it instead of using the layers to date.

Please lets don't go into why macro evolution is not even close to correct. If you do even a small amount of study you will realize that macro evolution was PROVEN incorrect via science long ago. No one has a better (hypothesis) though that does not make man created by a higher being -- which means he made us and we are his -- not the other way around. God created man, not man created God. We are his to do with as he sees fit, not we are in control of everything. Funny how man is so stuck on himself that he doesn't want to answer to anyone -- and with most, I can understand why.

Want a fun read, that you can think a little about and still get a good sci-fi read....Read Logics End by Keith A Robinson. It is a book about a scientist going into outer space and getting to another planet. Fun read, and at least takes a logical look into evolution.


You do realize that science has changed the age of the earth by billions of years over the last 50 years right.
You do realize that science said that Hiroshima and Nagasaki would not be able to be lived in due to radiation for at least 400 years, right. Even though they were started to be rebuilt within 5 years. Well, till they found out about exponential decay anyway.

You do realize that the Chernobyl area was not suppose to be lived in for at least 500 years correct, and yet there are animals today in that area living just fine. (and this happened in my lifetime it happened in 1986) Four hundred times more radioactive material was released than had been by the atomic bombing of Hiroshima. In the most affected areas of Ukraine, levels of radioactivity (particularly from radionuclides 131I, 137Cs and 90Sr) in drinking water caused concern during the weeks and months after the accident, though officially it was stated that all contaminants had settled to the bottom "in an insoluble phase" and would not dissolve for 800–1,000 years.

You do realize that science used the speed of light as a constant -- which they use for many calculations -- but they can also bend light via vacuum and know about black holes bending light -- yet still keep the idea of the speed of light being constant because we just flat cannot prove any difference and it would cause the scientific world to change everything.

No -- I have little faith in most science. Not that science itself is wrong, just peoples assumptions when they have something to gain from it.

I am not saying that micro-evolution didn't happen -- ie somewhere long ago a fox, coyote, dog, wolf were related -- but they were all still canine. Just saying that today $$$$ is the driving factor and that "science" tends to skew its data to where they can get funded to "prove" this or that --- meaning they have the answer they want and fix it to where they get the process leading up to it.

I also realize that some think it is a neanderthal movement. None of which have taken the time to figure it out, research, or scientifically prove/disprove anything. All have an agenda of not wanting to answer to anyone -- heck I spend the first 30 years of my life just like you. Only one day, I figured that since my father was a science teacher, I might want to figure out why he didn't think that the books were correct. I spent about 5 years reading, studying -- the bible, the Koran, the book of Morman, science books, and massive amounts of quiet time just trying to figure it out. The book Logics End is just a logical destruction of the evolution theory. Maybe some don't like logic, but it would be hard to read that book and still think that MacroEvolution is even a possibility in any sane scientist mind -- and yet I just sent a couple kids to college and they have college profs teaching it. So no, I don't see the "thousand other scientists calling him on it". It has to do with $$$$$ and agenda.

Welcome to the world we live in.

And then someone has the audacity to tell me that there was nothing that a big bang happened causing everything and somewhere over time both logic and emotion developed. Wow -- talk about the need for "belief". Sorry -- I have my belief and it is not in man (science) because I don't have the fear of having to answer to another.

Research it -- spend a little time working through it logically -- do a little scientific hypothesis testing -- eventually you will get there. Close your mind and say -- well they don't have the proof, so I think this is right.......and all you have is a closed mind.

Why do you think that so many people have tried to prove the Bible wrong?
Hard to admit that something besides man is in control isn't it.

[SeanL]

Originally Posted by dalmations202

Really ---......I want you to tell me some FACTS then since apparently my background doesn't seem to keep me informed. LOL

How old are the dinosaurs? How old is each layer of the earth?
Scientific circular logic --- these dinosaur bones are this old -- because they were found in this layer of ground. This layer of ground is this old because these fossils were found in the layer. Circular logic. Look it up if you would like. It has been happening for years. Please research carbon dating before you start telling me about scientist using it instead of using the layers to date.

Please lets don't go into why macro evolution is not even close to correct. If you do even a small amount of study you will realize that macro evolution was PROVEN incorrect via science long ago. No one has a better (hypothesis) though that does not make man created by a higher being -- which means he made us and we are his -- not the other way around. God created man, not man created God. We are his to do with as he sees fit, not we are in control of everything. Funny how man is so stuck on himself that he doesn't want to answer to anyone -- and with most, I can understand why.

Want a fun read, that you can think a little about and still get a good sci-fi read....Read Logics End by Keith A Robinson. It is a book about a scientist going into outer space and getting to another planet. Fun read, and at least takes a logical look into evolution.


You do realize that science has changed the age of the earth by billions of years over the last 50 years right.
You do realize that science said that Hiroshima and Nagasaki would not be able to be lived in due to radiation for at least 400 years, right. Even though they were started to be rebuilt within 5 years. Well, till they found out about exponential decay anyway.

You do realize that the Chernobyl area was not suppose to be lived in for at least 500 years correct, and yet there are animals today in that area living just fine. (and this happened in my lifetime it happened in 1986) Four hundred times more radioactive material was released than had been by the atomic bombing of Hiroshima. In the most affected areas of Ukraine, levels of radioactivity (particularly from radionuclides 131I, 137Cs and 90Sr) in drinking water caused concern during the weeks and months after the accident, though officially it was stated that all contaminants had settled to the bottom "in an insoluble phase" and would not dissolve for 800–1,000 years.

You do realize that science used the speed of light as a constant -- which they use for many calculations -- but they can also bend light via vacuum and know about black holes bending light -- yet still keep the idea of the speed of light being constant because we just flat cannot prove any difference and it would cause the scientific world to change everything.

No -- I have little faith in most science. Not that science itself is wrong, just peoples assumptions when they have something to gain from it.

I am not saying that micro-evolution didn't happen -- ie somewhere long ago a fox, coyote, dog, wolf were related -- but they were all still canine. Just saying that today $$$$ is the driving factor and that "science" tends to skew its data to where they can get funded to "prove" this or that --- meaning they have the answer they want and fix it to where they get the process leading up to it.

I also realize that some think it is a neanderthal movement. None of which have taken the time to figure it out, research, or scientifically prove/disprove anything. All have an agenda of not wanting to answer to anyone -- heck I spend the first 30 years of my life just like you. Only one day, I figured that since my father was a science teacher, I might want to figure out why he didn't think that the books were correct. I spent about 5 years reading, studying -- the bible, the Koran, the book of Morman, science books, and massive amounts of quiet time just trying to figure it out. The book Logics End is just a logical destruction of the evolution theory. Maybe some don't like logic, but it would be hard to read that book and still think that MacroEvolution is even a possibility in any sane scientist mind -- and yet I just sent a couple kids to college and they have college profs teaching it. So no, I don't see the "thousand other scientists calling him on it". It has to do with $$$$$ and agenda.

Welcome to the world we live in.

And then someone has the audacity to tell me that there was nothing that a big bang happened causing everything and somewhere over time both logic and emotion developed. Wow -- talk about the need for "belief". Sorry -- I have my belief and it is not in man (science) because I don't have the fear of having to answer to another.

Research it -- spend a little time working through it logically -- do a little scientific hypothesis testing -- eventually you will get there. Close your mind and say -- well they don't have the proof, so I think this is right.......and all you have is a closed mind.

Why do you think that so many people have tried to prove the Bible wrong?
Hard to admit that something besides man is in control isn't it.

It is a scientific fact that the earth is on the order of billions of years old. Suggesting otherwise only makes you look silly and crazy.

And your belief is in man. God never came down from his space cloud and told you he existed. You believe he exists because your mommy and daddy told you he existed. If you grew up in a hindu family then you would believe in multiple gods because that is what your mommy and daddy told you. Your faith is not in god, but in man (your mommy).

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by SeanL

It is a scientific fact that the earth is on the order of billions of years old. Suggesting otherwise only makes you look silly and crazy.

Any scientist would tell you that's a theory, not a fact - science isn't so quick to declare absolutes, don't treat it like a religion.

[Dirkadirkastan]

Originally Posted by Underdog

Any scientist would tell you that's a theory, not a fact - science isn't so quick to declare absolutes, don't treat it like a religion.

A theory is not a guess. It is a hypothesis that has been confirmed through sufficient testing.

The hypothesis that the earth is only thousands of years old is not a theory, and there is no evidence to support such a claim.

There is uncertainty in the age of the earth within a few million years (which is not much when we're talking billions), but the evidence is strong enough such that to believe the age of the earth falls anywhere outside the relatively small range currently held by science is baseless and irrational.

Yes, there's always a footnote in science that new evidence could conceivably come up that would challenge the theory. But a new hypothesis would have to be worked out to explain both the old and the new evidence, then be thoroughly tested before it could graduate to the level of a revised theory. Some old book will hold zero weight in the discussion regardless.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan

A theory is not a guess. It is a hypothesis that has been confirmed through sufficient testing.

The hypothesis that the earth is only thousands of years old is not a theory, and there is no evidence to support such a claim.

There is uncertainty in the age of the earth within a few million years (which is not much when we're talking billions), but the evidence is strong enough such that to believe the age of the earth falls anywhere outside the relatively small range currently held by science is baseless and irrational.

Yes, there's always a footnote in science that new evidence could conceivably come up that would challenge the theory. But a new hypothesis would have to be worked out to explain both the old and the new evidence, then be thoroughly tested before it could graduate to the level of a revised theory. Some old book will hold zero weight in the discussion regardless.

I'm not disagreeing with you - I'm just pointing out that a majority of people are fairly ignorant when it comes to science and they take everything that a scientist says at face value, no different than how most people are fairly ignorant about spirituality (place/significance in the universe) and take everything that a cleric says at face value... A theory is not a hypothesis, but its not a law either - most people don't (can't?) make the distinction... They tend to fall back on belief instead of trusting in scientific rigor, but I guess even scientists can get sick of answering the question "why?" over and over - especially since there's more grant money in answers than questions (hello, peak oil and global warming debates?)

A potent mixture of greed and ignorance is turning science into another religion, which is diluting its ultimate purpose: the search for truth (which happens to be the same place where religion started...)

Maybe our current theories about our origins are correct, but there's a pretty decent chance that whatever the actual truth is will make those theories look as ridiculous as anything you can find in a religious text... Claiming that we KNOW anything at this point is a belief, and any responsible scientist can admit that... Hell, we don't even know how consciousness works - how can we pretend to know how the universe works??

[SeanL]

Originally Posted by Underdog

Any scientist would tell you that's a theory, not a fact - science isn't so quick to declare absolutes, don't treat it like a religion.

Gravity is a theory. I dare you to jump off a cliff. I don't think you know what a scientific theory means.

Maybe you are referring to a hypothesis.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by SeanL

And your belief is in man.

Spot-on-balls-accurate. It all comes down to that, plainly and simply.

[EricaLubarsky]

No -- I have little faith in most science.

I never got this idea. We have a robot on Mars vaporizing rocks and doing mass spectroscopy. We have cures for hundreds of diseases based on the very idea of gene sequencing and evolution-- it's the reason we have flu shots. We have a space station orbiting the Earth. We have phones that talk to satellites. I guess it's easy to question smaller details of science but to say you have little faith in science is bewildering to me.

Just because Isaac Newton got some details wrong that Einstein corrected and Einstein is being proven wrong himself doesn't mean that gravity is up for debate.

If you want to believe in religion, then do that. It's just not going to be justified by science if it retains it's fundamentalist views. The Earth is not flat as they believed it was in Jesus' time. The earth isn't the center of the universe. Science isn't replacing God-- it's just discovering things about the world that paint God in a different light. If you are fighting science, I believe you are on the same side as the Catholic church that banned the teachings of Galileo. The church eventually realized that they couldn't pretend that Galileo was wrong anymore and moved on-- much like most of the religious leaders in the world-- just not in the US for some reason even though we are at the forefront of many scientific fields.

Either God changes to adapt to the new paradigm live a unified spiritual existence (as he did when we realized that the Earth was not the center of the universe nor the center of the solar system), or you can dismiss science and live in two different worlds-- where you live your everyday life as if you are rational (getting immunized, depending on gravity, etc) but worship on a completely non-rational plane. Belief in God was never supposed to be a rational endeavor, so I don't believe either one of those is necessarily superior, but I would just personally be concerned that my religious faith was always in conflict with how the world is.

And for the record, I think it's absolutely silly to believe that scientists are motivated by a desire to disprove the bible. Most of the greatest scientific discoveries that flew in the face of church dogma were discovered by accident-- and many by religious men. Scientists want to know the truth. Religious people think they know the truth so they don't want to listen when scientists find evidence that begins to tell a story contrary to fringe elements of their faith. The Bible never says how old the Earth is literally and evolution does not mean that God doesn't exist the same way that the Earth being a small spec in the universe never convinced a single person that Jesus' teachings were wrong or that there is no God. Why does it matter?

Does it even matter that Jesus speaks of evolution in a parable when he identifies dominant (black fur) and recessive (white fur) genetic traits in sheep and breeding to keep some traits from showing themselves in a population? Does it matter that after Jesus' parable all you have to do is let the sheep wander the country side for a million years and you have evolution as Darwin knew it?

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by EricaLubarsky

I never got this idea. We have a robot on Mars vaporizing rocks and doing mass spectroscopy. We have cures for hundreds of diseases based on the very idea of gene sequencing and evolution-- it's the reason we have flu shots. We have a space station orbiting the Earth. We have phones that talk to satellites. I guess it's easy to question smaller details of science but to say you have little faith in science is bewildering to me.

Just because Isaac Newton got some details wrong that Einstein corrected and Einstein is being proven wrong himself doesn't mean that gravity is up for debate.

If you want to believe in religion, then do that. It's just not going to be justified by science if it retains it's fundamentalist views. The Earth is not flat as they believed it was in Jesus' time. The earth isn't the center of the universe. Science isn't replacing God-- it's just discovering things about the world that paint God in a different light. If you are fighting science, I believe you are on the same side as the Catholic church that banned the teachings of Galileo. The church eventually realized that they couldn't pretend that Galileo was wrong anymore and moved on-- much like most of the religious leaders in the world-- just not in the US for some reason even though we are at the forefront of many scientific fields.

Much of what you are writing is true.

The problem is that science is wrong more often than not and that it is OK because we will just change it later.
Many people seem to think that science is God.

I am not fighting science. In fact, I believe that the basis of science is to figure out how things work.

I am not about evolution though -- and that is the current science hypothesis that was thoroughly destroyed by science, but still left being taught.
I just don't understand why some must have it "all the way".

As I stated, my father is a retired science teacher. I spent lots of time with lots of science books, and did lots of experiments. I have read massive amounts on peoples beliefs in "the origins".

The Origin of life is the "Big" question.

If we came from nothingness, and there is no future "afterlife", then why do things matter at all. Why offer my life to defend someone else -- if there is no "good or bad". Why is there Love and who can explain it? There can be no soul.

The ability of inventors to build things or understand is great "science", but it doesn't really explain anything.

IF God created man -- then he can make the rules, and you can have an afterlife, and you should act a certain way, and etc etc etc. It can explain the origin of life. It can explain emotions, love, and logical existence.

IF Man was created via nothingness then -- man makes the rules, and might makes right. There is no right or wrong, only what man thinks. You should never wake up wondering what happened when you killed someone -- because everyone will die anyway and it ends there. Hiding it from man is the only consequence. Rape, Theft, beating, and killing are just the way things are -- much like in the world of all other animals. Why are things different in the human world? How did logic evolve? How did Love evolve? What is true love?

Why do women have rights in America? Why aren't people kept as slaves? What changes the way that is "right and wrong"?

I know the answer, and will go to my grave for it.

Now back to the science vs religion. Science thought the earth was flat as well in Jesus day. Science changed, but so did religion to an extent. The earth isn't the center of the universe, but unless you are talking a specific religion ie Catholicism that I am not well versed in -- then I have never heard religion say earth was the center of the universe.

Have people done absolutely crazy things in the name of religion --- YES. The Crusades, Muslim terrorism, etc are easy to show that religion can be skewed just as much if not more than science. What is the difference in religion and a true Christian. Religion says you need to XXXXX -- A true Christian says -- It is done.

The problem with much science today --- in many cases -- is that they have an answer they are working towards, not trying to find the answer.

Not believing in God is a religion of its own. It is one called believing in Man and Science. I just don't have enough "Faith" in man -- because he keeps changing it to his own will of whatever fits "me" today.

IMO, it takes more outright Faith to believe their isn't a God than it does to be able to show that he exists. Now I am back to -- If there is a God -- and we were created by him --- then isn't he the one who gets to make the rules?

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by dalmations202

Many people seem to think that science is God.

Science is the nature of God, mathematics is the language of God... There's nothing in the Bible that contradicts that.

[Dirkadirkastan]

Originally Posted by dalmations202

If we came from nothingness, and there is no future "afterlife", then why do things matter at all. Why offer my life to defend someone else -- if there is no "good or bad". Why is there Love and who can explain it? There can be no soul.

Gosh, if this life is all I have, then it is the only thing that has importance at all. If we have time later for some divine agent to sort everything out, all this won't matter in the long run.

IF God created man -- then he can make the rules, and you can have an afterlife, and you should act a certain way, and etc etc etc. It can explain the origin of life. It can explain emotions, love, and logical existence.

If you're merely doing as you're told, then you cannot receive credit for any moral act. Divine command actually TAKES AWAY from morality, since your motivation is not genuine.

IF Man was created via nothingness then -- man makes the rules, and might makes right. There is no right or wrong, only what man thinks. You should never wake up wondering what happened when you killed someone -- because everyone will die anyway and it ends there. Hiding it from man is the only consequence. Rape, Theft, beating, and killing are just the way things are -- much like in the world of all other animals. Why are things different in the human world? How did logic evolve? How did Love evolve? What is true love?

Why are you such a fan of the bible then? Rape and slavery are ordinary commands. Logic is nowhere to be found.

Why do women have rights in America? Why aren't people kept as slaves? What changes the way that is "right and wrong"?

See above. Women certainly did not get their rights from the bible.

Have people done absolutely crazy things in the name of religion --- YES. The Crusades, Muslim terrorism, etc are easy to show that religion can be skewed just as much if not more than science. What is the difference in religion and a true Christian. Religion says you need to XXXXX -- A true Christian says -- It is done.

No True Scotsman, eh?

The problem with much science today --- in many cases -- is that they have an answer they are working towards, not trying to find the answer.

Not believing in God is a religion of its own. It is one called believing in Man and Science. I just don't have enough "Faith" in man -- because he keeps changing it to his own will of whatever fits "me" today.

I don't see that at all. Why would anyone have the burning desire to prove we evolved from apes? What's so inspiring about the eventual heat death of the universe? There's nothing about these ideas that seem contrived or would even fit a particular agenda.

On the flip side, I can certainly see the bias in wanting to believe we were divinely ordained as caretakers of the universe.

IMO, it takes more outright Faith to believe their isn't a God than it does to be able to show that he exists. Now I am back to -- If there is a God -- and we were created by him --- then isn't he the one who gets to make the rules?

You seem fully convinced that everyone just already knows deep down that God is watching them, so those that outwardly reject this universally known fact are simply in denial due to their personal desire to be "in control" and morally irresponsible.

Once you learn the truth, that many people genuinely do not believe a supernatural watchman/dictator exists, then hopefully you will start to take their arguments more seriously.

[Dirkadirkastan]

Originally Posted by dalmations202

How old are the dinosaurs? How old is each layer of the earth?
Scientific circular logic --- these dinosaur bones are this old -- because they were found in this layer of ground. This layer of ground is this old because these fossils were found in the layer. Circular logic. Look it up if you would like. It has been happening for years. Please research carbon dating before you start telling me about scientist using it instead of using the layers to date.

Or perhaps we know enough about both bone decay and geology that the two properties of new discoveries mutually confirm each other?

Please lets don't go into why macro evolution is not even close to correct. If you do even a small amount of study you will realize that macro evolution was PROVEN incorrect via science long ago. No one has a better (hypothesis) though that does not make man created by a higher being -- which means he made us and we are his -- not the other way around. God created man, not man created God. We are his to do with as he sees fit, not we are in control of everything. Funny how man is so stuck on himself that he doesn't want to answer to anyone -- and with most, I can understand why.

Let's not go into it because you brought a big empty bag with that claim. There's no distinction between "macro-evolution" and "micro-evolution" other than time.

As for the God non-sequitur... well, let's not pretend the supernatural claim is somehow more scientific than the natural one. If you pay close attention, you'll discover that God arguments boil down to no more than God-of-the-gaps arguments; that is, you suggest God did it because you lack an explanation, not because you provide a sufficient explanation. I don't see how this qualifies as an exception.

You do realize that science used the speed of light as a constant -- which they use for many calculations -- but they can also bend light via vacuum and know about black holes bending light -- yet still keep the idea of the speed of light being constant because we just flat cannot prove any difference and it would cause the scientific world to change everything.

Speed C specifically refers to the speed of light in a vacuum. So when light travels through a medium, let's say water, it goes at a speed less than C. It's not that complicated.

Besides, nothing has flipped science on its head more than Einstein's relativity, which is little more than the logical extrapolation of the acknowledgement that speed C is a constant. And you're talking as if this is an example of science merely clinging to a safe assumption because it fears a revolution!

I also realize that some think it is a neanderthal movement. None of which have taken the time to figure it out, research, or scientifically prove/disprove anything. All have an agenda of not wanting to answer to anyone -- heck I spend the first 30 years of my life just like you. Only one day, I figured that since my father was a science teacher, I might want to figure out why he didn't think that the books were correct. I spent about 5 years reading, studying -- the bible, the Koran, the book of Morman, science books, and massive amounts of quiet time just trying to figure it out. The book Logics End is just a logical destruction of the evolution theory. Maybe some don't like logic, but it would be hard to read that book and still think that MacroEvolution is even a possibility in any sane scientist mind -- and yet I just sent a couple kids to college and they have college profs teaching it. So no, I don't see the "thousand other scientists calling him on it". It has to do with $$$$$ and agenda.

Welcome to the world we live in.

Believe it or not, "science" is not a single, conspiratorial entity. The thousands of scientists Chum is referring to answer to each other, and not to us, because they are the only ones qualified to review each other's work, not us.

And then someone has the audacity to tell me that there was nothing that a big bang happened causing everything and somewhere over time both logic and emotion developed. Wow -- talk about the need for "belief". Sorry -- I have my belief and it is not in man (science) because I don't have the fear of having to answer to another.

Let's see who has this "need for belief"...

Why do you think that so many people have tried to prove the Bible wrong?
Hard to admit that something besides man is in control isn't it.

It's not about "proving the Bible wrong", it's about finding the only way to make sense out of the damn thing. Here is an example:

Originally Posted by Deuteronomy 20:10-18

When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the Lord your God gives you from your enemies. This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.

However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the Lord your God has commanded you. Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the Lord your God.

Trying to justify this passage as a holy and divinely inspired commandment will inevitably lead to strange and abhorrent drivel. But reread the passage, this time replacing the phrase "the Lord your God" with "the tribe leader". You will instantly expose the man behind the curtain as well as the motivation behind the passage.

Now, are you really going to reread the passage in the manner I just described, and objectively examine the ramifications? Or do you have some beliefs of your own that you're just a bit too eager to protect?

[EricaLubarsky]

On the other hand, I believe Krugman went too far. Just because someone flexes their spiritual (and therefor irrational) side, doesn't mean they are wholly incapable of making decisions. It's insulting to me that someone would paint a human in such broad strokes.

[dalmations202]

Good stuff Dirk and Erica -- I don't have time presently, but will get back to this "discussion" and my irrationality soon.

[blubber]

A scientific theory is just a model we have. The model that explains the most phenomena will be the one favored by the majority of scientist. It also helps if the theory isn't excessively complex (like the gear-theory for explaining planet motions). And of course it must make predictions that can be tested. I.e. it must explain more than an alredy established theory. And last but not least it must be falsifiable.

Young-earth does not satisfy all these criteria. It certainly doesn't make new predictions. It is excessively complicated in order to explain all phenomena. It has to be constantly adapted to comply with new stuff we uncover. It implies that there is a creator / god. Since the existence of god can not be disproven, this part renders it inherently non-falsifiable - ergo not a scientific theory. There is just no purely rational reason to favor young-earth over big-bang, or creationism over evolution.

That said. I do agree with one thing: Science does have it's problems. Science today is very complex. And it will get more complex still. Today there are no more true universalist, people that have a comprehensive understanding of all branches of science. In todays scientific world you have to specialize to survive, to contribute on a meaningful level.
On the other hand popular science is getting more and more common. Scientist are under pressure to simplify their findings so laymen or even fellow scientist from a different branch can understand them on even a rudimentary level. Obviously these simplified versions are not complete and are not in and of themselves scientific.
All that means, that we have to rely more and more on the integrity of the scientific community (and on mechanisms like peer-reviewed publications). This of course introduces a certain level of trust or "believe" in this scientific system (even more so for complete laymen). This is unfortunate, but there really is no alternative. Of course this opens up science to all levels of skeptisism and even mistrust. But that is not a bad thing per se.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by blubber

A scientific theory is just a model we have. The model that explains the most phenomena will be the one favored by the majority of scientist. It also helps if the theory isn't excessively complex (like the gear-theory for explaining planet motions). And of course it must make predictions that can be tested. I.e. it must explain more than an alredy established theory. And last but not least it must be falsifiable.

Young-earth does not satisfy all these criteria. It certainly doesn't make new predictions. It is excessively complicated in order to explain all phenomena. It has to be constantly adapted to comply with new stuff we uncover. It implies that there is a creator / god. Since the existence of god can not be disproven, this part renders it inherently non-falsifiable - ergo not a scientific theory. There is just no purely rational reason to favor young-earth over big-bang, or creationism over evolution.

That said. I do agree with one thing: Science does have it's problems. Science today is very complex. And it will get more complex still. Today there are no more true universalist, people that have a comprehensive understanding of all branches of science. In todays scientific world you have to specialize to survive, to contribute on a meaningful level.
On the other hand popular science is getting more and more common. Scientist are under pressure to simplify their findings so laymen or even fellow scientist from a different branch can understand them on even a rudimentary level. Obviously these simplified versions are not complete and are not in and of themselves scientific.
All that means, that we have to rely more and more on the integrity of the scientific community (and on mechanisms like peer-reviewed publications). This of course introduces a certain level of trust or "believe" in this scientific system (even more so for complete laymen). This is unfortunate, but there really is no alternative. Of course this opens up science to all levels of skeptisism and even mistrust. But that is not a bad thing per se.

I don't know who you are, guy, but you get it...

[SeanL]

Originally Posted by blubber

A scientific theory is just a model we have. The model that explains the most phenomena will be the one favored by the majority of scientist. It also helps if the theory isn't excessively complex (like the gear-theory for explaining planet motions). And of course it must make predictions that can be tested. I.e. it must explain more than an alredy established theory. And last but not least it must be falsifiable.

Young-earth does not satisfy all these criteria. It certainly doesn't make new predictions. It is excessively complicated in order to explain all phenomena. It has to be constantly adapted to comply with new stuff we uncover. It implies that there is a creator / god. Since the existence of god can not be disproven, this part renders it inherently non-falsifiable - ergo not a scientific theory. There is just no purely rational reason to favor young-earth over big-bang, or creationism over evolution.

That said. I do agree with one thing: Science does have it's problems. Science today is very complex. And it will get more complex still. Today there are no more true universalist, people that have a comprehensive understanding of all branches of science. In todays scientific world you have to specialize to survive, to contribute on a meaningful level.
On the other hand popular science is getting more and more common. Scientist are under pressure to simplify their findings so laymen or even fellow scientist from a different branch can understand them on even a rudimentary level. Obviously these simplified versions are not complete and are not in and of themselves scientific.
All that means, that we have to rely more and more on the integrity of the scientific community (and on mechanisms like peer-reviewed publications). This of course introduces a certain level of trust or "believe" in this scientific system (even more so for complete laymen). This is unfortunate, but there really is no alternative. Of course this opens up science to all levels of skeptisism and even mistrust. But that is not a bad thing per se.

You don't have to trust or believe anything scientists tells you. In any well documented scientific study they lay out their methodology and analysis, and if you wanted to you could repeat their study. And often times that is what happens, scientists repeat experiments from other scientists before they become widely accepted.

And skepticism is not a bad thing, but irrational mistrust and even fear of the scientific community is a bad thing. And this last statement describes conservatives.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by SeanL

And skepticism is not a bad thing, but irrational mistrust and even fear of the scientific community is a bad thing.

For my own part, I never claimed to mistrust the scientific community - I'm just pointing out that science is being treated the same way as religion... Most laypeople don't know enough about science to interpret the data for themselves, which is where faith comes into play... And putting your faith into a group of people who claim to have all the answers sounds a lot like a religion to me... It falls more on the heads of the ignorant masses than the scientists, but it certainly does open the door for the same type of corruption that you find in religion.

Which is why we have good, old-fashioned greed is motivating some -- not most -- but some people in the scientific community to stray from scientific rigor in favor of a quick buck (peak oil, tobacco, global warming, even intelligent design)... Which has an affect in the court of popular opinion, not to mention politics (coming full-circle.)

[SeanL]

Originally Posted by Underdog

For my own part, I never claimed to mistrust the scientific community - I'm just pointing out that science is being treated the same way as religion... Most laypeople don't know enough about science to interpret the data for themselves, which is where faith comes into play... And putting your faith into a group of people who claim to have all the answers sounds a lot like a religion to me... It falls more on the heads of the ignorant masses than the scientists, but it certainly does open the door for the same type of corruption that you find in religion.

Which is why we have good, old-fashioned greed is motivating some -- not most -- but some people in the scientific community to stray from scientific rigor in favor of a quick buck (peak oil, tobacco, global warming, even intelligent design)... Which has an affect in the court of popular opinion, not to mention politics (coming full-circle.)

But I'm not putting my faith in them. I require them to present evidence for their claims. Whereas, religious folk ask for no such evidence for the claims in the bible. The only reason why they believe in it is because their mommy and daddy told them it is "the truth" since they were kids.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by SeanL

But I'm not putting my faith in them. I require them to present evidence for their claims.

What do you do for a living - are you a scientist? Do you spend every waking moment poring over data from every scientific study on the planet? You must be an amazing individual to have such a vast and comprehensive understanding of science that you can scrutinize every single detail of scientific research for proof instead of having to take a scientist's word at face value like the rest of us...

Whereas, religious folk ask for no such evidence for the claims in the bible.

You seem to think that the only religion on the planet is Christianity and that all Christians are fundamentalists who believe that the Bible is to be taken literally... Here's a crazy little fact that you could have discovered through scientific rigor: the Jews, authors of the Old Testament, never intended their work to be taken literally... That's why I mentioned the Talmud, which is the ancient and ongoing debate among the Hebrews about how to translate the meaning of the Torah - it's not exactly the scientific method, but it certainly is a call for evidence.

[chumdawg]

Scientists go to great lengths to make sure they are understood. If you can't understand them, you aren't offering anything to mankind going forward.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Scientists go to great lengths to make sure they are understood. If you can't understand them, you aren't offering anything to mankind going forward.

Shhh... Do you hear that? It's string theory laughing in the distance.

[Dirkadirkastan]

Circumcision is also a pretty batshit crazy idea thanks to the Jews, but it's still largely mainstream. I don't think you can call yourself separate from the crazies until you renounce it.

They even got the whole bad science thing going for them too. What's the sexual disease epidemic of the day? AIDS? Oh sure, circumcision will certainly prevent that. What's that? A lot of older guys get prostate cancer too? If only they had gotten circumcised...

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan

Circumcision is also a pretty batshit crazy idea thanks to the Jews, but it's still largely mainstream. I don't think you can call yourself separate from the crazies until you renounce it.

They even got the whole bad science thing going for them too. What's the sexual disease epidemic of the day? AIDS? Oh sure, circumcision will certainly prevent that. What's that? A lot of older guys get prostate cancer too? If only they had gotten circumcised...

Yep, ancient belief systems tend to be full of bad/outdated ideas, but you don't need religion's help to come up with bad ideas - sitting on your ass and staring at a computer screen all day in exchange for a paycheck can make you obese and send you to an early grave, but we do it anyway. Bad ideas can be found everywhere in the human experience... So can good ideas (the whole "treat others as you wish to be treated" can't be quantified, but it tends to work out pretty well for the most part when applied properly - science doesn't cover everything...)

[dalmations202]

Finally some good debate.

Quick scientific experiment.

Take an aquarium -- put a water hose in the bottom but don't turn on. then fill with 1" layer of dirt and bone, etc. then fill with another layer of different colored dirt, bones, rock, etc. Then fill with another and another till tank half full. Then bury a few items just somewhere in the depth of the layers.

then fill with 4" of water above the dirt.

then turn on the water hose that was below the layers of dirt. And shake the aquarium violently.

then drain the water, and put a hair drier on one side blowing on one spot only.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Do all the layers of dirt stay in the same layers?
Do all the bones and rocks end up in the same place? In the same layer they were originally in?
When the hair dryer runs long enough, does the sand cause a hole in one spot while building a layer in a different part of the aquarium?
------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
This scientific experiment could explain how some things settle when water is added and that external forces can change where things are in comparison to layers.
----------------------------------------------------------------
This does not prove that a flood happened on the earth, but does prove that if there was a flood or event like it at one time, it could have caused the layers to not be a good choice for how we determine age.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Now, without using any layers of the ground, please give me the scientific proof of how old the earth is.

I always thought it was radiocarbon dating. But--
Raw radiocarbon ages (i.e., those not calibrated) are usually reported in "years Before Present" (BP). This is the number of radiocarbon years before 1950, based on a nominal (an assumed constant) level of carbon-14 in the atmosphere equal to the 1950 level. These raw dates are also based on a slightly-off historic value for the radiocarbon half-life. Such value is used for consistency with earlier published dates.

So if the atmosphere was always the same, and if I assume that there is a constant level of decay, and IF and IF and IF -- then we might be right within a +- of XXX years.

Or from a more standard view....
The number of decays per time is proportional to the current number of radioactive atoms. This is expressed by the following differential equation, where N is the number of radioactive atoms and λ is a positive number called the decay constant:

As the solution to this equation, the number of radioactive atoms N can be written as a function of time:
,
which describes an exponential decay over a timespan t with an initial condition of N0 radioactive atoms at t = 0. Canonically, t is 0 when the decay started. In this case, N0 is the initial number of 14C atoms when the decay started.
For radiocarbon dating a once living organism, the initial ratio of 14C atoms to the sum of all other carbon atoms at the point of the organism's death and hence the point when the decay started, is approximately the ratio in the atmosphere.
Two characteristic times can be defined:
mean- or average-life: mean or average time each radiocarbon atom spends in a given sample until it decays.
half-life: time lapsed for half the number of radiocarbon atoms in a given sample, to decay,
It can be shown that:
= = radiocarbon mean- or average-life = 8033 years (Libby value)
= = radiocarbon half-life = 5568 years (Libby value)

***So science thinks it can date back to 8033 years via the living organisms, but dates animals as being from this geologic era that is millions of years old.

**** Unless someone has some information I haven't seen, then the only other way they have to date any fossils is to date them by the layer of geologic rock they are found in. The experiment above shows that the layers may or may not have been anywhere near close.

Please show me where I can get the "scientific" proof of the age of the earth. Show me where we have proof that the earth is older than thousands of years. Assumptions of decay constants which may or may not be true, assumptions of exact atmosphere, assumptions, assumptions, assumptions.

This means that you "believe" the assumptions made by "other" men.

Religion is close to the same thing -- people believe what is told to them by others. Or they have something happen in their lives that in turn proves to them that there is a higher power.

Science is a religion to an extent. You are asked to believe based upon massive uncertainties. You can't explain, so you state this is your best guess (hypothesis). Some are easy to prove, others prove much more difficult. Example -- how can you prove that the speed of light is a constant? (even if it is a constant here on earth - is it in outer space, or outside our galaxy, or etc)

Since I am an irrational guy -- please send me the links to study which will show me where I am wrong here. I got my masters degree in computers 20 years ago after my military time, and Cobol was the primary language at the time. Just pure logic flow. I don't think I am stupid so please send me links that someone who has had college geology and biology classes should be able to comprehend. I mean not too scientific nerdy, but not jr high either.

Also -- when did science all get to be carefully tested evidence? Some science yes -- all science, not even close.

----------------------------------------------------------
And one more note SeanL: Not all creationist or religious people believe things just because Mommy and Daddy said they were so. Many sure, but all..... not so much. A few I know have studied much harder and longer than you have been alive only to conclude that they just don't really have the answers ( but their own views make the most sense to them).

--------------------------------------------

This is an enjoyable debate. Looking forward to Dirk getting back so I can start debating basketball again instead of politics, religion, science, etc.

[Dirkadirkastan]

How is that aquarium experiment relevant to anything? Since when did rain pour from UNDER the earth and violently shake the planet?? It sounds much more likely that someone read a storybook and is now desperately trying to validate it with a false analogy.

As for the radioactive dating... the "average life" refers to taking the average over the whole system. It does NOT imply that the actual life of every particle lasted at or even near that duration. If half of the atoms have decayed in 5000 years, then that's really going to skew the overall average lifespan toward a small number. By comparison, very few atoms survive 100 half-lives, and thus their long lifespan ultimately doesn't affect the average lifespan value that much. But some do last that long... after all, that's the whole idea behind the half-life. Half of the atoms decay and half remain after each half-life, so there will always be a few hanging around.

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan

How is that aquarium experiment relevant to anything? Since when did rain pour from UNDER the earth and violently shake the planet?? It sounds much more likely that someone read a storybook and is now desperately trying to validate it with a false analogy.

As for the radioactive dating... the "average life" refers to taking the average over the whole system. It does NOT imply that the actual life of every particle lasted at or even near that duration. If half of the atoms have decayed in 5000 years, then that's really going to skew the overall average lifespan toward a small number. By comparison, very few atoms survive 100 half-lives, and thus their long lifespan ultimately doesn't affect the average lifespan value that much. But some do last that long... after all, that's the whole idea behind the half-life. Half of the atoms decay and half remain after each half-life, so there will always be a few hanging around.

Since when didn't rain pour from UNDER the earth? Can you definitively tell me it didn't? You can't.....ah but you can assume without proof.

Now I admit that I made an assumption as well to get to this scientific experiment I chose. I assumed the Biblical version to be correct.

Gen 7:11 In the six hundredth year of the life of Noah, in the second month, in the seventeenth day of the month, in this day have been broken up all fountains of the great deep, and the net-work of the heavens hath been opened,
Gen 7:12 and the shower is on the earth forty days and forty nights.

You see it says it in the Bible -- and the storybook is more of a history book from what I have read. It is interpreted vast way which causes lots of issues, but it so far has never been proven to be false. Nor has it been proven to be totally correct - yet.

So even if you don't believe it -- by scientific testing -- it COULD have happened and would throw a huge wrench into the dating of most things.

------------------------------------------------------------

Are not all lifeforms on the earth Carbon based lifeforms? Isn't that why we use carbon dating on anything that was living? Best I can tell we use Carbon dating to date all things living.

But, I put the carbon half-life and formula up and it only goes back thousands of years and has several assumptions in it even there.

So what is the "other" dating we can use on carbon based lifeforms?

I know various other elements we from a scientific standpoint -- IF -- we assume constant decay, etc have longer half-lives. As it was explained to me though -- all living creatures on the earth are carbon based -- hence the reason we do carbon dating.

So I am back to the question above? How does science date carbon based lifeforms other than radiocarbon dating?

[Dirkadirkastan]

Originally Posted by dalmations202

Since when didn't rain pour from UNDER the earth? Can you definitively tell me it didn't? You can't.....ah but you can assume without proof.

Fortunately, science properly demands evidence for a positive claim, not for proof of a negative.

Now I admit that I made an assumption as well to get to this scientific experiment I chose. I assumed the Biblical version to be correct.

Gen 7:11 In the six hundredth year of the life of Noah, in the second month, in the seventeenth day of the month, in this day have been broken up all fountains of the great deep, and the net-work of the heavens hath been opened,
Gen 7:12 and the shower is on the earth forty days and forty nights.

You see it says it in the Bible -- and the storybook is more of a history book from what I have read. It is interpreted vast way which causes lots of issues, but it so far has never been proven to be false. Nor has it been proven to be totally correct - yet.

We also have historical records of Zeus casting thunderbolts from Mount Olympus. How much do you believe Greek Mythology should influence scientific analysis?

So even if you don't believe it -- by scientific testing -- it COULD have happened and would throw a huge wrench into the dating of most things.

We also "could have" been deposited on this planet by aliens. That would also certainly throw a wrench into our understanding... once we find evidence for it. For now, we'll stick to the theories that do have evidence going for them.

Are not all lifeforms on the earth Carbon based lifeforms? Isn't that why we use carbon dating on anything that was living? Best I can tell we use Carbon dating to date all things living.

But, I put the carbon half-life and formula up and it only goes back thousands of years and has several assumptions in it even there.

Did you not read what I said before? It doesn't "only go back thousands of years." It goes back millions of years because of the nature of radioactive decay.

So what is the "other" dating we can use on carbon based lifeforms?

I know various other elements we from a scientific standpoint -- IF -- we assume constant decay, etc have longer half-lives. As it was explained to me though -- all living creatures on the earth are carbon based -- hence the reason we do carbon dating.

So I am back to the question above? How does science date carbon based lifeforms other than radiocarbon dating?

I'm no expert on radioactive dating. But this video (argument #1) gives you a list of methods you can look into.

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan

Fortunately, science properly demands evidence for a positive claim, not for proof of a negative.

But what is the proof of evolution?

Quick article I just found....

Will evolution be called into question now that the similarity of chimpanzee and human DNA has been reduced from >98.5% to ~95%? Probably not. Regardless of whether the similarity was reduced even below 90%, evolutionists would still believe that humans and apes shared a common ancestor. Moreover, using percentages hides an important fact. If 5% of the DNA is different, this amounts to 150,000,000 DNA base pairs that are different between them!
A number of studies have demonstrated a remarkable similarity in the nuclear DNA and mtDNA among modern humans. In fact, the DNA sequences for all people are so similar that scientists generally conclude that there is a ‘recent single origin for modern humans, with general replacement of archaic populations. To be fair, the estimates for a date of a ‘most recent common ancestor’ (MRCA) by evolutionists has this ‘recent single origin’ about 100,000-200,000 years ago, which is not recent by creationist standards. These estimates have been based on comparisons with chimpanzees and the assumption of a chimp/human common ancestor approximately 5 million years ago. In contrast, studies that have used pedigrees or generational mtDNA comparisons have yielded a much more recent MRCA—even 6,500 years!
Research on observable generational mutation events leads to a more recent common ancestor for humans than phylogenetic estimates that assume a relationship with chimpanzees. Mutational hotspots are believed to account for this difference. However, in both cases, they are relying on uniformitarian principles—that rates measured in the present can be used to extrapolate the timing of events in the distant past.
The above examples demonstrate that the conclusions of scientific investigations can be different depending on how the study is done. Humans and chimps can have 95% or >98.5% similar DNA depending on which nucleotides are counted and which are excluded. Modern humans can have a single recent ancestor <10,000 or 100,000-200,000 years ago depending on whether a relationship with chimpanzees is assumed and which types of mutations are considered.

*****WELCOME to the FACTS of science that most don't want to talk about.

We also have historical records of Zeus casting thunderbolts from Mount Olympus. How much do you believe Greek Mythology should influence scientific analysis?

Depends, on what are you basing that Zeus cast Thunderbolts. I love Greek Mythology -- but what specific writing are you basing this information on?

We also "could have" been deposited on this planet by aliens. That would also certainly throw a wrench into our understanding... once we find evidence for it. For now, we'll stick to the theories that do have evidence going for them.

We have some evidence of our origin as it was written in some of the oldest writings we have.
Maybe we are just so much smarter now than the humans back then.
Maybe aliens did deposit us on this planet -- doesn't change the real concept though. Who made the aliens?
We have nothing but problems stemming from the idea that we came from apes. Of course if the other alternative is intelligent design -- then man isn't really in control -- we might have to answer for our actions -- and oh my--- there might be a God.
So lets teach it the way of coming from apes -- at least we don't have to answer for our actions that way and we are large and in charge.

Did you not read what I said before? It doesn't "only go back thousands of years." It goes back millions of years because of the nature of radioactive decay.

yes I read what you said before. It just didn't hold water.
Science claims to be able to date based up radioactive decay -- I understand.
They can date rock via other elements than carbon -- I understand.
ALL life on earth is Carbon Based -- I understand.
They can only date anything that was living via carbon dating because it is a carbon based being -- YES I understand.
They can date the rocks, etc they think -- even though they can't prove it -- if they make enough assumptions with atmosphere, and standard rate of decay -- yes I understand.

What I don't understand is if I don't make these assumptions -- how it would ever work, because it doesn't and can't. I don't assume the decay rate stays the same when we can make the decay rate on everything change based upon outside conditions. We can only date rocks etc with the "other" dating methods. Yes some fossils they try to date, after the carbon has been changed to rock, but they still make many assumptions on decay rates and time to convert to the fossil, etc. -- before they make more assumptions on radioactive decay rates being constant based upon the atmosphere it was in at that time. The best scientific method they have at this time for the dating of anything living is radioactive carbon dating, and that only leads back to what I wrote before -- it maxes to thousands of years which is the life of carbon. Science has NO proof of anything longer than this, and this is if I agree to the assumptions that the decay is constant and the atmosphere it was in is the same today as it was then.

I'm no expert on radioactive dating. But this video (argument #1) gives you a list of methods you can look into.

What a video. Basically they say 93% of all scientist don't believe in God and we have taught evolution since the 1950's --- so it all must be true. I mean opinion, opinion, no proof, none. Isn't this exactly what scientists claim that religion says? ( Believe me and I don't need proof and if you don't believe me you are just not as smart (evolved) as I AM )

Just remember the stuff that was taught up till the 1950s is all wrong, we are right -- get on board or your just stupid and wrong.

Science is just another form of religion. Only in Science - man is in charge and knows it all, or can figure it all out.

---------------------------------------------------------

now back to Evolution and God.

Most don't realize that this is THE question. Logic does though.

Evolution has a logical end. The laws of nature have a logical end, but not a logical design.

Have science explain why water -- the building block of life..... is less dense when in both solid and gaseous forms.

Explain why -- if there was a Big Bang -- with all life starting at a single point and goes outward -- that some objects in outer space rotate in opposite directions (You cannot do that here on Earth - I've seen the experiment) Spin something and cause it to explode outward and the inertia causes all things to spin in the same direction. (Same reason that toilets flushed in the northern hemisphere circle one direction when they go down and the opposite direction in the southern hemisphere -- the Earth still spins only one direction)

Science has all kinds of problems it can't solve and its hypothesis just don't work in most instances. The answer for science is just throw out ideas, call them fact, make assumptions, teach it and try as much as possible to get public opinion on their side.

--------------------------------------------------
Now Let's say I am extremely irrational and you are correct. There is no God. Logically there is no afterlife. Hence we live and we die and that is it. Why do we have a conscience? Why is there a right and a wrong? Why shouldn't I just rape, steal, murder? The end is the end no matter what, and we do not have to answer to anyone. Might is always right because if you don't like it, then I'll just kill you. Why would there be Love? and why would anyone offer their own life for someone else? Why would what Hitler did be wrong? Why would the killing of millions be wrong? Who decides right and wrong? Who decides what is fair? Since the planet according to scientist is only able to truly support 500 million or so, and we have 6+ billion on the planet now -- why don't we just commit mass genocide and kill off the rest that are hurting the planet. I am man and can justify this with mans thinking. If man is in control then what makes it wrong for this to happen?

If you don't believe in a God, then why don't you just kill yourself because there isn't anyone to answer to and really you are just hurting the planet anyway.


Can you follow the logic of a world without a creator?


I may be wrong (I am not), but even if I am -- I need to live my life like I have something to live for. Like I have someone to answer to. Like I have a purpose on this earth, and people who care for me and I care for.
If I don't, and there isn't, then the alternative is screw you and your courts, your government, and your life -- I'll take it when I want to and I will rape your women, and steal your food and everything else, and if you don't like it then kill me - because logically that is where we are going to end up either way and none of this matters anyway. Why wait to die, and why try to live at an older age since basically it physically sucks when you start to get old (just trust me on this one). Why try to help others -- if there is nothing for you?

Thinking gets a little deep when you get into it.


Science is a way to try and find the truth -- It just gets itself way off with assumptions, etc that doesn't meet its agenda.
True science is great in my opinion -- just not what is put out there as science today.

[Kirobaito]

Originally Posted by dalmations202

S
Gen 7:11 In the six hundredth year of the life of Noah, in the second month, in the seventeenth day of the month, in this day have been broken up all fountains of the great deep, and the net-work of the heavens hath been opened,
Gen 7:12 and the shower is on the earth forty days and forty nights.

You see it says it in the Bible -- and the storybook is more of a history book from what I have read. It is interpreted vast way which causes lots of issues, but it so far has never been proven to be false. Nor has it been proven to be totally correct - yet.

The Bible is a bunch of different books. Calling it a storybook is no more accurate than calling it a history book. There are 66 (more if you include the deuterocanonical ones). The Book of Joshua isn't historically accurate. It contradicts the book of Judges constantly - both can't actually be correct if you read them closely, and the actual physical evidence much more closely resembles the story in Judges. The timing of the events don't match archaeological and anthropological data. That's not all radiocarbon dating, and there's no hypothetical flood here to use an excuse for lack of knowledge. Et-Tell (Biblical Ai) literally means "rubble," and the story in Joshua is an aetiological myth as to how that mound of rubble got to be there. No army conquered it in the second half of the second millenium BCE. It just didn't happen. Once that story (and pretty much every other one from the Old Testament) loses its historicity, then everything else should, too, if you believe the Bible to be one divinely inspired or inerrant book as most evangelical Christians do. If references to specific, particular historical events are shown to be fraudulent (and the scholarly consensus even among religious archaeologists is that they're generally not historically valid, at least until the 11th-10th century BCE and the actual establishment of the Davidic Kingdom), there's no rational reason to think that the metaphor-laden opening book has any historical truth to it.

If you, like me, see the entire thing as a giant copy-paste job from half a millennium's worth of politically-minded religious authorities*, there's no reason to use one passage to prove another and the entire scheme falls apart.

* By which I mean Genesis-Nehemiah. After that, it's poetry, prophecy and thoroughly allegorical stories like Job which I don't think anyone intended to be taken literally even if people do that now. And of course the New Testament is a completely different issue.

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by Kirobaito

The Bible is a bunch of different books. Calling it a storybook is no more accurate than calling it a history book. There are 66 (more if you include the deuterocanonical ones). The Book of Joshua isn't historically accurate. It contradicts the book of Judges constantly - both can't actually be correct if you read them closely, and the actual physical evidence much more closely resembles the story in Judges. The timing of the events don't match archaeological and anthropological data. That's not all radiocarbon dating, and there's no hypothetical flood here to use an excuse for lack of knowledge. Et-Tell (Biblical Ai) literally means "rubble," and the story in Joshua is an aetiological myth as to how that mound of rubble got to be there. No army conquered it in the second half of the second millenium BCE. It just didn't happen. Once that story (and pretty much every other one from the Old Testament) loses its historicity, then everything else should, too, if you believe the Bible to be one divinely inspired or inerrant book as most evangelical Christians do. If references to specific, particular historical events are shown to be fraudulent (and the scholarly consensus even among religious archaeologists is that they're generally not historically valid, at least until the 11th-10th century BCE and the actual establishment of the Davidic Kingdom), there's no rational reason to think that the metaphor-laden opening book has any historical truth to it.

If you, like me, see the entire thing as a giant copy-paste job from half a millennium's worth of politically-minded religious authorities*, there's no reason to use one passage to prove another and the entire scheme falls apart.

* By which I mean Genesis-Nehemiah. After that, it's poetry, prophecy and thoroughly allegorical stories like Job which I don't think anyone intended to be taken literally even if people do that now. And of course the New Testament is a completely different issue.

yes there are 66 books in the Protestant Bible, and 73 in the Catholic. There are gnostic texts and some "other" manuscripts that were not put in Alexandrian canon and even more left out when the Protestant Reformation left seven more out.

There are also some books we have no idea about, but are "missing" maybe and maybe just named something else or in Rome.

are they not written on the book of the Chronicles of the kings of Israel?
are they not written on the book of the Chronicles of the kings of Judah?
as it is written in the book of the law of Moses
Is not this written in the book of Jasher

The Chronicles may be first and second Chronicles. Book of the law may be Det.

Jasher though -- there are four different books out there, and they have no actual "older" text on these to verify the correct version -- if any of these are.

------------------------
I have no idea why the Protestant Reformation removed the Macabees, etc from the cannon.
-----------------------

There is also the book of Enoch -- which may or may not talk about the time before the flood -- which is also thought to possibly be when/where the book of Job actually came from as well.

----------------------------------------------------------------
I know a little history on the Book of Morman, and the Koran as well if you are interested.
----------------------------------------------------------------

With this said. I have not heard about the conflicts from Joshua and Judges, so please send me the passages, etc. so I can do some study. Also please send me the links where

the story in Joshua is an aetiological myth as to how that mound of rubble got to be there. No army conquered it in the second half of the second millenium BCE. It just didn't happen. Once that story (and pretty much every other one from the Old Testament) loses its historicity, then everything else should, too,

I researched this one and if we make one assumption that Et-tell is the Biblical city of Ai -- then you are correct, and the bible is false. Because if it is incorrect anywhere then the whole thing can be found to be false.

Problem is -- what if Et-tell isn't Ai. Dr. Bryant Wood has proposed that Ai should instead be located at the site of Kirbet el-Maqatir arguing that the evidence for this site being Ai is stronger than at et-Tell.

You see they still don't really have any proof, but someone thought this, and others jumped in an believed, and then it just became fact --- much like most religion.

There are three main hyptotheses about how to explain the biblical story surrounding Ai in light of archaeological evidence.

*Note -- all of them are hypotheses - and none of them are actually provable. Saying something enough times may make many people support the idea -- it doesn't make it true or right.

Which leads me back to the point of "wait and see". So far I haven't seen anything that disproves the Protestant Reformation bible. Not finding Noahs ark doesn't mean it didn't exist. Finding a old city doesn't mean it was the one you were looking for.

I am also a skeptic enough to say that all things are not proven correct in the bible either. Too much of -- man's involvement. They may yet to all be proven correct, but much has not. Also, it is written in parable, which allows for much interpretation. Also much of it was passed down via story, and then written which allows for much problem. Also MAN tends to skew things to where it fits for himself - how else do you explain the "business" of church.

This still doesn't really change anything.

Everything starts with "is there a God"
-- if there isn't then logical actions are one way -- each man for himself as long as he is alive
-- if there is a God then
* We belong to him -- we are his creation
* He makes the rules and we should live by them
* There "could" be an afterlife
* There could be repercussions for not obeying him

Bottom line starts with this question.

Followed by what are his rules and why -- who is he -- and how do I avoid the repercussions.

*** Everyone will make this decision in life in one way or form.

[EricaLubarsky]

Rubio, "there is no conflict [between science and my faith]...and scientific advances have given us insight into how he [God] did it and when he did it.”

Science isn't talking about God because there is no theoretical or empirical basis for it. God isn't even on the radar for Scientists. God and religion will never be attacked by science and personal beliefs will always be based on "faith" which is by its very definition-- irrational. Science doesn't tell us why or who. It tells us "how" and "what".


Science is the pursuit of truths that can be proven.
Talking snakes,
men living in whales,
spontaneous human cloning from DNA rib tissue (capable of producing viable offspring nonetheless)

These would all be of great interest to science. If they could be recreated, replicated or even if they had happened more than once, scientists would love to figure out how current theories are wrong, because snakes don't talk in science nor in our every day experience. People cannot survive in the Ph of a whale stomache, so it would be interesting to research how someone could. Spontaneous human cloning that defies the laws of thermodynamics? That would be wild.

I think you just have to accept that your faith will have to either become irrational or you will have to tweak elements of your faith. Science has proven beyond any doubt that the Earth is not the center of the universe, not the only planet and ours is not the only solar system by far. Somehow, Christianity got over that when the science was developed enough (after fighting it tooth and nail for years).

Is a literal interpretation of the bible (that has already been contradicted a few times by science) that important to you? We are made up of genes-- does that mean God doesn't exist or love you? The Earth is not the center of the universe-- that that mean anything to faith?

I personally more wonder in the complexity of this marvelous machine more satisfying than the myths they replaced. God's wonder is huge and more complex than any human can even comprehend. We just keep finding smaller particles and bigger spaces and complexity inside complexity. I find it amazing and faith-supporting rather than an attack on my spirituality.

[dalmations202]

Originally Posted by EricaLubarsky

Science isn't talking about God because there is no theoretical or empirical basis for it. God isn't even on the radar for Scientists. God and religion will never be attacked by science and personal beliefs will always be based on "faith" which is by its very definition-- irrational. Science doesn't tell us why or who. It tells us "how" and "what".

First EL, I wand to apologize to you, Dirk, and anyone else if I have offended anyone. You may or may not have had me in mind when you replied, but either way, I enjoy the debate -- and often think I am right (when does anyone think they are wrong) and usually am (my arrogance kicking in). There are only a few things that I will really keep offering my opinion on over and over -- and this happens to be one of them because I feel it is a very important subject.

With this said, there are several different forms of science as well as many different forms of religion. Science (the religion of) teaches evolution -- it is wrong -- it has been proven wrong by scientific testing. It is not taught that way though, so all science just gets jumbled into the "entire" group of calling it a religion by people who have to take a side.

Science is the pursuit of truths that can be proven.
Talking snakes,
men living in whales,
spontaneous human cloning from DNA rib tissue (capable of producing viable offspring nonetheless)

These would all be of great interest to science. If they could be recreated, replicated or even if they had happened more than once, scientists would love to figure out how current theories are wrong, because snakes don't talk in science nor in our every day experience. People cannot survive in the Ph of a whale stomache, so it would be interesting to research how someone could. Spontaneous human cloning that defies the laws of thermodynamics? That would be wild.

And yet -- science (evolution) says that man came from a premordial soup, or ape, or frog, or or or........ kiss a frog and he becomes a prince - just add time.

And the laws of thermodynamics will not allow for the earth to be over a few thousand years old either.

I think you just have to accept that your faith will have to either become irrational or you will have to tweak elements of your faith. Science has proven beyond any doubt that the Earth is not the center of the universe, not the only planet and ours is not the only solar system by far. Somehow, Christianity got over that when the science was developed enough (after fighting it tooth and nail for years).

Is a literal interpretation of the bible (that has already been contradicted a few times by science) that important to you? We are made up of genes-- does that mean God doesn't exist or love you? The Earth is not the center of the universe-- that that mean anything to faith?

This gets back to the problem I have with science and religion. You say that science has proven we are not the center of the universe, but the Bible never says we are the center of the universe. It says the heavens (galaxy's etc) and then the earth were created. So how would this conflict with anything?

Yes, the church once thought we were, but so did science at the time. Science proved it, and eventually the church agreed (after lots of prodding)

I realize that some church's -- specifically the Roman Catholic church thinks you need a priest to tell you what the Bible says, and interpret it, and tell you how the world is, etc -- but this is a differing opinion about the bible from me.

Snakes (serpent) talking, making a woman from the DNA of a man's rib, etc...I can't prove. In the end, I think it is more likely to be able to reproduce a person from the DNA of a person than to reproduce a person from a rock or a slug or an ape.

I personally more wonder in the complexity of this marvelous machine more satisfying than the myths they replaced. God's wonder is huge and more complex than any human can even comprehend. We just keep finding smaller particles and bigger spaces and complexity inside complexity. I find it amazing and faith-supporting rather than an attack on my spirituality.

Once again, I understand, and I apologize if I have attacked anyone's beliefs or spirituality.

I just think that this subject is extremely important for lots of reasons. IF their is no God like the religion of science suggests - then why be moral, why are we here, etc. If the Bible is wrong, then actions are blurred and we have been lied to by everyone.

But if the Bible is correct and God inspired instead of man written -- then we have a purpose. We are all sinners. We are guilty of breaking Gods rules. Either we will be judged or we will find a replacement...ie Jesus. And if it is true -- then there is something beyond the few years we have physically on this earth and we should act morally.

Maybe I am totally wrong, but eternity sure seems like a LONG LONG time. I would rather use true science to confirm what I think I know, than to try to make up theories to destroy. You have to be a horrid gambler to bet nothingness against eternity, IMO. The odds are stacked against you.

If I am wrong, then I spent hours researching the what's and why's. I tried to find out the who's and when's. I tried to learn what LOVE is... (1John 4:8 .....God is Love). If God is in control, and God is Love ......... then what really is LOVE? (this is one very very deep question for "others" to determine themselves) I have tried to act morally, and tried to determine what "moral" was. I have failed at many things and sinned against God's ways, but have also learned why most of these rules are in place. Selfish vs Selfless. If I am right though, I found eternity.

All in all though, I spent time doing something that could help others. I have tried to believe because it made the most logical sense. I have used science to try to strengthen what I know, instead of making up things to try and tear it down.

Like I said before -- Science --- the testing and determination of truth is a wonderful thing, IMO. Science the religion that makes wild assumptions, and then teaches it as truth, I have a problem with. My problem is that every child that spends up till their XX old being told that the earth is millions of years old and that we came from nothing and that there is no God......means that their is no HOPE, and eternity is such a long time. Teach a child that he is an animal long enough, then why be surprised when he acts like one. Teach a child that we have no future, then why be surprised when they act like there is no future. Teach a child there is no God, then why be surprised when they act they don't have to answer to anyone. Teach a child to be selfish and all about themselves, then why be surprised when the only thing they start worrying about is themselves and their own "pleasures" and not others -- yes this talks directly to abortion, divorce, and pre/extra marital affairs as well as slavery, the murder rate, and suicide.

All of it ties together.

-----------------------------------------------

With this said, I am not trying to attack anyone, and I know that everyone has to make their own choices. I just don't want people to say in the end that they "never" heard any of this stuff- They only heard what they were taught in school.

[EricaLubarsky]

Originally Posted by dalmations202

And yet -- science (evolution) says that man came from a premordial soup, or ape, or frog, or or or........ kiss a frog and he becomes a prince - just add time.

And the laws of thermodynamics will not allow for the earth to be over a few thousand years old either.

Sorry to take you on 2-on-1. It must feel a little overwhelming. STill, I feel like I need to respond to obvious misconceptions you have.

A) You know that that is not what evolution is saying, right? That a frog can *poof* become a man? That would be as ridiculous as a human being literally being created out of thin air from the genetic material of another human being and that clone being able to provide viable offspring without enormous genetic anomalies and birth defects.
1) There is nothing random about evolution at all, other than the observable mutations that occur. We can see genes change before our eyes with bacteria and viruses and can trace back our own genes by following distribution of particular markers. micro-evolution and macro-evolution are one in the same-- one just takes more generations. Thousands of macro-evolutions have happened in your lifetime-- they just happen with creatures that have shorter lifespans (bacteria, etc.) The swine flu is an example of a macro evolution that came about in your lifetime.
2) There is massive evidence of macro evolution. There are literally tens of millions of fossils in museums-- some on display and there are millions of examples in the Smithsonian alone that are sitting in boxes because there literally aren't enough scientists to work on them. In fact, man of the dinosaur "discoveries" of the last decade haven't been from new finds but scientists digging into archived fossil material. Geneticist can trace macro evolutions as well. I think the problem that people have with macro evolution is simply the limits of words rather than the limits of science. Just because we call one thing a monkey and another thing a man doesn't mean there aren't gradations or that the gradations have changed over millions of years. If you saw one example of human from every generation from the last 400,000 years, you'd be hard pressed to really find one example and say "that's a human" and to the previous one-- "that is not a human." That is the nature of evolution-- gradation.
3) There are very explicit traits that Creationist "science" cannot account for. Macro evolution is not something of the past. It exists in your very body. The reptile bones in your skull. Your vestigial tail. Ear muscles that function in many species but are rarely connected in humans. Plica Semilunaris. bone structures shared by everything from bats to whales that weaken tensile bone strength. Cartilage "armor" in humans that leads to thousands of choking deaths. Many of the vestigial elements of our anatomy are harmless, but some hurt our survival. So why would God have given us such things in common with other animals that have absolutely no purpose or actually hurt our survivability? Evolutionary dead-ends don't often disappear-- they just hide in successful species like humans. An evolutionary dead-end is a more likely argument in my mind than "God created us perfect but left us with artifacts of other creatures that do nothing or actually hurt our survivability"

Second, your proposition that the laws of thermodynamics prove a young-earth conception of the Earth is ludicrous and in fact, support the idea of an older Earth instead. Most of the arguments that Creationists use, in fact, mistake the laws completely.

1) The Earth is not a closed system.
2) Entropy is not the same as disorder.
3) even in a closed system, there will always be pockets of lower entropy exist.

The root of the problem is that Creationist "science" is completely anti-scientific. It starts with an objective to prove (the Biblical account) and then moves back from that, instead of starting with nothing and looking for evidence that is verifiable. When something doesn't work-- it is replaced with something that better describes how things work. It spends most of it's time trying to attack science-- and if the arguments are sound, then science answers them. If, however, the science is ludicrous-- like the thermodynamics argument, they don't need to be answered. The other part of creationist science is coming up with a way of piecing together bits of data to create a theory that picks and chooses from the bible and from modern science in a way that carefully protects elements that religious people find key-- like the Earth being at the center of the universe and the physical plausbility of a boat that can hold 2 of every one of the 8.7 million species and a flood that can literally create water from nowhere because the amount of water required to flood the "Earth" would be considerably more than every molecule of water that ever was on this planet.

The fact is, all the young-Earth arguments and arguments against have had have been proven bogus by logic or empirical evidence. There are many gaps in science-- like how life started in the first place, exactly how old the Earth is, and how the universe was created, but evolution and the age of the universe has withstood more than one hundred years of scrutiny and never failed. It's been revised but never failed.

So, I ask you this. Which of the following do you believe:
1) There once was a snake that could talk
2) A human being was cloned from the rib of the only human on Earth and the first man and the clone were able to populate the whole planet without the genetic problems of inbreeding?
3) Many people lived for 1,000 years.
4) There was a boat that housed 17.4 million creatures
5) Humans and dinosaurs shared the Earth
6) There was a flood on Earth that was made up of 2-4 times the amount of water that ever existed on this planet
7) There was a flood that left no fossil or sedimentary record
8) Humans are created perfect in God's eyes
9) The complexity of the Grand Canyon was created by flood waters, even though receding water with that power would simply have created a single, washed out chasm and not the intricate topography of the actual wonder.
10) a man lived inside a whale and came out OK.
11) The chemistry of H20 spontaneously changed to contain carbohydrates and alcohols

So either you believe that basic laws of science like gravity always take effect or you believe that there are exceptions-- that you could fall up, that a snake (without the physical manifestations or intellect to talk) can spontaneously talk. Chemistry can spontaneously be changed. Biological limitations on lifespan can be changed so modern humans average 80-some but biblical characters lived 910 on average and many children die needlessly in the first 20 years. You don't live as if all the laws of nature could be changed at any time, I assume. You depend on gravity and light and chemistry. No one tests gravity before walking, sips their water to make sure it hasn't turned into cyanide. No one lives with the idea that they may be 910-years-old. Sane people don't talk with snakes with the idea that the physiology of the snake may suddenly be altered to allow it the faculties of language and it's anatomy changed to allow it to make human phonemes.

[chumdawg]

Science (the religion of) teaches evolution -- it is wrong -- it has been proven wrong by scientific testing.

You *are* aware that some instances of "evolution"--I put it in quotes anticipating that perhaps you have a different term for it--have unquestionably been observed, are you not? Something about finches in the Galapagos, or somesuch. For that matter, even in our lifetimes--a ridiculously short period when we are talking about such things--we have witnessed not insignificant changes in our own human species. Leaving God out of it for the moment, does natural selection seem to you, intuitively, to be logically unsound?

Myself, I don't much care what the answer to the question is. I think both sides have to rely on some kind of "magic" at one point in their argument. But given that it seems pretty clear that natural selection does indeed happen in the case of some species, it stands to reason that it just might happen in all species.

(I might note, also, that allowing natural selection to happen for some species but not for humans is the same kind of egocentric thinking that we humans have been very good at for a very long time.)

A quick comment about scientists, and what motives they may have. It is my understanding, albeit from anecdotal evidence, that the great majority of scientists are theists. Do you have evidence to the contrary? You come across as very judgmental when you speak of science as a "religion" and throw out terms like "true science." What motive do you believe that atheist scientists, which you seem to believe are a prohibitive majority, have for spreading their creed?

I just think that this subject is extremely important for lots of reasons. IF their is no God like the religion of science suggests - then why be moral, why are we here, etc.

I hear this all the time, and every time I hear it I chuckle bemusedly at the irony. It is the people who speak loudest about God and religion who seem to believe the worst about humanity. I don't need a god to be moral, nor do you. You could just be moral because you thought it was the right thing to do, for the sake of your own self and of your fellow man, if you wanted to. That's what a lot of people do, each and every day. I'm sorry you don't see yourself as one of them.

We are all sinners.

No, we're really not. And I for one would appreciate it if you and others with a similar message would stop purporting to speak for everyone. I know people who are, for all intents and purposes, saints. They are good role models, for me and for everyone else. Believe it or not, it *is* possible to lead a moral, ethical, upright life.

[roadrunner]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

A quick comment about scientists, and what motives they may have. It is my understanding, albeit from anecdotal evidence, that the great majority of scientists are theists. Do you have evidence to the contrary?

I just found this thread and am enjoying the conversation/debate. Like Dalmations I am a Christian believer and have always thought that most scientists were either atheist or agnostic. I didn't remember where I got this exactly but I did a quick search and found a study done on this in 1998. This was a repeat study that started in 1914. There are probably other studies as well.

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html