Top | Newest First | Oldest First
zork0000 · 56-60, M
Of course things can evolve into such beautiful and precise creatures. Creationists always think in terms of "days" but the things around us took billions of years to become what they are. So yes, random variations over incredibly long periods of time can produce the huge biome of this earth (and likely many other worlds).
View 6 more replies »
@zork0000 I think maybe a certain 63 mph deity must have lived his life inside some kind of cult, partially cut off from the mainstream of the world. Clearly the barrier is only partial or he wouldn't have electricity, internet and a computer. Maybe he sees himself as some sort of evangelist trying to convert non-believers to his way of seeing. If so, he would probably be running some kind of tax-free church - hence raking in the money - the more converts, the greater the riches.
To not understand the basics of the science is so shocking that one has to wonder where he has been all his life.
I wonder why he doesn't seem to have even the tiniest skeric of curiosity to explore the evidence that the Bible is not factual and that scientific method works.
If he were so secure and unshakeable in his faith, he surely would not be averse to exploring physics, chemistry, biology, geography, paleontology, archeology, and the way the world works.
To not understand the basics of the science is so shocking that one has to wonder where he has been all his life.
I wonder why he doesn't seem to have even the tiniest skeric of curiosity to explore the evidence that the Bible is not factual and that scientific method works.
If he were so secure and unshakeable in his faith, he surely would not be averse to exploring physics, chemistry, biology, geography, paleontology, archeology, and the way the world works.
ElwoodBlues · M
I'm not claiming there's no God. I'm just saying there's a TON of interlocking evidence that the world is FAR older than 6000 years.
[sep][sep][center]CLOCKS[/center][sep][sep]
Visit any limestone cave. Stalactites grow at a rate of about 1mm per 10 years. So a 10 meter stalactite has been growing about 100,000 years. And close examination of cross sections shows the year by year layering (where rainfall is seasonal). These stalactites can be found all over the world. The ages are corroborated by radiometric dating.
![]()
Tree rings are clocks. The oldest living tree goes back about 4800 years. But wood from dead trees can contain records of volcanic events, thus extending the record back much farther.
[quote] Originally developed for climate science, the method is now an invaluable tool for archaeologists, who can track up to 13,000 years of history using tree ring chronologies for over 4,000 sites on six continents.[/quote]The ages are corroborated by radiometric carbon dating (establishing age by measuring ratios of radioactive vs stable isotopes).
Seasonal snowfall on glaciers accumulates to form countable layers. Greenland ice sheet layers can be counted back about 110,000 years. The ages are corroborated by radiometric dating. Other glaciers go back as far as 700,000 years, but on those the older data is mostly radiometric dating.
![]()
Salt flows from rocks into lakes and the ocean. If no salt left the ocean, that would give an age of 50 million to 70 million years. However, various geologic processes cause salt to leave the ocean at about the rate it's entering, so 50 million to 70 million years becomes a minimum estimate of the age of the earth.
Layering of sedimentary rocks - such as in the Grand Canyon - forms a series of clocks. These layers correspond to different stages in the evolution of life on the planet. The layers can be dated by positional order (bottom layer formed first), sedimentation rate, age of fossils found in the layer, and of course, radiometric dating. There are five main isotope pairs used for dating sedimentary rocks as well as the 'fissile track' method; you can read about it all here:
https://australian.museum/learn/minerals/shaping-earth/radioactive-dating/
![]()
Then there's all the fossils of extinct animals found in the rock layers. They're not exactly a clock, but they are an indicator of the vast amounts of time over which evolution occurs.
Of course outer space offers many clocks. Accumulation of craters on airless bodies like the Moon forms a clock. Shells of glowing gas left over from novas and supernovas form clocks (the Lambda Orionis Ring is about 1 million years old). The redshift of light from galaxies billions of light years away form clocks. The Hubble expansion of the universe forms a clock. The frequency shift of big bang radiation to form the cosmic microwave background is a clock.
No one clock is perfect, but they all corroborate each other pretty well, and they ALL give life FAR MORE than 6000 years to evolve.
If you argue "God hid those dinosaur bones (and all the isotopes used for dating) in the rocks" I can't disprove it. If you argue "God built all those layers into the glaciers and into stalactites, made the nova remnants appear millions of years old, etc." I can't disprove it. But you've got to ask yourself, why would God put all these inter-corroborating clocks all over the Earth and all thru the galaxy if they were all false???
[sep][sep][center]CLOCKS[/center][sep][sep]
Visit any limestone cave. Stalactites grow at a rate of about 1mm per 10 years. So a 10 meter stalactite has been growing about 100,000 years. And close examination of cross sections shows the year by year layering (where rainfall is seasonal). These stalactites can be found all over the world. The ages are corroborated by radiometric dating.
Tree rings are clocks. The oldest living tree goes back about 4800 years. But wood from dead trees can contain records of volcanic events, thus extending the record back much farther.
[quote] Originally developed for climate science, the method is now an invaluable tool for archaeologists, who can track up to 13,000 years of history using tree ring chronologies for over 4,000 sites on six continents.[/quote]The ages are corroborated by radiometric carbon dating (establishing age by measuring ratios of radioactive vs stable isotopes).
Seasonal snowfall on glaciers accumulates to form countable layers. Greenland ice sheet layers can be counted back about 110,000 years. The ages are corroborated by radiometric dating. Other glaciers go back as far as 700,000 years, but on those the older data is mostly radiometric dating.
Salt flows from rocks into lakes and the ocean. If no salt left the ocean, that would give an age of 50 million to 70 million years. However, various geologic processes cause salt to leave the ocean at about the rate it's entering, so 50 million to 70 million years becomes a minimum estimate of the age of the earth.
Layering of sedimentary rocks - such as in the Grand Canyon - forms a series of clocks. These layers correspond to different stages in the evolution of life on the planet. The layers can be dated by positional order (bottom layer formed first), sedimentation rate, age of fossils found in the layer, and of course, radiometric dating. There are five main isotope pairs used for dating sedimentary rocks as well as the 'fissile track' method; you can read about it all here:
https://australian.museum/learn/minerals/shaping-earth/radioactive-dating/
Then there's all the fossils of extinct animals found in the rock layers. They're not exactly a clock, but they are an indicator of the vast amounts of time over which evolution occurs.
Of course outer space offers many clocks. Accumulation of craters on airless bodies like the Moon forms a clock. Shells of glowing gas left over from novas and supernovas form clocks (the Lambda Orionis Ring is about 1 million years old). The redshift of light from galaxies billions of light years away form clocks. The Hubble expansion of the universe forms a clock. The frequency shift of big bang radiation to form the cosmic microwave background is a clock.
No one clock is perfect, but they all corroborate each other pretty well, and they ALL give life FAR MORE than 6000 years to evolve.
If you argue "God hid those dinosaur bones (and all the isotopes used for dating) in the rocks" I can't disprove it. If you argue "God built all those layers into the glaciers and into stalactites, made the nova remnants appear millions of years old, etc." I can't disprove it. But you've got to ask yourself, why would God put all these inter-corroborating clocks all over the Earth and all thru the galaxy if they were all false???
@ElwoodBlues Beautiful collection of some of the most important bits of proof. Thank you.
I only wish the Biblical literalists would visit these places to see the evidence for themselves. I wish they understood atoms and radioactive half-lives and how they work as reliable measures.
What is it with the US state school education that this evidence and understanding seems not to be automatically incorporated into the curriculum. Why not take all US kids on class bus excursions to the Grand Canyon? Surely it would pay huge dividends in a better educated nation.
I only wish the Biblical literalists would visit these places to see the evidence for themselves. I wish they understood atoms and radioactive half-lives and how they work as reliable measures.
What is it with the US state school education that this evidence and understanding seems not to be automatically incorporated into the curriculum. Why not take all US kids on class bus excursions to the Grand Canyon? Surely it would pay huge dividends in a better educated nation.
Sharon · F
@ElwoodBlues [quote]The ages are corroborated by radiometric carbon dating (establishing age by measuring ratios of radioactive vs stable isotopes).[/quote]
Radiometric dating but not using carbon isotopes, That's only good for ages up to about 20 000 years. Other elements such as Uranium-Lead (U-Pb) or Potassiun-Argon (K-Ar), for example, are used for older specimens.
Radiometric dating but not using carbon isotopes, That's only good for ages up to about 20 000 years. Other elements such as Uranium-Lead (U-Pb) or Potassiun-Argon (K-Ar), for example, are used for older specimens.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
NewBecky · 51-55, F
@DocSavage You see! You push the issue. You are not happy to let me be. I know what I believe and I know why I believe it but you are the one that fits your own accusation of [quote]You just can’t accept that not everyone has to agree with you.[/quote] I believe Christianity to be quite logical and there are very many Christians working in various fields of science. But, I am not defending God because, as I said, He does not prove Himself beyond His creation and the testimonies of us who have experienced Him in our own lives. Again, if you are adamant that you will not believe the God of the Bible then ok... I understand... and I am quite alright with that!
DocSavage · M
@NewBecky
And you’re not answering the question. I answered you with what I believe to be practical reasons against a creator god. It’s your turn. Why do you believe in a magical god ? You came here, you said you believe god can ignore the laws of science ( which he created )
You’re entitled to your belief, but now your not willing to at least explain the why. I would like to understand what you find compelling evidence of magic.
And you’re not answering the question. I answered you with what I believe to be practical reasons against a creator god. It’s your turn. Why do you believe in a magical god ? You came here, you said you believe god can ignore the laws of science ( which he created )
You’re entitled to your belief, but now your not willing to at least explain the why. I would like to understand what you find compelling evidence of magic.
NewBecky · 51-55, F
@DocSavage Doc, creation itself is compelling me to believe in a creator. I don't see creation in the way you see it. Furthermore, I don't have a problem believing in someone like God. I don't have to be the most powerful being in the universe. I am infinitely more powerful than an ant, but I am infinitely weaker than God. So what? Is that magic? No. It is simply a difference in power. You call belief in God a belief in magic to disparage my beliefs but I simply don't see it that way. You say [quote]You just can’t accept that not everyone has to agree with you[/quote] but it is YOU who cannot accept that not everyone has to agree with you. What arrogance! Why don't you hush up and take your meds? I know what I believe and why I believe it and I simply don't have enough faith to be an atheist.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
jackieash · 26-30
Sharon · F
@GodSpeed63 [quote]Where were you when I answered that question?[/quote]
If you had answered it you could simply repeated it hear as a direct response to @newjaninev2's question. I don't believe you did answer it. Prove me wrong by posting a link to where you claim you answered it.
If you had answered it you could simply repeated it hear as a direct response to @newjaninev2's question. I don't believe you did answer it. Prove me wrong by posting a link to where you claim you answered it.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@GodSpeed63 [quote]Where were you when I answered that question?[/quote]
How would I know where I was when you [i][b]didn’t[/b][/i] do something?
Still, now would be a good time for you to actually answer my question... [b]What, exactly, do you mean by 'precise detail and timing’?[/b]
I suspect that you will, instead, consider this a good time for you to run away
How would I know where I was when you [i][b]didn’t[/b][/i] do something?
Still, now would be a good time for you to actually answer my question... [b]What, exactly, do you mean by 'precise detail and timing’?[/b]
I suspect that you will, instead, consider this a good time for you to run away
Bushranger · 70-79, M
DocSavage · M
You still haven’t explained what you mean by “precise detail and timing “
The fossil record shows that those animals that haven’t gone totally extinct, have gone through several generations of change, which would suggest that someone wasn’t happy with god’s original designs, and have been making improvements over time.
Maybe it was the Japanese.
The fossil record shows that those animals that haven’t gone totally extinct, have gone through several generations of change, which would suggest that someone wasn’t happy with god’s original designs, and have been making improvements over time.
Maybe it was the Japanese.
Diotrephes · 70-79, M
@GodSpeed63
[quote]They can't tell me there's no God. They can try but the evidence is too great for the Truth of God to be false. There's no way that such beauty with precise detail and timing to be the product of random chance and natural selection. They're not that bright to begin with.
They failed to produce any kind of evidence in their own 'scientific' way, they failed to come with any kind of historical records indicating the Word of God is false, and they failed to give support to their own claims that evolution is true. As Picachu would say: Strike three! They're out!
The Truth of God still remains the truth.[/quote]
Even the Bible says that evolution is real so why are you calling your favorite ancient Middle Eastern Jewish religious fairy tale a lie?
Wisdom 19:18-20 (CEB) = "18 If we are careful to observe events, we can see just how the elements of the universe are transformed. It’s the same transformation that happens when someone changes the sounds that a harp makes by changing the key while continuing to play the same melody. 19 In this way, land animals were changed into underwater creatures, while animals that swam in the waters now moved onto the land. 20 Fire was able to burn on the open water, while water forgot that it was supposed to put fire out."
[quote]They can't tell me there's no God. They can try but the evidence is too great for the Truth of God to be false. There's no way that such beauty with precise detail and timing to be the product of random chance and natural selection. They're not that bright to begin with.
They failed to produce any kind of evidence in their own 'scientific' way, they failed to come with any kind of historical records indicating the Word of God is false, and they failed to give support to their own claims that evolution is true. As Picachu would say: Strike three! They're out!
The Truth of God still remains the truth.[/quote]
Even the Bible says that evolution is real so why are you calling your favorite ancient Middle Eastern Jewish religious fairy tale a lie?
Wisdom 19:18-20 (CEB) = "18 If we are careful to observe events, we can see just how the elements of the universe are transformed. It’s the same transformation that happens when someone changes the sounds that a harp makes by changing the key while continuing to play the same melody. 19 In this way, land animals were changed into underwater creatures, while animals that swam in the waters now moved onto the land. 20 Fire was able to burn on the open water, while water forgot that it was supposed to put fire out."
BlueSkyKing · M
@Diotrephes There is also a psalm that says look for evidence before believing.
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
Mysterion619 · 26-30, M
Diotrephes · 70-79, M
@Sharon [quote]That's a pretty good explanation for the general public, but I'm a physicist.[/quote]
What's your version?
What's your version?
Sharon · F
@Diotrephes There's nothing wrong with your explanation, it just that your reply was addressed to me and I already knew all that in much greater detail. I just found it amusing, that's all. Along the lines of the joke about the waitress primed to give the answer to the question "What's the indefinite integral of x squared?"
Diotrephes · 70-79, M
@Sharon [quote]There's nothing wrong with your explanation, it just that your reply was addressed to me and I already knew all that in much greater detail. I just found it amusing, that's all. Along the lines of the joke about the waitress primed to give the answer to the question "What's the indefinite integral of x squared?"[/quote]
That's one of the drawbacks to internet forums. Whenever someone makes a comment and someone expounds on it, the OP thinks that the comment was directed to him/her when the intent is merely to delve into the issue further.
That's one of the drawbacks to internet forums. Whenever someone makes a comment and someone expounds on it, the OP thinks that the comment was directed to him/her when the intent is merely to delve into the issue further.
1dayiWILLbRICH0 · 31-35, F
I too, believe in God. But I also understand why some others don’t, and I don’t care to explain why I do, nor do I care to hear others explain why they don’t or why I shouldn’t. It’s a very personal thing for me and I’ve definitely seen my own proof so I’d have to be lying to myself to say I don’t believe God is real. But yea for me Idgaf who believes me or not, I do have to say it does sound absolutely crazy to me that someone could believe that everything we have in this world came from nothing at all. And I find atheists much less understanding about our perplexity on their view, than we are on theirs. And also they have been much more cynical and disrespectful, in my personal experience.
1dayiWILLbRICH0 · 31-35, F
@Diotrephes I want to, but I NEVER get invited 😒
Diotrephes · 70-79, M
@1dayiWILLbRICH0 [quote]does my answer matter? Lol
[/quote]
All of our answers are mainly opinions and your opinions matter just as much as other people are willing to accept them. One of the benefits of participating on forums such as this is that it helps you to develop your skills in answering all kinds of questions and how to respond when others don't give you credibility.
So, don't run and get angry when other people dismiss you. Use such instances as lessons in how to become more polished and persuasive in your conversations.
[/quote]
All of our answers are mainly opinions and your opinions matter just as much as other people are willing to accept them. One of the benefits of participating on forums such as this is that it helps you to develop your skills in answering all kinds of questions and how to respond when others don't give you credibility.
So, don't run and get angry when other people dismiss you. Use such instances as lessons in how to become more polished and persuasive in your conversations.
Diotrephes · 70-79, M
@1dayiWILLbRICH0 [quote]I want to, but I NEVER get invited 😒
[/quote]
Maybe you need to improve your manners =
Sirach 31:31 (CEB) = "Don’t correct your neighbors at a wine banquet, and don’t show them contempt when they are partying; don’t say any reproachful word to them, and don’t trouble them with any demands."
[/quote]
Maybe you need to improve your manners =
Sirach 31:31 (CEB) = "Don’t correct your neighbors at a wine banquet, and don’t show them contempt when they are partying; don’t say any reproachful word to them, and don’t trouble them with any demands."
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@redredred [quote]I see, intellectual inconsistency is never the hallmark of truth.[/quote]
So, why practice it, Red?
So, why practice it, Red?
redredred · M
@GodSpeed63 please point out any intellectual inconsistency of mine. Please note, something you disagree with is not necessarily inconsistency.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
DocSavage · M
@GodSpeed63
Yeah she is. The beauty your talking about serves a purpose in evolution.
Appearance can be used as camouflage, and / or to attract a mate . Doesn’t make it any less beautiful, but the beauty has a definite use for continued survival of the species.
Yeah she is. The beauty your talking about serves a purpose in evolution.
Appearance can be used as camouflage, and / or to attract a mate . Doesn’t make it any less beautiful, but the beauty has a definite use for continued survival of the species.
LeopoldBloom · M
DocSavage · M
[b][big]There is no god[/big][/b]( he said I couldn’t do it )
That’s the first of your claims debunked. The second one is also easy. Find another example of creation or random natural chance to compare the first one to. Since you can’t actually show a designer you can’t back up your claim with fact.
Your other claims about historical records, and evolution have been refuted in literary every post you’ve put up here. Your bulb burnt out before they flipped the switch.
That’s the first of your claims debunked. The second one is also easy. Find another example of creation or random natural chance to compare the first one to. Since you can’t actually show a designer you can’t back up your claim with fact.
Your other claims about historical records, and evolution have been refuted in literary every post you’ve put up here. Your bulb burnt out before they flipped the switch.
@GodSpeed63
[quote]you've lost every time.[/quote]
lol I'm not even sure if [i]you[/i] believe that...either way, looks like you're the one backing down from the challenge here, Godspeed.
Funny that.
I think you don't have the confidence in your position to go toe to toe with me here.
I think you [i]know[/i] that you're all talk and no walk.😜
Prove me wrong.
[i][b]You give me your BEST example of the fossil record being incompatible with "my worldly views" and i'll give you my best example which demonstrates that the Biblical interpretation is pure fantasy.
Let's see who has the better argument and rebuttal[/b][/i]
[quote]you've lost every time.[/quote]
lol I'm not even sure if [i]you[/i] believe that...either way, looks like you're the one backing down from the challenge here, Godspeed.
Funny that.
I think you don't have the confidence in your position to go toe to toe with me here.
I think you [i]know[/i] that you're all talk and no walk.😜
Prove me wrong.
[i][b]You give me your BEST example of the fossil record being incompatible with "my worldly views" and i'll give you my best example which demonstrates that the Biblical interpretation is pure fantasy.
Let's see who has the better argument and rebuttal[/b][/i]
DocSavage · M
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@GodSpeed63 @GodSpeed63 what am I claiming?
I asked you a question.
A question you apparently cannot answer.
No claim made there.
Time for you to run away again - and take your pointless postulation with you.
I asked you a question.
A question you apparently cannot answer.
No claim made there.
Time for you to run away again - and take your pointless postulation with you.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@GodSpeed63 incidentally, why are you talking about spelling?
You’d be better served by devoting your time and attention to finally offering germane and detailed responses to people’s questions
You’d be better served by devoting your time and attention to finally offering germane and detailed responses to people’s questions
DocSavage · M
@NewBecky
Save the bullshit. You’re the one who said I didn’t understand the necessary of a creator. I have a very practical reason not to believe. But as always, it’s all about having faith. You have to forget the head, and think with the heart. Which as I said at the start, the laws of science make god impossible. You just proved it.
P.S. the bible is not the only book , and not the only religion. There are others, even if you choose not to believe in them.
Save the bullshit. You’re the one who said I didn’t understand the necessary of a creator. I have a very practical reason not to believe. But as always, it’s all about having faith. You have to forget the head, and think with the heart. Which as I said at the start, the laws of science make god impossible. You just proved it.
P.S. the bible is not the only book , and not the only religion. There are others, even if you choose not to believe in them.
LordShadowfire · M
@Strongtea No
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
What, exactly, do you mean by 'precise detail and timing’?
Diotrephes · 70-79, M
@newjaninev2 [quote]What, exactly, do you mean by 'precise detail and timing’?[/quote]
The person is ignoring the billions of years of evolution it took for us to to exist in this environment.
The person is ignoring the billions of years of evolution it took for us to to exist in this environment.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@Diotrephes Ignoring lots of things, actually - and desperately trying to run away from them
Thodsis · 51-55, M
Who are the 'They'?
SW-User
🙄, very pretty.
LordShadowfire · M
LordShadowfire · M
Still waiting.