Science and Religion: What do you think of Evolution? - Page 5 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 11-07-2002, 08:40 AM   #61
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 08:25 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
Bottom line question - is God all powerful or has the universe gotten out of hand for Him?
Why would you say that evolution puts the universe out of His hands? There is a very brilliant order to the so-called "chaos." We've only just scratched the surface.

Melon
__________________

__________________
melon is offline  
Old 11-07-2002, 12:52 PM   #62
New Yorker
 
Achtung_Bebe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Beneath the noise, below the din
Posts: 2,859
Local Time: 07:25 AM
I want to point out something from that "Ten Things Wrong with Cosmological Creationism" article if I may:

5. The Fallacy of Self-Refutation
"Another typical feature of creationist arguments is their readiness to adopt a position that is self-refuting. Since they expect there to be no reason to ask for the cause of God, it follows that there is no reason to expect a cause for all that exists--for to suppose that everything must have a cause is to suppose that something caused God. If nothing caused God, then it is possible for something to exist without a cause, refuting the premise that "everything has a cause." ... Whatever property allows God to exist without cause can just as well be a property of the universe instead, and creationists simply cannot refute that possibility...
..creation is not the only possible cause for order. The universe may be a necessary thing--that is, it was not produced by chance or design, but could not have not existed, and could not have been any different than it is. Mr. Walker already believes this is possible--for he believes it of his God--and if it is possible for his God, it is just as possible for the universe alone. Self-refutation yet again. But even this trilemma is false, for it could be any combination of any of these three factors--maybe some god designed some of it, maybe several gods collaborated on it, and perhaps he or they were constrained by laws which are necessarily always the case (like geometry), and at the same time he or they were unable to prevent some randomness from featuring in the result. Or maybe there is no God, but some necessary things and some random things which combined to make our universe. Indeed, logically, god could have created a billion universes, each time waiting for a random result that suited him--or there could be a billion gods, each with his own "science project" universe. Logically, the possibilities are endless...Thus, there is no way we can be "confident" that an intelligent creator exists..."

This Richard Carrier character disclaims his ten points by saying "I usually find at least one of these errors in each creationist argument I encounter, and for creationists to have a chance of changing my mind on this issue, they must first avoid all ten of these errors in any argument they present."

Give me a break!... notice how he repeatedly takes the element of faith out of the creationist's viewpoint--ok, this can't be done! there IS NO "logical" or "confident" way to describe God and his creation--faith is a primary component here! You can't disregard faith when speaking about the creationist theory. He's looking solely for hard scientific evidence so he may as well quit talking to creationists altogether. I can't take this person seriously based on this. Does he expect God believing creationists to say "oh... you're right... God always was therefore the universe (a PRODUCT of God, btw) may be, too!". This guy tries to take this faith in God and make it appear to be a blind, unsupported assumption! Sorry I'm not falling for it.

As for the geological column/timetable... you can actually find sufficient biblical and scientific evidence for this. First of all, the geologic column is commonly used as proof of evolution, and is founded on this assumption... dating techniques are followed through based on this theory... but let's just look at it from the opposite end and consider the possibility of a relatively young earth. Putting proper emphasis on the Genesis Flood (and all catastrophic geological events associated with it) can account for intricate geologic structures, formations, features, etc. that we observe today. It is believed that the Flood was accompanied by massive and violent earth movement, volcanic action, and dramatic changes in climate. This was an incredible event for geology! A hydraulic episode... producing sedimentation/fossilization on a scale we can't comprehend. Rather than these said formations being a record of gradual transformation, isn't it possible, based on a key biblical event, that it could be the result of a sudden and catastrophic mass death and destruction?? The presence of fossils in deposits of sediment is proof of rapid burial and formation, which is crucial for the preservation otherwise they would decay or be destroyed. Let's not forget to mention that about three-fourths of the earth's surface is covered with sedimentary rocks that originated under moving water (even on the tops of mountains).

As a Christian I will not underestimate the power of God... rather than testifying to evolution, I believe that the evidence of geology records God's mighty hand and righteous judgement on sin. Just as the wonders of the galaxy give glory to God, so does this. If you believe the biblical accounts of history than it should not be so difficult to comprehend that we would be witnessing to this today.
__________________

__________________
Achtung_Bebe is offline  
Old 11-07-2002, 01:01 PM   #63
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 05:25 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Achtung_Bebe
As a Christian I will not underestimate the power of God... rather than testifying to evolution, I believe that the evidence of geology records God's mighty hand and righteous judgement on sin. Just as the wonders of the galaxy give glory to God, so does this. If you believe the biblical accounts of history than it should not be so difficult to comprehend that we would be witnessing to this today.
Powerfully said my friend!
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 11-07-2002, 02:07 PM   #64
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 08:25 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Achtung_Bebe
Putting proper emphasis on the Genesis Flood (and all catastrophic geological events associated with it) can account for intricate geologic structures, formations, features, etc. that we observe today. It is believed that the Flood was accompanied by massive and violent earth movement, volcanic action, and dramatic changes in climate. This was an incredible event for geology!
There is zero evidence for a worldwide flood, and don't think that science cannot detect such changes. Cataclysmic meteor hits, like the one that killed the dinosaurs, is detected by a distinct layer of the element, Iridium, which is a fairly rare element on Earth, but a common element in asteroids. Things like massive erosion can also be detected, as exposed rock can be dated as well.

Secondly, there *is* evidence of a great flood, but not a worldwide one. The Black Sea was created by a massive flood 5000 years ago, where the saltwater of the Mediterranean Sea breached a natural land dam, and effectively plunged the massive area we now know as the Black Sea under 500 feet of saltwater. Because the Black Sea has a large anaerobic component to it, science was able to recover evidence of civilization that used to live on the former boundaries of a smaller, freshwater lake before the Black Sea was created so violently. This is the likely origin of the Genesis flood. Do remember...people didn't have concepts of a large Earth, so this story likely passed down through oral tradition, where the flood covered their entire known world. Heck, even Europe didn't discover the New World until 1492, so why do we think that the people of Genesis would be even remotely better?!

This is further examples as to why creationist arguments completely fail.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 11-07-2002, 02:24 PM   #65
Refugee
 
RavenStar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Purgatory
Posts: 1,101
Local Time: 08:25 AM
I was just about to mention the Black Sea flood. Way back then due to lack of communication, the area that was flooded could have felt like the whole world.
I saw a program on the Black Sea awhile ago. It was really interesting. It showed the evidence of the flood like places where rivers might have been, etc.
__________________
RavenStar is offline  
Old 11-07-2002, 06:59 PM   #66
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Kristie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: back home again in Indiana
Posts: 6,386
Local Time: 08:25 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Achtung_Bebe
Putting proper emphasis on the Genesis Flood (and all catastrophic geological events associated with it) can account for intricate geologic structures, formations, features, etc. that we observe today. It is believed that the Flood was accompanied by massive and violent earth movement, volcanic action, and dramatic changes in climate. This was an incredible event for geology! A hydraulic episode... producing sedimentation/fossilization on a scale we can't comprehend. Rather than these said formations being a record of gradual transformation, isn't it possible, based on a key biblical event, that it could be the result of a sudden and catastrophic mass death and destruction?? The presence of fossils in deposits of sediment is proof of rapid burial and formation, which is crucial for the preservation otherwise they would decay or be destroyed.
this is a good point... but what about fossils found in volcanic ash/rock? These are dated with a different (and more accurate) method than those in sedimentary rock... those use stratigraphy, while remains found in volcanic rock are dated by the potassium-argon method. Potassium decays at a constant rate to argon and the fossils are dated by determining the ratio of K-Ar in the rock around them. However, it can only be used to date rock older than 100,000 years old (up to about 4 billion).
....did I mention I was a paleontology major before I switched to anthropology?
anyway, I'm curious as to if there's a running biblical explanation for that...
__________________
Kristie is offline  
Old 11-07-2002, 07:55 PM   #67
Offishul Kitteh Doctor
Forum Moderator
 
bonosloveslave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Taking care of kitties
Posts: 9,655
Local Time: 08:25 AM
Normal

Melon, you really seem to have a problem with the idea that the earth is only several thousand years old. If it is millions and billions of years old, can you (or someone else) please explain to me why:

-there are not more buried human remains in general, old or not so old? If we were to conservatively say that a generation passed once every 25 years (and when was the last time a generation was 25 years long?), then in 100,000 years a total of 4,000 generations would occur. If the number of people on earth never exceeded 1,000,000 at any one time in the past, then in 100,000 years a total of 4,000,000,000 people would have lived, died and been buried somewhere on earth. This is an astronomical number. When people are buried, whether or not their bodies are preserved, there are the artifacts left in the graves which identify them as human. Even if the body decomposes completely their jewelry, tools and vessels placed in the grave with them will survive. If 4,000 generations have passed why haven't we found many many more human burial sites? Where are all those artifacts that should have been left behind by those 4,000,000,000 people? Think about it, that is two-thirds of the entire human population alone today.

-why is there not more ocean sediment? If we were to assume that the oceans were 4.5 to 5 billion years old; that sediments had been pouring into the oceans at current rates for all that time; then the oceans should have a layer of sediment 18.5 miles high on top of each square foot of their surface. I would remind you, however, that there is, on average, only a half mile deep layer of sediment on the ocean floors and that the oceans have a layer of water in them about two miles deep. It simply isn't possible to fit a layer of sediment 18.5 miles high on top of the ocean floors.



So.............

Bueller?


Bueller?



Anyone?



Anyone?


(just curious )
__________________
bonosloveslave [at] interference.com
bonosloveslave is offline  
Old 11-07-2002, 09:13 PM   #68
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Kristie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: back home again in Indiana
Posts: 6,386
Local Time: 08:25 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by bonosloveslave
If 4,000 generations have passed why haven't we found many many more human burial sites? Where are all those artifacts that should have been left behind by those 4,000,000,000 people? Think about it, that is two-thirds of the entire human population alone today.
Not every dead thing is fossilized, it takes a fairly specific set of conditions for something to be preserved that long, if they're not eaten or end up in the water somewhere. Also, the entire world isn't under excavation... just selected sites. There's not really an archaeological site in every town. Put all the sites together and it's like an eraserhead on a two foot globe. Not much of a chance to find all 4 billion people.

Quote:

-why is there not more ocean sediment? If we were to assume that the oceans were 4.5 to 5 billion years old; that sediments had been pouring into the oceans at current rates for all that time; then the oceans should have a layer of sediment 18.5 miles high on top of each square foot of their surface. I would remind you, however, that there is, on average, only a half mile deep layer of sediment on the ocean floors and that the oceans have a layer of water in them about two miles deep. It simply isn't possible to fit a layer of sediment 18.5 miles high on top of the ocean floors.
Plate tectonics. The ocean floor is recycled/melted into the earth's mantle at a regular rate through plate tectonics. In the middle of most oceans more (rock) ocean floor is always being made, which travels across the ocean floor getting sediment on top of it, and at the edge of continents it is being un-made, along with the sediment on top of it.
Nother thing, sediment doesn't really fall too much in the middle of the ocean (compared to close to shore) cos there's.. y'know... not any land. The sediment way out there tends to be more decomposed animals than dirt. Not saying soil doesn't make it out there. It's just that there's a whooole lot more of it by the shore.
__________________
Kristie is offline  
Old 11-07-2002, 09:16 PM   #69
pax
ONE
love, blood, life
 
pax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Ewen's new American home
Posts: 11,412
Local Time: 09:25 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by bonosloveslave
-there are not more buried human remains in general, old or not so old? If we were to conservatively say that a generation passed once every 25 years (and when was the last time a generation was 25 years long?), then in 100,000 years a total of 4,000 generations would occur. If the number of people on earth never exceeded 1,000,000 at any one time in the past, then in 100,000 years a total of 4,000,000,000 people would have lived, died and been buried somewhere on earth.
Probably because humanoids haven't been around for that long--certainly not homo sapiens, at least. If I'm not mistaken, homo sapiens is only estimated to be between 12,000-15,000 years old. Also, cremation is much more common than burial in a great number of societies, and has been for thousands of years--which is another explanation for lack of identifiable remains.

There is a principle in philosophy known as Occam's Razor, which basically states that the simplest explanation for anything is the most likely one and there is no need to "multiply entities." As I attempt to apply Occam's Razor to many different parts of my life lately, I pose the question to those of you on both sides of this debate: why does it not seem to be possible that God created the world at some point (why does it matter when?), that God infused the world with God's own unique and omnipotent intelligent design (why does it matter how?), and that God continues to look after the world with love and concern (why does it matter how long this has been going on, or how long it's going to last?).

Those questions have never mattered to me as a Christian. It's enough for me to know that God did create everything, and that God maintains that creation on a millisecond-to-millisecond basis. Evolution, Genesis...I don't give a damn. It's fascinating, miraculous, and praiseworthy either way.
__________________
and you hunger for the time
time to heal, desire, time


Join Amnesty.
pax is offline  
Old 11-07-2002, 09:40 PM   #70
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Kristie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: back home again in Indiana
Posts: 6,386
Local Time: 08:25 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by bonosloveslave
then in 100,000 years a total of 4,000 generations would occur. If the number of people on earth never exceeded 1,000,000 at any one time in the past, then in 100,000 years a total of 4,000,000,000 people would have lived
crap I forgot something... this is in reply to pax, too
Do you mean like Homo sapiens sapiens humans? You got that date fairly close. Hominids (= walking on 2 legs) appeared aboout 4 million years ago, so the current theory says. Our genus (Homo) lived about 2.2 to 1.6 million years ago. Our species, 120 000 years ago. This is all the most popular theory. Paleoarchaeologists get in to massive fights over this stuff... literally, fistfights.
Just clearing that up
__________________
Kristie is offline  
Old 11-07-2002, 09:44 PM   #71
Offishul Kitteh Doctor
Forum Moderator
 
bonosloveslave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Taking care of kitties
Posts: 9,655
Local Time: 08:25 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Kristie

Plate tectonics. The ocean floor is recycled/melted into the earth's mantle at a regular rate through plate tectonics. In the middle of most oceans more (rock) ocean floor is always being made, which travels across the ocean floor getting sediment on top of it, and at the edge of continents it is being un-made, along with the sediment on top of it.
Nother thing, sediment doesn't really fall too much in the middle of the ocean (compared to close to shore) cos there's.. y'know... not any land. The sediment way out there tends to be more decomposed animals than dirt. Not saying soil doesn't make it out there. It's just that there's a whooole lot more of it by the shore.
Is this what you're saying?:

Evolutionists propose that the ocean floor sediments are being destroyed by subduction under the continents; that is that the sea floors are sinking under the continents and are being absorbed in the earths crust. Here is the problem, according to the evolutionists own figures - the rate of destruction is only 1/10 the amount necessary to solve the problem. Or, conversely, the ocean floor sediments are forming at a rate ten times faster than they are being destroyed!
__________________
bonosloveslave [at] interference.com
bonosloveslave is offline  
Old 11-07-2002, 10:53 PM   #72
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Kristie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: back home again in Indiana
Posts: 6,386
Local Time: 08:25 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by bonosloveslave


Is this what you're saying?:

Evolutionists propose that the ocean floor sediments are being destroyed by subduction under the continents; that is that the sea floors are sinking under the continents and are being absorbed in the earths crust. Here is the problem, according to the evolutionists own figures - the rate of destruction is only 1/10 the amount necessary to solve the problem. Or, conversely, the ocean floor sediments are forming at a rate ten times faster than they are being destroyed!
Geologists own figures... What are their figures? Where are you getting this from? Is there a place I can read it and thus better reply to the question?

All right, back to answering. Continents are getting bigger... the center of north America is estimated to be 2.5-3 b.y. and the edges .5-1 b.y. Some plates subduct very quickly compared to others, as well. The entire ocean floor is regenerated every 200-300 million years, so let's say the oldest ocean floor is 250 million years old. So.. *math* according to your figures of a deposit rate of 18.5 miles of sediment over five billion years, the entire current ocean floor should have .925 miles of sediment on top of it, assuming all plates subduct at the same rate, and not including formation/enlargement of continents. Doesn't sound too unreasonable to me.
__________________
Kristie is offline  
Old 11-07-2002, 11:01 PM   #73
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 05:25 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


Take a look at yourself in the mirror. Do you think you are a result of a random "natural" process that started with a primordial slime?

Yeah, sounds about right.


Then I looked at bonosloveslave's picture- and she looks heavenly.

So, I am still confussed->
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 11-08-2002, 12:08 AM   #74
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 08:25 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by bonosloveslave
-there are not more buried human remains in general, old or not so old? If we were to conservatively say that a generation passed once every 25 years (and when was the last time a generation was 25 years long?), then in 100,000 years a total of 4,000 generations would occur. If the number of people on earth never exceeded 1,000,000 at any one time in the past, then in 100,000 years a total of 4,000,000,000 people would have lived, died and been buried somewhere on earth. This is an astronomical number. When people are buried, whether or not their bodies are preserved, there are the artifacts left in the graves which identify them as human. Even if the body decomposes completely their jewelry, tools and vessels placed in the grave with them will survive. If 4,000 generations have passed why haven't we found many many more human burial sites? Where are all those artifacts that should have been left behind by those 4,000,000,000 people? Think about it, that is two-thirds of the entire human population alone today.
Neandertals used to dump their dead in cave pits. To be honest, most cultures didn't even give a damn about preservation. Even in medieval Europe, they made catecombs to dispose of their dead quickly and to take up as little space as possible. I believe that there is even an entire church made of human skulls in Spain.

Also, many cultures, including ancient Greece and Rome, had customs of funeral pyres--meaning they burned / cremated their dead. The idea of a tombstone and burial plot is a modern concept.

Quote:
-why is there not more ocean sediment? If we were to assume that the oceans were 4.5 to 5 billion years old; that sediments had been pouring into the oceans at current rates for all that time; then the oceans should have a layer of sediment 18.5 miles high on top of each square foot of their surface. I would remind you, however, that there is, on average, only a half mile deep layer of sediment on the ocean floors and that the oceans have a layer of water in them about two miles deep. It simply isn't possible to fit a layer of sediment 18.5 miles high on top of the ocean floors.
More creationist pseudoscience. May I ask where you got this assumption? Was it next to the bullshit about light particles interfering with carbon-dating, making it incorrect? I thought there was a rule against lying in Christianity, but I guess for some people, the ends justify the means.

But lets look at the concrete facts that creationists are too blind to look at:

-- Pray tell, how do you explain away dinosaur remains? Trilobyte remains? I'm sure you've gone to a museum sometime and have seen these remains. And, if humans were living this entire time, why haven't there ever been human remains beside them?

-- Or the fact that Antarctica has had tropical plant fossils underneath all that ice?

-- Or the fact that there are several gigantic meteor craters on Earth that, if they all had occurred during the last 10,000 years, would have made all life as we know it extinct several times over?

...

-- Or the fact that there is no geologic evidence of an ancient worldwide flood, despite the fact that science would be able to measure such an event?

-- Or the fact that, if there were only two of each animal, they would all have gone extinct from inbreeding? We have many endangered species that are dying this way.

-- Or, assuming that Adam, Eve, Cain, and Abel were the first humans, how could Cain, after being cast out of the garden, marry someone who shouldn't exist and procreate with her? Could you explain how Genesis 4:16-17 is even possible if literal creationism is so obviously true?

-- Or, assuming that Adam, Eve, Cain, and Abel were the first humans and all are related to each other, where did all the different races come from? White, Black, Asian, Indian, Arab, Native American...or is this a case of "spontaneous generation"?

So.............

Bueller?


Bueller?



Anyone?



Anyone?


(just curious )

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 11-08-2002, 12:26 AM   #75
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
theSoulfulMofo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 4,490
Local Time: 06:25 AM
Normal Melon, getting a little testy lately, aren't we?

I don't mean to get myself involved in this argument... because I usually hate ending up arguing in FYM...

but please let me allow to make a few observations and comments...

As far as Noah's Flood is concerned... there have been other cultural myths were a massive flood is concerned... example: China records such a history/myth.

Furthermore, according to the Bible, the human race as we know of it today ... are actually descendants of Noah's children... And Noah himself was a child of Seth... Adam and Eve's third son... The lineage of Abel and Cain ended long before the Flood, as I can recall.

Hmmm... I don't know what more I can contribute... I'm just giving away random thoughts here and there...
__________________

__________________
theSoulfulMofo is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:25 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com