Theism

[BeardofPants]

Amen to that, Cirdan... er... I mean, I agree with you! I've never dated a worm, but I did keep a cricket farm once... And I got close to the one I labled with pink nail varnish...

[FrodoFriend]

Originally posted by Cirdan
I dated a live worm once. It wasn't that exepensive. A movie, a little mulch..

Hey, why not date a dead one? You don't even have to buy the mulch!

[Cirdan]

Dead ones.. that's disgusting... of course they don't smell much different

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Nariel Starshine
Carbon and Argon dating (which are by far the most evolutionarily popular)

Nitpicking again. Carbon dating, and potassium-argon dating are not 'evolutionarily' (what the heck do you mean there?!) popular. There are many forms of dating which fall under two groups:

Absolute dating: apart from carbon dating, you can use:

Potassium 40 - Argon 40 (1.25 billion yrs)

Rubidium 87 - Strontium 87 (48.8 billion yrs)

Thorium 232 - Lead 208 (14 billion years)

Uranium 235 - Lead 207 (704 million years)

Uranium 238 - Lead 206 (4.47 billion years).

There are other means as well, to date both inorganic, and organic materials, with more recent time frames.

The other means of dating is relative dating, in which you date with a sequence ( of events, or similar). These include:

Dendrochronology - treerings
Stratigraphy - laws of superposition
Cores - oceanic, and land
Pollen - by laws of association
Typologies - of artfacts, faunal, or otherwise.

These are the only dating methods I can think of right now, but I can probably produce more, if you like. And I didn't even get into Spectrometry...

Evolutionarily popular? No, my friend. This is just the dating method that most people are familiar with.

[Cirdan]

Wasn't strontium 90 used for a while?

[BeardofPants]

Er... not sure on that... I do know that it was/is used for discerning bone density...

[emplynx]

Originally posted by FrodoFriend
Besides, take the Big Bang theory - don't you think all the highly trained scientists who came up with that would've noticed if the basic laws of thermodynamics made it impossible?

Good question.
I think "A natural process always takes place in such a direction as to cause an increase in the entropy of the universe" is quite clear. Applies to the Big Bang and Evolution!

[FrodoFriend]

Wait . . . so now you're saying the 2nd Law does back up the Big Bang? Weren't you saying before that it doesn't? Or did I misunderstand you there?

[afro-elf]

sorry it took so long

i couldn't find my distilled version

but here is the orginal site



http://www.phys.hawaii.edu/vjs/www/avoid/intel.html

[emplynx]

Originally posted by FrodoFriend
Wait . . . so now you're saying the 2nd Law does back up the Big Bang? Weren't you saying before that it doesn't? Or did I misunderstand you there?

You asked

Originally posted by FrodoFriend
Besides, take the Big Bang theory - don't you think all the highly trained scientists who came up with that would've noticed if the basic laws of thermodynamics made it impossible?

And I think that is a good question. I wonder why they havn't noticed that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (Law of Entropy) completely disagrees with evolution and the Big Bang!

[Andúril]

Emplynx:

Jesus fulfilled many many hundreds of prophecies.

If you have the time, perhaps you could visit the following link:

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode.../prophecy.html

I don't think I need to elaborate on this.

[afro-elf]

to answer your questions on the 2nd law and the PROOFs of non theist concerning MANY things go here


http://www.talkorigins.org/

[markedel]

Using the Bible to prove things is difficult. Every sentance has 6 or 7 meanings, and they are all valid in one way or another. And these are just the ones that aren't heretical in some way

[Nibs]

Originally posted by Anduril
The problem with faith is that it can be used by anyone to validate their beliefs. Some have faith of a religious nature, others have faith in science. It is not an argument about whether someone has faith, it is an argument about which belief is subsequently "validated" by faith.

Now, now, fellah... I distinctly mentioned that I had to speak from my own point of view and how I have been taught from childhood. And I didn't merely present faith as evidence... I added that I can attest to blessings that come from it.

What is your aim in attempting to disprove someone else's statements, Anduril? It doesn't make anyone feel better, much less change their opinions.

And I don't really appreciate your comment on "inconsistincies", but I'll forgive you .

[Khadrane]

Originally posted by emplynx

And I think that is a good question. I wonder why they havn't noticed that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (Law of Entropy) completely disagrees with evolution and the Big Bang!

Exactly. You people here are smart.

[Nariel Starfire]

My information was obtained from my mom, who is nuts about the Creation/Evolution debate. She has a plethora of books on the subject. Not to mention that I am a science major and therefore I am studying this stuff.

As for markedel, I agree with part of your statement. It is difficult to prove stuff using the Bible. In fact, I come across all too often people using the Bible to prove Creation. I believe this is wrong. It's like defining a word using the given word. You just can't do it.

However, while some verses have symbolic as well as literal meanings, the point of reading the Bible is not to see what you can get out of one verse, it is to see the entire book as one big picture. And there is only one big picture.

And by evolutionarily popular, I mean that they are used most often by evolutionists because they produce the results Evolutionists want to see.

And just to throw another curve ball out there, what does everyone think happened to Lucy?

For those of you who don't know, Lucy was a skeleton that was supposed to be the most complete and oldest missing link between humans and apes ( think she was austrolepithicus). She was found in the early 20th Century. Scientists said that she could walk upright, but that she had the brain cavity (and capacity) of a monkey. However, shortly after she was found, some other scientists discovered that she was a fraud, and she disappeared. So what happened to Lucy?

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Nariel Starshine
And by evolutionarily popular, I mean that they are used most often by evolutionists because they produce the results Evolutionists want to see.

For those of you who don't know, Lucy was a skeleton that was supposed to be the most complete and oldest missing link between humans and apes ( think she was austrolepithicus). She was found in the early 20th Century. Scientists said that she could walk upright, but that she had the brain cavity (and capacity) of a monkey. However, shortly after she was found, some other scientists discovered that she was a fraud, and she disappeared. So what happened to Lucy?

I am studying anthropology (MA), so you could say I know my stuff as well. Carbon dating is not popular because of the reason you stated, carbon dating is just one of many dating methods used to date the archaeological, and geological record. It is slightly cheaper than most absolute dating methods, and is also part of the school curriculum (which is why most people know about it). Also, it's dating range fits with 'popular' archaeology, because of it's younger dates (60,000 BP - 1950AD).
This is why its considered to be 'popular'.

In the field of anthropology their have been a couple of frauds. However, can you honestly say that there have been no frauds in theology? The recent Ark find was one, they supplanted some wood of the same age into the site, and claimed it was the Noahs ark! Piltdown Man was an early 20th century fraud where they placed a hominid skull with a monkey jaw. This was found to be a fraud soon after. However, Lucy, and Australopithecus afarensis is not a fraud. She is approx 3.2 Million years old, with a brain capacity of about 550cc, which places her with a bigger capacity than a monkey, but not by much. She was a biped, but not using the mechanism we currently use. She 'loped', in that she swung her right leg forward, by using the momentum of her right arm, and body. Her knees did not lock, and she could not cover great distances, at great speed. She still had a divergent big toe, which suggests that she was still an arboreal primate. She is NOT the missing link, as she is too recent, she is only part of the process, that went from arborealism and quadrapedalism, to fully bipedal. There are earlier hominids, than A. afarensis, which I will not get into here.


http://www.wsu.edu:8001/vwsu/gened/l...arensis-a.html

http://www.archaeologyinfo.com/austr...safarensis.htm

Regarding the fossil record, the reason it is so fragmented, is because it is so old. There are no holes, per se, just fragments that have not survived the years, to tell their tales. For example, there have been many other finds of A. afarensis, but they are fragmented due to the nature of their deposition, and the sheer age of the species.

[afro-elf]

My information was obtained from my mom, who is nuts about the Creation/Evolution debate. She has a plethora of books on the subject. Not to mention that I am a science major and therefore I am studying this stuff.

you and your mom are still wrong

can you provide counter evidence?

there are a lot of books are there. If you ready only what support belief you are not gaining in knowledge

you go on to speak about lucy and have not provided anything to the answers as why you were wrong

how about this you give us some SOLID example to defend what we have refuted THEN we can GLADLY tackled lucy

DEAL?

[Earniel]

I may not know as much about archeology as my sister (who is an archeologist) and Beardofpants here. But I know one thing: Lucy is REAL, no fraud, real. The piltdown man, yes. Nessie, yes. But Lucy, NO. Since then a lot older skeleton parts have been found. She was nor is the missing link. but she was the first of that particular evolutionary step between man and ape (to put it blunty) to be discovered. That's why she is regarded as one of the most important discoveries. Add the fact that it was one of the most complete skeletons that were found.

P.S. My sister read that part over my shoulder, she turned red and said: 'Let me at them! Let me at them!'

[markedel]

Originally posted by Nariel Starshine
However, while some verses have symbolic as well as literal meanings, the point of reading the Bible is not to see what you can get out of one verse, it is to see the entire book as one big picture. And there is only one big picture.

Well there's my big picture, and your picture, and his big picture...its all one and the same. I can use the beginning of Genesis to prove evolution. I can use it prove the world was created 6000 years ago.