Darwin,Atheism and Religion

[cacian]

God's existence is somewhat of an open matter. His character, however, his character is certain. Just as we can't say with 100 percent certainty whether the boogyman exists or not, but we know for a fact that if he does he is one mean sob.

How do you mean his character?
His character as in a book?
Funny that everyone assumes that God is masculin.
Could it noe be both a man or a woman?

[KCurtis]

There HASN'T been any direct proof shown. You have not provided any proof of anything. You don't seem to understand that making a claim that something (that is undocumented) is evidence, isn't evidence, nor is it proof. You take for granted that Carbon 14 and the like has been accurately applied to date things, even though I have shown you one example that the dating method was used to date bones (that are supposedly millions of years old) and the Carbon 14 dating method brought about the results that they were only nine thousand years old. You REFUSE to accept evidence that there may be inaccuracies in the methods used by scientists...because the evidence is....grainy? Your mindset seems quite unchangeable and you're 23 years old. I bet that you will have the ability to change someday though...if you open your mind.

Speak for yourself. I guess the only science you will accept and learn about is the limited science that won't challenge your belief system. Religion and evolution coexist for many people who also consider themselves christians.

[cafolini]

I don't think so, and I don't know if I want it to be. As a non-religious person, I can freely state my beliefs and opinions. I want everyone to be able to do the same. The problem arises when one view over takes every other. That will not happen, and it shouldn't-except in school concerning the topic of evolution. As an educator in a middle school in Massachusetts, we keep religion out of evolution- and we teach evolution in science class. We do not talk about or criticize a religious belief concerning it though-that is the way it should be. Those students who question it and state they don't believe in scientific evolution are told to discuss it with their parents. Maybe I just opened up a can of worms here, oh well.

No, I don't think you opened a can a of worms. I think you pretty well closed it with a good alternative. Freedom of religion implies that religion cannot be a curriculum because who will teach it fairly and with what bias when there are hundreds of them around? If religion were taught, many, among those who are believers, would not be free to believe as they choose. Good points.

[Varenne Rodin]

How do you mean his character?
His character as in a book?
Funny that everyone assumes that God is masculin.
Could it noe be both a man or a woman?

Character as in the nature of his persona if he exists. If he exists, he allows and visits horrors on the people he has made. It doesn't matter whether he's male or female, though in Christianity he has often been called a he. That's not the kind of character classification Darcy was making.

[KCurtis]

No, I don't think you opened a can a of worms. I think you pretty well closed it with a good alternative. Freedom of religion implies that religion cannot be a curriculum because who will teach it fairly and with what bias when there are hundreds of them around? If religion were taught, many, among those who are believers, would not be free to believe as they choose. Good points.

Why thank you.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

The validity of the evidence has nothing to do with
* how grainy it is
* where it was posted

You did NOTHING to check out the real validity



As was shown above, you are incorrect, you do a very poor job at research even though there is information that is easily obtained.



There HASN'T been any direct proof shown. You have not provided any proof of anything. You don't seem to understand that making a claim that something (that is undocumented) is evidence, isn't evidence, nor is it proof. You take for granted that Carbon 14 and the like has been accurately applied to date things, even though I have shown you one example that the dating method was used to date bones (that are supposedly millions of years old) and the Carbon 14 dating method brought about the results that they were only nine thousand years old. You REFUSE to accept evidence that there may be inaccuracies in the methods used by scientists...because the evidence is....grainy? Your mindset seems quite unchangeable and you're 23 years old. I bet that you will have the ability to change someday though...if you open your mind.

And what about the websites I posted and you just ignored? I have a feeling that's why no one else goes to the effort of doing research, even a small amount like me, because you just IGNORE it. So, what's the point? Why should anyone go to the trouble?

[Darcy88]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence

http://science.howstuffworks.com/env.../carbon-14.htm



"It is possible to find out how a particular group of organisms evolved by arranging its fossil records in a chronological sequence. Such a sequence can be determined because fossils are mainly found in sedimentary rock. Sedimentary rock is formed by layers of silt or mud on top of each other; thus, the resulting rock contains a series of horizontal layers, or strata. Each layer contains fossils which are typical for a specific time period during which they were made. The lowest strata contain the oldest rock and the earliest fossils, while the highest strata contain the youngest rock and more recent fossils.
A succession of animals and plants can also be seen from fossil discoveries. By studying the number and complexity of different fossils at different stratigraphic levels, it has been shown that older fossil-bearing rocks contain fewer types of fossilized organisms, and they all have a simpler structure, whereas younger rocks contain a greater variety of fossils, often with increasingly complex structures.[49]
For many years, geologists could only roughly estimate the ages of various strata and the fossils found. They did so, for instance, by estimating the time for the formation of sedimentary rock layer by layer. Today, by measuring the proportions of radioactive and stable elements in a given rock, the ages of fossils can be more precisely dated by scientists. This technique is known as radiometric dating.
Throughout the fossil record, many species that appear at an early stratigraphic level disappear at a later level. This is interpreted in evolutionary terms as indicating the times at which species originated and became extinct. Geographical regions and climatic conditions have varied throughout the Earth's history. Since organisms are adapted to particular environments, the constantly changing conditions favoured species which adapted to new environments through the mechanism of natural selection."




"According to a recent article published in Science, the Colorado River began to cut its course through the Grand Canyon 17 million years ago. The authors base their claim on radiometric dating of cave formations found in the canyon walls.

Polyak, V.; Hill, C.; Asmerom, Y. Age and Evolution of the Grand Canyon Revealed by U-Pb Dating of Water Table-Type Speleotherms. Science 2008, 319, 1377-1380.
Their method, a type of radiometric dating called uranium-lead (U-Pb) dating, relies on the fact that uranium isotopes radioactively decay to form lead isotopes. By comparing the amount of each isotope in a sample, the age of the sample can be calculated.1

Radiometric dating not only supports the geologic "evolution" of the Grand Canyon, it validates a central tenet in a much different theory of evolution - a theory introduced by Charles Robert Darwin in his 1859 publication, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life:

"I am fully convinced that species are not immutable; but that those belonging to what are called the same genera are lineal descendants of some other and generally extinct species, in the same manner as the acknowledged varieties of any one species are the descendants of that species. Furthermore, I am convinced that Natural Selection has been the main but not exclusive means of modification."2
An important criticism of Darwin's theory of evolution was its requirement for "an almost infinite number of generations", when evidence at the time suggested earth was less than 100 million years old. Nearly 50 years after Darwin published On the Origin of Species, research on radioactive elements in rocks provided the first reliable evidence that the earth was old enough to accommodate the evolution of complex organisms. In 1907, Bertram Boltwood published an article describing a novel, radiometric method for determining the age of minerals - a method he used to date a rock sample at more than 2 billion years:

"Knowing the rate of disintegration of uranium, it would be possible to calculate the time required for the production of the proportions of lead found in the different uranium minerals, or in other words the ages of the minerals."3
Boltwood's method is conceptually similar to the dating method used by Clair Patterson in 1956 to determine the currently accepted age of the earth.4 Darwin would likely agree that Patterson's calculation of 4.55 billion years satisfies evolution's requirement for a "vast lapse of time".2


Contributed by
Peter S. Carlton, Ph.D.
CAS Communications"


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth


http://teachthemscience.org/evidence

[BienvenuJDC]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence

http://science.howstuffworks.com/env.../carbon-14.htm



"It is possible to find out how a particular group of organisms evolved by arranging its fossil records in a chronological sequence. Such a sequence can be determined because fossils are mainly found in sedimentary rock. Sedimentary rock is formed by layers of silt or mud on top of each other; thus, the resulting rock contains a series of horizontal layers, or strata. Each layer contains fossils which are typical for a specific time period during which they were made. The lowest strata contain the oldest rock and the earliest fossils, while the highest strata contain the youngest rock and more recent fossils.
A succession of animals and plants can also be seen from fossil discoveries. By studying the number and complexity of different fossils at different stratigraphic levels, it has been shown that older fossil-bearing rocks contain fewer types of fossilized organisms, and they all have a simpler structure, whereas younger rocks contain a greater variety of fossils, often with increasingly complex structures.[49]
For many years, geologists could only roughly estimate the ages of various strata and the fossils found. They did so, for instance, by estimating the time for the formation of sedimentary rock layer by layer. Today, by measuring the proportions of radioactive and stable elements in a given rock, the ages of fossils can be more precisely dated by scientists. This technique is known as radiometric dating.
Throughout the fossil record, many species that appear at an early stratigraphic level disappear at a later level. This is interpreted in evolutionary terms as indicating the times at which species originated and became extinct. Geographical regions and climatic conditions have varied throughout the Earth's history. Since organisms are adapted to particular environments, the constantly changing conditions favoured species which adapted to new environments through the mechanism of natural selection."




"According to a recent article published in Science, the Colorado River began to cut its course through the Grand Canyon 17 million years ago. The authors base their claim on radiometric dating of cave formations found in the canyon walls.

Polyak, V.; Hill, C.; Asmerom, Y. Age and Evolution of the Grand Canyon Revealed by U-Pb Dating of Water Table-Type Speleotherms. Science 2008, 319, 1377-1380.
Their method, a type of radiometric dating called uranium-lead (U-Pb) dating, relies on the fact that uranium isotopes radioactively decay to form lead isotopes. By comparing the amount of each isotope in a sample, the age of the sample can be calculated.1

Radiometric dating not only supports the geologic "evolution" of the Grand Canyon, it validates a central tenet in a much different theory of evolution - a theory introduced by Charles Robert Darwin in his 1859 publication, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life:

"I am fully convinced that species are not immutable; but that those belonging to what are called the same genera are lineal descendants of some other and generally extinct species, in the same manner as the acknowledged varieties of any one species are the descendants of that species. Furthermore, I am convinced that Natural Selection has been the main but not exclusive means of modification."2
An important criticism of Darwin's theory of evolution was its requirement for "an almost infinite number of generations", when evidence at the time suggested earth was less than 100 million years old. Nearly 50 years after Darwin published On the Origin of Species, research on radioactive elements in rocks provided the first reliable evidence that the earth was old enough to accommodate the evolution of complex organisms. In 1907, Bertram Boltwood published an article describing a novel, radiometric method for determining the age of minerals - a method he used to date a rock sample at more than 2 billion years:

"Knowing the rate of disintegration of uranium, it would be possible to calculate the time required for the production of the proportions of lead found in the different uranium minerals, or in other words the ages of the minerals."3
Boltwood's method is conceptually similar to the dating method used by Clair Patterson in 1956 to determine the currently accepted age of the earth.4 Darwin would likely agree that Patterson's calculation of 4.55 billion years satisfies evolution's requirement for a "vast lapse of time".2


Contributed by
Peter S. Carlton, Ph.D.
CAS Communications"


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth


http://teachthemscience.org/evidence

Shall I respond as you guys do?

Oh, all of that is invalid because it's from an evolutionist website!

Ok, we could take each little part bit by bit...let's start with this one from your site...

The usual creationist response to hominid fossils is to claim that there are no intermediates; each one is either a human or an ape. It doesn't matter that some of the "humans" have a brain size well below the normal human range, heavy brow ridges, no chin, and teeth larger than modern ones set in a projecting jaw, or that some of the "apes" were bipedal, with very humanlike teeth, and brains larger than those of similar sized apes. There are some skulls which cannot be reliably assigned to either genus. (Willis 1989)

This is exactly what we would expect if evolution had occurred. If, on the other hand, creationism was true and there was a large gap between humans and apes, it should be easy to separate hominid fossils into humans and apes. This is not the case. As will be shown, creationists themselves cannot agree which fossils are humans and which are apes. It would not matter even if creationists could decide where to put the dividing line between humans and apes. No matter where it is placed, the humans just above the line and the apes just below it will be more similar to one another than they will be to other humans or other apes.

There is a claim here that there would be a large gap between humans and apes in respects to sizes. This is a ridiculous claim. There are humans of many different sizes and shapes. There are currently people who have frames that could be similar to that of some apes. Genetics are mixed and interbred to make many different characteristics. If scientists are using such logic to make their assumptions, then their "scientific" methods need to be discredited. As I read the evolutionist evidence, this is the poorest example of "evidence" that I have ever seen.

[Darcy88]

Shall I respond as you guys do?

Oh, all of that is invalid because it's from an evolutionist website!

Ok, we could take each little part bit by bit...let's start with this one from your site...



There is a claim here that there would be a large gap between humans and apes in respects to sizes. This is a ridiculous claim. There are humans of many different sizes and shapes. There are currently people who have frames that could be similar to that of some apes. Genetics are mixed and interbred to make many different characteristics. If scientists are using such logic to make their assumptions, then their "scientific" methods need to be discredited. As I read the evolutionist evidence, this is the poorest example of "evidence" that I have ever seen.

Scientists can tell the difference between the skeleton of a human and that of an ape. For one thing apes have much longer arms, since they walk around on all fours.

We were supposed to have learned all this stuff in school. I was under the impression that basic science was still taught in American public schools.

You must either believe that scientists as a whole are stupid or that they are engaged in some vast international multi-generation conspiracy to fabricate theories on weak or non-existent evidence. This would have to be the single largest conspiracy ever devised. It would encompass thousands of individuals and span entire centuries. Or biologists must on average be of a level of intelligence far below the norm. If you've ever studied the hard sciences, even at a high school or first year university level, you'd know this is not the case.

[BienvenuJDC]

Scientists can tell the difference between the skeleton of a human and that of an ape. For one thing apes have much longer arms, since they walk around on all fours.

We were supposed to have learned all this stuff in school. I was under the impression basic science was still taught in American public schools.

However, the parts that were being compared were skulls. There are so many different parts that are compared, most times there are fragments that are analyzed without the full set of bones. Assumptions are made...that's the current scientific method...make assumptions that support your theories.

[Darcy88]

...that's the current scientific method...make assumptions that support your theories.

There we have it. You simply do not trust science. You have no understanding of the process of peer review or any of the other measures out there by which theories are deemed reliable or are discarded.

[BienvenuJDC]

There we have it. You simply do not trust science. You have no understanding of the process of peer review or any of the other measures out there by which theories are deemed reliable or are discarded.

I do not trust the type of science that I have seen here. I'll admit that. There are many scientists that deem these scientists unreliable. Science still teaches us that it takes billions of years for coal to form in the ground.

[Darcy88]

But which is it Bien, - stupidity or conspiracy?

[JuniperWoolf]

You say that now. Coming from California I bet half-way into a BC winter you'd be cursing the dark grey sky. I've quit thinking of our seasons as being four in number. Instead I consider them but two - wet and dry.

I've heard that. I'm moving to Van in August to go to UBC. My boyfriend has already lived there and we've had a five-year debate about what's worse, the -40 temperature and six feet of snow or the perpetual greyness and rain. I'll concede that Christmas won't quite be the same with mud instead of snow.

No he's not "like fifty years old, he'll be 39 on Wednesday.

Thanks Mr. Completely-misses-the-point. Welcome to litnet, that's a swell first post. Great job with those quotation marks by the way.

I don't think so, and I don't know if I want it to be. As a non-religious person, I can freely state my beliefs and opinions. I want everyone to be able to do the same. The problem arises when one view over takes every other. That will not happen, and it shouldn't-except in school concerning the topic of evolution.

I think this is a good point.

Radiometric dating doesn't solely rely on Carbon-14 dating either, there are a number of radioactive isotopes that can be used to accurately date compounds over large time scales. They also provide consistent results when cross-examined.

That's true, besides radiocarbon dating (the one that new-earth people talk about the most for some reason) the same age range overlap is revealed using:

- Uranium-lead dating
- Samarium-neodymium dating
- Potassium-argon dating
- Rubidium-strontium dating
- Uranium-thorium dating
- Fission track dating
- Chlorine-36 dating
- Luminescence dating
- dozens more, blah blah chemistry blah blah
- The Law of Superposition (pay special attention to that word "Law," it has a specific meaning in science) which we've already covered. That's the "strata" (stratigraphy) we mentioned earlier, the things that look like lines on cliff faces.
- Isochron dating, which takes global events into account. For example, if you're pretty sure that something was exposed during an intense period of volcanism (or any other huge event which would have affected mineral composition), you can check that thing out to see if it contains materials which would have been prevalent if there was intense volcanism.

It's best to nip young-earth theories in the bud because they're sophistry. Superficially it looks like it could be plausible. To someone who has no deeper education, even if they're smart they might swallow it if it goes un-answered. I think that we have sufficiently proven the invalidity of the young-earth theory in this thread, however it would be impossible to type out all of the information there is in this post about the above dating methods in order to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt to all young-earth suporters that they believe somthing that our species has already proven is impossible.

So listen: if you still have doubts, if you're still certain that the entire world belives a lie, get yourself some math and science education and try to disprove each dating method independantly from within the scientific community itself. If you can write a peer-reviewed paper which completely disproves radiometric, stratigraphy and isochron dating you will become one of the most influential people on earth, you will rake in millions of dollars, billions of people will know your name throughout the centuries and you will have proven that your position is not something to be laughed at.

So go on, do what science was designed for and prove everyone wrong.

As was shown above, you are incorrect, you do a very poor job at research even though there is information that is easily obtained.

Sure, just type "examples of straws that young-earth supporters grab at" into google.

What was your problem from that twenty-three year old letter that was written by some guy I've never heard of again? If you want me to dictate the 4-6 years of education that you're going to need in order to understand radiometric dating, you're going to have to start paying me. Most Canadian universities charge about five grand/year, so that'll be fine. You'll still need to do a lot of studying on your own though.

[Alexander III]

Einstein defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results

Look at this thread. Look at all other threads regarding religion which are in this sub-forum. 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007...

It appears that being a convinced atheist or a convinced theist and participating regularly in discussions about said outlook, is likely to induce insanity.