It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Question for Evolutionist's

page: 18
13
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 03:39 PM
link   
Ah - a perfect and timely example of how the body of knowledge accretes facts and the science marches forward.

How does god explain dinosaur feathers??

www.theatlantic.com...
edit on 15-9-2011 by spyder550 because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by sacgamer25

Originally posted by infinitecuriosity

Originally posted by sacgamer25
reply to post by seabhac-rua
 




By measuring the concentration of the stable end product of the decay, coupled with knowledge of the half life and initial concentration of the decaying element, the age of the rock can be calculated. Typical radioactive end products are argon from potassium-40 and lead from uranium and thorium decay. If the rock becomes molten, as happens in Earth's mantle, such nonradioactive end products typically escape or are redistributed. Thus the age of the oldest terrestrial rock gives a minimum for the age of Earth assuming that a rock cannot have been in existence for longer than Earth itself.
An age of 4.55 ± 1.5% billion years, very close to today's accepted age, was determined by C.C. Patterson using uranium-lead isotope dating (specifically lead-lead dating) on several meteorites including the Canyon Diablo meteorite and published in 1956.


So you know the following as fact.
1. The initial concentration of the decaying element
2. The rock has not been in anyway contaminated in 4.5 billion years like you say

To me to belief in those 2 arguments as facts takes a lot more faith than believing in God.


1: Yes this is a fact and has been proven many, many times to be correct. If one had just paid attention during chemistry class..
2: Even though these rocks might be contaminated with other elements, the fact remains that the uranium/potassium/argon and thorium cannot be added to a rock on a later stage. Some of them are fairly radioactive and it would kill the person who did it at the end.

Also what would be the use to falsefy such claim? There is nothing to gain or lose by falsefying such evidence.
If we did not know the information above, we would now be unable to treat and cure cancer. Or is that science also created by god? Or was it god who created the disease?
edit on 15-9-2011 by infinitecuriosity because: no reason



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Tony4211
 


Im not sure if you hit the wrong button on the wrong post... but how does any of what you said have to do with me? why did you reply to me? I didn't say anything about god, and im not even sure what your trying to say.

Please try to speak more coherently, and ill give it a go.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by sacgamer25
The math of the ark works fine assuming all creatures were in infantile state. Not much of a problem there mathematically speaking.

Whoa! You're saying that the animals on the ark were infants? How did they get to the ark from around the world without being eaten by predators, as they would be vulnerable? Speaking of that, how did baby or even adult penguins get from Antarctica to the middle east without being eaten?



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by spyder550
 


Just a thought I could also use this information to say this proves a young earth. It proves nothing sorry.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Hydroman
 


Well if I believe God created everything, its not that great a leap of faith that he got them all in the ark now is it.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by sacgamer25
 

Not so logical. This guy cherry picked a value for a correcting factor so he could get close to pi..
edit on 15-9-2011 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by infinitecuriosity
 


So these rocks have never been reheated to a molten stage in 4.5 billion years. How does anyone know?



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tony4211
reply to post by SPACEYstranger
 


It really depends on what your definition of god is. If god is all of nature, then yes, of course they can co-exist. However, the supernatural god and evolution does not co-exist. Unless you are alright with having a contradicting view of life, that is. De-evolution is absolutely not possible. You can not unravel evolution. Hopefully science will overcome your primitive superstitions.


I think you meant this post to be in reply to my post.

What exactly do you think my "primitive superstitions" are?

You have no idea what my beliefs or "superstitions" are.

Your ignorance is proof that de-evolution does exist.

EDIT:

The process of de-evolution does not have to be an exact reversal of the evolutionary process. De-evolution is a process where a more advanced form returns to a more primitive forms. It can apply to ideas as well as living creatures.
edit on 15-9-2011 by MathiasAndrew because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 03:49 PM
link   
< TROLL/ >It scares me that people who believe in creationism and young earth theory are allowed to interact in society, make decisions etc.

I have a new rule, people who believe in faulty logic cannot vote or work in positions where decisions that affect other people are made(ie public servants and politicians).

Oh wait that is probably facism..scrap that we are just going to have to wait and continue on with our current re-education program.. Carry on< /TROLL >



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by rhinoceros
 


A cubit was not an exact ruler length at the time. It could vary from 17-18 inches. It wasn't all that important and the story was not told in the kind of detail that would assume we should take it as exact and not conforming to pi. But since a logical explanation can be hypothesized about based on the text itself. My faith is intact.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by sacgamer25
I actually believe that the earth is 6000 years old based on my interpretation of the bible. To date I have not found that evidence and i have read much.

Do you follow the creation account as a literal interpretation? If so, you must believe that the rest of the universe was created on day 4? That means that the universe is also the same age as the earth.

Now, do you believe that what scientists have calculated for light speed to be correct? If not, what is your estimation?

Next, the supernova. A supernova is what we call a star when it's life ends and it explodes. We can see that change in light in exploded stars. There are stars that we have witnessed going supernova in the billions of light years away from us. This means that when that star exploded, it took a time of billions of years to reach us traveling at the speed of light.

I have heard the answer that god created the light already in its path, just as he created man already grown. Did he then create stars that were exploding with their light already in its path? No he didn't. Here's why: We have seen stars in their normal light, then we have seen them going supernova. This means that the star was already shining normally, then it exploded later and it took the light a certain amount of time to get here traveling at light speed.
edit on 15-9-2011 by Hydroman because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by sacgamer25
reply to post by spyder550
 


Just a thought I could also use this information to say this proves a young earth. It proves nothing sorry.


And that is why it is like debating the color of grass with 6 year olds



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by flexy123
 

Sorry you misunderstood. I meant that science's explanation of origin of species has gaps that haven't been filled yet, just like religion. Not that all of science is a belief system. Thats ridiculous. And your right. Science has had (like religion) to adapt to changing results of scientific investigation. Thats where scientific beliefs become scientific facts. And religion then follows along (sometimes kicking and screaming). I as well believe in ancient alien theories but don't use Capital letters to describe it yet, even though I have seen a UFO.

I think that creation is a mix of both, a creator and his "gardeners" that plant crops of life on distant worlds like ours. Just that we don't understand the full mechanics or history of that yet. Not until we die...



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by izero
 


I don't vote because we don't live in a democracy and I am a well educated business man whose decisions impact hundreds of people. And not one of them believes I am crazy. And I believe in a young earth that neither I nor science can explain.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by izero
< TROLL/ >It scares me that people who believe in creationism and young earth theory are allowed to interact in society, make decisions etc.

I have a new rule, people who believe in faulty logic cannot vote or work in positions where decisions that affect other people are made(ie public servants and politicians).

Oh wait that is probably facism..scrap that we are just going to have to wait and continue on with our current re-education program.. Carry on< /TROLL >



Actually this has always been my litmus test for public service -- or sharing space or time with, it would save time if they just wore a sign. Hi my name is *** and I believe the earth is flat.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by sacgamer25
reply to post by Hydroman
 


Well if I believe God created everything, its not that great a leap of faith that he got them all in the ark now is it.





If god created everything and had the ability to get them all in the ark, why wouldn't he just protect them from the flood himself? Why make Noah do it, I mean he wasn't trying to punish the animals, just humans.

Also, where is the evidence of the destroyed civilization? The villages, monuments, human remains...



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by SPACEYstranger
 


That was not intended for you. Put your guns down.... I just started this forum today and am still figuring things out.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 03:56 PM
link   
how come your book alone means more then a science book



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
 


thought i would poke in here with my opinion. Seems to me like "de-evolution" doesnt make any sense.

Sure, the conditions could be such that a species begins to evolve in a way that might seem backwards, but that species would still be "evolving" in the forward sense of the word.

not that it matters. Evolving to a previous state and deevolution would basically be the same thing



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join