Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Satan rules tihs planet.

+1

G

There's no point bringing scientific evidence against Creationism since it is always rationalised away by Bishop Ussher believers.

If there is an omnipotent God creating the universe, why would he not have created it with suitably decayed isotopes, rocks in sedimentary layers, fossils, and all kinds of other evidence designed to fool modern scientists? It's only an elaborate fraud rather like making counterfeit paintings for 'discovery' and sale at auction.

The key point is what reasons there are to believe the Bishop Ussher theory rather than any other religious one.

generalgrog wrote:As I have stated previously there are a few assumptions that are made by evolutionists when it comes to radioisotope dating methods:

Assumption#1 It is assumed that the rate of decay has been constant from parent to daughter isotope during the period of time under question.

Assumption#2 It is assumed that the quantities of parent and daughter isotopes have not been altered by non radioactive processes, such as migration and transport.

Assumption #3 It assumed that when the rocks were formed it contained a known amount of the daughter isotopes, in many cases believed to be zero.

God science involves questioning assumptions. So it is good to look at that theory of constant decay rates and ask 'have they always been constant. So you build models and test results and see if you can in fact establish varying rates of decay from one time to another. And if you establish that rates have changed, you will end up winning a Nobel prize.

But, no such thing has occurred. So there is no reason to believe such a thing, other than that you would like to believe it in order to maintain the young Earth needed for your faith. Now that's cool, you're welcome to believe that, but just understand that until there is any evidence of such a change, it is not science.

youbedead wrote:bill brysons a short history on nearly everything

whoops its actually 10^260

that number is larger then the amount of atoms in the universe.

And that just a medium sized protein collagen has 1055 amino acids imagine a slot machine with that many wheels with 22 different symbols on each what are the odds of them lining up perfectly.

Its fun to be smarter then your teacher

I have to ask you, where in any literature has it been suggested that the amino acids to form a protein just randomly slotted together by chance? If you can find some scientists relying on the theory that amino acids are formed in such a way, you can discount all of their work. As no evolutionist respected by the scientific community at large would ever rely on such a crackpot idea, I think we are safe.

There is a slim you chance you are smarter than your teacher, but it is not because you were able to quote that "fact". All that "fact" means is that you have read a book [s]he hasn't.

Should we also go into a discussion of Bill Bryson's scientific credentials? I am aware of him as being initially a travel writer. He may or may not have scientific training in his past I am unaware of, and I have read his book too, so I can state he clearly has a fine mind, but he is not a leading scientist.

Fifty wrote:

youbedead wrote:bill brysons a short history on nearly everything

whoops its actually 10^260

that number is larger then the amount of atoms in the universe.

And that just a medium sized protein collagen has 1055 amino acids imagine a slot machine with that many wheels with 22 different symbols on each what are the odds of them lining up perfectly.

Its fun to be smarter then your teacher

I have to ask you, where in any literature has it been suggested that the amino acids to form a protein just randomly slotted together by chance? If you can find some scientists relying on the theory that amino acids are formed in such a way, you can discount all of their work. As no evolutionist respected by the scientific community at large would ever rely on such a crackpot idea, I think we are safe.

There is a slim you chance you are smarter than your teacher, but it is not because you were able to quote that "fact". All that "fact" means is that you have read a book [s]he hasn't.

Should we also go into a discussion of Bill Bryson's scientific credentials? I am aware of him as being initially a travel writer. He may or may not have scientific training in his past I am unaware of, and I have read his book too, so I can state he clearly has a fine mind, but he is not a leading scientist.

And your credentials as the Guy with the Imaginary friends?

Ad Hominim Attacks are fun!

youbedead wrote:bill brysons a short history on nearly everything

whoops its actually 10^260

that number is larger then the amount of atoms in the universe.

And that just a medium sized protein collagen has 1055 amino acids imagine a slot machine with that many wheels with 22 different symbols on each what are the odds of them lining up perfectly.

Its fun to be smarter then your teacher

That's a cute number, but it's, sadly irrelevant. In fact, the argument is the same as "evolution cannot create a fully functional eye out of the blue" , or grow "legs" on a bacterium, or whatever. This argument, every time it's come up in whatever form, has been soundly beaten into ground, whenever serious scientists decided they had the time to look into it.
The protein (any "modern" protein, for that matter), did not jump into existence randomly - it was slowly perfected from much more humble beginnings (amino acid soup in the primeval oceans randomly recombining and eventually forming the first life form) over billions of years by evolution.

It's fun to look for explanations rather than randomly spout numbers .

Gwar! wrote:And your credentials as the Guy with the Imaginary friends?

Ad Hominim Attacks are fun!

Sorry, I am confused. Amongst what I wrote, where is the Ad Hominem attack? Certainly not in my first paragraph where I remind the poster that it is not part of evolutionary theory to rely on the idea of amino acids sponaneously assembling into proteins.

Have you interpreted my second paragraph as such? In that paragraph I have moved on from the amino acid issue and countered the implication that reading a book that someone else hasn't makes you more intelligent than them.

Perhaps you feel that questioning Bill Bryson as a source of scientific information to be somehow inapropriate? It is some three years since I read his book, but I am fairly sure I recall him making disclaimers about his book being by a layman for a layman, so I hardly think it is an unfair point to make. At any rate, questioning validity of sources is an important part of scientific learning. In fact, you'll get marks for it on GCSE science coursework, as long as the conclusion you reach about the source makes sense.

Perhaps you are referring solely to your own rude comment?

Now, I've not called anyone names in this thread, and in order that the OP's intentions to have a civil discussion can be respected I'll not jump on you questioning whether my friends are real or imaginary.

I personally don't see any point in us all debating who is right. I think we should be asking which idea is more useful.

If Creationism is 'right', all that proves is the existence of God which, when you think about it, is a bit useless really; God isn't suddenly going to charge my phone for me and/or drive my bus to work in the morning. We'd still need those heathen scientists to make stuff for us. Such as paper so we can write down funny stories for our ancestors.

If Evolution is 'right' then huzzah! It's another proof of scientific method and allows us to make assumptions about the future course of events knowing that the results can be relied on.

The creationists can shout until they're blue in the face about being right but, no-one will take a blind bit of notice and get on with more important matters. That is unless something really unlikely happens, such as a devout creationist becoming President of the U.... Oh hang on!

To the OP: What's the bible's take on impact and extinction events? Such as a big rock hitting the earth at a few kps.

J.Black wrote:To the OP: What's the bible's take on impact and extinction events? Such as a big rock hitting the earth at a few kps.

Oh I can answer that one:
"God Did It"
"It never happened, God just made it look like it happened"
"Wait, I thought the Earth was flat and the centre of the universe?"

Gwar! wrote:
"God Did It"

No he didn't, it was Miss Scarlet, in the time machine with the destructo beam.

Gwar! wrote:
"It never happened, God just made it look like it happened"

What if God just made God look like God had happened? Is that how he invented rhetoric?

Gwar! wrote:
"Wait, I thought the Earth was flat and the centre of the universe?"

It is in the centre of the universe, but is shaped like a digitus impudicus.

4. The dinosaurs were wiped out in the great flood

5. Satan made dinosaur fossils and fethed with the rate of carbon decay because he knew that atheists would be easily tricked

6. The dinosaurs were turned into modern-day snakes after one of them tempted Eve

Mattlov wrote:
Neither Evolution OR Creationism explain why things got so much smaller. Why aren't there still 60 foot long crocs in the Nile? What advantages do you get by getting smaller?

Short answer is lack of oxygen. Dinosaurs lived in an era where the oxygen level in the air was much higher than today's. This helped them convert food to energy and so grow more quickly. A better question would be what advantage does being big provide.

Beat people up.

Stay warmer.

Eat stuff that's really high up.

Smaller is good too though, suppose it depends on environment. To me it seems big things live in cold places more, but can also live in jungles. Actually I think it would be nice to see a graph comparing size to temperature of location for animals. [Rapidly begins fwseing]

As I said earlier, it's do with the mix of gases in the air. More oxygen = bigger insects, more insects means more base level prey, enabling their predators to get bigger and so on up the tree, until Oxygen levels drop (again usually due to plankton more than owt) and BOOM! small is good.

OK I had fully intended on answering a lot of the questions and continuing the discussion( I have about 4 pages of hand written notes LOL), but as I was doing some internet searching I found a website that is allready doing what I was hoping we could do here on DAKKA.

This is the website: http://www.evcforum.net/

The website appears to be a place for both sides of the evolution/creation debate to "have it out". (the webmaster is pro-evolution by the way)

So as far as I'm concerned that is where I will be spending my time learning more about the issue, as learning about the issue is what my purpose was. I don't see any point in my continuing the discussion here on DAKKA when there is allready a place doing the same thing. They allready have pages and pages and pages of discussion which I am sure have allready covered many of the points we were getting ready to get into.

I have allready created an acount over there and I encourage anyone interested in the issue to do the same thing.

So I'm out, and sorry for getting everyones hopes up for having a DAKKA duke out.

GG

Let's talk about big animals and small animals!

I think a lion could beat up a tiger.

I also think a fire ant could beat up an army ant. Army ants are dangerous together, sure, but individually they're blind and have no one to watch their back. I think the fire ant has the advantage, with the poison.

What do you think, Dakka?

Evolution brought life in the Universe up to a certain point, then the Greys showed up and messed around with the DNA of some upright monkeys and half a million years later, here we are. All religious writings are a combination of exaggerated campfire tales to explain natural phenomena and encounters with aliens, because back then, the aliens pretended to be mythological figures because it made it easier for the uppity monkeys to accept and obey them. Why are the Greys doing this to us? Don't know, don't care. We'll find out on Dec 21st, 2012.
Why do I believe this? cave paintings, pyramids, Easter island, the Nazca lines, Stonehenge, Edgar Cayce, etc...
Go ahead and scoff if you like. We'll see soon enough.

I think an elephant would be defeated by a mouse.

An interesting hypothesis, in that it pits a small animal against a big animal.

Please do elaborate.

warpcrafter wrote:Evolution brought life in the Universe up to a certain point, then the Greys showed up and messed around with the DNA of some upright monkeys and half a million years later, here we are. All religious writings are a combination of exaggerated campfire tales to explain natural phenomena and encounters with aliens, because back then, the aliens pretended to be mythological figures because it made it easier for the uppity monkeys to accept and obey them. Why are the Greys doing this to us? Don't know, don't care. We'll find out on Dec 21st, 2012.
Why do I believe this? cave paintings, pyramids, Easter island, the Nazca lines, Stonehenge, Edgar Cayce, etc...
Go ahead and scoff if you like. We'll see soon enough.

By jove, I think you've hit the nail on the head!!!

J.Black wrote:If Creationism is 'right', all that proves is the existence of God which, when you think about it, is a bit useless really...

It would also prove the Bible was a historically accurate source and that numerous scientific fields are totally incorrect in their theories. It would not necessarily make Christians 'right' although it would prove Judaism was 'right' and numerous other religions are 'wrong'.

If the earth is 6,000 years old then global warming preditcions basesd upon ice cores are a myth because much of their data (414,000 years worth at the last count) is false.

warpcrafter wrote:Evolution brought life in the Universe up to a certain point, then the Greys showed up and messed around with the DNA of some upright monkeys and half a million years later, here we are. All religious writings are a combination of exaggerated campfire tales to explain natural phenomena and encounters with aliens, because back then, the aliens pretended to be mythological figures because it made it easier for the uppity monkeys to accept and obey them. Why are the Greys doing this to us? Don't know, don't care. We'll find out on Dec 21st, 2012.
Why do I believe this? cave paintings, pyramids, Easter island, the Nazca lines, Stonehenge, Edgar Cayce, etc...
Go ahead and scoff if you like. We'll see soon enough.

And please note, even this theory has a wider set of 'evidence' than Biblical Creation.

Plus, it's kind of like what we do. We've made Glow In The Dark Mice, grown Ears on Mice, so is it that far removed that some other species might have had a game of 'Pin The Brain On The Monkey'?

I don't personally believe that it's true though! But at least it's a hypothesis based on something reliable, even if the sources are extremely open to interpretation!

And apparrently, EDEN, has come from the sumarian "E'DIN", which is supposed to mean place of the "DIN"; "DIN GIR" apparently means Rocket People! (although I don't proclaim to speak ancient Sumarian myself, so I'm only going on what Eric Von Danniken says in his book'Science of the Gods', which contains some pretty compelling "evidence")

Uri Lee wrote:Eric Von Danniken...

I think we're all in agreement here.

I am a lot more inclined to belive in smoke and mirror tricks by Aliens than some deity clapping their (God says "we" a lot while he's creating the earth while supposedly alone. Split Personality?) hands and BANG! Earth.

Creationism should NOT be taught in public schools anywhere, unless that school is running a Religious Studies course. Schools that are owned by religious institutions, fine. Science has a basis in fact, and what we can see. Christianity has a basis in what a book written by people who lived at least 300 years after the events they are writing about, tells them.

Eric von Danniken, David Ike and others have been trying to tell us about this alien conspiracy, but have been misquoted and labeled as MAD MEN so no one believes them!

Uri Lee wrote:Eric von Danniken, David Ike and others have been trying to tell us about this alien conspiracy, but have been misquoted and labeled as MAD MEN so no one believes them!

Have you considered a career in comedy, or politics?

No, should I?

(I think you've just proved my point)