BiggieFries Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 Oooo! Ooooo! Oooo! Pick me Mister Kotter! Because there is not form of test or proof, it can only be a hypothesis until such time that a test or proof applies. Indeed, Mr. Cid. You get a Jesus Horse flavored lollipop. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ill Nuts Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 Let me get this straight, you agree that there are holes in the evolution story but you think it should be taught to our children anyways but we should abstain from teaching the counterpoint of a theory with flaws? We do have a theory for where life originated, God. I choose to believe that theory and I've not seen anything to change my belief (certainly not in this thread). Time has proven the Bible right and evidence of the people and places have been proven with excavations. I don't picture God as an old man with a robe on standing in the clouds. I have seen that depiction in children's Christianity coloring books, maybe that's where you get the majority of your information on the Bible. First of all, evolution is a scientific theory, not a story. That's semantics, same way you folks substitute "designer" for "Christian god". And why is it soooo hard to separate the concept of evolution of species from creation of life? Evolution has never claimed to answer where life came from. Thats another red herring that you wave around. And my point was that ID is NOT a valid counterpoint to evolution. ID does not fit the definition of a scientific theory, and has no place in a science classroom. If you wanna teach it in Sunday school, knock yourself out. Here's something to chew on, LOTS of scientific theroms have holes in them. We can't explain how a bumblebee flies, yeah? We have a good idea, backed up by some evidence, but it's not bulletproof...... Do you suppose we should teach children (as a counterpoint to a theory with flaws) that God (excuse me, a "designer") has invisible strings attached and is flying around the bee like a puppet? Evolution is the single best theory, with the most provable verifiable data, we have to how species evolved, and therefore should be taught in public schools. If you wanna throw in a caveat saying evolution doesn't have all the answers, fine. But regurgitating and rewording 2000+ year old fables and them presenting them as valid scientific theories and a "counterpoint"? Naw, that dog aint gonna hunt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumpin Johnies Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 The australopithecus genus had brain sizes from 300 to 500 cc. A modern chimp is about 400 cc. Early homo species (2.5 mil ago) then took off from that and through a range over time from 600 cc to finally around 1350 cc for us. There are a half dozen "in betweens" from early homo to modern humans. Appearently some Neanderthals actually had larger brains at 1500 cc. (Most of this detail is from the Smithsonian website link) What is a neanderthal? Is that some kind of primate mistaken as a pre-human species. What is a australopithecus? Are you saying our brains are currently at 1350 cc because that sounds a lot larger than the apes that you've incorrectly dated from 2.5 million years ago. Are you telling me that these other animals could function the same as us? How were these animals you speak of dated? Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the half-life on carbon dating max out at 6,000 years. Why is that? Why can't anything on the Moon be dated further back than 8,000 years? Is it not true that things are first dated by taking into consideration what time period it is believed to be from? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumpin Johnies Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 Is there any form of test for the creationist theory to help support it? I like to use the Words of Jesus. There are over 25,000 writings with a 99% correlation rate written by folks that saw His acts and stood witness to Him. These people were willing to suffer persecution and death before they would ever deny Him. If Jesus said that God created Adam and Eve, I believe Him. From the time He started His three year ministry everything on Earth was affected. His believers and non-believers were all immediately affected by Him. I'll take His words over all of yours any day of the week. Are you all trying to tell me that Jesus was wrong when He said God created Adam and Eve? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Irish Doggy Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 (edited) What is a neanderthal? Is that some kind of primate mistaken as a pre-human species. What is a australopithecus? Are you saying our brains are currently at 1350 cc because that sounds a lot larger than the apes that you've incorrectly dated from 2.5 million years ago. Are you telling me that these other animals could function the same as us? How were these animals you speak of dated? Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the half-life on carbon dating max out at 6,000 years. Why is that? Why can't anything on the Moon be dated further back than 8,000 years? Is it not true that things are first dated by taking into consideration what time period it is believed to be from? Wow, nice rant. You don't know the first thing about the scientific evidence for human origins if terms like neandertal and australopithecus are alien to you. Edited November 20, 2007 by The Irish Doggy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumpin Johnies Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 Wow, nice rant. You don't know the first thing about the scientific evidence for human origins if terms like neandertal and australopithecus are alien to you. I don't belive they're "pre-human". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Irish Doggy Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 I don't belive they're "pre-human". And that's your right as an American. God bless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ill Nuts Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 I like to use the Words of Jesus. Well see that's kinda the problem right there.............insightful, inspiring, empowering stuff the words of Jesus (honest). Unfortunately though, NOT a sound basis for postulating scientific theories. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ill Nuts Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the half-life on carbon dating max out at 6,000 years. The half-life of Carbon-14 is 5,568 years. I'm not entirely sure what a "half-life on carbon dating" is, cause that doesn't make any sense. But if you're trying to imply that carbon dating maxes out at 6000 years (therefore...GOD!!) sorry dude, not so much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BiggieFries Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 I like to use the Words of Jesus. There are over 25,000 writings with a 99% correlation rate written by folks that saw His acts and stood witness to Him. These people were willing to suffer persecution and death before they would ever deny Him. If Jesus said that God created Adam and Eve, I believe Him. From the time He started His three year ministry everything on Earth was affected. His believers and non-believers were all immediately affected by Him. I'll take His words over all of yours any day of the week. Are you all trying to tell me that Jesus was wrong when He said God created Adam and Eve? Are you really suggesting that the "test" for the Creationist Theory is the words of a nice man who lived 2000 years ago? Did Jesus watch God create Adam and Eve? If so, can you provide a link to where he said this? Are there any slides? I like slide shows. Also, can you link to the 25,000 writings? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Cid Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 What is a neanderthal? Is that some kind of primate mistaken as a pre-human species. What is a australopithecus? Are you saying our brains are currently at 1350 cc because that sounds a lot larger than the apes that you've incorrectly dated from 2.5 million years ago. Are you telling me that these other animals could function the same as us? How were these animals you speak of dated? Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the half-life on carbon dating max out at 6,000 years. Why is that? Why can't anything on the Moon be dated further back than 8,000 years? Is it not true that things are first dated by taking into consideration what time period it is believed to be from? JJ, would you be so kind as to explain to me how the half life of carbon relate to radio-carbon dating? Oh, just to give you a hint, it's carbon-14 not the more common carbon-12 atom that is used. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumpin Johnies Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 Are you really suggesting that the "test" for the Creationist Theory is the words of a nice man who lived 2000 years ago? Did Jesus watch God create Adam and Eve? If so, can you provide a link to where he said this? Are there any slides? I like slide shows. Also, can you link to the 25,000 writings? The Bible states that Jesus was the Creator of the world with the Father and Holy Spirit (John 1:3; Col. 1:16). Would'nt the Son of God and Creator of the world know how Adam and Eve were created? A good number of the writings are the New Testament itself. Btw, there's only two ways of looking at Jesus, He was either the Messiah or a raving lunatic that claimed to be God. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonorator Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 Couple that with possible errors in translation, and I just don't see how anything in the Bible can be taken as 100% accurate. there's been massive work done to validate the accuracy of the biblical scrolls. the bible is the most contested piece of documentation the world has ever known and it continues on. it passes all tests that we would put any piece of journalism through to verify it's accuracy in reporting. each translation is a painstaking exercise and all derivations of all translations have been scrutinized and analyzed to the nth degree. you can believe it or not, but you cannot definitively disprove it's authenticity. if so, that would have been done by now based on the multitudes that have tried. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumpin Johnies Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 (edited) JJ, would you be so kind as to explain to me how the half life of carbon relate to radio-carbon dating? Oh, just to give you a hint, it's carbon-14 not the more common carbon-12 atom that is used. I already pointed out that I wasn't a scientist, my point is that scienists are using half-lifes to date everything and half lifes don't seem to go any further than 6,000 years back. Edited November 20, 2007 by Jumpin Johnies Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 Are you all trying to tell me that Jesus was wrong when He said God created Adam and Eve? Um.....yes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BiggieFries Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 (edited) The Bible states that Jesus was the Creator of the world with the Father and Holy Spirit (John 1:3; Col. 1:16). Would'nt the Son of God and Creator of the world know how Adam and Eve were created? Did god show Jesus a movie as to how he did it? Are there any links you can provide that says this? A good number of the writings are the New Testament itself. Btw, there's only two ways of looking at Jesus, He was either the Messiah or a raving lunatic that claimed to be God. You said that there were 25,000 writings about this. There are only roughly 27 or so in the New Testament. My math may be off, but 27 out of 25,000 is not a "good number". Where can we find the other 24K? Edited November 20, 2007 by BiggieFries Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonorator Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 I already pointed out that I wasn't a scientist, my point is that scienists are using half-lifes to date everything and half lifes don't seem to go any further than 6,000 years back. this isn't true. there are other elements where the half-lives are much, much longer that permit radiometric dating. for all of these dating techniques, however, there are a consistent set of assumptions about the somewhat constant status of our planet that permit them to function and also for various methods to correlate to each other. things like a nuclear bomb can dramatically change the results. it is the underlying and other assumptions that are made that lead me to be skeptical. we've only personally experienced a minute fraction of the overall time here and from a series of experiments we claim to be able to date things back in the billions of years. i have no doubt that the equations generated with today's knowledge all balance out, but i wonder if bigger game changing discoveries are out there (like we discovered in 1929 that the universe is ever expanding) that reset the base and could throw our methods into chaos. i believe this will happen because i find it too arrogant to state that we now have all the answers ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumpin Johnies Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 Other Jesus writings, http://www.carm.org/bible/extrabiblical_accounts.htm A lot of the writings are the same, they're simple eye witness accounts taken from a lot of different people witnessing the same miracles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BiggieFries Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 Other Jesus writings, http://www.carm.org/bible/extrabiblical_accounts.htm A lot of the writings are the same, they're simple eye witness accounts taken from a lot of different people witnessing the same miracles. If I read those correctly, all those people in that link couldn't have been an eye witness since Jesus died before they were born. If I'm wrong about those dates on there please let me know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumpin Johnies Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 Did god show Jesus a movie as to how he did it? Are there any links you can provide that says this?You said that there were 25,000 writings about this. There are only roughly 27 or so in the New Testament. My math may be off, but 27 out of 25,000 is not a "good number". Where can we find the other 24K? From Josh Mcdowell: "McDowell: To discover the accuracy of copying for the New Testament material and see whether or not it has been “changed,” you have to look at two factors: One, the number of manuscripts existing today; and two, the time period between the original document and the earliest manuscripts still in existence today. The more manuscripts we have and the closer the manuscripts are to the original, the more we are able to determine where copyist errors happened and which copies reflect the original. For example, the book Natural History, written by Pliny Secundus, has 7 manuscript copies with a 750-year gap between the earliest copy and the original text. The number two book in all of history in manuscript authority is The Iliad, written by Homer, which has 643 copies with a 400-year gap. Now this is a little startling: the New Testament has currently 24,970 manuscript copies, completely towering over all other works of antiquity. In addition, we have one fragment of the New Testament (NT) with only a 50-year gap from the original, whole books with only a 100-year gap, and the whole NT with only a 225-250-year gap. I don’t think there is any question from all of these early copies that we know exactly what the original documents said. " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumpin Johnies Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 If I read those correctly, all those people in that link couldn't have been an eye witness since Jesus died before they were born. If I'm wrong about those dates on there please let me know. You're not wrong those are simply other Jesus writings that are not New Testament manuscripts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Cid Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 I already pointed out that I wasn't a scientist, my point is that scienists are using half-lifes to date everything and half lifes don't seem to go any further than 6,000 years back. Then you need to educate yourself on how radio-carbon dating works before you start making claims about its falability. Just because the half-life of radioactive carbon is around 6000 years doesn't mean that anything older than 6000 years can't be dated by using this method. It's just that you see the coincidental crossing of the half life of radioactive carbon and the purported age of the Earth and want to make a connection. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miner Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 ...... Bushwacked posted a link a few weeks ago that showed a video of a study where the scientist found a "link" between chimps and humans. I can't find the thread at the moment (BigJohn, can you find it?). :BigJohnimpression: Is this it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BiggieFries Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 I already pointed out that I wasn't a scientist, my point is that scienists are using half-lifes to date everything and half lifes don't seem to go any further than 6,000 years back. Half lives have to do with the radioactive decay of radioactive materials. There's a couple of chemists on the boards that could probably be of more help. But if you have 1LB of radioactive material, it would take 6000 years (I'm speaking of the materials used in carbon/uranium dating) for 1/2 LB of that material to turn into lead (or some other non-radioactive material). So it's exponential. That radioactive material will not be complete gone until there is one atom left that finally gets rid of all of its radioactive-ness. Make sense? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BiggieFries Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 You're not wrong those are simply other Jesus writings that are not New Testament manuscripts. So Jesus wrote these after he died? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.