1) If radioactive decay on fossils is disrupted by a factor, then the environment where the fossils are found would usually have that factor. And scientists dismiss data that are disruptive, besides, all fossil sites can't be contaminated at once =_=; 2) C-14 is a friggin ATOM, not a MOLECULE, of course it's the same =_=; 3) read 1; 4) Most fossils are sooo old that they only have left only a small fraction of their original C-14 (under 1%). After 6000 years, about a little less than 50% of the C-14 remains. What do you have to say about this?; 5) I think they COUNT the atoms, not put them into a chemical reaction, so equivalence doesn't matter.

Brb, will post the rest later, dinner time.

You don't quite understand: C14 dating relies on the principle that carbon atoms decay at the same rate now as they used to. In other words, scientists and people who believe that C14 dating is inerrant are uniformitarianists. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniformitarianism
However, this is an assumption. It is not known and cannot be known whether C14 decay rates were the same in the past as they are now.

I ignored you about ad populum? You're not even reading my replies, nevermind thinking critically about them. I won't waste any more of my time.

Have a nice life. I hope you stop and think at some point during it instead of just reciting what your priest tells you to.

P.S. They don't use Carbon Dating to determine the age of dinosaur fossils, it has an effective limit of approximately 50,000 years. That's just another bullshit strawman argument that your religious figure is giving you, no doubt. It's a shame you're too dumb to actually do some research for yourself and challenge your beliefs.

So you believe at some point, C14, everywhere, at once, decayed at a different universal standard rate? And that at some point, it had to change to the constant rate that we see today? I feel like I stated this fairly.

If yes, then how exactly could C14 change its decay rate?

If I follow correctly, then it seems god does not mind changing the laws that govern every single particle in the universe to accomplish a goal. So if god ever decides to do this again, then we might have some proof of a god. "Hey Bill, this Carbon 14 atom I'm studying just changed its half life to 700 years.... that's never happened before right?"
I really really doubt that's ever going to happen though, and until then it looks like you're wrong.

What I meant is, if there are factors that change the decay rate of the C14 on the fossils, then scientists must have found said factors, and either conclude that they cannot read the age of the fossils yet, or did calculations to modify the estimated age to fit with the decay rate where the fossils are found. And the factors can only be the chemicals that form the earth formation where the fossil is found. Since the fossil is burried soon after the organism died, the atmosphere differences between the period when the organism lived and the present is irrelevant.
Arguments against Jack's lastest long post, continued:
Diatoms can't die that much in 6000 years =_= And remember, they formed lotsa sand deposits in every ocean in the world =_=

If the first humans were homo sapiens, then how do you explain their differences from today's people, good sir?

Oh, and that quote was from The Infancy Gospel of Matthew, a part of the New Testament, and is pretty much the same as the bible, except for that censored dragon encounter. Oh, and need I show you the parts in Thomas' version of the Infancy Gospel that described how Jesus the Kid killed/cursed/withered lotsa people?

EDIT: If the bible was true, please kindly explain how dinosaurs and tons of other species still died after being rescued by Noah's boat. In the brief time of 6000 years. Please. Oh and dragons too.

Not to mention how big the ark had to be to house 2 of every creature on the planet.

This had been mentioned earlier in the discussion, and was faced with total inability to explain from the bible belivers

I didn't believe that people who took events in the Bible literally existed these days.

I'm disappointed to be proved wrong.

1) Er, what does that have to do with all this?
2) Wait, YOUR A BELIEVER??? T_T;

Quote from Raitaki

Quote from name:FaZ-

By the way, Jesus was an Arab.

I'd bet that don't mention that during Bible study.

<3

1) Er, what does that have to do with all this?
2) Wait, YOUR A BELIEVER??? T_T;

You think that they tell us anything but what we like to hear? Jesus was an Arab. Tan skin, not the pale-white we always picture. Google Images for Jesus, I bet you won't see a picture of him with darker skin. If they blur the lines on something that obvious, what else could be falsely taught?

TL;DR: Our biases screw religion in its ass.

According to this, and any eighth grader's science textbook, continents drift very slowly, no more than a few centimeters per year. So, in order for all the continents to be "close together," they must have drifted apart over the previous TWO HUNDRED MILLION YEARS. And even if they were "close together," that doesn't make their areas any smaller. Noah's family had to cover billions of square miles, leading/hauling their animals and other supplies to a single site. And another thing: what happened to the fish? Freshwater fish cannot survive in saltwater and vice versa. Heavy rains should have diluted the world's oceans, leading to a salt concentration too low for saltwater fish to handle.

But we already went over this. To continue:

How can you still believe this despite overwhelming scientific evidence against it? Oh, wait, there's one document, written almost two thousand years ago, that has had the chance to be modified, through accident or malevolent intention, to inaccurately reflect the will of the divine. All the evidence in the world does not matter, no matter how much humble proof and logical argument (oh, how one cringes at the thought of reason!) is put forth into a theory, it's obviously false because

[/rant] Alright, enough of that. Let me speak more reasonably. I do not mean to offend anyone, and I apologize for anything I've written above that offends anyone.

Let me ask you this: have you ever thought that everything in the world has a purpose? Didn't God create everything for a reason? Is religion not created for a purpose? Yes, there is a purpose to a system of beliefs. Religions give people a code of morals. They help individuals make decisions and keep them sane. And if religions have to tell a few stories to keep the majority of people from breaking into chaos, how can that be so terrible?

It isn't. What is terrible, however, is when fundamentalists take their fundamentalist beliefs to extremes. It's strange how people will strongly argue against homosexuality, which, is a sin according to the Bible, and yet do very little to argue for personal willpower and abstinence from alcohol? When was the last time you saw a church group protesting a bar or pub, which encourages drunkenness and promiscuity? Instead we have people arguing over evolution, scientific theories, and minorities' rights. I do not have to list the countless times religious institutions have stood in the way of progress, whether it be for the noble cause of civil rights or science.

Do I dislike religion? Of course not! It gives people a sense of meaning to their otherwise meaningless lives. Do I believe in God? I don't know if there is one or not. But what I really dislike is the problems mentioned in the paragraph above. Is tolerance not mentioned in the Bible? If it is, then all Christians, even those so far to the right that belong in a previous century, should express the tolerance, compassion, and level-headedness exhibited by Jesus, the Son of God.

Now, Jack, and the other creationists on this site (they seem to not have posted much, perhaps out of respect) have not been rudely intolerant or otherwise disrespectful. I applaud you for that, and I wish all far right Christians would be more like you and less like what they are now. But I know, as you are reading this, you are most likely doing one of two things. (Please correctly if I guess wrongly. I am only human, and all humans make mistakes):

a) You're already thinking of counter-arguments to every point I made. Or, b) You are calmly sensing like there is some reason to the words of this topic.

So my challenge to you, Jack, and the other creationists, is this: go research everything you can about creationism, and then come back and argue against it. (Don't just Wikipedia, find several credible sources. .edu sites have good material on subjects such as biology, geology, and physics). Read your oppositions best arguments, and decide how to best refute them. In the meantime, I ask that the evolutionists do the same: learn about the greatest arguments of creationism, and then come back and argue against them. I know that both parties are skeptic about each other, and will likely skip through the opposition's best points. Creationists will ask, "How do you know the facts with such certainty?" and evolutionists will say, "How do you know the Bible's truth with such certainty?"

And then, we will most likely reach an impasse. That has what's been happening since science and religion first butted heads. Neither is willing to back down, and neither is going to go away. That's right, religion will never die out. It may slowly become less of an aspect in certain people's lives, but organized religion can never be erased. So go ahead, argue all you like, but you can never fully destroy your opposition.

Creationists, I know you are unlikely to shift your viewpoints. Evolutionists, I know you are just as unlikely to join your opposition. But that's alright. I don't ask that you change yourselves. I only ask that you listen to your opponents, and that you hear everyone's arguments out. And after hearing and understanding everyone's ideas, for yourself, select the idea that makes the most sense to you. Not the one advocated by your parents, not the one advocated by your teacher, not the one advocated by your minister or your textbook writer, but the one that you advocate to yourself.

Like I said...the Bible was based on oral stories that were written down. Then they were translated and probably mistranslated many times. On top of that, humans decided to propagate their own agenda through it. But the thing is that the Bible is written as a history (old testament, which mostly holds up) and lessons and morals (new testament). There are people who heavily dispute most of the writings constructed by Paul, for example. My mom included

Jesus probably wasn't an Arab. Arabs at that time were located (unsurprisingly) in Arabia, and had not yet spread out under the leadership of Muhammad. If Jesus was born in what is now Israel he could have been any number of ethnicities.

He's obviously Jewish.

And ray, no man is made without the input that was put into the man. I mean, I cannot seem to imagine a man deaf, blind, and unable to feel being able to have any sort of intelligence. If you were raised in a certain environment, you will be likely to gravitate toward that environment, and make stances, interpret according to the position you gravitate towards to. So yeah, 'knowing' the opposition and 'trying to decide what is for me' are two different, and on completely different scales.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Mar 3 2011, 2:39 pm by BeDazed.

Quote from Centreri

All arguments against god are tests of faith. I, for one, will not fail my lord.

Nor shall I. Hail Lord Aster!

That aside, I refuse to believe in a benevolent deity that denies certain creations of his the right to attain happiness together. Is it so wrong that, if they love each other, that they be together? How could an otherwise all-loving deity turn on His creations? Agape is supposed to be the ultimate level of unconditional love.

@the mention of carbon-14
The stable isotopes 12 and 13 exist naturally in our environment in a ratio of about 98.89% and 1.11%. The unstable isotope carbon-14 comprises only 0.0000000001%. Carbon-14 is created when cosmic rays from the sun interact with nitrogen molecules in the upper atmosphere causing a reaction such as this: 14N + n => 14C + p (where n is the neutron and p is the proton).

The rate at which incoming solar radiation enters the upper atmosphere has not been constant over course of earth's history. Therefore, the ages derived by observing the rate at which C14 atoms are decaying provides a false value which is by no means accurate whatsoever in providing a chronology of the past. However, thanks to modern science, the data provided from decaying C14 can undergo extensive calibration to provide a realistic dating. Matching ice-core dust precipitates, using dendrochronology (tree-rings), or lake sediment cores - we can cross reference the ages and be given a more precise and accurate calendar date in years before present.

Since the first nuclear tests, we have somewhat destroyed Carbon-14 dating for the near-present. Since the nuclear fallout created vast amounts of C-14 which will render future dating methods inaccurate until further calibration and measurement studies are made. So, we know for a fact that the earth was created before when the bible says it was. Therefore making God either a big fat liar, or a complete lie all together. You choose.

@continental drift.
Yep. It was 225 million years ago that all of todays' landmasses were connected, under then name of Pangea. Then 200 million years ago, during the Triassic period, that they had split into the Laurasia (North America, Europe, Russia, Asia) and Gondwanaland (Africa, South America, Australia, Antarctica). Just go wikipedia or google any of these terms and you'll learn a lot more.

Much of the distribution of plants, flora, fauna and all living organisms is explained through the concept of Pangea. Common ancestors, migratory patterns, shifts in climate, increase in predators, Neanderthals arose in what is today Europe/Russia, Homo Sapiens arose in what is today modern Africa, and it is speculated that a third proto-human arose in Asia however little is known due to poor data in the geological archive for this region.

Agriculture and cultivation began in the Fertile Crescent, an area between the Red Sea, Mediterranean Sea, the Black Sea, the Caspian Sea and the Persian Gulf - stretching between Egypt and what was then Mesopotamia, along the banks of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. Agriculture was unknown throughout the rest of the world and was transported their by early explorers and pioneers from these regions. Agriculture then gradually phased out hunter-gatherer styles of life as a more economical way of living, enabling for less time spent surviving (hunting, gathering food etc) and more time for developing (writing, pottery, textiles, city building etc).

It is in the large gap of time between the spread of agriculture (and new ideas) and the first early empires (Egyptian, Roman, Greek, Ottoman etc), that religion was born. It is not some divine truth given to us from the heavens, because if that were the case there would only be one religion.

The only argument for religion in this day and age is a stance of ignorance. Or perhaps more kindly put, a lack of knowledge. So I stand by my initial view that religion is a tool used by the powerful to control the weak into guilt, submission and donations to further the goals and ambitions of the elite. See once more the Vatican state, the wealth of the pope and Christendom in general. But this thread is about evolution, so go talk about that - since it's much cooler than religion :3

Please. Your surmise of religion is entirely your biase. Why people believe is not up for you to generalize.

The word you're looking for is bias, and there's a reason for it. I have yet to meet an intelligent religious person who enjoys having his ideas challenged. Almost inevitably they will repeat someone else's ideas, never thinking critically and positing a likely explanation on their own. People who are afraid to develop their own ideas or their own opinions are, essentially by definition, indoctrinated.

When confronted with evidence, religious types tend to ignore it and revert to essentially sticking their heads in the sand, usually by citing silly and blatantly wrong web pages put together by someone with a fourth grade knowledge of HTML and no real world or academic credentials to speak of. I have yet to meet a religious person who has taken an evolutionary argument and countered each point with their own relevant information, as I've done at least three or four times in this thread alone. I wouldn't even mind much if their arguments were entirely from the bible, it would still be better than just taking someone else's argument and calling it your own. That isn't thinking, that is being intellectually lazy.

Without that laziness, this debate would have ended over a hundred years ago. A simple 5 minute research session on virtually any one of the original pro-religion points in this thread will render it flagrantly untrue and generally demonstrates a vast ignorance on any of the topics cited. Re: fossils, vestigial organs, recapitulation theory, carbon dating, neanderthals, dinosaurs, trees under water, etc. Blatantly false and easily fact checked things spouted authoritatively (and inevitably without reference) as true. That flies in places where you're not taught to challenge opposing views or play devil's advocate. The internet is not one of those places.

An interesting idea I've always had but have never had a creationist agree to was to try to make the evolutionary argument, while I try to make the creationist argument. Doing so would demonstrate their outright massive ignorance on the topic, if not a complete inability to even form premises leading to a conclusion. When you can't just copy and paste answers from dramatically unscientific bible sites written by people who almost without exception have no experience whatsoever in the field they're talking about, it becomes a lot harder to make intelligent points. That would require critical thought and reasoning, though.


@ CaptainWill True, I should have said Arabian skin-toned.

Post has been edited 3 time(s), last time on Mar 3 2011, 6:35 pm by FaZ-.

I believe it's evolution. Somewhere along the line, human beings became rational, freethinking individuals. We developed traits such as intelligence, charisma, charm, willpower and hundreds of other mental faculties which are unique only to humans (ie. no animals appear to have them).

I have absolutely nothing wrong with people who are devout believers in a religion, in fact, a part of me admires their blind faith. I, individually, however, am a realist and accept that the whole 'religion' is absolute and utter nonsense. The scriptures are vastly outdated, the laws and moral codes are all deciphered from these said scriptures, and then they are being hopelessly applied in a vastly different 21st century - to little effect.

Why do you think separate legal and judiciary systems have evolved, globally, alongside religion? It is just my simple outlook on life that puts religion in a box as an obsolete idea which has served its purpose in the advancement of human understanding of the universe. However, there is a difference between adhering to religious practices and blindly believing in literal adaptations of various texts. And it is sad that there are a vast majority of people who reside in the latter of those denominations. That, my friend, is evolution. You can either think for yourself or have some other concept or warped idea forced into your head. Science is the new religion, because it is empirical, factual and truth-seeking. Religion is obsolete because the unknowns it served to answer were answered poorly. I know science is a long way away from understanding the creation of the universe and the meaning of life - but if you believe religion has a better chance of answering these questions then I feel sorry for you.

But, such is life, and it is a free world, with free speech and free thinking (to those who are willing), and I won't argue whether religion should still exist in the 21st century. It is clearly my opinion that it shouldn't, and that it is a convoluted barrier between cultures and peoples which serves to alienate societies and create prejudices.

Right. I'm starting to wonder how you even got to say all that through a word and two sentences. Some of them don't even make sense.
If there weren't religion, they would've found another way to alienate and create prejudice, for the sake of alienation and prejudice.

I don't think you should be saying 'my friend', or explaining things that you think I don't know- it is far from 'truth'. However, you should just agree that most of your opinions are rationally unsound, because of the fact that none of them are logically connected. To not exist is a powerful word, there is no reason why something must not 'exist'. There is no logical connection between 21st century and religion.

There is nothing I've said that I am not thinking for myself, or the fact that there is warped ideas in my head.

You are starting to offend people. Your biggest mistake is not hasty generalization. Your biggest mistake is generalization without any sort of sensible logic. To quote Kame.