Although I was able to answer many of these, I don't know enough about biology or carbon dating to give adequate responses. This is part of an email I'm having back and forth with a friend and if anyone would like to go through and answer all of the questions, I would be grateful. It would help my understanding as well.

(lol, for the "beasts living in harmony" part, I asked her why they had carnivourous teeth)

"So my questions for you. How long has the universe been in existence? In this forming, did the earth start small and build itself into what we have now like with reverse erosion? Is our planet still growing? Where are all of the "evolving" species? Not including macroevolution explanations.How long did it take for one human to form? When and where did the others form? When did reproduction start? How did all humans "evolve " in the same way given all the variables of millions of years? Who came up with carbon dating and why? How? Its scientific basis is very clouded. IMO. How could many humans form from more than one evolutionary collision of matter ? It is all so impossible to me. The odds are so unbelievably astronomical that it reaches impossibility. Why with all of our scientificly brilliant minds and processes and equipment can we not replicate such a process? You are correct that I "cling " to the explanation of God. Absolutely ! It makes sense and works for me and I truly believe it to be true. Why , one would ask, if all of these principles and theories are so strong do they wither away with scrutiny and time? Why one day "this" is the true way things happened, then when disproved suddenly "oh yeah " "this" is in fact the way it happened. The only explanation that stands the test of time is God. Never disproven, never changing to fit the world, always consistent. Carbon dating has been "factually " argued on both sides.It is not possible for both to be correct. I will throw this in.Adam and eve and all creatures had eternal life until the original sin. No death, all beasts lived in harmony. The world was perfect."

Brother of Yeshua

I Fully Understand (40)

Activity727/986

 

Addiction845/5416

 

Progress Bar42%

 

His arguments are worthless because they're based from flawed logic.

God hasn't changed over the years? What history books is he reading?

Do a google search for "carbon dating creationism" and research both sides arguments.

Find the flaws in the logic, and have at it.

Sorry I don't know a whole lot off the top of my head about carbon dating. I only know that I've read enough for it to be valid science to me.

But that's how I would prepare a response.

Hope that helps (unless you want to be lazy )

__________________
"Science without Religion is lame. Religion without Science is blind."

-Albert Einstein


"There is no matter as such! All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter."
-Max Planck

"The quiet voice of peace is rarely heard over the din of the crowd."

-Unknown-

Chronic Assaulter

Novice (15)

Activity32/365

 

Addiction93/1815

 

Progress Bar60%

 

How long has the universe been in existance?

My answer: Who the hell knows the answer to that? In my opinion the THEORIES of many scientists make sense to a point. Lets look at the big bang theory for a moment. Just to skim the surface, all of the atoms and molecules, different particles....all matter (where did that come from etc.) had to be in exactly the right place at exactly the right time to fit this theory on how our universe was formed. The odds of that are 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. ..I forget how many zeros go there. Thats all conjecture anyway, in my opinion. Ask them to build you a time machine and see how far back you can go.

Let me just take a break here and say, how can you believe or "cling" to the theory of "God" but not believe in theories of science. While I believe in a creator of sorts I cannot fathom how and why we are here. I hope I don't know until right before my last breath. Its the only thing that really keeps me going. I have a mother and a father that created me. Thanks to science we know that ( I'm sure there was a time when we were running around yelling "someone just popped out of Urguliliasotoy," or we grunted...how the hell should I know). I got side tracked sorry. I only believe in a creator because of this birth process. It goes way farther than I even want to think about at the moment.

Radiocarbon dating: The technique of radiocarbon dating was discovered by Willard Frank Libby and his colleagues in 1949 during his tenure as a professor at the University of Chicago. Link: carbon dating - encyclopedia article about carbon dating.

I'm getting tired of this...I have to go back to work. "God" or a creator can co-exist with science. They are both theories, whether we choose to except them is up to us.

One more thing: Yes we do "evolve" or adapt to our surroundings whether it be physical or mental. Hunting techniques, some animals that have almost (ha! I know) the same DNA structure have different color schemes. One might lose a tail to escape predators others might choose to camoflauge themselves with their environment. Some women take martial arts.

__________________
Owns a bad attitude, a toaster, and some bread.

a.k.a Barney

Ristaron

Initiate Guru (59)

Activity1885/1885

 

Addiction2477/11483

 

Progress Bar0%

 

I normally steer clear of other peoples' arguments, but since you asked...

Underlined words are links.

Clever.

Given that the surface is constantly under the process of isostacy, the actual diameter of the Earth is never the same minute-to-minute. It is constantly fluctuating between larger and smaller, but there are no signs that it has grown or shrunk over the millennia in the quantity you allude to. There is, evidence, however, that the moon was closer to Earth (and indeed, used to be part of the Earth); back during the time of the dinosaurs, it was easily ten times the size as viewed in the sky.

We are all evolving. Even humans.

Macroevolution, according to the opinion of many evolutionary biologists, is nothing more than slightly larger steps of microevolution. It follows the same process as microevolution (Natural Selection), although in this case likely due to a disaster of sorts. For example: during the Black Plague of England, a small percentage of the inhabitants of London possessed a gene they had inherited from a common ancestor that rendered them impervious to the Plague. A slightly larger percentage possessed half of the gene (it wasn't the phenotypical, or "expressed", gene), and they got sick, but survived. Aside from the nobles who possessed horses (which repelled the vermin that carried the plague), everyone else got sick and usually died. In this instance, you would see a huge decrease in the total population's genetic variability in that many of the people who didn't possess the specific gene died.

Life on the Earth has existed for at least a billion years. That's starting with the single-celled organism it all started as, evolving into two-celled, and then three-celled, on and on until you have walking, talking humans.

Reproduction is a basic quality that defines a living organism. Even single-celled organisms reproduce (asexually), you would understand that if you paid attention to your high school biology teacher rather than writing him off as a heretic. Maybe you should read a science book rather than a Bible, and start with the chapter on Cell Growth.

Humans evolved the same way because it was the most fit form. We became upright when we left the forests and needed height to see predators from afar because we didn't have a sense of smell comparable to that of competing animals.
Quite simply, those that didn't evolve died out.

IMO, you're either very stupid, or very ignorant. Or, you're just too afraid to actually learn how it works because it would force you to rethink your ideas. Radiocarbon Dating was "invented" (actually, the technique was discovered) by Willard Libby in 1949 at the University of Chicago. He realized that the natural isotope carbon-14 had a half-life (decay rate, per se) of 14 disintegrations per minute (dpm) per gram. It becomes completely inert after 5,730 years (roughly), thus can only be used to accurately measure within that timeframe unless you use a technique called 'spiking', which requires you to add more Carbon-14 and then subtract after the dating process has occurred. Using this method makes the result slightly less accurate, but still valid to an extent. All dates are given in BP (Before Present), where "present" refers to 1950. The actual technique requires that you remove a piece from the sample and measure its amount relative to how much is decaying. Modern forms of the sample are used as comparison for dating. For example: molten lava is expelled from a volcano, and cools to form extrusive igneous rock (such as basalt or obsidian). It then immediately begins to lose carbon, and so when a newly formed rock of the same type is recovered and measured for its carbon, we can compare how old the other sample is.
Of course, there are natural phenomena such as swamps that produce carbon, and thus other methods must also be used to confirm the dating process. Other methods of Absolute Dating include K-Ar (potassium-argon) dating, which is accurate up to 1.3 billion years, and Uranium-Lead dating, which is accurate up to 4.5 billion years.

Science is constantly evolving. We don't base conclusions on conjecture or single tests, we base it on math, logic, and extensive testing. Read up on The Scientific Method if you, again, didn't pay attention in high school science classes. The evidence doesn't lie, but our interpretations can sometimes be off. Thus, we advance in small steps, or leaps and bounds. I'll care to point out that we have continually gone farther and farther from believing that the JudeoChristian God created the world in six days (and rested on the seventh), through intelligent consensus on what we "factually" discover.
We have created life, through cloning. We haven't discovered what combination provides the "spark of life", though, and perhaps we may never know.
One thing is certain, however, and that is that the JudeoChristian God is a farce of dozens of other religions, and if we posed that they were the progenitor of this master plan you would scoff and call us insane. Even when we use the very evidence placed before proponents of Intelligent Design, and merely change the "designer" from a supernatural, omnipotent being to aliens, you say our logic is flawed and we need therapy. The one thing that hasn't stood the test of time except to those who are excessively belligerent is the JudeoChristian God. Witness that we no longer teach Creationism as fact (although some places have been forced to teach it as theory, which it isn't (see The Scientific Method link above)), and the number of people who believe in such fiction is steadily on the decrease. The reason the explanation hasn't been entirely thrown out is because it doesn't follow the Law Of Fallibility (sorry, can't find a source for this; in effect, it means that it doesn't give conditions that indicate that it is false, such as "God exists, unless X is achieved"; rather, religion goes "God exists, no unless"), which -- following the Scientific Method (see above) -- automatically excludes it from viable theories (theories MUST have conditions stated that if are correct disprove the theory). Thus the Burden Of Proof falls to the believer, not the skeptic. It is up to you to prove to us that what you believe is correct, otherwise I could tell you that it is a fact that "there is a celestial teapot, too small for our best telescopes to see, that is orbiting between the Earth and Mars", and you would have no choice but to accept it or disregard it, because you can't disprove it. Naturally, you'd tell me to "prove it", right?
Well until you fucking do that, I oppose your theistic bullshit being taught in public schools by teachers paid by my tax money.










I hope that's sufficient.

__________________



I hate 'literature'... I'd much rather read a good book.

Click here for a Guide To BeastToast!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Opunaya Haha! I love being in warm cum with balls on my ass while I'm pooping.

Chronic Assaulter

Novice (15)

Activity32/365

 

Addiction93/1815

 

Progress Bar60%

 

Could I just say something very quickly here?

While I do believe to a certain point in evolution and that yes, there are theories that seem to be proven through extensive research consisting of math, logic, and chin stroking. That theories are still just widely accepted speculation. There are many different theories for the creation of our universe and I could very well compare that to the many different theories people have in their religion.

I love being ignored....Go me! No wonder I never come in here.

__________________
Owns a bad attitude, a toaster, and some bread.

a.k.a Barney

Ristaron

Initiate Guru (59)

Activity1885/1885

 

Addiction2477/11483

 

Progress Bar0%

 

Please read The Scientific Method! They are not theories, they are hypotheses! Natural Selection is a theory because it is testable, and passes both logical and mathematical tests. Intelligent design is a fucking hypothesis because there is no evidence to support it except for what you take on the basis of the addictive chemical reaction your mind rewards you with when you deny what you know to be true (or, at least, more likely).

Yes, your brain gives you a "reward" feeling (release of dopamine) for denying something you think is correct. It's addictive, like a drug.

__________________



I hate 'literature'... I'd much rather read a good book.

Click here for a Guide To BeastToast!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Opunaya Haha! I love being in warm cum with balls on my ass while I'm pooping.

Chronic Assaulter

Novice (15)

Activity32/365

 

Addiction93/1815

 

Progress Bar60%

 

I never said I was for intelligent design or for your scientific method per se. Why do I have to believe in one or the other? I'm saying that the big bang theory is well, as stated in its name a fucking theory. Just like religion. I create MY higher power. I'm not going to let someone tell me where I came from when they have no fucking clue. You don't, the pastor on TV or at church doesn't, nobody. I'll believe in whatever the fuck I want to believe in. I DO believe in many processes of science and I believe that I was created by a higher power. Both are flawed but aren't we all.

One more thing, don't fucking patronize me you self-absorbed asshole.

__________________
Owns a bad attitude, a toaster, and some bread.

a.k.a Barney

Ristaron

Initiate Guru (59)

Activity1885/1885

 

Addiction2477/11483

 

Progress Bar0%

 

Are you being intentionally dense? The Big Bang is a theory, yes, but that still makes it more plausible than Intelligent Design, which is a hypothesis. Maybe you should pay attention to what I'm saying before you tell me I don't know what I'm talking about. There are no "problems" with the Big Bang Theory, only a few things we haven't completely figured out yet. I would challenge you to find scientific evidence that disproves the Big Bang theory, as I have frequently exposed -- on this very website, in these very forums -- the many inherent contradictions and flaws in other conjectures (like the Bible). And this is hard evidence that doesn't just blow smoke at one or two of the implications of the Big Bang, rather something that contradicts the Big Bang itself, because Science is a process that doesn't start with the answer we want and devise the questions to get there, it rather starts with a possible answer and asks critical questions to test if it is true. This is why science is constantly growing and changing, because occasionally we don't know to ask certain questions until later, and once in a while we have to throw out old explanations (alchemy, geocentricism, and other paradigms come to mind).
It's not a Christianity-or-Science-debate, it's a "your unproven, baseless idea versus my well rounded, logical, scientific explanation that is supported by many facts and doesn't crumble beneath its own weight"-debate. If you believed that Odin and his three brothers made the world out of a giant they killed, I would as ardently oppose you teaching this in science classes as fact (or even theory!) in schools paid for with my tax money. Your "religious studies" class can teach whatever the fuck it wants, but it shouldn't be mandatory in the curriculum. And don't even think about bringing back organized prayer, because then there will be more school shootings.

__________________



I hate 'literature'... I'd much rather read a good book.

Click here for a Guide To BeastToast!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Opunaya Haha! I love being in warm cum with balls on my ass while I'm pooping.

w8_4_the_moonrise

Finding a Niche (28)

Activity355/688

 

Addiction348/2236

 

Progress Bar51%

 

First off a theory is a supposition to explain things which are elusive. A
hypothesis is a supposition based on limited knowledge, meaning neither is right or wrong. You can't prove a hypothesis. Although it is likely to be true due to our limited knowledge. But our limited knowledge of the world is only concrete and does not take into account things we don't know ie. supernatural

You may say supernatural doesn't exist. Perhaps, but we don't know for sure
In fact, there are scientists studying astrology in Hawaii who have won a Nobel prize, because they have discovered there is are forces other than gravity and centripetal that keeps us here.

Something - unexplainable... Supernatural perhaps.

We don't know.

SO much we don't know, in fact, That Evolution can be construed as a hypothesis and ID as a theory.

Evolution MAY have the upper hand by using real world principles
But who is to say which is right?

Also Ristaron please never mention "And don't even think about bringing back organized prayer, because then there will be more school shootings."
because thats an illogical argument with no factual basis.

Also this is starting to waver near the off topic zone.

Abrasax I hope your debate goes well.
Tell your friend they need to do more research on their arguments before they try to defend them. I don't know who told him that carbon dating was fuzzy, but he should probably try to understand it first. Ristaron did a good job going through your debate point by point so anything I might add in your favor would merely cause insult to injury.

Good Luck.

Chronic Assaulter feel free to PM me. I won't ignore your questions. I'm glad that you are keeping your feelings objective. Thats the best way to make a choice that works for you.

__________________

Abrasax

Graduate of Idiocy (11)

Activity13/263

 

Addiction52/1285

 

Progress Bar53%

 

thankyou very much for your help (especially ristaron....I know that took some time). I think rather than conveying the information I'll give them the link to this thread.