Dinosaurs Evolved Into Birds!! Really??

[Habit7]

so lets all believe the Bible's creation happened in literally 7 days and that dinosaurs and man walked the earth together because they were both created on the 6th day.

that's your logic.

The goal of creationism is not to meet your or anyone else's standard of "mainstream science" but to vindicate the truth of the Bible. That truth being Jesus Christ is Lord and He is only means whereby anyone can be saved from the just punishment we all deserve for our lives of rebellion to Him.

[MG Man]

the truth is Hanuman will beat the crap outta your hippie

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

so lets all believe the Bible's creation happened in literally 7 days and that dinosaurs and man walked the earth together because they were both created on the 6th day.

that's your logic.

The goal of creationism is not to meet your or anyone else's standard of "mainstream science" but to vindicate the truth of the Bible. That truth being Jesus Christ is Lord and He is only means whereby anyone can be saved from the just punishment we all deserve for our lives of rebellion to Him.

what makes your beliefs truth and the religious beliefs of others false?

Why do you think the book you believe to be the word of God needs vindicating? i.e. Why does God's word need vindicating?

If it is not to meet my or anyone's standards, then who are you vindicating it to?

Mainstream science is mainstream because it is factual and follows the scientific process of testing and observation.

While I do not think the level of support for something necessarily makes it true, it seems that there is greater support for evolution, even among religious followers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_s ... _evolution

[sMASH]

Even with the limitations of radio carbon dating, the large varience in times, the expected results still do not come close to allowing the earth being 6000;years old, not even 12000 years old .

What you guys are saying is that just because a method or device has an error range that it cwnnot be used.
Whether you are saying is hat things must be absolutely precise or it cannot be used at all.... Not even for estimations.



Even if the radio carbon dating may have an accuracy to within 10 million years, you are saying that that error range is too big so that method cannot be used.


But even if it only accurate to within 10 million years, tmany things that have been dated, even with its error being given to the the part heterosexual is closest to present, would still put things as 100s of millions of years ago.

Allyuh don't understand.



Why I asked about the grand canyon is because you don't need radio carbon dating to date it. All you need is the geographical of he canyon , the rate at which water eats into the rock. You would find that it would be millions of years old.

[buzz]

[sMASH]

Evolutionists don't need to prove that the earth is how knuckles billions of years old to prove that creationists method of creation is wrong.
All hat is needed is to prove that there are things which are older than 6000 thousand years old.

Creationists nite pick at the limitations of radio carbon dating, and say that because there is a wide band of error that that means that method is absolutely useless.
Carbon dating is a mehod of estimation.
The time scale used in your bibles are also estimations.

But even given the wide error in carbon dating , the ages of the stuff still are quite far from being close to 6000 years old.
Anddddd creationists have not proven that those things that are scientifically old are not actually old.
Creationists have old showdown hat hey may not be exactly as the scientists may say.

[sMASH]

The grand canyon is approximately 6000 feet deep. If u say that the earth is 6000 years old or even 12000 years old that would mean an increase in depth at a rate at about 6" to years 12" per year

Obviously that would be varied according to water flows, rock hardness etc. There may even be times of increased flows like flooding after storm rains.
But because this is not a contained system like a pipe, when there is more water you would expect more spreading of the water as it flows. Like why a river breaks its banks .
As you get more water you get increased lateral spread, so it would not only eat a deeper channel but also a wider channel .


That being said when he wideness of the canyon at points can be used to determine variences in water volumes at different times.

Over time what is there now is what was here before. So the change in flow rate of water is much as it was before( although scientists think the flows now are more than before so it is erroding away at a faster rate.

The estimated increase in frog of the grand canyon is a fraction of an inch every year. Hat is a stark contrast to the required rate of 6"to 12" per year required for the earth to be 12000 or 6000 years old. Given that the canyon is steep and not sloping most of the erosion could be attributed to he water rather that floods and rock falls.
And even with those things considered a conservative estimate Ian about 17,000,000 years, with a possible 70,000,000 years.
Tthe conservative figure is no where even near the creationists figure.



But then again, when god created he earth he created it with the grand canyon, 6000 years ago, never mind it looks 17,000,000 years.

[Habit7]

what makes your beliefs truth and the religious beliefs of others false?

Because it is vindicated as true.

Why do you think the book you believe to be the word of God needs vindicating? i.e. Why does God's word need vindicating?

Because ppl ask questions like the first quotation above.

If it is not to meet my or anyone's standards, then who are you vindicating it to?

ppl like myself, from around the world, rich and poor, educated and ignorant, who have seen it as true, and have put their faith in the truths of the Bible.

Mainstream science is mainstream because it is factual and follows the scientific process of testing and observation.

there was a time when mainstream science believed in special creation, now it doesnt, what has changed. Now mainstream science is presumptuously naturalistic, thus special creation doesnt fit in not for lack of evidence, but because it is inconsistent with the naturalistic worldview.

While I do not think the level of support for something necessarily makes it true...

then it shouldnt matter what mainstream science says. In fact you and others have represented beliefs about evolution and science that were wrong and not even the most recent mainstream science. How do could you use mainstream science as a standard when you dont even know it?

[Slartibartfast]

I agree with Habit7 here that just because it is mainstream science doesn't make it right.

But all religious beliefs have been vindicated to religious standards in one form or another. So this blanket statement can't just be stated as fact. Also, the bible being correct is just an opinion that is built on several iterations of interpretations over the past couple thousand years. This statement is unjustified. The others here could explain why. I not going to get the time to.

I'm not getting back into the argument as everything has already been said here and in the religion discussion.

[Habit7]

I answering that question for Duane a while now viewtopic.php?f=4&t=267363&start=15450#p7128854

sMASH I dont know who brought up radio carbon dating but I didnt.

Even if the radio carbon dating may have an accuracy to within 10 million years, you are saying that that error range is too big so that method cannot be used.

This couldn't be more wrong. Carbon dating measures the thousands, no where near the millions.

The presumption that you approaching this Grand Canyon subject is uniformitarianism. You have to presume the rate of erosion of today was constant, thus you can work out it's age together with radiometric dating. Creationism presumes cataclastic events (such as a flood) could carve the majority of the Grand Canyon. Thus thousands of years is quite workable. I am simplifying most of this because it seems most of you all have not looked at your counterpoint before presenting your point.

[meccalli]

They have to use isotopes of other radioactive elements with longer half lives in order to date apparent millions and billions.
Just in case you missed where I spoke about the Mc Murdo station seal blood of a recent kill that dated to 1,300 years via c14. Estimate? 1300 years, seems pretty much in the right ballpark of 3 week old blood..

[sMASH]

With respect to the uniformity, its an assumption yes. But because if a larger volume of water flowed in the past, it would have had a different effect on the canyon. The water doesn't only erode vertically downwards, it also does so sideways, laterally. When a small flow rate of water, only a small channel would be carved out. If there was more water there would also be more lateral erosion leading to wider channels. The overall width does not account for so much water to flow to cause that canyon to be carved out in 12000 years, far less for 6000. Measurements and calculations put it at least 17,000,000 years . and even if they were way off, it is still no when near 12000 years.


With respect to carbon dating, those half-life things are better at older time scales than more recent ones. It isn't precise enough for thousands of years, but millions are a better scale to use. But even given that , the most convenient error compensation, the most conservative of estimates would still not come close to 12000 years.


As long as there is 1 thing in the universe that is a day older than 12000 years the time scale derived from the bible is wrong.
Carbon dating and calculations show that there are many things older than that. So old that the methods used to measure their ages have tolerances significantly greater than what creationists say is the age of the earth.

[Habit7]

Water erodes along the path of least resistance, whether wide or narrow. E.g. Niagara Falls.

You are obviously out of your depth with respect to dating and "half-life things." Carbon dating CANNOT be used for millions of years.

All distant dating methods are assumptions.

[TRAE]

Wanna end this back and forth? let science recreate earth in a test environment a miniature scale, cause if science can explain everything without there being a reason for doubt, then it can be replicated.

All of these are valid point, duane playing both fields it seems, but at this point we still only use a perspective to prove our point. and these perspectives are influenced by the teachings of others. By the teachings of others, we can groom anyone with the thought pattern that we dictate. arguing science and evolution will not stop, however arguing that we are here by mistake and grew in intelligent life as means of a glitch in programming is like the excuses people in power tell us to make us feel safe.

We are not evolving ------------ we are adapting and people seem to not see that part of life.

i saw a vid of a pitbull getting head from another pitbull- they're evolving into humans lol- because thats not the way dogs are supposed to act correct?

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

Wanna end this back and forth? let science recreate earth in a test environment a miniature scale, cause if science can explain everything without there being a reason for doubt, then it can be replicated.

All of these are valid point, duane playing both fields it seems, but at this point we still only use a perspective to prove our point. and these perspectives are influenced by the teachings of others. By the teachings of others, we can groom anyone with the thought pattern that we dictate. arguing science and evolution will not stop, however arguing that we are here by mistake and grew in intelligent life as means of a glitch in programming is like the excuses people in power tell us to make us feel safe.

We are not evolving ------------ we are adapting and people seem to not see that part of life.

i saw a vid of a pitbull getting head from another pitbull- they're evolving into humans lol- because thats not the way dogs are supposed to act correct?

lolwut?

Science is not God or a replacement for God. Stop thinking that scientists are like pastors!

science
ˈsʌɪəns/
noun
the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

Science is only there to explain what happens in the natural world through observation and testing. Science does not claim to know everything upfront, that is the claim of religion.
What we know in science now is far more than we knew in science a century ago and it stands to reason that we will know a considerable amount more in a century from now.

There is no scientific evidence to show that we are the product of intelligent design.
It is highly unscientific to say "we cannot explain it, so therefore God did it". That is what the ancient Greeks did when they did not know where lightning came from and so they believed Zeus was the god of thunder and lightning. Now, through science, we know better.

[TRAE]

Wanna end this back and forth? let science recreate earth in a test environment a miniature scale, cause if science can explain everything without there being a reason for doubt, then it can be replicated.

All of these are valid point, duane playing both fields it seems, but at this point we still only use a perspective to prove our point. and these perspectives are influenced by the teachings of others. By the teachings of others, we can groom anyone with the thought pattern that we dictate. arguing science and evolution will not stop, however arguing that we are here by mistake and grew in intelligent life as means of a glitch in programming is like the excuses people in power tell us to make us feel safe.

We are not evolving ------------ we are adapting and people seem to not see that part of life.

i saw a vid of a pitbull getting head from another pitbull- they're evolving into humans lol- because thats not the way dogs are supposed to act correct?

lolwut?

Science is not God or a replacement for God. Stop thinking that scientists are like pastors!

science
ˈsʌɪəns/
noun
the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

Science is only there to explain what happens in the natural world through observation and testing. Science does not claim to know everything upfront, that is the claim of religion.
What we know in science now is far more than we knew in science a century ago and it stands to reason that we will know a considerable amount more in a century from now.

There is no scientific evidence to show that we are the product of intelligent design.
It is highly unscientific to say "we cannot explain it, so therefore God did it". That is what the ancient Greeks did when they did not know where lightning came from and so they believed Zeus was the god of thunder and lightning. Now, through science, we know better.

i take common sense seriously, i teach classes and in these classes with people with that much education its always an issue explaining common sense, put this is me thinking outta the box, I wouldnt dive head first into either argument. science is all based on who can either get the fame or the money, so that leads us to believe that money is paying for science- so then science is dictated by money- so people dictate what is science- thats different from your definition isnt it?

[Slartibartfast]

Just jumping back in quickly to say I find it really funny that according to creationists, ALL scientific theories are not certain enough to prove the age of the earth or fossils, or the creation of the solar system and universe. Also, the theories are not certain enough to prove evolution.

...But all of the information in the bible has be proven/vindicated... by science.

I think if you think the theories of science aren't certain enough then you can use them as definitive proof of anything in religious scriptures. Also, you cannot assume that every gap in knowledge is attributed to God. Just because we don't know does not mean God it.

Intelligent design is just an opinion. Yes there is evidence that seems to support it, but there is also evidence against it. You can't say it is true because the bible says it is true when you are also using intelligent design to prove that the bible is true (circular reasoning). There is no definitive proof for intelligent design. Just a bunch of religious folks saying "We can't explain how this came into existence so it must be God".

And lastly (this is the real kicker here) when you sit down and really think about it, your belief that the bible is completely true is just... your opinion. That's why there are so many interpretations stemming from the same scripture. When something is written in a scientific article, it can only be interpreted in one way. When an equation is written, it can only be interpreted in one way, regardless of the language it was written or is being read in.

TL:DR You can't make the assumption that the bible is true unless you have definitive proof and any theory that proves the bible is true is not definitive enough to prove that it is not true. It is a problem of double standards.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

Wanna end this back and forth? let science recreate earth in a test environment a miniature scale, cause if science can explain everything without there being a reason for doubt, then it can be replicated.

All of these are valid point, duane playing both fields it seems, but at this point we still only use a perspective to prove our point. and these perspectives are influenced by the teachings of others. By the teachings of others, we can groom anyone with the thought pattern that we dictate. arguing science and evolution will not stop, however arguing that we are here by mistake and grew in intelligent life as means of a glitch in programming is like the excuses people in power tell us to make us feel safe.

We are not evolving ------------ we are adapting and people seem to not see that part of life.

i saw a vid of a pitbull getting head from another pitbull- they're evolving into humans lol- because thats not the way dogs are supposed to act correct?

lolwut?

Science is not God or a replacement for God. Stop thinking that scientists are like pastors!

science
ˈsʌɪəns/
noun
the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

Science is only there to explain what happens in the natural world through observation and testing. Science does not claim to know everything upfront, that is the claim of religion.
What we know in science now is far more than we knew in science a century ago and it stands to reason that we will know a considerable amount more in a century from now.

There is no scientific evidence to show that we are the product of intelligent design.
It is highly unscientific to say "we cannot explain it, so therefore God did it". That is what the ancient Greeks did when they did not know where lightning came from and so they believed Zeus was the god of thunder and lightning. Now, through science, we know better.

i take common sense seriously, i teach classes and in these classes with people with that much education its always an issue explaining common sense, put this is me thinking outta the box, I wouldnt dive head first into either argument. science is all based on who can either get the fame or the money, so that leads us to believe that money is paying for science- so then science is dictated by money- so people dictate what is science- thats different from your definition isnt it?

apparently common sense is not so common

[TRAE]

heading down a conspiracy theory road there eh?

[Habit7]

There is no scientific evidence to show that we are the product of intelligent design.

Overlooking the inherent omniscience claim in stating something doesn't exist what would this evidence that doesn't exist look like?

It is highly unscientific to say "we cannot explain it, so therefore God did it". That is what the ancient Greeks did when they did not know where lightning came from and so they believed Zeus was the god of thunder and lightning. Now, through science, we know better.

Who are you quoting there?

Can you give an instance where the God of Bible makes the claim for the constant supernatural occurrence of an event that we see happening empirically in nature? (à la that tired reference of Zeus that could possibly only persuade the one Greek Mythologist in the thread that is still sitting on the fence)

[Slartibartfast]

Can you give an instance where the God of Bible makes the claim for the constant supernatural occurrence of an event that we see happening empirically in nature?

Birth

[TRAE]

There is no scientific evidence to show that we are the product of intelligent design.

Overlooking the inherent omniscience claim in stating something doesn't exist what would this evidence that doesn't exist look like?

It is highly unscientific to say "we cannot explain it, so therefore God did it". That is what the ancient Greeks did when they did not know where lightning came from and so they believed Zeus was the god of thunder and lightning. Now, through science, we know better.

Who are you quoting there?

Can you give an instance where the God of Bible makes the claim for the constant supernatural occurrence of an event that we see happening empirically in nature? (à la that tired reference of Zeus that could possibly only persuade the one Greek Mythologist in the thread that is still sitting on the fence)

another thing is that some religions see god as something not of this plane of thinking, something entirely set apart from us- so taking that into consideration we cant bring him into natural science for argument sake

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

another thing is that some religions see god as something not of this plane of thinking, something entirely set apart from us- so taking that into consideration we cant bring him into natural science for argument sake

yes, that is why God is referred to as supernatural!

[rspann]

Woke up this morning to the sound of dinosaurs chirping in my mango tree.

[sMASH]

Those dinosaurs are less than 12000 years old.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

There is no scientific evidence to show that we are the product of intelligent design.

Overlooking the inherent omniscience claim in stating something doesn't exist what would this evidence that doesn't exist look like?

you are asking what the evidence that doesn't exist looks like?

It is highly unscientific to say "we cannot explain it, so therefore God did it". That is what the ancient Greeks did when they did not know where lightning came from and so they believed Zeus was the god of thunder and lightning. Now, through science, we know better.

Who are you quoting there?

I am not quoting any one, however I am saying that it is not scientific to say that we cannot explain how life came into existence so therefore God did it.

Can you give an instance where the God of Bible makes the claim for the constant supernatural occurrence of an event that we see happening empirically in nature? (à la that tired reference of Zeus that could possibly only persuade the one Greek Mythologist in the thread that is still sitting on the fence)

What is a constant supernatural occurrence of an event that we see happening empirically in nature?

[Habit7]

There is no scientific evidence to show that we are the product of intelligent design.

Overlooking the inherent omniscience claim in stating something doesn't exist what would this evidence that doesn't exist look like?

you are asking what the evidence that doesn't exist looks like?

It is highly unscientific to say "we cannot explain it, so therefore God did it". That is what the ancient Greeks did when they did not know where lightning came from and so they believed Zeus was the god of thunder and lightning. Now, through science, we know better.

Who are you quoting there?

I am not quoting any one, however I am saying that it is not scientific to say that we cannot explain how life came into existence so therefore God did it.

Can you give an instance where the God of Bible makes the claim for the constant supernatural occurrence of an event that we see happening empirically in nature? (à la that tired reference of Zeus that could possibly only persuade the one Greek Mythologist in the thread that is still sitting on the fence)

What is a constant supernatural occurrence of an event that we see happening empirically in nature?

Yes

That couldn't be a greater example of a strawman fallacy, fictitiously quote someone, show a cartoon, thenhigh five yourself.

I am asking you that question. Can you bring your Zeus strawman in the context of Christianity?

[Slartibartfast]

Lol. It no longer has to be supernatural. The God of Christianity is so weak almost any favourable occurrence can be attributed to him. Some examples that I have heard. Some may be more common than others.

Someone would say you should thank God for
-your health
-your job
-your happiness
-your house
-your car
-getting good grades in that exam that you prayed about
-your family
-everything

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

There is no scientific evidence to show that we are the product of intelligent design.

Overlooking the inherent omniscience claim in stating something doesn't exist what would this evidence that doesn't exist look like?

you are asking what the evidence that doesn't exist looks like?

It is highly unscientific to say "we cannot explain it, so therefore God did it". That is what the ancient Greeks did when they did not know where lightning came from and so they believed Zeus was the god of thunder and lightning. Now, through science, we know better.

Who are you quoting there?

I am not quoting any one, however I am saying that it is not scientific to say that we cannot explain how life came into existence so therefore God did it.

Can you give an instance where the God of Bible makes the claim for the constant supernatural occurrence of an event that we see happening empirically in nature? (à la that tired reference of Zeus that could possibly only persuade the one Greek Mythologist in the thread that is still sitting on the fence)

What is a constant supernatural occurrence of an event that we see happening empirically in nature?

Yes

That couldn't be a greater example of a strawman fallacy, fictitiously quote someone, show a cartoon, thenhigh five yourself.

I am asking you that question. Can you bring your Zeus strawman in the context of Christianity?

it was not a comparison to Christianity

I was explaining to TRAE that historically men have used gods to explain things that they could not explain naturally e.g. Ancient Greeks did not know how lighting formed and believed it was sent down from Zeus in anger or other religions believing that the sun and moon were gods, or that drought and pestilence were caused by god's wrath.

Today, through science we know how lightning is formed, we know what the sun and moon are and we know what causes adverse weather and climate conditions.

[Habit7]

Thanks for the lesson in Greek Mythology, I am sure Demetrius is fully agnostic now.

I know unfortunately through your vast extensive search of the universe, you came up short on evidence of any intelligent designer. However, may you recall what you where looking for in order to gauge whether you may have overlooked it?