Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )



Forum Rules Enter at own risk!

The Philosophy, Science & Religion forum has been created as an unmoderated forum. The issues discussed here can and will get very intense. Please show respect and appreciation to alternative views posted here. We appreciate your consideration.

Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

> Accurate Bible?, controversy
Bookmark and Share
maryellen 
Posted: 10-Dec-2004, 12:06 AM
Quote Post

Member is Offline



Celtic Guardian
Group Icon

Group: England
Posts: 344
Joined: 20-Sep-2003
ZodiacHazel

Realm: Saint Louis, Missouri, USA

female





Here, here reddrake! Very good information.
May be going off topic:....
I would also like to add a "mistake" in many science textbooks (6th gr.-college): almost every textbook on "natural selection" (which is usually in the same unit as evolution) uses the example of the peppered moth. During the Industrial age in Britain, the trees became sooty and black. The darker moths became more abundant and the lighter ones died out.
The famous biologist L. Harrison Matthews, writing in the foreword to the 1971 edition of Darwin's Origin of Species, pointed out that the Peppered Moth observations showed natural selection, but not evolution in action.  As he put it, natural selection is an important part of evolution, but it is certainly not the same thing.  If anything, natural selection preserves the genetic information already present. When people soon found out that Peppered Moths do not actually rest on tree trunks in the day time, but rather hide under leaves in treetops, the hoax began to unravel.
However, did anyone bother to ask any real questions? Like, what was the main predator of the moths? Well, it happens to be the night-flying bat. And bats are blind.

More information can be found in "Of Moths and Men" by Judith Hooper

An example of a typical text:
Let's look at an example to help make natural selection clear.

Industrial melanism is a phenomenon that affected over 70 species of moths in England. It has been best studied in the peppered moth, Biston betularia. Prior to 1800, the typical moth of the species had a light pattern (see Figure 3). Dark colored or melanic moths were rare and were therefore collectors' items.


--------------------
Seize the time,. . .live now, make now always the most precious time. Now will never come again- Star Trek TNG

"The report of my death was an exaggeration."
-Mark Twain, After reading his own obituary, June 2, 1897

If you ever have a world, plan ahead, don't eat it! - Star Trek TNG
PMEmail Poster               
Top
birddog20002001 
Posted: 10-Dec-2004, 05:41 AM
Quote Post

Member is Offline



No Dude, It's the Isle of Dude, Dude.
Group Icon

Group: Isle of Man
Posts: 663
Joined: 12-Sep-2003
ZodiacRowan

Realm: North Carolina

male





The problem that I have with this conversation is that evoloution and Creation are two parts of two DIFFERENT arguments. Evoloution does not say or even attempt to say how "it" started but how "it" changed since it has started. It is easy to see that species change on a regular basis either through turning on previously hidden traits or the mutation of existing traits.

At one point in the beginning somewhere there was some sort of spark that jumpstarted the whole thing now THAT is what you should be argueing about. But if you want to see evoloution look at corn, it is basically a grass, but it is quite open to mutation and change hence you have some varieties that have almost no ear, some that develop the sweetness of the kernel and size (which we eat) and others that only really develop size and not sweetness(feed lot corn for cattle)


--------------------
"when a person is prepared to die for a cause, and indeed to glory in such a death, it impossible to supress him or the cause it represents." Jawaharlal Nehru

"Only the suppressed word is dangerous." Ludwig Borne

"All of our freedoms are a single bundle, all must be secure if any is to be preserved." Dwight David Eisenhower

"All men's souls are immortal, but the souls of the righteous are both immortal and divine." Socrates
PMEmail Poster               
Top
susieq76 
Posted: 10-Dec-2004, 11:08 AM
Quote Post

Member is Offline



Queen of the Stars
Group Icon

Group: Ireland
Posts: 1,259
Joined: 13-Aug-2003
ZodiacVine

Realm: Middle o' North Carolina

female





That is a fabulous point, birddog....one I never, in my wee mind, stopped to think about. That is why I love being here. Because I learn something new every day, and grow in the process. Thanks!!

*wanders off in search of more knowledge*


--------------------
"Alas for those who never sing and die with all their music left in them" - Oliver Wendell Holmes
PMEmail PosterMy Photo Album               
Top
reddrake79 
Posted: 11-Dec-2004, 01:34 PM
Quote Post

Member is Offline



Braveheart Member
******

Group: Celtic Nation
Posts: 132
Joined: 10-Mar-2004
ZodiacRowan

Realm: oregon

male





Actually, one of the things that evolution is about is the attempt to explain how the universe came into existence without any outside force, which is why many evolutionary scientists have abandoned the idea of the Big Bang because it still needs something outside this universe to start it. Stephen hawking popularized the cyclical universe that has always been expanding and contracting (over billions of years). There are some problems with this theory, but that's not important at the moment. Biological evolution also tries to show how man could have come about without any outside force (i.e. God, Zeus, or any deity) a result of this is that many students of science who believe evolution become athiests.

The corn is a wonderful example of diversity within a genus. However, is it an example of mutation or selective breeding by farmers? As far as I know no scientists has observed a mutation in corn that has lead to the current species we have now. They can all be traced back to the genes (that have always been around) that were in the parent plants. As a general rule, the mutations that science has observed tend to be harmful to the organism. examples: albinism, cycle cell anemia, four wings on a fruit fly (causes problems in mating) most mutations observed in humans.

We see changes within a species, but again is that evolution or regular genetics taking place? Scientists will agree that in all observed species we do not see mutations causing the differences but the chance pairing of genes from the mom and dad. The one thing evolution has not shown (among others) is how lizards could have a common ancestor with birds, or how man can have a common ancestor with apes. So even as an explanation of how things change it is lacking in evidence.

Here is another question. Physics says that for every action there is an opposite and equal reaction. It also says the total amount of energy in the universe is constant. (no new energy being added or taken away) Where did the force come from that started that spark? All of the energy in the universe would have had to have been held within the matter that was sparked. since matter is a form of energy, where did the matter come from that was sparked? e=mc2


--------------------
Friendship, Love, and Loyalty
PMEmail Poster               
Top
birddog20002001 
Posted: 11-Dec-2004, 03:52 PM
Quote Post

Member is Offline



No Dude, It's the Isle of Dude, Dude.
Group Icon

Group: Isle of Man
Posts: 663
Joined: 12-Sep-2003
ZodiacRowan

Realm: North Carolina

male





mutation occurs naturally and often in life just on a level not seen very often by the average person. I don't have the book with me that I would like to use to explain the process with but I will try and peice togeter a legible and comprehensive definition of mutation in sexual reproduction.

Most cells in the body are diploid meaning has 2 sets of chromosomes. Sex cells are haploid meaning a single set of chromosomes. for example humans have 46 chromosomes, this is known as their 2N number. Sex cells only have 23 chromosomes this is called the 1N number sex cells are also called gametes. A cellular process called meiosis converts 1 diploid cell into 4 haploid cells. Meiosis is actually 4 processes collectively called PMAT Prophase, Metaphase, Anaphase & Telophase This is also called reduction-division Durring the process of the cells dividing they should theoretically be the same copies of the parent cell but something special happens called crossing over this is when the DNA spiral is ripped in hapf during division and before it can regenerate the other half the ends of the spiral get ripped off of one strand and attach themselves to another strand as they are separating into two different cells each half then reproduces the missing half of the spiral and you now have four unlike cells from one like cell. This occurs for foth the male and female sex cells which are haploid. During conception only one egg and sperm of the four original are typically used and the remains are a waste product of the process. This shows why one mother and father can produce dozens of children all similar but different in small fundamental ways. Crossing over is the key in mutation of life on a genetic level there are many other chemical and physical ways to manipulate the cells though.

*Most of the proceding is from my interpretation of Cliffs quick review of Biology and my Botany teacher .




QUOTE
Here is another question. Physics says that for every action there is an opposite and equal reaction. It also says the total amount of energy in the universe is constant. (no new energy being added or taken away) Where did the force come from that started that spark? All of the energy in the universe would have had to have been held within the matter that was sparked. since matter is a form of energy, where did the matter come from that was sparked?


I believe that it could be the simple transfer of potential to kinetic energy. The process was jumpstarted when an existing energy pushed the rock over the hill and then it rolled Noting in life is static nature is always in a state of flux.
PMEmail Poster               
Top
Shadows 
Posted: 12-Dec-2004, 12:59 AM
Quote Post

Member is Offline





Reader of souls, vision seeker, TROLL
Group Icon

Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 4,180
Joined: 20-Jun-2003
ZodiacHolly

Realm: The frontier of Penn's Woods

male





Now we have our thinking caps on!! LOL!!!

Changes in a species no matter how small or trite they may seem are a form of evolution... regular genetics is "evolution".

I have not ever argued against the inital "spark" that started it all, but I have and do have major discord when the time frame set by a book written by men, who claim to have been divine inspired is used as a basis of fact when evidence shows different. I am a scientist and a student of archeology and forensics and evidence speaks louder to me then words of ancient men.


--------------------
I support the separation of church and hate!

IMAGINATION - the freest and largest nation in the world!


One can not profess to be of "GOD" and show intolerence and prejudice towards the beliefs of others.

Am fear nach gleidh na h–airm san t–sith, cha bhi iad aige ’n am a’ chogaidh.
He that keeps not his arms in time of peace will have none in time of war.

"We're all in this together , in the parking lot between faith and fear" ... O.C.M.S.

“Beasts feed; man eats; only the man of intellect knows how to eat well.”

"Without food we are nothing, without history we are lost." - SHADOWS


Is iomadh duine laghach a mhill an Creideamh.
Religion has spoiled many a good man.

The clan MacEwen
PMEmail PosterUsers Website My Photo Album               
Top
reddrake79 
Posted: 12-Dec-2004, 02:57 AM
Quote Post

Member is Offline



Braveheart Member
******

Group: Celtic Nation
Posts: 132
Joined: 10-Mar-2004
ZodiacRowan

Realm: oregon

male





Even in the case you mentioned birddog the genetic information hasn't mutated, one gamete hasn't gained new information. The current information was just rearanged. The offspring would still have the genetic traits of its parents. If this scenario were very prevelant then DNA evidence for court cases should be thrown out, yet it is accepted and usually proves beyond a shadow of any doubt. This is not enough. In order for evolution to ocure the actuall genes need to change from the gene that produces scales to the gene that produces feathers, or the gene for lungs to a gene usefull for amphibians. And it does matter how small the change is. Some minor variations within a genus or species are not enough. An evolutionist needs many minor changes to major systems that would actually change the way that system works: ie the circulatory system from lizards to birds. The changes observed by science are not enough to completly change the system (in current animals or the fossil record). Regular genetics has not proven evolution. I say minor variations are completly consistant with a creative God that loves diversity within his creation

Maybe I wasn't clear enough earlier. The Laws of thermodynamics state that ALL energy in the universe is constant, even potential. Where did the potential energy come from? What was it in relation to? A book only has gravitational potential energy when we place it on a shelf and the distance is increased between it and the surface of the earth. You need a referance point when talking about potential energy. In general there are three major types of potential energy: Gravitational, elastic, and electric (think two oppositly charged objects) What was the referance point for the "initial spark"? It can't have itself as a referance point.

How do we know that ANY work of literature is true? First off, it claims to be true - Which the Bible does. Secondly, It contains info that is varified in other sources. Lets see.... The kings of Isreal and other countries, many scientific facts that were revealed long before science actually discovered them. (see previous posts for some specific examples). The advice the Bible gives about finances are the same ones given by financial advisors. Archeology evidendce also supports the Bible. So there is evidence supporting the Bible's claim that it is true. Where is the evidence that says the bible is lying to us. Evolution is not a good example, because science cannot prove it (or biblical creation) 100%.
PMEmail Poster               
Top
freekenny 
Posted: 14-Dec-2004, 01:39 PM
Quote Post

Member is Offline



Celtic Guardian
********

Group: Celtic Nation
Posts: 724
Joined: 07-Jul-2004
ZodiacWillow

Realm: Beaches of North Carolina & Mountains of Kentucky

female





O'siyo,
~ Just some 'hodgepodge' of thoughts... happy.gif
~~Natural Selection; or the Survival of the Fittest Origin of Species was published in 1859 describing evolution and natural selection and giving a theoretical explanation for the diversity among living and fossil beings. Charles Robert Darwin (1809?1882). His book was not well received among the general population who felt threatened at the notion that humans were descended from ape-like creatures. The scientific community, however, did grasp his theories and today his book forms the basis for many contemporary archaeological theories.
~~Let us not forget Sir Charles Lyell's term, 'uniformity of change' which applies to 'survival of the fittest', 'evolution', and 'natural selection'...Uniformity of change considered, if we turn to the present state of the animate creation, and enquire whether it has now become fixed and stationary, we discover that, on the contrary, it is in a state of continual flux?that there are many causes in action which tend to the extinction of species, and which are conclusive against the doctrine of their unlimited durability;a slow change of species is in simultaneous operation everywhere throughout the habitable surface of sea and land; Let the mortality of the population represent the successive extinction of species, and the births of new individuals, the introduction of new species.. rolleyes.gif
~~Spencer was greatly influenced by the English naturalist Charles Darwin. Spencer claimed that knowledge was of two kinds: (1) knowledge gained by the individual, and (2) knowledge gained by the race. He said that intuition, or knowledge learned unconsciously, was the inherited knowledge or experience of the race. He also believed that there is a basic and final reality beyond our knowledge, which he called the Unknowable unsure.gif Herbert Spencer was thinking about ideas of evolution and progress before Charles Darwin published The Origin of Species (1859). Nonetheless, his ideas received a major boost from Darwin's theories and the general application of ideas such as "adaptation" and "survival of the fittest" to social thought known as "Social Darwinism".
~~ Sty-U red_bandana.gif


--------------------
I always knew one day I would travel this road;I just did not know that today would be the day....

'Each man is good in his sight. It is not necessary for eagles to be crows' --Sitting Bull

'Why do you take by force what you could obtain by love?'
--Powhatan

'HeartAches mend, HeartBreaks are everlasting'-- my own quote, seeker
PMEmail Poster               
Top
deckers 
Posted: 15-Dec-2004, 11:42 AM
Quote Post

Member is Offline



World's Strongest Humor Writer
Group Icon

Group: Scotland
Posts: 303
Joined: 02-Aug-2004
ZodiacOak

Realm: Indianapolis, IN

male





QUOTE (Tassiecelt @ 08-Dec-2004, 07:59 PM)
Erik, briefly, I guess my point was that you cannot go back any further than adam unless you accept the myth of evolution.

The God that created Adam is the same God that Moses met on the mountain, that Israel served and that Christians believe in.
Sure I understand that the jews do not accept Jesus as Messiah (well some do, most don't).

However the god of hinduism, buddhism and other non-Judaic-Christian religions is not the God of Creation.

That was my point.

Well, first I disagree with the premise that evolution is a myth. There are scientific methods that can demonstrate the age of rocks, soil, and dinosaur bones. These methods have been used and replicated for decades around the world. That's not a myth. There are other living cultures that have been around for longer than 4000 years -- American Indians and Chinese -- that dispute this idea.

I have trouble believing that the world -- in fact, the entire universe -- is only 4,000 years old. Not when there is actual scientific proof and evidence to demonstrate otherwise.

Actually, the God of Islam is the same God of the Judeo-Christian religions. They believe -- and admit they believe -- in the same God. However, they think Jews and Christians worship Him improperly. They believe Jesus existed and that he was a great prophet. However, they don't recognize Him as the son of God.


Erik Deckers


--------------------
[color=blue][b]Erik Deckers
Visit my weekly humor blog
Laughing Stalk[COLOR=blue]
PMEmail PosterUsers Website               
Top
maryellen 
Posted: 15-Dec-2004, 02:45 PM
Quote Post

Member is Offline



Celtic Guardian
Group Icon

Group: England
Posts: 344
Joined: 20-Sep-2003
ZodiacHazel

Realm: Saint Louis, Missouri, USA

female





If we are going to base a theory on the data produced by carbon dating and other methods, then we must scrutinize these methods and make sure they are 100% accurate.

However, if you read "The Problem with Carbon 14 and other dating methods" the article will state and cite other scientific articles presenting large flaws in these methods.
The Problem with Carbon 14 and other dating methods
PMEmail Poster               
Top
HeatherMarie 
Posted: 15-Dec-2004, 03:44 PM
Quote Post

Member is Offline



Servant
**

Group: Celtic Nation
Posts: 26
Joined: 02-Dec-2004
ZodiacVine

Realm: Grand Rapids, MI

female





I don't have the time to do more than skim the whole thing right now, but this page gives some good evidence in support of an old Earth, as well as an argument for C14's accuracy.


--------------------
"Please your Majesty," said the Knave, "I didn't write it, and they can't prove I did: there's no name signed at the end."

"If you didn't sign it," said the King, "that only makes the matter worse. You must have meant some mischief, or else you'd have signed your name like an honest man."

-Alice in Wonderland
PMEmail PosterUsers Website                
Top
reddrake79 
Posted: 16-Dec-2004, 02:06 AM
Quote Post

Member is Offline



Braveheart Member
******

Group: Celtic Nation
Posts: 132
Joined: 10-Mar-2004
ZodiacRowan

Realm: oregon

male





I didn't have much time so I skimmed the document mentioned above and did a little research online. I found two websites. one that explains the isochron dating method

i have a problem believing that the earth is millions of years old when the methods the scientists use to prove it are questionable at best.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/isochron-d...g.html#isochron
And I have this question, in this article (which is old-earth friendly) He said that Isochron dating lines up with accepted dates for old-earth geologists. One Problem, We are using a faulty radiocarbon dating method to verify the outcome of a new method. As i understand it, this method is only useful for dating rocks not bioligcal organisms. It also mentions that scientists can accidentaly get stray isochrons that are not related to the creation of the rock formation, but instead related to the magma flow underground. How do we know which ones the scientists are measuring?

another article also talks about isochron dating methods
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i1/dating.asp
Isotopic fractionation, which can cause the isochron method to breakdown, is so prevalent that it is automatically adjusted for. ANY fractionation for ANY reason is adjusted by comparing it to an ARBITRARILY chosen standard. Weather the fractionation was from environmental reasons or labratory. The actual method they use causes fractionation and contaminates the sample.

BTW most young earthers would say the earth is between 6,000 to 10,000 years old. I know, doesn't change the argument much just pointing it out. How can you prove these cultures are more than 6,000 years old without using carbon14 dating

I also checked the aformentioned article for the c14 argument and didn't find one that proved the accuracy of c14, maybe i just didn't look hard enough there is a lot of information at that site. I saw two related paragraphs about c14 dating in specifc instances but no overall deffense of the method, which is faulty. It still requires scientists to ASSUME they know how much daughter element and parent element were in the organism when it died.

Myth might be a poor chose of words in regards to the theory of evolution, unproven theory would be more accurate. What proof and evidence do you refer to about the age of the earth? Darwin predicted we would find transitional fossils. After over 100 years of digging and research we havn't found any. He also said that if we find any structure in an organism that cannot come about by small gradual changes then his theory would fall apart. Respected biologists have found many examples of such occurances. The term is "ireducibly complex" or "ireducible complexity". They find such structures in single cell organisms.

random thought: Why is it that many people are ready to debate using evolution but no other reason for not believing the Bible?

Apart form the whole age of earth, evolution or creation argument, Many scientist, that are experts in their field and hold Doctoral degrees, have come to believe that their MUST be a supernatural explanation for some of what they observed. Some Astronomers believe it because of the unique placement of our planet within the solar system and the unique placement of our solarsystem in the galaxy and the shape of the galaxy we happen to be in. Some biologists believe there is a creator because of their studies of DNA and proteins. Honestly, I don't know if they neccessarily believe in a young earth or old earth but they do believe there is a creator. This is based on the experiments they have done and the observations they have made. Consequently they have come to be Christians.

Also, not to be too picky but the website mentioned in the last post is almost 5 years old and does not consider any new objections or explanations by young earthers yet. But it does a good job of explaining things from an old earth perspective. Most young earth arguments were taken from only one source, which may or may not have explained the arguments fully and acuratly.

wow this is kinda long. hope no one falls asleep smile.gif
PMEmail Poster               
Top
freekenny 
Posted: 16-Dec-2004, 03:46 AM
Quote Post

Member is Offline



Celtic Guardian
********

Group: Celtic Nation
Posts: 724
Joined: 07-Jul-2004
ZodiacWillow

Realm: Beaches of North Carolina & Mountains of Kentucky

female





O'siyo,
~ Personally, I believe the majority of scientific work/methods/research and theories could always be labeled 'questionable at best'..after all, is it fair to say any one 'way' applies to everything and therefore we are to accept it as such? Just because Doctorates, Scientists or Experts in a field claim they have the 'truth', 'it has to be this way because', doesn't mean that I am going to accept it..perhaps I don't have the 'intelligence' or 'skill' to disprove it but, I certainly am not going to be so egocentric and naive at the same tyme to believe that it is for fact true..besides, if that were the case with many of our 'new discoveries/theories/ideas/philosophies' and such, we wouldn't continue to see 'improvement' or 'new, supposedly correct' evidence added to pre-existing 'theories/ideas/philosophies' and such..just as one accepts a certain 'way' I choose to keep an open mind to all 'ways' and then choose what I believe to be connected with...just because a belief or idea works for you doesn't mean it works for me..that is the case with everything from politics/culture/philosophy/religion/spirituality/economy and the list could go on and on..
~One with a strong belief and that lives a life that works for them isn't the enemy..especially an enemy to those that wish to follow God and Christianity..I do not debate nor study Evolution/Survival of the Fittest/Natural Selection because I wish to oppose the Bible in malicious ways or make a statement against Christianity or Christians, for that matter anyone that chooses to believe in God and calls this entity God..and I certainly don't do it to 'piss' people off so that it will begin making me feel as if the debate/conversation as well as my own thoughts and ideas have to be constantly defended; I enjoy debates for intellect...Afterall, God doesn't want anyone to defend Him or Christianity..I choose to share the reasons I believe the way I do, why it works for me..a lot of what I believe has to do with my Native American background and although I don't call the Master Creator/Higher Entity God, I call this Entity The Great Spirit...and though The Great Spirit isn't listed in any book called the Bible, it doesn't make it any less spiritual, 'true' or just as important as God, Buddha and so on; and just as I have been 'challenged' to prove their isn't a God since I 'believe' in Darwinism/Evolution I challenge those to prove The Great Spirit to my people doesn't exist; what a never ending battle that is eh? I cannot in any way 'prove' the age of Earth just as I believe the majority of humans cannot prove we, for fact, did not evolve from 'ape-like creatures' for lack of better words; But, I have a RIGHT to believe what I choose based on my research and my 'connections'..I pray to a Greater Entity, I give much Ni Ya We (thanks), I pray because it makes my soul/spirit feel pure and it feels good! It bothers me when Christians and those of other Faiths claim that if one chooses to believe in Evolution/Darwinism we are attempting to 'debunk' and 'disrespect' their religion..that has never been my intention and in the same breath I will say, those of different values/beliefs/lifestyles are just as important in the eyes of this Higher Entity that has so many 'names'..there is no bias in the eyes of The Great Spirit for there is no such thing as perfection/judgement..Science, I am sorry, at best is not perfect, and neither is any specified Religion; if it 'works' for you, you are pure of heart/soul/spirit thats what matters..everyone's beliefs/ideas/values are going to be judged and challenged..hell, we are just now seeing the beginning's of challenges towards DNA technology and being that I am not an expert on DNA I am not going to debate it..
~One thing that I find makes for disrespect to others 'ways' is people always having to have something proved for 'fact'..why can't something just work and in some cases perhaps can't be explained and must we always label this as 'supernatural'?..Several Scientists in every field 'said' this would happen and 'that would happen' and it never did..was it meant too for fact or was it speculation based on research thus far? Isn't part of life/theories/ideas etc. based on manipulation?..change?.. Hell, why can't Science be anything but predictable? Why would that be so hard to digest? Many can claim 'this cannot be true' because there has been so much 'manipulation' and still others if they don't agree with a fraction of 'it' don't take the tyme to delve into any other aspects of 'it'..almost as if any other belief is 'automatically wrong' and that is wrong in itself; simply put, it doesn't work for you so you choose not to believe but that doesn't give anyone the RIGHT to tell anyone else that their wrong etc. it just doesn't; we as mere mortals can do a helluva lot of speculating but, I highly believe that none of us should be so narcisstic/egocentric to claim 'our way' is the 'only way'! It just doesn't.....
~We are such a diverse race..I believe 'titles' cause us to be close-minded, and in my opinion only, that makes for ignorance..I believe opinions, ideas and thoughts allow us to share with others, and in my opinion only, lends insight...Insight can be applied to/with everything...Ignorance has no place; it cannot be applied to anything and wastes valuable tyme...Well enough of my two-cents... wine.gif
~~Sty-U red_bandana.gif
PMEmail Poster               
Top
maisky 
Posted: 16-Dec-2004, 09:10 AM
Quote Post

Member is Offline



King of CelticRadio.net Jesters
Group Icon

Group: Founder
Posts: 4,631
Joined: 17-Nov-2003
ZodiacVine

Realm: Easton, PA

male





QUOTE
Well enough of my two-cents...

WOW! That was AT LEAST a dollar!! laugh.gif
Having studied both physics and chemistry at a graduate level, I can say that the evidence for carbon (and other isotope) dating being relatively accurate is overwhelming. Claims to the contrary come down to whining. But then, whining is acceptable, since this forum is for both science and philosophy. biggrin.gif


--------------------
"If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe."
Carl Sagan
PMEmail PosterUsers Website               
Top
HeatherMarie 
Posted: 16-Dec-2004, 12:11 PM
Quote Post

Member is Offline



Servant
**

Group: Celtic Nation
Posts: 26
Joined: 02-Dec-2004
ZodiacVine

Realm: Grand Rapids, MI

female





Reddrake, I chose that page for two reasons - one being that he states that he is a Christian and seemed to have no agenda to disprove the actual existance of a god, and the other being that I could actually understand it. smile.gif Not a physicist, geologist, mathematician or biologist here, nor do I ever intend to be. Needless to say, the two pages you linked to flew entirely over my head, but I did understand your explanations.

Maisky, when you've got the time I'd love to hear elaborations on why you believe in isotope dating's accuracy, and what arguments you consider to be whining. With that, I'll return to observing the geological and evolution aspects of this fascinating discussion from afar.

QUOTE
random thought: Why is it that many people are ready to debate using evolution but no other reason for not believing the Bible?

Other reasons for not believing the Bible are given earlier in the thread - errors in translation, gaps between the date of the recorded event and the date on which it was recorded, and contradictory extra information that was not included in the original Bible.
PMEmail PosterUsers Website                
Top
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

 








Celtic RadioTM broadcasts through Live365.com and StreamLicensing.com which are officially licensed under SoundExchange, ASCAP, BMI, SESAC and SOCAN.
©2014 Celtic Radio Network, Highlander Radio, Celtic Moon, Celtic Dance, Ye O' Celtic Pub and Celt-Rock-Radio.
All rights and trademarks reserved. Read our Privacy Policy.
Celtic Graphics ©2014, Cari Buziak


Link to CelticRadio.net!
Link to CelticRadio.net
View Broadcast Status and Statistics!

Best Viewed With IE 8.0 (1680 x 1050 Resolution), Javascript & Cookies Enabled.


[Home] [Top]

Celtic Hearts Gallery | Celtic Mates Dating | My Celtic Friends | Celtic Music Radio | Family Heraldry | Medival Kingdom | Top Celtic Sites | Web Celt Blog | Video Celt