Jedikiller
New Member
Hunt them down, and destroy them
Posts: 38
|
Post by Jedikiller on Mar 2, 2005 23:18:42 GMT -5
how would the fossils be any older if layers were taken away, the carbon dating is in rgaurds to the compounds that make up the fossils. if u examine the process of how fossils are formed this concept becomes very clear. that info isn't hard to come by. i donno what ur science teacher is talking about but either way they show that there are materials older then sed 6000 years old. Ya I didn't quite understand it myself. I'll get more details tomorrow.
|
|
|
Post by Electron on Mar 3, 2005 4:37:03 GMT -5
Ya I didn't quite understand it myself. I'll get more details tomorrow. And your science 'teacher' teaches you that the Earth is how old?
|
|
|
Post by cypris69 on Mar 3, 2005 7:37:50 GMT -5
by defenition the origin of man and this world is a miracle. can we have this definition from a credible source. and i am affrade the bible is not one in the world of fact and science. also u need to define ur term miracle here. i think resses pieces sundays from friendly's r a miracle, damn those things taste good, but just because i think its amazing some1 though it up doesn't mean it was god. more likely then not it was some short order cook 1 day but hey they r still good (i wasn't being totally serious there i meant that more as an example for ppl who r gonna take that completely litereally, my point is even scientist see the evolution of man as a miracle but not in the sense of divine intervention only in the sense that animals such as us were able to survive and change into what we are today because the chances were so slim for all of this actually happening). today I did a LOT of research on Einsteins theory of relativity and the changes in the speed of light. . . I am not saying you "thoery" is wrong, but I am saying it has yet to be PROVEN at this point. Frankly, it could go either way. alright this argument on einstein is starting to urk me. i want to see ur research on the matter. internet, though easy and very nice to have is NOT a reliable source. if this research is not in the form of scientific joural (which mind u there is access to at most state libraries) then it is crap, i am not saying everything online is crap, i love porn, but there is to much crap to trust much online and that is how any professor at the college level will look at the internet if u r doing even a simple research paper. so like i said i would like the citations for these journals and books so i can see for myself because i have never seen the other side of this argument even attempt to be credibly founded and i have deffinetly read of many experimants proving einsteins theories that are very well founded and repeated to the point where theory becomes fact.
|
|
|
Post by cypris69 on Mar 3, 2005 7:41:12 GMT -5
jedikiller, besure to post exactly what he is sayingwhen u find out, i amcurious to hear about that 1 as well, it makes no sense to me.
|
|
|
Post by Satori on Mar 3, 2005 8:33:19 GMT -5
alright this argument on einstein is starting to urk me. i want to see ur research on the matter. internet, though easy and very nice to have is NOT a reliable source. if this research is not in the form of scientific joural (which mind u there is access to at most state libraries) then it is crap, i am not saying everything online is crap, i love porn, but there is to much crap to trust much online and that is how any professor at the college level will look at the internet if u r doing even a simple research paper. so like i said i would like the citations for these journals and books so i can see for myself because i have never seen the other side of this argument even attempt to be credibly founded and i have deffinetly read of many experimants proving einsteins theories that are very well founded and repeated to the point where theory becomes fact. Yep, Einstein's Theory of Relativity is - along with the 'Standard Model' in quantum mechanics - one of the most rigorously tested theories ever and so far it has held up 100%. The Theory of Relativity doesn't change the speed of light though (as '284' said); in fact it asserts that the speed of light is a constant throughout the universe. What changes is time. However, science does not yet have the final solution. Quantum theory and relativity do not always meld comfortably and the search is on for a Theory of Everything that combines the two. What is encouraging though is that advances in quantum theory aren't actually disproving previous quantum theories; what they seem to be demonstrating is that the existing quantum theories hold true, but are specific solutions of an altogether larger theory. Membrane theory - which is one of the latest and most promising advances in quantum physics - has a solution that results in the standard model, so rather than actually disproving it, it just builds upon it and generalises it. What science desperately needs to find is a quantum theory of gravity, but gravity is such a weak force (compared to the other 3) that it's proving difficult to find gravitons (the postulated quantum vector boson that carries the gravitational force). There are a lot of people trying to detect them at the moment as an almost guaranteed Nobel prize awaits the scientist who does. The theories aren't necessarily wrong if they don't detect them, but there would always be that element of doubt. Anyway, I digress!
|
|
|
Post by cypris69 on Mar 3, 2005 12:41:28 GMT -5
either way i still want to see these guys sources for their information. i strongly feel that they got this stuff online or just heard it somewhere and have no basis of proof.
|
|
|
Post by Satori on Mar 3, 2005 12:58:23 GMT -5
either way i still want to see these guys sources for their information. i strongly feel that they got this stuff online or just heard it somewhere and have no basis of proof. Understood. I simply can't believe there are people around who still actually believe the Earth is merely 1000's of years old. It's one of the most bizarre - and, I think, damaging - things that Christianity sometimes tries to assert. It won't matter that the ovewhelming library of science on the matter proves otherwise (bar a few die-hard pseudo-scientists with a Christian agenda), the literalists will still take the Bible as the 'correct' science. I'm not sure how much more proof can be offered. I just hope that it sinks in eventually, although it could take hundreds of years if the plights of scientists who've previously been at odds with the church are anything to go by.
|
|
|
Post by cypris69 on Mar 3, 2005 21:54:17 GMT -5
i think it is kinda funny. i went to a debate a year or so ago about evolution where they had this top religious philosopher and some other science guy arguing about it and what not at a local college in my home town. it was kinda funny in the sense that the scientist had all these facts to back his arguments up and the other guy didn't have much of nething ppl would count on as solid fact. he had alot of religious theory which is all well and good for ppl of faith but then the scientist brought out the fact on the census' of all first world countries that 54% of the population considered them selves agnostic or athiest which cracks me up because in that case ven the mojority of the population doesn't have ne faith in his argument at all not to mention the, hopefully large, portion that prolly has enough common sense to realize basic science fact.
|
|
|
Post by Electron on Mar 4, 2005 12:33:26 GMT -5
I'm going to call 'a spade' a spade now: It would take just one tiny bit of proof that the Earth is older than accepted by YECs, and they would have to let go of their attachment to the word of god on these matters. This places them in an unusually vulnerable position becasue their claims relate to matters of recent history which are available to scrutiny in a way that most theistic proposals are not. The stakes are high and so are the risks. As a consequence some amazing distortions are imposed on a wide range of observations which all correlate and converge on an exceptionally old Earth. It is this overwhelming evidence that unanimously results in museums in every country exhibiting fossils with dates going back hundreds of millions of years. It is only this sort of concensus that prevents me being trapped by the symetry of argument which makes it possible to swap my position with any YECer - where one side simply refuses to accept the evidence of the other. Is there any sane way out of this endless argument?
|
|
|
Post by cypris69 on Mar 5, 2005 13:37:28 GMT -5
well there sort of is, there seems to be a trend where the more the world becomes educated the less ppl believe in things such as religion (yes there are exceptions don't get ur panties in a knot) and have less faith and what not and start to place more and more value in science. if people would just sit back and let things go the way they are and focus more effort on simply educating the masses and giving them the oppertunity to think for them selves then chances are religion is going to go back to how it used to be in cult form with very few supporters. chances are it will be much like anything we learn in history class because religions do come and go. and for those of u who take offence to me caling religions cults, its true, all religions start out as cults, there isn't nething wrong with that but the big religions are not so different from the little 1s ppl lve to hate sometimes because thats exactly how the major ones got started.
|
|