01 Oct 07
1 edit
Originally posted by freightdog37Sorry for the cut 'n' paste but... This is from http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/archive/index.php?t-14128.html but the TalkOrigins link quoted has the meat of the refutation.
All right sorry I haven't had much time to get on and talk. Let's here your excuse for this one.
Biological material decays too fast.
Natural radioactivity, mutations, and decay degrade DNA and other biological material rapidly. Measurements of the mutation rate of mitochondrial DNA recently forced researchers to revise the age of “mitoch ...[text shortened]... d with no DNA damage.19 Soft tissue and blood cells from a dinosaur have astonished experts.20
The claims in this proof are just factually inaccurate. See the article written by Dr GH - Dino Blood and the Young Earth (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dinosaur/blood.html), and it becomes very clear: the preservation has been exaggerated. Soft tissue has never been discovered intact, although we have partially-fossilized tissue residues. We've never discovered intact DNA greater than 10,000 years old, and we have very rarely discovered broken DNA fragments of things roughly 300,000 years - DNA has never been recovered from things as old as dinosaurs.
Besides, the YECs are doing a number of things that are methodologically flawed, such as trying to date the age of fossils by how well-preseved they are - thats unscientific. And if a young-earth implies dinosaurs fossilized with soft-tissues, then the discovery of soft-tissue would be routine and mundane - but that isnt the case.
--- Penguin.
01 Oct 07
Originally posted by freightdog37"Excuse" ??
All right sorry I haven't had much time to get on and talk. Let's here your excuse for this one.
Biological material decays too fast.
Natural radioactivity, mutations, and decay degrade DNA and other biological material rapidly. Measurements of the mutation rate of mitochondrial DNA recently forced researchers to revise the age of “mitochondrial Ev ...[text shortened]... d with no DNA damage.19 Soft tissue and blood cells from a dinosaur have astonished experts.20
I don't know your level of education. Do you know what a decay is?
1. Mitochondrial eve. Don't know the fact for this one. Let's assume scientists were wrong and got the age wrong for a sample. So what?
2. DNA in fossils is not in a natural environment. Amber is not a natural environment.
I don't know how the bacteria were revived, but it they were less then 10000 years would this be ok? Then you would be saying it's possible to get life from non-life.
You are picking some true informations and using it out of context. "DNA can't live in natural environments longer then 10k years". That doesn't mean DNA older then 10k yrs can't be found.
01 Oct 07
"And if a young-earth implies dinosaurs fossilized with soft-tissues, then the discovery of soft-tissue would be routine and mundane - but that isnt the case."Great!
Explain this one.
If earth is only 10k yrs old, how can't we find DNA and a huge amount of tissue from dinosaurs?
If carbon dating is wrong, how does it work for stuff up to 6k yrs to great precision, in accordance with historical data and everything else we know, and then suddenly it gets wrong for ages older then the age you believe the earth has? The only reason i see is "it goes against my belief in the bible".
01 Oct 07
Originally posted by serigadoDon't you know? Creationists believe that the flood answers all those questions. It muddied the waters....
Great!
Explain this one.
If earth is only 10k yrs old, how can't we find DNA and a huge amount of tissue from dinosaurs?
If carbon dating is wrong, how does it work for stuff up to 6k yrs to great precision, in accordance with historical data and everything else we know, and then suddenly it gets wrong for ages older then the age you believe the earth has? The only reason i see is "it goes against my belief in the bible".
01 Oct 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadWow...
Don't you know? Creationists believe that the flood answers all those questions. It muddied the waters....
From where did all that water come from? Even melting artic and antarctic + transforming all water in atmosphere into rain wouldn't be enough.
Animals were vegetarians before the flood too so they wouldn't eat eachother. Noah must have been the first man in Australia too, to pick up those little koalas and cangurus. The arc was the biggest ship ever, 100x bigger then titanic, to host all pairs of living creatures.
Did all mankind died in the flood? If so, how did chinese and american indians and black people come from, why are they so different from caucasians? They should be descendency of Noah (and adam and eve too...) ... Maybe they got too much sun in 6k yrs.
Yeah, it all fits.
01 Oct 07
Originally posted by serigadothe ark would be even bigger than you imagine, In Genesis, there were not 2 of every animal and bird, there were 14 of every clean animal and bird, and 2 of every unclean animal and bird.
Wow...
From where did all that water come from? Even melting artic and antarctic + transforming all water in atmosphere into rain wouldn't be enough.
Animals were vegetarians before the flood too so they wouldn't eat eachother. Noah must have been the first man in Australia too, to pick up those little koalas and cangurus. The arc was the biggest ship eve ...[text shortened]... Noah (and adam and eve too...) ... Maybe they got too much sun in 6k yrs.
Yeah, it all fits.
01 Oct 07
Originally posted by duecerIf someone tells me he/she believes there's a God, because they feel something spiritual, or are afraid of dying, that's ok with me.
the ark would be even bigger than you imagine, In Genesis, there were not 2 of every animal and bird, there were 14 of every clean animal and bird, and 2 of every unclean animal and bird.
A different thing is to believe in a specific God that comes in some holy book that tells a lot of stupid, near to impossible things.
A lot worse is to bend everyday reality to make everything in those books true! Don't these people see they are ridiculous? I guess they live in a community where that's ok to be like this.
And they can't listen! It's so deep in them it must be this way they would simply collapse to question the veracity of these "holy books".
01 Oct 07
Originally posted by PenguinSo Christianity is a religion of do's and don't (just as much as any other religion).
So Christianity [b]is a religion of do's and don't (just as much as any other religion).
That there are any should give us a long, hard pause.
If there was only one, then I'd agree with you.
But more to the point, I would go with the one which most likely fits the scenario or our total observations.
That's be atheism or Agnosti ...[text shortened]... u arrive at the agnostic/atheist perspective is beyond me"[/i]. Thank you.
--- Penguin.[/b]
You didn't read what was written. You asked if the Ten Commandments are part of the Christian belief system. I responded that they are not. You then continued as though I had answered in the affirmative as opposed to the negative. Emphatically, Christianity is not a system of do's and don'ts.
If there was only one, then I'd agree with you.
That there are many is cause for another--- albeit different--- long, hard pause. That there are any is of immense importance.
That's be atheism or Agnosticism then since none of the supernatural belief systems has any evidence that stands up to any scrutiny.
By relying strictly on the natural world to explain the natural world, one will forever be caught on a Mobius strip. The very nature of matter tells us such a proposition is wholly impossible. Thus, the agnostic/atheistic view of things is doomed from the onset.
01 Oct 07
Originally posted by serigadoI believe in the Truth contained in the bible, as well as the koran, and the writings of the various buddas. Much of what we read in the bible is historical content, and should be viewed as such. It is not up to Christians to pick and choose which laws they are going to obey(biblically), and which they will ignore. Either Christ fulfilled Levitical law or he didn't. As for buddism, you can't just ignore the laws of cause and effect, and think you'll be okay.
If someone tells me he/she believes there's a God, because they feel something spiritual, or are afraid of dying, that's ok with me.
A different thing is to believe in a specific God that comes in some holy book that tells a lot of stupid, near to impossible things.
A lot worse is to bend everyday reality to make everything in those books true! Don't the ...[text shortened]... t be this way they would simply collapse to question the veracity of these "holy books".
Truth be told, many religious people could learn an awful lot from athiest' and agnostics, many of these people lead good and moral lives, not out of fear, but because it's logical and humane to do so.
01 Oct 07
Originally posted by duecerWe are getting close to an understanding.
I believe in the Truth contained in the bible, as well as the koran, and the writings of the various buddas. Much of what we read in the bible is historical content, and should be viewed as such. It is not up to Christians to pick and choose which laws they are going to obey(biblically), and which they will ignore. Either Christ fulfilled Levitical law or he ...[text shortened]... e lead good and moral lives, not out of fear, but because it's logical and humane to do so.
I can't believe in anything per se, but I can filter what I think it's good or bad and follow what's best. I simply can't accept something written so long ago as the foundations for my way of being. Nothing is an absolute truth, but in the same way I think everything has it's purpose (even if it is to show what's wrong).
In general religions are positive when that aren't taken literally or with fundamentalism. I see christians going the same path as muslims. A good message taking the wrong interpretations.
02 Oct 07
http://www.starcourse.org/jcp/
The partical physicist, theologian and priest Rev. Dr. John Polkinghorne KBE, FRS, PhD, ScD, MA.
this site is now www.polkinghorne.net (someone has cyber-squatted www.polkinghorne.org)
John Polkinghorne is one of the greatest living writers and thinkers on science and religion: a truly world-class scientist turned priest, currently one of two Revd FRS (the other is the statistician Bernard Silverman) and one of only 3 Revd KBEs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Polkinghorne
If you have questions for John Polkinghorne, or are interested in the responses given to hundreds of questions from around the world, why not check out the Q&A pages? You can also search the sites from there.
02 Oct 07
Originally posted by serigadoWhy do you find belief in God acceptable but frown on belief in "a lot of stupid, near to impossible things."
If someone tells me he/she believes there's a God, because they feel something spiritual, or are afraid of dying, that's ok with me.
A different thing is to believe in a specific God that comes in some holy book that tells a lot of stupid, near to impossible things.
A lot worse is to bend everyday reality to make everything in those books true! Don't the ...[text shortened]... t be this way they would simply collapse to question the veracity of these "holy books".
As far as I know belief in God invariably goes along with belief in miracles which are violations of the laws of physics. The central beliefs of both Christianity and Islam require a belief in impossible things. (or at least impossible in the scientific sense).
02 Oct 07
Originally posted by FreakyKBHAre you able to expand on that? Surely the same argument could be applied to the supernatural ie one must invoke the super-super-natural to explain the super-natural?
By relying strictly on the natural world to explain the natural world, one will forever be caught on a Mobius strip. The very nature of matter tells us such a proposition is wholly impossible. Thus, the agnostic/atheistic view of things is doomed from the onset.
02 Oct 07
Originally posted by PenguinIf you strip away the Bronze age myths from religion, but retain the allegory, meaning and message there is no conflict between religion and science.
Dr. Francis Collins was head of the Human Genome Project and is also a devout evangelical Christian. I find this a paradox. I was aware that there are some scientists who are also religious but this man is clearly a leader in his field and is able to reconcile his scientific background with his religious beliefs.
http://www.pointofinquiry.org/?p=125
In ...[text shortened]... gent Design' is spot on.
But then I would think that. What do others think?
--- Penguin.
It is only the more knuckle dragging fundamentalists that appear to predominate in the US that have any problem with this concept
02 Oct 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadThere are several strings begging to be pulled, but I'll tug on just a few.
Are you able to expand on that? Surely the same argument could be applied to the supernatural ie one must invoke the super-super-natural to explain the super-natural?
The nature of the physical world demands a beginning and an end. Cosmology grapples with these bookends, and the current popular consensus holds to a point-in-time creation (of course, someone here will object to the point-in-time phrase as nonsense, but it will have to suffice until such time (ha-ha) someone comes up with a more accurate and pleasing description). We know that matter cannot make itself and we have no record of such a thing happening even today.
As God is explained to us by Himself, He is not matter, but spirit--- therefore, He does not fall into a category which immediately demands creation. We know also that God Himself creates the human spirit, but He has also explained to us that He has always been, i.e., uncreated, unsustained by anything/anyone--- including Himself.
If nature is to be considered uncreated and/or unsustained by anything/anyone outside of itself, we have essentially described it in terms originally used for God. Nature has become God, in a sense. While you may be nodding your head in approval, this does not satisfy (among many things) how nature created itself (creation demands an impetus), nor does it begin to describe how a personality-less non-entity is capable of creating a personality-bound entity.