4th Grade Quiz in SC

[PhillyB]

literally nothing will convince you because you have presupposed that the dogma fed to you by power structures in your culture is true. you deny all terms and definitions, you beg standards of evidence from your opposition that would utterly destroy your position were you looking objectively at debate.

i'm actually curious as to your background because so much of what you've posted sounds exactly like the rhetoric i became so well versed in back when i aspired to write a book on apologetics and the ID movement. how old are you? did you go to private/christian schools? what university are you in/attended?

i'm not attacking here, i'm genuinely curious, as understanding where you've come from is probably key to coming to any sort of resolution on the topic.

[thatlookseasy]

Got it so everything was a straight line split. Seems feasible.

Pretty much

[toldozer]

Phillyb,

I actually havent felt attacked by you, stannis though clearly has an axe to grind against religion.

Im 28

I did go to a private school that taught both

Went to uncc

As far as resolution on the topic its pointless, not sure why i kept responding, because no amount of arguing or whatever would change anyones opinion.

My thought is im going to believe what i do and you will do the same.

I will never claim to be a scienintist (see cant even spell it), but the evidence (once again in my opinion, which i believe we are all entitled to) doesnt hold water to me.

[PhillyB]

do you believe the earth is less than 10,000 years old?

[lightsout]

Im not claiming any kind of victory. The only evidence that has been shown is the flu virus adapts and that certain animals have similar bone structures. That infers either they all evolved from an ancestor or they were created by the same being, it doesnt prove either.

OK, here is a collection of fossil hominids.

This diagram shows roughly the time range in which each hominid lived:

Humans evolved alongside the apes of today. This all shows that. Human DNA is 95% identical to chimps. Some apes today are starting to make spears to hunt bugs and sugar babies in trees (this has been observed).

[lightsout]

Also, Building Leaper, I do not mean to be rude or insulting, but it's frustrating because we're all giving you evidence (I linked you to a website that outlines everything, and the graphs I provided are from that website, which is talkorigins.org). I am with PhillyB, you clearly aren't going to accept anything based on a cognitive bias against any evidence that supports the thing you won't/can't accept. The evidence is stacked HEAVILY in favor of evolution. They wouldn't teach it as science if it wasn't factual science.

And I do have an axe to grind with religion, because it teaches people (and it is being demonstrated here) to accept not understanding the universe. It teaches people to just believe whatever the teachings are, regardless of evidence to the contrary. However, since we started on the arguments in support of the big bang and evolution, I haven't mentioned religion at all (at least, that I recall). Like I said a few posts back, I am sorry for getting frustrated and insulting, but it is frustrating when you deny evidence that opposes your position and you stubbornly hold an irrational, indefensible position. That right there wasn't an insult, either, it's just truth. Holding firm that we were just created, as we are, by an invisible creator that lives somewhere in the far reaches of space is an irrational position (particularly due to evidence to the contrary).

We have given you all of this evidence. I am interested to see what evidence has you so convinced that any of this is false, because it appears that you can't grasp the concepts presented, so you default to the simple teachings of your religion, which, again, is irrational.

[toldozer]

do you believe the earth is less than 10,000 years old?

Im not set on the age of the earth, however i dont believe it is billions of years old.

[lightsout]

Im not set on the age of the earth, however i dont believe it is billions of years old.

"The oldest rocks which have been found so far (on the Earth) date to about 3.8 to 3.9 billion years ago (by several radiometric dating methods). Some of these rocks are sedimentary, and include minerals which are themselves as old as 4.1 to 4.2 billion years. Rocks of this age are relatively rare, however rocks that are at least 3.5 billion years in age have been found on North America, Greenland, Australia, Africa, and Asia.

While these values do not compute an age for the Earth, they do establish a lower limit (the Earth must be at least as old as any formation on it). This lower limit is at least concordant with the independently derived figure of 4.55 billion years for the Earth's actual age."

For more, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

[PhillyB]

Im not set on the age of the earth, however i dont believe it is billions of years old.

if you, a dispassionate observer, came upon two sets of evidence:

1) a historical text from the late paleolithic era that stated, as was common knowledge at the time, that humanity's known record extended as late as ~4-5k years ago

2) archaeological evidence through radiocarbon dating, potassium argon dating, electron spin resonance, optical stimulation luminescence, dendrochronology, etc. that human activity existed long before the historical record, with all those dates corroborating with one another, geological evidence based fundamentally on the principle of uniformitarianism, biological evidence of mutation in DNA codes and subsequent evolution of populations, mathematical evidence based on genotypic calculations, and astrophysical evidence based on astronomy, physics, and the theory of relativity

...and, knowing that the first one was limited by the scope of paleolithic cosmology and the fact that it could never be explored beyond the scope of theology, and that the latter collection could (and has, and always will) have countless lifetimes dedicated to the research and study of countless facets of any one of those fields,

which one would you chose, if you had no prior alliances or affiliations?

[PhillyB]

this is why the church is losing so many from the younger generation. they're forcing people to look at those two sets of evidence and ignore their brains and go with choice number one, and they've constructed the debate framework so that it's impossible to properly fit into option one unless you entirely reject number two as a postulation of arrogant god-rejecting men who have been tricked by the devil. thus most people don't even take a second glance and throw the first one out the window, baby, bathwater, and all.

christianity must change or it will die.

[toldozer]

So all those dating methods come up with the same dating for individual samples? In fact depending on which methods used you will come up with different answers, so how can any be considered accurate if they dont match up?

[toldozer]

Also isnt saying organism evolve but the rate of carbon decay remains constant a little hypocritical?

[lightsout]

So all those dating methods come up with the same dating for individual samples? In fact depending on which methods used you will come up with different answers, so how can any be considered accurate if they dont match up?

Science doesn't deal in absolutes. They do not aim to pinpoint the exact year of any organism. They aim to get as close as absolutely possible, while taking into account error (you'll see this in any scientific study of the age of anything. It is falsifiable, as is all science. However, it hasn't been falsified.

They've dated dinosaurs to millions of years ago. They've dated human remains to specific eras in human history (Egyptians, for instance). It works.

[lightsout]

Also isnt saying organism evolve but the rate of carbon decay remains constant a little hypocritical?

How so?