I am not as much a follower of the crowd as you may think.
In 1517 Martin Luther posted is protest to indulgences (the selling of eternal life) to the door of a Catholic Church. At this stage Luther was a member of the Catholic Church. By 1520 he seperated himself from the Catholic Church.
Why did you decide to abandon your Catholic upbringing? I have my own reasons why one should do that, but I want to hear yours.
Catholicism is not the same as the faith originally handed to us by Paul. As you mentioned in another post that Martin Luther sounded wise...his ideas came into direct opposition with Catholic doctrines at the time, explaining why you hadn't learned much about him (then again, we don't learn much in our church either).
Eg, Catholics teach prayer to saints and angels. The Bible teaches that there is only one mediator between man and God - Jesus.
The Bible teaches compassion on the poor and needy, yet the Catholic church is one of the wealthiest organisations in the world.
The Bible teaches that God is the only authority, but the Catholic Church teaches that it has authority over the Bible (since it claims to have written it...which is partially true in a very twisted, indirect, and very distant way, giving me just as much of a claim).
A lot of people in the past with your mental condion, probably some kind of Atypical psychosis (DSM #298.90), have done a lot of harm to this world. I recomend seeing a good psychologist as soon as posible (give them that DSM code).
Stop being rude. A lot of people with your mental condition have done a lot of harm too...and from the way you are treating me, this mustn't be uncommon. There are many others who in the past have believed that they were chosen by God (as the Bible teaches, Ephesians 1:3, Romans 9), and have gone to be some of the kindest, most compassionate people as a result.
You are an atheist I presume, so what do you know about the truth of Christianity?
And since when did me believe that I was chosen by God suddenly mean that I am going to kill everyone?
That is pure ignorance and stupidity. In fact, being chosen by God means that I feel love for Him and a feeling of guilt of my own evil nature...and as a result, I desire to be good to people. This is what happens to people who God chooses.
So why have you taken this and said that I want to murder people? Thanks for your ignorance.
I can answer this question for you. God created Adam & Eve the first parents. They both sinned, and brought all creation (plant, animal, human) under a curse.
Since then mankind has continued in sin (from the extremes of murder, to the casual like murderous thoughts, deceit, etc). When comparing yourself to another man you can safely think "I'm a pretty good person, not that bad at all". But when comparing ourselves to the perfection of God we all fail terribly.
Each individual is responsible for their own actions, and because of this every man deserves death for his actions.
Yet God in His mercy has been pleased to select a few people and forget their sins, making them rightous. So these few will not go to hell but instead live with God for eternity. Every other human that He does not select will go to hell.
So that is why He does not reveal Himself to every human - some He has chosen, some He has not.
Yet even though you haven't seen Him yet doesn't mean He hasn't selected you. If He has, then you will be moved by your own evil nature, and fall on your knees begging Him for forgiveness. He will be merciful and forgive you, making you righteous so that you will live with Him.
I hope that answers your question. This is the teachings in the Bible, and also taught by great Christian authors over the years, particularly during the reformation. Today these teachings are not popular, and most mainstream Christians are unaware of this fundamental truth of how God works with men.
As for the flood changing everything, this doesn't strike me as the best answer. One could just as well argue that Merlin changed everything. Without evidence that a global flood (or a wizard) has altered the earth, it isn't really much of a arguement (at least in the scientific sense).
But that's exactly what I'm saying. It is said that these dating methods demonstrate that the earth is old. Creationists them immediately think "these dating methods require that the past continued much the same as it does today, but one way we know it didn't was a worldwide flood". The flood is not the only thing. Creationists believe that the environment before the flood was a lot different than today...just a much better climate, environment, etc. It goes both ways. Creationists give arguments that they don't realise become invalid once you accept the assumptions of evolution.
As for evidence of the flood, well, creationists give the following (among others I have not heard/forgotten):
* Fossil record - the great number of fossils worldwide
* Memories of a worldwide flood in cultures and tribes worldwide (from Aboriginee's in australia, to Hindu legend, and more I'm sure).
Still, my point wasn't evidence for the flood, just that lots of evidence becomes questionable once different assumptions are made.
for example, why is human DNA very similar to chimp DNA, when other similar creatures such as sharks and dolphins very different - evolution explains this well, whereas I can't see how creationism can
I suppose you would have to analyse the differences. Where are humans and chimps similar and different? where are sharks and dolphins similar and different? Isn't it like only around 1% of our DNA or some low percentage that determines our appearance?
I can't say much about those ex-Christians. I like to understand an issue first. My understanding of creation theory has progressed a long time from the early days when I first began reading, and even now I know very, very little. How much did those guys know? Eg, I think some Christians denounce natural selection because they think it is evolution. Natural selection is observed and demonstrated...it's just the way things work, and doesn't contradict the creation model in any way.
If you are interested I found another site of Creation researchers who produce a peer reviewed journal. They have a list of 20 challenges to those who believe evolution...you may or may not be interested to read them: http://www.creationscience.com/
Cya around.
I think I'll probably get a science degree one day, but at the moment I'm too busy. Something with a focus on dating methods so I can be aware of the facts.
I was looking for more general science rather than opinions of creationists or evolutionists, since I prefer to understand an issue and be able to judge arguments rather than just accept them. If you know any sites on general science that would be great. My knowledge is hard to explain. I'm a quick learner, but my current knowledge is in spots.
As for the fraud of ICR, that is a serious accusation that I will have to investigate further. As a Christian, I consider honesty and openness to be very important, and behavior of that type would be unnacceptable (making it hard for me also to accept anything the ICR states).
Still I am far from convinced. It has only highlighted the fact that there is a lot I don't know about dating methods. I feel the same way about your knowledge. When thinking about claims against evolution, I usually think up answers that I would give if I believed evolution were true. I don't think many do the same for creation - when evolution presents a claim against creation, think up what answers a creationist would give. The biggest example I can give is the flood. A lot of the way creationists answer the current state of the earth is because of the great flood. Yet I find most people forget that when considering their understanding of creation, and considering evolution. If there was a worldwide flood (with or without evidence), that would affect a great deal of assumptions in science when dealing with history.
Basically, we have the scientific data. Evolution and creation are two ways of explaining the same data. This is philosophy - we both actively seek that set of data that contradicts fundamental assumptions of the opposing theory.
Hmm, don't have one of my books around, but it mentioned some of the things that affect the rate of C14 in the atmosphere, and how much is absorbed.
Are there any websites of good science lit that undergo a good peer review process? I agree that this is essential to filter rubbish.
As for fraud from the ICR, what are you talking about? Honest mistakes? Evolution has had it's fair share of red herrings, so using that logic I could reject evolution on the basis that scientists have given fraudulant data and red herrings.
Anyway, if you have any good websites on information for learning more about physics, chemistry and biology I would appreciate it. Also any sites that publish good quality science lit.
Just because it says it supports Mac OS and OS X does not mean that it has binaries. Maybe it just means that the current source code will compile and run on Mac OS & OS X?
Thanks for your reply. I may follow up with a more in-depth one later (bit busy right now). One thing still remains a problem...all these dating methods have never been tested. They are based on a uniformitarian assumption - that all things in the past have been going as they do today. Let's presume that there was a worldwide flood 4500 years ago (as is explained in the Bible). What effect would this have on assumptions of dating? Especially if the conditions of earth were very different for the period before the flood. You can say that this comes up with a date of 5 million years, but it has never been tested. No one has waited to see if the half-life is correct, it's just based on a small sample of time. Imagine a car that takes ages to accellerate from 0-50miles, but after that it can go from 50-100 in a very short amount of time. Depending on where we measured the half-life we would get different results. What if the car when it started accelerating was on a hill? Then that would affect the half-life. Because we don't know the past, because we can't observe it, these dating methods are unscientific, and doubtful. I will read through that article from the Christian author, it looks like it is filled with information.
For an excellent resource read The Genesis Flood by Henry Morris and some other guy I can't remember. That talks about differences in dating methods based in different environments of the past.
When I said that these experiments could not be tested, you said they have been. Now you have said that K/Ar is only accurate >2Mya, which means we would have to wait at least that long to test it (although checks at intervals might indicate whether it is fairly accurate or not).
There are a number of variables here that I have not been able to consider. Do you have any refrences on the web to these experiments?
Specifically, examples of where the date is known are excellent examples, because they verify the date of something. If I see a car coming down the freeway, I can say that it is likely it came from the previous city. However, I can never be certain because I don't know the journey that car took - it might have turned on from a sidestreet. Same with dating back millions of years. We don't know what happened that might upset dates.
Example, the Bible says there was a worldwide flood, and everything was covered in water. Only creatures on the ark survived (and sea creatures of course). The environment before the flood is hypothesised by creation scientists to be very different to what we see today...a more optimal/paradise type environment. Of course, we can't be sure. But the point is that when the past is not known, we don't know what effects there have been on, eg, samples absorbing certain elements such as C14.
Your norwegian fen complex showed similar dates for different tests on the same sample. There have been times when this has show to be very different. There have also been times when different samples supposedly from the same age have come up with very different dates from each other. Anyway, I would appreciate some web references if you have any.
Forget the population and the St Helen's article. Look at some of the others. There is one about Cambrian strata there too.
Ironic really that you are using a defination from a organisation which supports evolution.
Better that I quote from a site that supports evolution than from one that supports creation, lest you use such an illogical argument as "since they believe creation their understanding of what science is must be wrong".
Perhaps you know more than the entire scientific community about what constitutes science?
Perhaps culture can hold a strong power over people to cause them to forget things. Perhaps the scientific community participates both in science and in philosophy. Perhaps these two subject have seperate purposes, but without each other they are useless. Perhaps you should remind yourself what science is and what philosophy is. Perhaps then you will no longer be able to reject creation by simply saying "it is not science". Perhaps philosophy is the process of logic and reason that ties scientific results together into a cohesive and sensible model of reality.
That human fossils (or any other recent species) won't be found in geologically ancient rocks.
Seriously, are you telling me that if I could show you example(s) of fossils in the wrong strata, or strata in the wrong position (ie above a younger period when it should be below) that you would consider evolution to be false? I don't believe you. I have shown this sort of evidence before. I say "what evidence would demonstrate evolution false". So they say "any of the following...". I then show them the evidences they asked for, and suddenly it is no longer sufficient. So I remain unconvinced. Be careful about what you say would be sufficient to disprove evolution. I remain very skeptical on the falsafiable nature of evolutionary hypotheses. I will find these examples if I believe that there is any chance you will change your mind instead of finding excuses like "time did it" (evolutionary equivalent of "God did it").
I am well aware that carbon-14 dating is not the only method. You also should be aware that other dating methods (such as K/Ar) have also been demonstrated very innacurate.
I could show you many living fossils (ie, creatures dated millions of years old in fossils but are still alive today). I don't think there's any evidence that would destroy your opinion. I have shown people evidence of fossils in the wrong timeline, dating failures, living fossils - all the kinds of things that they tell me "show me this and you will prove us wrong", suddenly there is an excuse every time I present these things they ask for. Are you going to be any different?
So let me get this straight. You consider K/Ar to be scientificly proven methods for dating - yet they are impossible to test? (because you can't use it on young samples - ie, the ones that form during our lifetime).
Look at the example (and I just noticed my weblinks didn't work, poor programming on the answersingenesis.org website I think) and then comment. Even different samples from the same location gave different ages. So give it another 20 years when it's old enough to be dated and I'm expected to believe it will suddenly balance out and they will give:
a) Similar dates
b) Dates indicating an age of around 40 years old?Answers in Genesis, once you choose your location click on Creation Magazine/TJ in the Highlights box on the main page. Once there, select Creation Magazine(sorted by Issue), Vol 23 no 3, then pg 23 "Radio-dating in rubble"
I see your argument about good being a term to something specific. The answer is not as simple as that though, because in this initial creation God is recorded as having said '"See, I have given to you every herb that yields seed when it is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food. Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food"; and it was so. Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. So the evening and the morning were the sixth day.' (Genesis 1:29-31).
Did you read any of the articles I posted? Some of them look at two things:
* The date given compared to the real date
* The date given compared to two different, established dating methods
The tests failed in both circumstances.
As for the Rabbi's that believe in a flat earth, I am not like that. I don't see how I should be expected to accept evolution when I have seen evidence fit to sink a ship. I would accept evolution if the problems with it could be answered, and if evidence could be presented to support it. The only evidence I can see that supports it is the ultra-old dates, and these have been demonstrated to be wildly innacurate for known dates (not just a little bit innacurate). Look at those articles and you will see some of the reasons why I believe what I do.
Again, I don't see why people talk to me as if I believe just for religious reasons. If I thought there was evidence to support it I would accept it.
Quick note: my translation of the Bible (New King James) is translated from Hebrew texts for the Old Testament and Greek texts for the New Testament - not from Hebrew/Greek/Aramaic to Latin to English. The best available text is probably the Septuagint for the Old Testament - written in ancient greek, since it was translated from older copies of the Hebrew than we have today.
As one who has done some research into philosophy, and having participated in many philosophical discussions over the years, I am well aware of what a philosophical argument is, and people quite often equate it with a scientific argument, just because it is logical.
Here is a good definition on science that I found from a quick google search. But as you are a scientist, I shouldn't need to tell you that the theory of evolution is not science.
If you are convinced that evolution is scientific, then perhaps you can present to me a falsafiable statement that can be tested using the process of science.
I am well aware that many scientists claim the earth is 4.5 billion years old. Millions of years was just a simple statement. If I said billions of years it makes it sound in excess of 10 billion, or some very large number of 'billions'.
As for God hiding somewhere in the universe, from my experience He is a lot more visible than that. Also, don't apply Scriptures to people without understanding it's context. My beliefs do not blind me, more than most I know I am willing to consider opposing opinions. However, I also don't accept something just because the majority of people believe in it.
I was also saying that death, disease, famine must be considered good IF one says that the Bible and evolution are compatible. This is simply because after God created everything (including man), He said that it was "very good". Since this involved 4.5 billion years of death, disease and famine, then one must believe these are good if one is to accept the Biblical creation history. I don't believe they are good either...I don't believe they played any part in the creation of our species.
Since I have already typed it up elsewhere, here is a list of articles I found very informative (a select few). Tell me what you think: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/382.a sp http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/Maga zine s/docs/cenv22n1_dating_failure.asp Significant is this one: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/Magazine s/docs/v23n3_radio_dating_rubble.asp The following quote from it: : When the method is tested on rocks of known age, it fails miserably. The lava dome at Mount St Helens is not a million years old! At the time of the test, it was only about 10 years old. In this case we were there-we know! How then can we accept radiometric-dating results on rocks of unknown age? http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/Magazine s/docs/v22n2_geology.asp
Here's one about genetic mutations and loss of information: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs /337.asp An interesting article on erosion as evidence for young earth: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/ Magazine s/docs/v22n2_ages.asp Interview with an ex-atheist, with a bit on Cambrian fossils: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/418 8cen_d1999 . sp Young earth evidence: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/ar ea/Magazine s/docs/v23n4_radiohalo.asp Population problems and evidence: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/ar ea/Magazine s/docs/v23n3_people.asp
If you find yourself interested in reading more, you can read through many of the articles in the magazines listed here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/M agazine s/CreationAIndex.asp
Natural selection is a process that does happen. The Bible states the Earth was created in seven days. The problem begins when the Bible teaches that death is a result of sin, and that sufferring is a result of this too. To believe evolution as the process of life's creation, then you must also believe that death, famine, disesase, killing, etc, have been natural and good processess for millions of years. The Bible teaches a different story of life, that these things began as a result of our own rebellion against God.
And don't make out creationists as being idiots without understanding them. Go look up some radio-carbon dating failures among other things, and you will soon discover (if you actually bother to look) that the methods used to show that the earth is millions of years old have failed numerous times in situations where the date of a sample is known.
Don't criticise when you obviously don't understand the issue.
Change of information is present, but it is not an example that leads to the evolution of a new species. I'm not interested in entering this discussion. Your interpretation (philosophy) is not the only explanation of the facts (science).
You can't just invent a scenario and pretend I believe it.
Presumable God could change reality at will. He could change it so that planetary orbits were complicated spirals, figure 8's, etc, and change our minds so that this made sense.
Of course, that scenario would make all learning useful. I believe that the bones n' stuff can be explained, I don't just say God put them there to mislead us. I don't believe that this world has been given the appearance of old age to deceive us. I think it has the appearance of a young earth. I tried not to enter a creation/evolution discussion since it's a waste of time. Just go look up radio-carbon dating failures then you might understand, but don't pester me for details.
Scientific fact: natural selection
Philosophical musing: all life, and varied species arose through natural selection and genetic mutations
The first is observable, and has been proven: hence, it is science.
The second is not observable, has not been proven except with philosophical arguments, hence it is philosophy.
Look up science and find out what qualifies for that title. Just because a scientific journal mentions God does that make it unscientific? What if a scientific journal mentions some observed facts and then the scientist gives his unproven thoughts on what it might mean? Is it still scientific? The scientist is simply mixing science with philosophy.
Now perhaps there is some truth behind it, even if the reasons why are different. Anyway, should serve as a reminder to EVERYONE that understanding of reality changes, and what is fact today may be discovered as myth tomorrow.
I have decided that for science to progress, it is absolutely essential that people be willing to accept that everything they believe may be wrong, so that they are open to new possibilities. On the other hand, they must not be quick to accept new theories, and examine it properly. There are too many people in all walks of life who become stubbornly attached to a belief because of one reason or another. This kind of attitude inhibits the progress of scientific discovery.
Talking about creation and evolution, almost everyone has religious reasons for wanting to believe either side. If there was debate on whether quarks were really the smallest component, almost nobody would care about the outcome for religious reasons. However, evolution gives people the power to defend atheism, and creation gives people the power to defend creation. Almost everyone has a religious/philosophical reason for wanting an answer to the question of origins.
This explains why when this story first appeared on slashdot I felt I was reading a totally different article to everyone else. I remember this one. now I can finally read the original:)
I agree that reports of changes to articles should be kept - preferably with a new URL so that pages linked to articles will remain static. Perhaps on the old page they could put a notice somewhere that an updated/revised edition of the news article is available. And on the new site list that changes have been made, along with a link to the changes/old article.
If this practice is common, then I think the general public should be made aware that this is how news sites work. I send stories off to people in e-mails...it would be irritating to find out that some of them had changed to say something different by the time it reached those people.
Perhaps us Linux users could learn something from this too. The default installation for Linux, which most new users would install, contains a great deal of KDE/GNOME applications that would confuse the average person.
Perhaps we need to create a simplified installation that has just two options: * Gnome * KDE Then they can choose what they use their computer for...in terms they understand... * Internet * Word processing * Spreadsheets * E-mail * Advanced internet (gftp, etc)
Just thinking here...but if we think that windows should be simpler...then Linux has no hope in the current state of the major distributions. It is not easy for a new user to install or remove applications.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks to your inspiration I have downloaded Gnome 2 RC1, to help with development. And I'm glad I did :) Nautilus is fast, a joy to use now :)
And I owe it all to Gentoo.
In 1517 Martin Luther posted is protest to indulgences (the selling of eternal life) to the door of a Catholic Church. At this stage Luther was a member of the Catholic Church. By 1520 he seperated himself from the Catholic Church.
Why did you decide to abandon your Catholic upbringing? I have my own reasons why one should do that, but I want to hear yours.
Eg, Catholics teach prayer to saints and angels. The Bible teaches that there is only one mediator between man and God - Jesus.
The Bible teaches compassion on the poor and needy, yet the Catholic church is one of the wealthiest organisations in the world.
The Bible teaches that God is the only authority, but the Catholic Church teaches that it has authority over the Bible (since it claims to have written it...which is partially true in a very twisted, indirect, and very distant way, giving me just as much of a claim).
Stop being rude. A lot of people with your mental condition have done a lot of harm too...and from the way you are treating me, this mustn't be uncommon. There are many others who in the past have believed that they were chosen by God (as the Bible teaches, Ephesians 1:3, Romans 9), and have gone to be some of the kindest, most compassionate people as a result.
You are an atheist I presume, so what do you know about the truth of Christianity?
And since when did me believe that I was chosen by God suddenly mean that I am going to kill everyone?
That is pure ignorance and stupidity. In fact, being chosen by God means that I feel love for Him and a feeling of guilt of my own evil nature...and as a result, I desire to be good to people. This is what happens to people who God chooses.
So why have you taken this and said that I want to murder people? Thanks for your ignorance.
I can answer this question for you. God created Adam & Eve the first parents. They both sinned, and brought all creation (plant, animal, human) under a curse.
Since then mankind has continued in sin (from the extremes of murder, to the casual like murderous thoughts, deceit, etc). When comparing yourself to another man you can safely think "I'm a pretty good person, not that bad at all". But when comparing ourselves to the perfection of God we all fail terribly.
Each individual is responsible for their own actions, and because of this every man deserves death for his actions.
Yet God in His mercy has been pleased to select a few people and forget their sins, making them rightous. So these few will not go to hell but instead live with God for eternity. Every other human that He does not select will go to hell.
So that is why He does not reveal Himself to every human - some He has chosen, some He has not.
Yet even though you haven't seen Him yet doesn't mean He hasn't selected you. If He has, then you will be moved by your own evil nature, and fall on your knees begging Him for forgiveness. He will be merciful and forgive you, making you righteous so that you will live with Him.
I hope that answers your question. This is the teachings in the Bible, and also taught by great Christian authors over the years, particularly during the reformation. Today these teachings are not popular, and most mainstream Christians are unaware of this fundamental truth of how God works with men.
As for evidence of the flood, well, creationists give the following (among others I have not heard/forgotten):
* Fossil record - the great number of fossils worldwide
* Memories of a worldwide flood in cultures and tribes worldwide (from Aboriginee's in australia, to Hindu legend, and more I'm sure).
Still, my point wasn't evidence for the flood, just that lots of evidence becomes questionable once different assumptions are made.
I suppose you would have to analyse the differences. Where are humans and chimps similar and different? where are sharks and dolphins similar and different? Isn't it like only around 1% of our DNA or some low percentage that determines our appearance?I can't say much about those ex-Christians. I like to understand an issue first. My understanding of creation theory has progressed a long time from the early days when I first began reading, and even now I know very, very little. How much did those guys know? Eg, I think some Christians denounce natural selection because they think it is evolution. Natural selection is observed and demonstrated...it's just the way things work, and doesn't contradict the creation model in any way.
If you are interested I found another site of Creation researchers who produce a peer reviewed journal. They have a list of 20 challenges to those who believe evolution...you may or may not be interested to read them:
http://www.creationscience.com/
Cya around.
I was looking for more general science rather than opinions of creationists or evolutionists, since I prefer to understand an issue and be able to judge arguments rather than just accept them. If you know any sites on general science that would be great. My knowledge is hard to explain. I'm a quick learner, but my current knowledge is in spots.
As for the fraud of ICR, that is a serious accusation that I will have to investigate further. As a Christian, I consider honesty and openness to be very important, and behavior of that type would be unnacceptable (making it hard for me also to accept anything the ICR states).
Still I am far from convinced. It has only highlighted the fact that there is a lot I don't know about dating methods. I feel the same way about your knowledge. When thinking about claims against evolution, I usually think up answers that I would give if I believed evolution were true. I don't think many do the same for creation - when evolution presents a claim against creation, think up what answers a creationist would give. The biggest example I can give is the flood. A lot of the way creationists answer the current state of the earth is because of the great flood. Yet I find most people forget that when considering their understanding of creation, and considering evolution. If there was a worldwide flood (with or without evidence), that would affect a great deal of assumptions in science when dealing with history.
Basically, we have the scientific data. Evolution and creation are two ways of explaining the same data. This is philosophy - we both actively seek that set of data that contradicts fundamental assumptions of the opposing theory.
Hmm, don't have one of my books around, but it mentioned some of the things that affect the rate of C14 in the atmosphere, and how much is absorbed.
Are there any websites of good science lit that undergo a good peer review process? I agree that this is essential to filter rubbish.
As for fraud from the ICR, what are you talking about? Honest mistakes? Evolution has had it's fair share of red herrings, so using that logic I could reject evolution on the basis that scientists have given fraudulant data and red herrings.
Anyway, if you have any good websites on information for learning more about physics, chemistry and biology I would appreciate it. Also any sites that publish good quality science lit.
Thanks
Just because it says it supports Mac OS and OS X does not mean that it has binaries. Maybe it just means that the current source code will compile and run on Mac OS & OS X?
For an excellent resource read The Genesis Flood by Henry Morris and some other guy I can't remember. That talks about differences in dating methods based in different environments of the past.
When I said that these experiments could not be tested, you said they have been. Now you have said that K/Ar is only accurate >2Mya, which means we would have to wait at least that long to test it (although checks at intervals might indicate whether it is fairly accurate or not).
Specifically, examples of where the date is known are excellent examples, because they verify the date of something. If I see a car coming down the freeway, I can say that it is likely it came from the previous city. However, I can never be certain because I don't know the journey that car took - it might have turned on from a sidestreet. Same with dating back millions of years. We don't know what happened that might upset dates.
Example, the Bible says there was a worldwide flood, and everything was covered in water. Only creatures on the ark survived (and sea creatures of course). The environment before the flood is hypothesised by creation scientists to be very different to what we see today...a more optimal/paradise type environment. Of course, we can't be sure. But the point is that when the past is not known, we don't know what effects there have been on, eg, samples absorbing certain elements such as C14.
Your norwegian fen complex showed similar dates for different tests on the same sample. There have been times when this has show to be very different. There have also been times when different samples supposedly from the same age have come up with very different dates from each other. Anyway, I would appreciate some web references if you have any.
Forget the population and the St Helen's article. Look at some of the others. There is one about Cambrian strata there too.
I could show you many living fossils (ie, creatures dated millions of years old in fossils but are still alive today). I don't think there's any evidence that would destroy your opinion. I have shown people evidence of fossils in the wrong timeline, dating failures, living fossils - all the kinds of things that they tell me "show me this and you will prove us wrong", suddenly there is an excuse every time I present these things they ask for. Are you going to be any different?
Look at the example (and I just noticed my weblinks didn't work, poor programming on the answersingenesis.org website I think) and then comment. Even different samples from the same location gave different ages. So give it another 20 years when it's old enough to be dated and I'm expected to believe it will suddenly balance out and they will give:
a) Similar dates
b) Dates indicating an age of around 40 years old?Answers in Genesis, once you choose your location click on Creation Magazine/TJ in the Highlights box on the main page. Once there, select Creation Magazine(sorted by Issue), Vol 23 no 3, then pg 23 "Radio-dating in rubble"
Did you read any of the articles I posted? Some of them look at two things:
* The date given compared to the real date
* The date given compared to two different, established dating methods
The tests failed in both circumstances.
As for the Rabbi's that believe in a flat earth, I am not like that. I don't see how I should be expected to accept evolution when I have seen evidence fit to sink a ship. I would accept evolution if the problems with it could be answered, and if evidence could be presented to support it. The only evidence I can see that supports it is the ultra-old dates, and these have been demonstrated to be wildly innacurate for known dates (not just a little bit innacurate). Look at those articles and you will see some of the reasons why I believe what I do.
Again, I don't see why people talk to me as if I believe just for religious reasons. If I thought there was evidence to support it I would accept it.
Quick note: my translation of the Bible (New King James) is translated from Hebrew texts for the Old Testament and Greek texts for the New Testament - not from Hebrew/Greek/Aramaic to Latin to English. The best available text is probably the Septuagint for the Old Testament - written in ancient greek, since it was translated from older copies of the Hebrew than we have today.
Here is a good definition on science that I found from a quick google search. But as you are a scientist, I shouldn't need to tell you that the theory of evolution is not science.
If you are convinced that evolution is scientific, then perhaps you can present to me a falsafiable statement that can be tested using the process of science.
I am well aware that many scientists claim the earth is 4.5 billion years old. Millions of years was just a simple statement. If I said billions of years it makes it sound in excess of 10 billion, or some very large number of 'billions'.
a spa zine s/docs/cenv22n1_dating_failure.aspe s/docs/v23n3_radio_dating_rubble.aspe s/docs/v22n2_geology.asp
s /337.asp/ Magazine s/docs/v22n2_ages.asp Interview with an ex-atheist, with a bit on Cambrian fossils:8 8cen_d1999 . spr ea/Magazine s/docs/v23n4_radiohalo.aspr ea/Magazine s/docs/v23n3_people.asp
M agazine s/CreationAIndex.asp
As for God hiding somewhere in the universe, from my experience He is a lot more visible than that. Also, don't apply Scriptures to people without understanding it's context. My beliefs do not blind me, more than most I know I am willing to consider opposing opinions. However, I also don't accept something just because the majority of people believe in it.
I was also saying that death, disease, famine must be considered good IF one says that the Bible and evolution are compatible. This is simply because after God created everything (including man), He said that it was "very good". Since this involved 4.5 billion years of death, disease and famine, then one must believe these are good if one is to accept the Biblical creation history. I don't believe they are good either...I don't believe they played any part in the creation of our species.
Since I have already typed it up elsewhere, here is a list of articles I found very informative (a select few). Tell me what you think:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/382.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/Mag
Significant is this one: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/Magazin
The following quote from it:
:
When the method is tested on rocks of known age, it fails miserably. The lava dome at Mount St Helens is not a million years old! At the time of the test, it was only about 10 years old. In this case we were there-we know! How then can we accept radiometric-dating results on rocks of unknown age? http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/Magazin
Here's one about genetic mutations and loss of information:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/doc
An interesting article on erosion as evidence for young earth:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/41
Young earth evidence:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/a
Population problems and evidence:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/a
If you find yourself interested in reading more, you can read through many of the articles in the magazines listed here:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/
And don't make out creationists as being idiots without understanding them. Go look up some radio-carbon dating failures among other things, and you will soon discover (if you actually bother to look) that the methods used to show that the earth is millions of years old have failed numerous times in situations where the date of a sample is known.
Don't criticise when you obviously don't understand the issue.
Change of information is present, but it is not an example that leads to the evolution of a new species. I'm not interested in entering this discussion. Your interpretation (philosophy) is not the only explanation of the facts (science).
Presumable God could change reality at will. He could change it so that planetary orbits were complicated spirals, figure 8's, etc, and change our minds so that this made sense.
Of course, that scenario would make all learning useful. I believe that the bones n' stuff can be explained, I don't just say God put them there to mislead us. I don't believe that this world has been given the appearance of old age to deceive us. I think it has the appearance of a young earth. I tried not to enter a creation/evolution discussion since it's a waste of time. Just go look up radio-carbon dating failures then you might understand, but don't pester me for details.
Philosophical musing: all life, and varied species arose through natural selection and genetic mutations
The first is observable, and has been proven: hence, it is science.
The second is not observable, has not been proven except with philosophical arguments, hence it is philosophy.
Look up science and find out what qualifies for that title. Just because a scientific journal mentions God does that make it unscientific? What if a scientific journal mentions some observed facts and then the scientist gives his unproven thoughts on what it might mean? Is it still scientific? The scientist is simply mixing science with philosophy.
Now perhaps there is some truth behind it, even if the reasons why are different. Anyway, should serve as a reminder to EVERYONE that understanding of reality changes, and what is fact today may be discovered as myth tomorrow.
I have decided that for science to progress, it is absolutely essential that people be willing to accept that everything they believe may be wrong, so that they are open to new possibilities. On the other hand, they must not be quick to accept new theories, and examine it properly. There are too many people in all walks of life who become stubbornly attached to a belief because of one reason or another. This kind of attitude inhibits the progress of scientific discovery.
Talking about creation and evolution, almost everyone has religious reasons for wanting to believe either side. If there was debate on whether quarks were really the smallest component, almost nobody would care about the outcome for religious reasons. However, evolution gives people the power to defend atheism, and creation gives people the power to defend creation. Almost everyone has a religious/philosophical reason for wanting an answer to the question of origins.
Anarchy FAQ
This explains why when this story first appeared on slashdot I felt I was reading a totally different article to everyone else. I remember this one. now I can finally read the original :)
I agree that reports of changes to articles should be kept - preferably with a new URL so that pages linked to articles will remain static. Perhaps on the old page they could put a notice somewhere that an updated/revised edition of the news article is available. And on the new site list that changes have been made, along with a link to the changes/old article.
If this practice is common, then I think the general public should be made aware that this is how news sites work. I send stories off to people in e-mails...it would be irritating to find out that some of them had changed to say something different by the time it reached those people.
Perhaps us Linux users could learn something from this too. The default installation for Linux, which most new users would install, contains a great deal of KDE/GNOME applications that would confuse the average person.
Perhaps we need to create a simplified installation that has just two options:
* Gnome
* KDE
Then they can choose what they use their computer for...in terms they understand...
* Internet
* Word processing
* Spreadsheets
* E-mail
* Advanced internet (gftp, etc)
Just thinking here...but if we think that windows should be simpler...then Linux has no hope in the current state of the major distributions. It is not easy for a new user to install or remove applications.