(December 3, 2011 at 5:45 pm)aleialoura Wrote: No the most dangerous in reality, period. Why? Because they perpetuate myths that have no value in reality.
According to your evolutionary worldview, theists have been selected as having the most value.
(December 3, 2011 at 5:45 pm)aleialoura Wrote: http://www.nature.nps.gov/geology/usgsnp...earth.html
Do you know the assumptions they make in radiometric dating?
1. Constant decay rate
2. Ratio of daughter material to natural material
3. Beginning conditions known
4-5. No leaching or addition of parent material
6-7. No leaching or addition of daughter material
8. All assumptions valid for billions of years
So, for billions of years they assume there was no leaching in or out, and the decay rate stayed the same. They also assume that the beginning conditions were known. Of course there is no way that they can know any of those things. You may also not realize that when they send fossils in for dating, they send in the age they're looking for which they extrapolated from field relationships..and what they get back is a range of dates based on that data, which they then pick and choose from, discarding any dates that don't agree with their preconceived answer as anomolous. So, contrary to science, they actually start with an answer and throw away data that doesn't agree with it.
In general, dates in the 'correct ball park' are assumed to be correct and are published, but those in disagreement with other data are seldom published nor or the discrepancies fully explained.
R L Mauger East Carolina University
Contributions to Geology
http://biblicalgeology.net/2006/Dating-secrets.html
(December 3, 2011 at 5:45 pm)aleialoura Wrote: fishy
Tiktock has been debunked. Even the evolutionists admit it:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v46...07-01.html
The predictions of evolutionary theory do not match up to the facts. The fossil record is not your friend. Darwin knew this:
innumerable transitional forms must have existed but why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? ..why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links?
Geologoy assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain, and this perhaps is the greatest objection which can be urged against my theory.
Charles Darwin
Origin of the Species
He was embarrassed by the fossil record because it didn't match the predictions of his theory. He blamed that on a small sample size, but the fact is the situation has only gotten worse:
Well we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. ..ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwins time.
David M. Raup Chicago Field Museum of Natural History
F.M.O.N.H.B v.50 p.35
The record just completely contradicts the predictions of evolutionary theory. Consider the Cambrian Explosion:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKMKYd0WSV0
The prediction is gradual change over time, but the finding of the Cambrian Explosion is the sudden emergence of every major body type, phyla, order, etc
The cambrian explosion occured in a geological moment, and we have reason to think that all major anatomical designs may have made their evolutionary appearance at that time...not only the phylum Chordata (backboned, the highest order) itself, but also all its major divisions(all the major divisions of the highest order right at the beginning)..
Nature - Gould
Vol.377, 26 10/95 p.682
Not only that but you also have extreme diversity immediately:
demonstrates that the large animal phyla of today were present already in the early Cambrian and that they were as distinct from each other as they were today...a menagerie of clam cousins, sponges, segmented worms, and other invertebrates that would seem vaguely familiar to any scuba diver.
discover p.40 4/93
You have creatures appearing suddenly in the record, not changing at all, and leaving just as sudden. They appear in stasis.
(December 3, 2011 at 5:45 pm)aleialoura Wrote: Not much difference, as you can see. In FACT, there is only 1% difference in DNA between Humans and Chimps, and everything Humans are that distinguishes us from Chimps can be found in that 1% difference in DNA.
No, there is a 4 percent difference, which means a 120 million nucleotide difference. Meaning, over 120 million beneficial mutations are required. A tall order when not even one can be sufficiently demonstrated. Just 3 mutations can cause cistic fibrosis.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/...genes.html
Common genetics also indicate a common designer. We are almost genetically identical with sheep, does that mean we're closely related?
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2..._76285450/
How about these similarities?
Blood Serum...Chimpanzee
Milk Chemistry...Donkey
Cholesterol...Garter Snake
Foot Structure...Glacial Bear
Tear Enzyme...Chicken
Blood Antigen A...Butter Bean
Brain Hormone...Cockroach
Does the fact that our brain horomones is most similiar to a cockroach mean we're closely related?
(December 3, 2011 at 5:45 pm)aleialoura Wrote: If I were a chimp, I would not be ashamed. In fact, Chimps are actually quite a bit more civilized than Humans. They don't delude themselves with silly myths, for one thing. They don't tear each other's throats out because one Chimp doesn't believe the same bullshit the other believes. I think it would be fantastic to be a Chimp. Not shameful at all.
No, they just kill eachother for territory:
http://www.world-science.net/othernews/100621_chimps
(December 3, 2011 at 5:45 pm)aleialoura Wrote: I haven't read that book, but it probably isn't brimming with any sort of real evidence for anything but that man, as a species, still clings to the definition of evidence that is viewing the world subjectively, and then basing their "evidence" upon things that are how they would like to see them, and not how they actually are.
That's your presumption, but it is not shallow in any sense. It has challenged scientists, so you would probably find it stimulating. If you want to remain in your bubble, then just continue to read things that agree with everything you believe.
(December 3, 2011 at 5:45 pm)aleialoura Wrote: I used to believe in god, Lucent. I saw no truths, just what I wanted to see. My eyes were closed, and now they are open to see the beauty of reality as backed by peer reviewed scientific facts that continue to grow and change as our perception becomes ever clearer with the passage of time, experience, and discovery. Your beliefs never change, never grow. They're stuck in the fucking bronze age. I feel very sorry for you, sir.
Your scientism is showing. Science and religion are not mutually exclusive. As I am sure I told you before, I was agnostic before becoming a Christian. I believed in evolution and everything else that you cling to now, and I was even willing to encorporate those beliefs into my faith. However, upon investigation, I found that what was taught as fact, wasn't..that there is no actual evidence for macro evolution. That it is a fairy tale that begins with "once upon a time, long long ago"
However improbable we regard this event, or any of the steps which it involves, given enough time it will almost certainly happen at least once....Time is in fact the hero of the plot.
Given so much time, the impossible becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait: time itself performs the miracles.
George Wald, Nobel Laureate, Harvard
Physics and Chemistry of Life p.12
