God steals your $10

[zhark]

..

Carbon dating is indeed thought to be valid for a much longer time than a simple 5000 years as bridgman pointed out, the wikipedia article explains this and you will find plenty valid sources of which the article refers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dating).

I have another point to make, about evolution. Simply because you can't observe the evolution of the species doesn't mean you can't possible know it's true. This is a surprisingly common misbelief. Don't you believe that Sokrates existed simply because you can't observe him exist? There are plenty evidence of large-scale (macro) evolution. Nr.1: Fossile records! There are millions upon millions of dug up bones which in _detail_ show how many species evolved into multiple others. Nr.2: And this is also a BIG one! DNA. The DNA between all living organism have a *striking* resemblance. The closer the species are related the more DNA base-pairs they have in common. Together fossile records and DNA is the nail in the coffin against any direct (rational) opposition of evolution. Every organism on Earth are indeed related, and have all evolved from a single (possibly few) simple organisms. If one wants to put God somewhere, high in the sky completely out of reach, by all means. But don't mess with evolution, which is indeed a fact (and should be honored accordingly).

[zhark]

I guess the whole thing revolves around faith...

Here's to maybe finding mine. After all the problem with being an atheist is that theres no point in anything... So believing in something - even if false must give you a nice sense of belief.

Wow man. Just look around you, take a walk in nature. Look up in the sky. Go on a date and, if you're lucky, have sex with a beatiful woman. The real world is extraordinary, man You don't need no religion telling you the "Earth is flat" and that fear of God is the highest of virtouses to be happy, quite the contrary.

[Darkfire Fox]

Explanations

Dinosaur bones have been carbon dated many times; the problem is how to interpret the results. General consensus seems to be that carbon-14 dating is useful to 50,000 years or so... maybe 100,000 but you're getting deep in the noise. In general the proportion of carbon-14 remaining in dinosaur bones has been negligible, but that could be because of their age or because the living material was generally replaced during the fossilization process. In some cases the carbon dating process has indicated a much lesser age, typically 15,000-20,000 years, but again this just results in more debate about whether that came from background radiation, contamination, or whether there really were dinosaurs stomping around that recently.

My work has prevented me from reading every single article out of every single issue of Science and Nature, but I have never, ever read any article from an secular source describing the carbon-dating of dino bones. Still, the fact that Carbon-14 is still detectable is astonishing. Again, the problem is worldview and interpretation, as an evolutionist simply cannot accept such "young" dinosaur bones

I don't see any conflict between science and religion personally, if you are willing to accept that religious faith is a doozy of a hypothesis, which has not yet been proven but which also has never been *disproven* and is therefore perfectly reasonable even for the purely scientific mind.

My entire point, or at least a chunk of it, was to point out that inherently religious teachings, like "In the beginning, God created..." or the position that we all evolved from primordial soup, cannot be empirically proven via the Scientific Method. Science operates in the present; special creation and macro-evolutionary biology describes events in the past.

I agree completely with your comment that the problem is Religion vs Religion, but I probably don't use the words the same way.

I was more leaning "Worldview vs Worldview", as in Theism vs Atheism, but I wanted to be more forceful.

Carbon dating is indeed thought to be valid for a much longer time than a simple 5000 years as bridgman pointed out, the wikipedia article explains this and you will find plenty valid sources of which the article refers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dating).

I clearly stated that the half-life of Carbon-14 was 5,000 years. Carbon-14 should be undetectable after 500,000 years. Please re-read what I typed

I have another point to make, about evolution. Simply because you can't observe the evolution of the species doesn't mean you can't possible know it's true. This is a surprisingly common misbelief. Don't you believe that Sokrates existed simply because you can't observe him exist?

I have another point to make, about creation. Simply because you can't observe God creating the universe way-back-when doesn't mean you can't possibly know it's true. This is a surprisingly common misbelief.

I believe Socrates exists because the are verifiable records attesting to his existence.

There are plenty evidence of large-scale (macro) evolution. Nr.1: Fossile records! There are millions upon millions of dug up bones which in _detail_ show how many species evolved into multiple others. Nr.2: And this is also a BIG one! DNA. The DNA between all living organism have a *striking* resemblance. The closer the species are related the more DNA base-pairs they have in common. Together fossile records and DNA is the nail in the coffin against any direct (rational) opposition of evolution. Every organism on Earth are indeed related, and have all evolved from a single (possibly few) simple organisms.

I'm sorry, but your nails are rather blunt and rusty.

Millions and millions of dug-up bones are still just bones. They are incapable of speaking anything. Their existance must be explained through some ideological framework, whether theistic or atheistic. Similarities in 2 different fossils in 2 different geological strata do not automatically declare an evolutionary heritage.

Of course our DNA is similar, our cells share much of the same basic functionality! Again, just because I share 97% of my DNA with a chimpanzee does not automatically mean we share a common ancestry. It can just as easily be because of a common Designer, if your worldview allows such things.

But don't mess with evolution, which is indeed a fact (and should be honored accordingly).

I myself believe in evolution as fact -- the empirically verifiable bits! Natural selection, genetic drift, adaptive radiation, and speciation are all empirically verified phenomena. Remember, natural selection only operates on traits already in the gene pool! Macro-evolutionary ideology remains empirically unverified and empirically unfalsifiable.

You don't need no religion telling you the "Earth is flat" and that fear of God is the highest of virtouses to be happy, quite the contrary.

I totally agree! Fortunately for myself, nowhere does the Bible describe the earth as being a flat, 2-D plane. The bits regarding the "pillars of the earth" (Job 9:6, Psalms 75:3) and the "four corners of the earth" (Isaiah 41:9, Revelation 7:1, Revelation 20:8) are used quite poetically and are used to demonstrated God's magnificence, not describe Earth's shape.

In Isaiah 40:22, Earth actually *is* described as a sphere. The Hebrew word used here for "circle" in that verse can also mean "ball" or "sphere"

And you score again, friend, because if I was living in fear (terror) of God, I wouldn't be very happy now, would I? For me, the very point of being a Christian is to let the spirit of Christ live inside of me. Read the Gospels, starting with John. Letting Jesus live within us is truly an astonishing thing! It's an incredible high, something no chemical intoxication can match.

The primary reason most Christians are unhappy is because they're trying to keep God's commandments under the force of their own willpowers. What a travesty! Such a thing will only lead to miserable failure. But if we let God live inside of us, commandment-keeping becomes automatic, an afterthought! Jesus is God. God is love. God's 10 commandments are about love. Both the Old and New Testaments declare this over and over again. I am nowhere near a sinless individual, but you couldn't believe the strides I've made (God's work, actually) in my 3 years of being a Christian. Trust me, three years ago, I was a truly detestable person!

This is a terrible analogy, but think of Christianity as a bit like the General Public Licence. The GPL may seem to restrict some freedom (the inability to use GPL code in proprietary software) ; but, in my opinion, the end-user benefits granted by the GPL far outweigh the costs. Similarly, God's commandments may seem to restrict some freedom (what, I *HAVE* to love my neighbor? Have you *MET* him?! ) ; but, in my opinion, the end-user benefits of Christianity FAR outweigh the costs.

Again, terrible analogy, but I think it fits.


*************************
*************************

Yeah, OK, just ignore that line in my last post saying that was my last post. I'm not going to edit it.

Remember, all opinions expressed within my posts are just generic statements and should not be construed as direct attacts against anyone in particular.

Well, I think I've overstayed my welcome here! Goodbye!

**runs away**

[highlandsun]

My entire point, or at least a chunk of it, was to point out that inherently religious teachings, like "In the beginning, God created..." or the position that we all evolved from primordial soup, cannot be empirically proven via the Scientific Method. Science operates in the present; special creation and macro-evolutionary biology describes events in the past.

Actually, it is possible to prove that it was possible for life to evolve from primordial soup, it will just take a long time to duplicate the process. Early experiments have produced enough building blocks (amino acids, RNA) to demonstrate that complex molecules can spontaneously arise out of simple chaos. Nobody alive today will be around to see the results of an experiment that actually runs long enough to create a living, reproducing microbe. But that doesn't mean it can't be empirically proven, it just means you won't be around when the proof arrives.

[grantek]

Anyway, if God decided to intervene in human affairs on such a scale, I'd demand they take the $10 from everyone who's paid for CS software and use it to build a giant orbiting plasma cannon to take out any country's patent offices that allow software patents. FOSS would be so much easier if it weren't for the threat of patent license fees.

[Darkfire Fox]

Ancestral Pond Water

Actually, it is possible to prove that it was possible for life to evolve from primordial soup, it will just take a long time to duplicate the process. Early experiments have produced enough building blocks (amino acids, RNA) to demonstrate that complex molecules can spontaneously arise out of simple chaos. Nobody alive today will be around to see the results of an experiment that actually runs long enough to create a living, reproducing microbe. But that doesn't mean it can't be empirically proven, it just means you won't be around when the proof arrives.

Even if scientists manage to create a fully functional cell in a laboratory, all that will prove is that it took intelligent designers to create that cell.

Unfortunately, basic chemistry gets in the way of a naturalistic origin for the first cells. At the very least, cells need RNA, DNA, and Protein.

Ribose and deoxyribose are sugars, and protein is made of amino acids. Left to themselves, sugars and amino acids will spontaneously destroy each other. They won't co-exist long enough in an aqueous solution in order to form RNA, DNA, and protein. Our cellular machinery prevents this. Machinery made of protein and encoded by RNA and DNA ...

In addition, all amino acids created "in the wild" (abiotically) are racemic. They have equal proportions of the right-handed and left-handed mirror forms. Life on Earth uses the left-handed variant aminos exclusively. Otherwise, the alpha-helices and beta-pleats of our protein chains would have side chains sticking out all over the place, ruining them.

Similarly, all sugars created "in the wild" (abiotically) are also racemic, having equal proportions of the right-handed and left-handed mirror forms. Life on Earth uses the right-handed variant sugars exclusively. Otherwise, starch and cellulose would have the same side-chain problem as proteins.

Lastly, on a presumably anaerobic primordial earth, the primordial oceans would have relatively high concentrations of divalent iron, calcium, and magnesium. If you bathe/shower with "hard water" then you are probably quite familiar with soap scum! Nucleic acids, amino acids, and fatty acids would likely be precipitated out of solution before they could do anything useful.

(Also, an oxygen-less early earth would have no ozone. No ozone means lots of UV radiation, further ruining my ancestral pond water. The first life trying to develop near an underwater volcano [a pet favorite for many biologists] would suffer the same problems as above, and the added heat would speed up the destruction )

[Darkfire Fox]

Anyway, if God decided to intervene in human affairs on such a scale, I'd demand they take the $10 from everyone who's paid for CS software and use it to build a giant orbiting plasma cannon to take out any country's patent offices that allow software patents. FOSS would be so much easier if it weren't for the threat of patent license fees.

LMAO times NINE THOUSAND !!!

LOL, wouldn't that be great? I'd object to the probable loss of life in the bombardment, but otherwise I support your agenda!

[highlandsun]

Even if scientists manage to create a fully functional cell in a laboratory, all that will prove is that it took intelligent designers to create that cell.

If you accept the hypothesis that their working cells simply reproduce the environment of earth some millions of years ago, then no. But you could of course argue that their hypothesis about earth is wrong, or that it took a designer to create the earth. Whatever.

Unfortunately, basic chemistry gets in the way of a naturalistic origin for the first cells. At the very least, cells need RNA, DNA, and Protein.

DNA is not a requirement, there are self-replicating organisms based solely on RNA (e.g. some viruses).

Ribose and deoxyribose are sugars, and protein is made of amino acids. Left to themselves, sugars and amino acids will spontaneously destroy each other. They won't co-exist long enough in an aqueous solution in order to form RNA, DNA, and protein. Our cellular machinery prevents this. Machinery made of protein and encoded by RNA and DNA ...

In addition, all amino acids created "in the wild" (abiotically) are racemic. They have equal proportions of the right-handed and left-handed mirror forms. Life on Earth uses the left-handed variant aminos exclusively. Otherwise, the alpha-helices and beta-pleats of our protein chains would have side chains sticking out all over the place, ruining them.

Similarly, all sugars created "in the wild" (abiotically) are also racemic, having equal proportions of the right-handed and left-handed mirror forms. Life on Earth uses the right-handed variant sugars exclusively. Otherwise, starch and cellulose would have the same side-chain problem as proteins.

Lastly, on a presumably anaerobic primordial earth, the primordial oceans would have relatively high concentrations of divalent iron, calcium, and magnesium. If you bathe/shower with "hard water" then you are probably quite familiar with soap scum! Nucleic acids, amino acids, and fatty acids would likely be precipitated out of solution before they could do anything useful.

(Also, an oxygen-less early earth would have no ozone. No ozone means lots of UV radiation, further ruining my ancestral pond water. The first life trying to develop near an underwater volcano [a pet favorite for many biologists] would suffer the same problems as above, and the added heat would speed up the destruction )

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/43723/title/How_RNA_got_started

It's already been proven that RNA can form spontaneously. Given millions of years, it's possible for all the ideal conditions to exist in some pocket of the environment, even if the environment in general is not conducive.

You're also overlooking the demonstrated mechanisms for spontaneous formation of cell membranes - these don't require complex proteins to form, they just require a difference in viscosity between two regions of liquid, like oil+water. Once you have that you have the possibility for molecules to continue reacting/evolving inside a "cell" independent of changes in the environment.

[justsumdood]

isn't it quite possible that man created God in his own image?

[King InuYasha]

isn't it quite possible that man created God in his own image?

That is very possible, however, don't tell people that.

People are very touchy about God, and they might kill you for saying that....