Hakluyt's Voyages.......

[Hakluyt]

........just in case anyone fancies continuing them.

We were, I think, discussing the issue around dating dinosaur bones........among other things.

You describe it like two opposing camps. Each dedicated to upholding their view. Do you not realise that it doesn't matter to us if Evolution had turned out to be wrong?

It matters to the creationists (note that the woman scientist refusing to test for carbon 14 is a Christian too - just not a creationist).

It can't matter to us in the same way. If we found tomorrow some amazing new principle that explained the facts we already have then we'd be so excited. It would be like santa dropping off a sack of new gifts to open.

Faith means clinging on to what you have been told. Religious people who find out they are mistaken are left without a purpose. Science means finding out how things work and each new discovery just makes it better.

You know if that woman did the test then it would produce no conclusive results, but the headline would be something like "Christian scientist says we can't rule out that evolution is really false"

Middle ground

Again it's not a dichotomy. You haven't got a similar amount of evidence for the biblical account as you do evolution. It's not two competing theories here, evolution is the word we use to describe the picture that the collective evidence paints. There is as much evidence for the biblical account as there is for any of the other religion's creation stories. I wonder how you decided that the biblical one was the one to believe without evidence?

You have to love Conservapedia. Funnier than The Muppets, but not quite so intellectual.

The other thing to bear in mind is that understanding of evolution has changed over time simply because people did ask questions, did challenge theories, and did come up with new evidence.

Evolutionary biology has moved on a wee bit since Darwin's day - actually, the shift in data and understanding has been huge even since the modern synthesis theory was developed.

In addition, soy has been linked to thyroid problems that may cause fat buildup[1] - with the amount of tofu eaten by liberal atheists, maybe that explains the high rate of obesity among atheists?"

I HATE tofu!

Funny stuff on Conservapedia

I got sidetracked reading about evolution on Conservapedia. One amusing thing that I've encountered before is that they try to discredit Darwin and/or his claims.

I can see how they make that mistake and they are the same about Professor Dawkins. Because they are used to following Jesus, prophets etc who tell them what to think they imagine that if Darwin turned out to be uncertain we'd have to drop the whole thing :)

Have finally caught up with this and the preceding thread.

Am amazed that MN's very own Young Earth Creationist, BestValue, hasn't turned up yet.

Or has he...?

Reading the Funny Conservapedia link now.

I like the "After the Flood, these kangaroos, bred from the Ark passengers, migrated to Australia".

I'm imagining the journey. I suppose it would take many generations and they'd have to be sure at each stage that none were left behind or we'd have French Kangaroos and Turkish ones.
Some would have died on the way but the others would jump up and down on the bones so there'd be no fossil record. In fact that's probably why god gave them big feet.

Headinhands...what I do not understand,genuinely , is that there is enough thickness/layers of rock in the photo I shared and at Lulworth to represent millions of years of strata. If it had been there for millions of years,presumably it was solidified,and yet,when twisted into curves by a massive force it did not break/snap it retained its' lovely smooth lines and individual layers. The young earthers suggest that massive,deep layers of sediment were laid down over a short length of time during a massive flood and that when the layers of rock were twisted they were still soft(which they could be were they not millions/billions of years old.) Hence the smooth lines and lack of cracks in the twisted layers. This makes sense to me but I at present cannot find an alternative explanation.
No-one has commented on how a team of researchers are allowed to present their c14 findings at an international conference but then have the abstact removed from the conference website because the two chairmen 'disagreed with the findings'
Two of the report’s physicist co-authors, Professor Dr Robert Bennett and Dr Jean de Pontcharra, till recently with the French Atomic Energy Commission’s Grenoble Research Centre, are urging colleagues to do their own carbon dating of dinosaur bones. They say that the media should be encouraging scientists to do this also, presenting the findings openly and honestly at similar conferences. This would certainly be in the interests of scientific truth—especially following the repeated findings of soft tissue in dinosaur bones, and now even seemingly irrefutable DNA in dinosaur specimens.3 The public has the right to know the actual chronology of the dinosaurs, and indeed the history of the earth.

It is easy to scour the linked sites for comments you disagree with but might be more constructive if you commented on the actual reason I had made the link.

btw I meant to mention this one earlier.

It appears easier to believe there’s a possibility that aliens were involved rather than God created life on earth (or even particular species). I wonder why that is?

I can help there. It's because aliens are no more unlikely than are humans and we are here. We'd be aliens to them remember so there could be someone out there now saying "What? you expect me to believe there's life on earth?"

Even with our present knowledge we could colonise mars. If we did that and abandoned animals there then they'd evolve and perhaps wonder where they came from.

Whereas god creating the world is a fictional story full of obvious plot holes with no basis whatsoever for even considering it to be real.

Backonly-

"No wonder they are pissed!"
Are you from the US? Please don't take this as a criticism, but this phrase means something entirely difffererent here in the UK to the ( I assume ) the one you intended.

Lulworth Cove was a geography field trip every year for 5 years - i know it well! The creationist argument in the article you linked to seems to be saying that scientists are mistaken in their adherence to the idea of uniformitarianism, and only a catastophic event like the flood could account for the geology. This is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of what it means. Creationists are assuming that it does not allow for catastrophic events that would allow something like the stratigraphy at Lulworth to form.

Uniformitarianism basically says that the rate of changes in the past were the same as they are now, but within that would have been major events like earthquakes, volcanoes, meteor impact etc - there are plenty of natural events that would lead to these deposits. We know the effect these events have because of course they are still happening.

One of the obvious problems with creationist thinking is that you need to disprove not just one piece of evidence, but all evidence from multiple disciplines that consistently demonstrate using a wide range of methodologies that the age of the earth is incompatible with a literal reading of Genesis.

Btw vdb - i don't think you're mad! I do think you have deeply entrenched beliefs. If you really want to be open minded and ask questions though you need to remember to question both sides, not just the one that opposes your world view. Remember (by way of example) i said a while back that creationist sites do not mention that scientists actually calibrate their C14 results to allow for fluctuations of carbon in the atmosphere - they categorically do, so why is it never mentioned when it is quite crucial to obtaining accurate results? Do you think the authors are 1) ignorant of how the technique works or 2) deliberately misleading you? It certainly isn't because it is irrelevant. Why do you think the article you linked to makes no mention of the fact that uniformitarianism allows for catastrophic events? Is it because they don't know or because they don't want to know?

Because the overwhelming majority of scientific expertise says that all the evidence we have points to evolution. And any that points anywhere else doesn't stand up under scrutiny. So, frankly, why waste time on stuff that's been discredited. It's like global warming. 97% of scientists agree that it's man-made. Why waste time on the 3% that are paid for by the major petroleum companies and therefore don't agree.

Why do you think scientists would want to hush up anything that questions evolution? What's in it for them?

VBD google terms like folding and elastic along with Lulworth and you'll find videos and diagrams to explain how we see such rock formations.

bigbluestars. I did mean 'annoyed' not drunk as you guessed. I'm in the UK, but I think I spend too much time listening to Americans :)

If I start saying "I could care less" then please shoot me.

What about 'I can't be asked'? What does that even mean??

The thing is, you can't correct people can you? There's no polite way of saying 'I'm terribly sorry but I think you meant to say 'arsed' !

Bigdorrit,that link was really interesting thanks. I think I have said several times that I am not a 6,000 young earther. I cannot see how the earth could be that young. I am more interested in the possibilities in between that. I maybe describe it as two camps because those are the 2 camps I am looking at but the Christian camp has alot of variation within it.I believe in intelligent design but there are many schools of thought within that too,many evolutionary based.
Personally I think that suggestions that aliens creating earth are as valid as a creator God are complete nonsense if you think how far man is from being able to create a universe. Whereas God is omnipotent so it would not be a problem for Him.My dad keeps telling me how futile it is to argue with people who have closed their mind to the possibility of God and I think MN has made me see the truth of this but quite enjoy some of the debate and learn from it too. I think when it comes to God,he is big enough and powerful enough to reveal himself directly to you all and does not really need me to fight His corner.
I have enjoyed my MN time and do not intend to disappear but am getting alot of negative comments from my husband and 3 kids as I get grumpy when I am reading,typing or studying some evolutionary theory or rock formation text and I think I owe it to them to put my lap-top away when they are in need of my attention. Not ignoring you all...honest.

aliens creating earth

Was anyone really talking about that? Personally I was thinking more of aliens leaving animals here that evolved into those we have today (including us).

Aliens wouldn't solve the main question anyway since you'd still be asking where they came from. So no one was saying that it's aliens instead of god.

my dad keeps telling me how futile it is to argue with people who have closed their mind to the possibility of God

It gets a bit tiresome after a while hearing that from someone with such a narrow view of the world.

Ask your dad if Allah or Shiva might be the one true god and see how open minded he is really.

I'm open to the idea of a deity. Which one, though? Which way does the evidence point as to which is the true deity? How is a person who isn't biased by culture and socialisation to make a decision?

In other words, if I followed a religion (as indeed I once did) it would be a Christian faith, due to the cultural influences and social context of my life. But what reason do I have to be sure that my deity is the right one?

My belief system is based on the probable truth based on the body of evidence.

So here I am. Open minded. Why should I believe in your God?