Where do you start?
POSTED BY: citizen
UPDATED: Wednesday, January 8, 2025 02:57
VIEWED: 8803
PAGE 1 of 8
Recently saw this in another forum:
Quote:
Evolution assumes that man dropped out of the trees 1 to 5 million years ago and became fully human approximately 100,000 years ago. Yet archeological records show civilization arising only about 5,000 years ago (based on evolutionary thinking). In other words, by evolutionary reasoning, it took mankind 95,000 years after becoming fully human to figure out that food could be produced by dropping a seed into the ground!
This article is one of many found within Mr. Malone's excellent book, Search for the Truth. It has been estimated by evolutionary anthropologists that the earth could have easily supported 10 million hunter/gatherer type humans. To maintain an average of 10 million people, spread over the entire plane, with an average life span of 25 years, for the last 100,000 years . . . .would mean that 40 billion people had lived and died. Archeological evidence clearly shows that these "stone age" people buried their dead. Forty billion graves should be easy to find. Yet only a few thousand exist. The obvious implication is that people have been around for far less time.
Another indication of both a young earth and a confirmation of the worldwide flood is the scarcity of meteors in sedimentary rock layers. Although some meteors have been found in sedimentary layers, they are relatively rare. Meteors are easily identifiable, and many thousands have been identified and recovered from recent impacts on the planet’s surface. If most of the rock layers were laid down rapidly during the one year period of a worldwide flood, you would not expect to find many meteorites buried in only one year. However, if the sediment was laid down over billions of years, there should be multiple billions of meteorites buried within this sediment. The fact that we find so few is another possible evidence for the rapid accumulation of the sedimentary layers and a young earth.
Suppose you walked into an empty room and found a smoking cigar. You could assume that the cigar was very old and that it had only recently burst into flames, but the more logical conclusion would be that someone had recently been there to light it. The universe is full of similar "smoking cigars":
All planetary rings still exhibit intricacies which Should Have long ago disappeared.
All known comets burn up their material with each pass around the sun and Should Have a maximum life expectancy of 100,000 years.
The outer solar system planets should have long ago cooled off.
The spiral galaxies Should Have long ago unspiraled, and the uneven dispersion of matter in the universe Should Have long ago dispersed.
Scientists working from the preconception that the universe is 10-20 billion years old have suggested controversial and complicated possibilities for how these types of transient phenomena could still exist but their explanations are based more on faith, not science. The simpler explanation is that these "smoking cigars" are smoking because they are young.
What about dating methods which do seem to indicate that things are very old ? As seen in the first article on dating methods, assumptions are everything. For instance, carbon-14 generation rate has never significantly changed. This method does not date the age of the earth but understanding it can have a profound effect on our interpretation of the "ice age" and the "stone age". A recent worldwide catastrophe would have caused an enormous change in the total amount of carbon on earth's biosphere. This event would completely invalidate one of the basic assumptions of the carbon-14 dating method (a known carbon-14 to carbon-12 ratio throughout the measurement period) and lead to excessively old dates for organisms alive shortly after this flood.
The Earth and Universe is only about 6,000 years old. Thats right, six thousand.
Where do you start?
I mean some people show the higher level reasoning of an Ape after a lobotomy performed by a surgeon suffering from Alzheimer’s.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beee
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I say ignore them, let them rant into their own living rooms but make sure they don't get to do anything like, say, decide on the syllabus for a school, for obvious reasons.
Still, it is always fun to see people claim to be better experts on astronomy, biology, meteology and atomic structures than those who have actually discovered, demonstrated and proved theories to juries of their peers over the decades.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SimonWho:
I say ignore them, let them rant into their own living rooms but make sure they don't get to do anything like, say, decide on the syllabus for a school, for obvious reasons.
Unfortunatly they seem to manage to find their way in there regardless...
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No beast so fierce but knows some touch of pity. But I know none, and therefore am no beast.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
There are geologists in the US who will happily date strata as being X-million years old (for oil exploration purposes) then sincerely claim the earth is only a few thousand years old b/c their religion tells them so. In Pakistan there are scientists who declare women should wear the veil 'cause that was the standard a few hundred years ago, then trade in nuclear technology.
I guess I have problems with that.
You can't just say 'if you ignore them, they'll go away'. In 2004, 55% of Americans believed god created humans just the way they are now. 66% wanted intelligent design taught along with evolution. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/22/opinion/polls/main657083.sht
ml
How the majority of Americans got to be so ignorant is beyond me but it can't be good for the country.
There are examples ahead of the US going down the same path. One of Pakistan's biggest problems is the madrass system which fluorishes b/c people want it. They're comfortable with it. The madrassas substitute the Koran for real education, leaving a population poorly able to compete in the global marketplace. As Pakistan's economy slides and people get poorer, they get more radicalized, and so on circling the drain.
Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
How the majority of Americans got to be so ignorant is beyond me but it can't be good for the country.
Ask Kansas science teachers. Ask the former head of the CDC. Ask the climatologist from NASA. Ask someone in the know about the "Clear Skies" initiative.
The reason you'll get from all of them is the current crop of assholes running the show is ridiculously anti-science and pro-talking point. They've turned science into a political game and tied it to appealing to a fundamentalist base that in any other age (short of the Dark Ages) would be considered irrational at best. They find the one whacko out there that agrees with their position and puts him in the spotlight on a major news network which repeats what he says ad nauseum until everyone buys into it.
Part of the problem lies with scientists themselves. The anti-science nuts trot out and spread their message over the media waves, and the scientific community sits back and says "no one's really buying into this, are they?" and go right back about their business, instead of standing up and going ballistic like they should be. They let it go and let it go, and now, personally, I think they may have let it go too far.
Part of the blame lies with people. No one can think critically anymore. A news story goes out over the wire that says "A study done by Shell Oil says that Shell Oil really isn't price gouging anyone," and Joe Public turns to his wife and says, "see that? The oil company really isn't gouging us." It's ridiculous. And, frankly, part of the blame lies with parents and teachers (and I am both, so I think I have a say). Look at Jay Bennish. He tries to show kids a critical argument, picks a bad choice of words, and BAM, there's his career, because of a parent looking for his 15 minutes of fame (and it is the parent; if my daughter came home saying she was going to tape record a teacher because she didn't like his politics, she wouldn't sit right for a month). So teachers play it safe, and the kids suffer.
Part of the problem is the "instant news" our culture has acquired. An "expert" comes on to do an interview, and by the time the research is done that shows he has no real credentials, the damage has already been done and the story has been forgotten. Look at the Schiavo debacle; their so-called "prominent neurosurgeon" who did all the interviews was later revealed to have been a fraud (in calling himself a Nobel Prize nominee) and his license was under review for several charges relating to substandard patient care in Florida (to be fair, they were overturned after lengthy battles).
No one checks credentials of the people they hear on the news anymore, either. "Tonight on Fox, we'll be talking to Dr. John Doe about why global warming is a myth. A highly regarded analyst, we'll see what he has to say." And who is John Doe? Doctorate in business administration who works for a chemical company, that's who, but you never hear those credentials. He's just an "analyst" with "insider knowledge of the problems."
I think you're right about poverty and oppressive regimes pushing folks towards religious extremism, and I think it's slowly but surely happening in this country, too. Look at Missouri right now; they are fighting two battles at once - first, trying to get stem cell research banned, and right on its heels, trying to get Christianity recognized as the state religion. Anti-science and pro-religion, all in the same breath. Why are people becoming more ignorant? Just ask Missouri, whose state motto is very soon going to read, "Just Like Kansas."
------------------------------------------
He looked bigger when I couldn't see him.
Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm not entirely sure how a global flood would change the decay rate of Carbon-14. Unless I'm missing something from the argument, nor where all the water to cover the entire Earths surface came from. Just one of the things I've been wondering.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No beast so fierce but knows some touch of pity. But I know none, and therefore am no beast.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The Carbon-14 gets soggy.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
To add a flip side...
Some of the ignorance that floats around is pathetic. Often, faith causes people to ignore perfectly sound ideas and concepts, just because it contradicts what they want to believe.
Macro-Evolution is a good example of this. It's a damn good theory. It's supported by reams of evidence and logical thinking. But it's not a fact. It never will be, sadly. We lack the ability, as a race, to conduct the sort of experiment that could prove macro-evolution. (Though, you know, selective breeding is a real good first-step.) Unfortunately, when I was in school, Macro-Evolution was never presented as 'the best damn theory we've got.' It was presented as the factual truth. Just like Christopher Columbus discovering America... with all these damn people running around on the place already, apparently incapable of discovering shit for themselves.
I was also told that viruses weren't alive. Factually, it was conveyed to me. Fortunately, I was old enough by then to think that this was rather odd. Interesting to note that scientists and biologists weren't yet prepared to revise their understanding of life. Rather, something that didn't fit into their little box of what life was, couldn't possibly be alive. And since only life evolves, I suppose that viruses are expertly engineered nano-machines designed by an intelligent agency to infiltrate and destroy animal cells.
I hope that by now scientists have acknowledged that viruses are alive, and have re-written their rules of what life is allowed to be. I don't keep up with that sort of thing the way I should.
Anyhow, I think that school would be a better experience overall if people qualified a lot of our 'facts' by saying, "This is the best damn theory we've got, and here's some other theories we didn't go with because they haven't stood up as well to the logic game."
I've got no problem at all with someone trying to prove the Earth is 6,000 years old, just like I've got no problem at all with folks trying to prove that it's 60 billion years old. Let them each present their evidence for their theories. What a wonderful world we'd live in if people considered both arguments and decided for themselves.
The average person knows why the world is 6,000 years old. "Because the priest says so." The average person also knows why the world is 60 billion years old. "Because the scientists say so." Most people can't point to the 'evidence' for either theory.
We really need a better grasp of things than that.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Problem is that there really isn't evidence to support the Earth and the Universe being 6000 years old. It requires people to sound off without clarifying their statements, much like the Intelligent Design debate.
Furthermore as others have stated Intelligent Design and the above aren't mentioned in order to further understanding or to prove that those 'theories' are correct, they're stated to make it seem like they are as valid as and on an equal footing too scientifically vigorous theories when they are, in fact, not.
They are not, for instance, open to rigorous analysis by scientific peers and never have been. They also seem to be worked on by people who's scientific credentials were either bought on Ebay or simply non-existant 
...
The above and ID are creationism repackaged and even when aspects or ideas from those theories are disproved the 'believers' continue to state them ad nauseum in order to get them accepted through sheer repetition. Opening up the debate seems to give the proponents what they want, not acceptance of the theory, more validation of an invalid theory.
To answer your query on viruses it's still under debate. The sticking point is largely, as you say how we define life. Life is generally defined NOT as something that ‘evolves’; it is an organism that meets ALL of the following criteria:
MOTION -- does it seem to move under its own power? Does it move with some discernible purpose? (Toward food, away from heat, etc)
Viruses (I think) don't do this; I believe they can't actually move under their own steam.
REPRODUCTION -- does it have some way of making more of itself, either through sexual reproduction or by budding or fissioning in some way?
A sticking point, Viruses can't reproduce themselves, they have to get a host cell to reproduce for them, you could say this is reproduction since the Virus does start this process off by injecting it's DNA or RNA (Viruses have either RNA or DNA, not both) into the cell, which along with proteins kick start the process of Virus 'manufacture'.
What if we had a robot that built computers under the control of a computer? Could we say the computer is alive?
CONSUMPTION -- does it eat or drink? Does it take in nutrients in one way or another in order to survive, grow, and eventually multiply?
Viruses, too my knowledge, don't do this.
GROWTH -- does the organism develop over time, increase in complexity, until it reaches a mature stage?
I'm not entirely sure if they could be said to do this either.
STIMULUS RESPONSE -- does the organism respond to external stimuli, i.e. has a nervous system of some sort to detect external conditions?
I think they do this. Viruses will 'hide' in host cells and 'hibernate' if conditions are not right for infection.
Point is there's no consensus either way, ASFAIK there never has been.
Some people say Viruses are complex chemicals that exhibit some life-like qualities, much like a crystal can grow and in a way consume, yet is not alive.
Others say they are the simplest forms of life, living parasites, which like larger parasites can't survive without a host.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No beast so fierce but knows some touch of pity. But I know none, and therefore am no beast.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
For those of you who have unqualified faith in science, here is something I did not know. I was curious and decided to look it up. Here is the process for Radiocarbon dating...
***********************************
***********************************
The html: http://www.unmuseum.org/radiocar.htm
A Bristlecone Pine high in the mountains of California. (All photos on this page courtesy of J. Scott Bovitz. Copyright J. Scott Bovitz.)
Radiocarbon Dating
Until the middle of the twentieth century archaeologists had a real problem. If they found a bit of pottery, an old coin, or another object while digging up a site, just how old was it? How could they tell if the object had been dropped on the ground thirty years ago or thirty centuries ago?
In general, archaeologists knew that the farther they had to dig down to find an object, the older it probably was and that objects found at the same level, or stratum, were close in age. That was helpful when comparing the relative ages of two items, but how could they get the actual age? And how could they compare the ages of items found at sites fifty miles apart?
If a society had written records the archaeologists could compare the history against the type of objects they were finding in the ground. A coin bearing the likeness of Augustus Caesar certainly couldn't have minted before Caesar started his reign. Likewise an Egyptian piece of pottery with a design depicting horse and chariot couldn't have been made before the horse was introduced to Egypt.
Using these types of clues archaeologists were able to construct a firm history for some societies. By matching pottery between a culture with a known chronology against one without, they could even hazard a guess about historical dates when there were no records. This still left scientists wondering about the age of sites where neither cross-matching of pottery or written records could be used. That was, until the invention of radiocarbon dating.
The development of atomic physics in the beginning of the 20th century allowed scientists to understand the phenomenon of radioactivity. Radioactivity results when an atom has a combination of neutrons and protons in its nucleus which is unstable. The atom will expel particles or energy in an attempt to become stable. The expelled energy or particles are the radioactivity. Eventually the atom will change itself into a different substance which may no longer be radioactive. The time it takes for half of the atoms in a sample of radioactive material to decay into another form is known as the "half-life" of the radioactive material. Different radioactive materials may have half-lives that range from a few seconds to hundreds of thousands of years.
One naturally-occurring radioactive material found in the atmosphere is carbon-14. As plants and animals use the air, their tissues absorb some of the carbon-14. After they die, though, they no longer absorb the carbon-14 and the material in their tissues starts to decay.
In 1949 it occurred to a scientist named Willard Libby that the amount of carbon-14 decay found in an animal or plant could be used as a gauge of how long it had been dead. Carbon-14 has a half-life of 5730 years. That meant if Libby found a sample where the amount of carbon-14 was only half the amount that might be expected in a living creature, he knew the age of it would be about 5730 years.
Though archaeologists could not directly use radiocarbon dating on objects such as coins, they could often find organic material (like charcoal from a fire) on the same stratum at a site as the object. In this way the age of the coin, or any other non-organic item, might be inferred from the age of the charcoal.
When scientists began to use this method to find the age of sites they ran into a problem. The new radiocarbon numbers didn't seem to jibe with the written records. In some cases they seemed to be hundreds of years off.
In an attempt to understand the differences, scientists looked towards the bristlecone pines of California. These tr
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME