If man evolved? (page 25)

AnnOMaly

I'd also like to thank cofty for the Wiens link. I couldn't take it all in (and I was reading it on my phone - eye strain) but his style is easy-to-follow for somebody like me who is beginning to dip their toe into this subject. It's a useful link to have and I plan to revisit it

James Brown

In my younger days, I was a tool maker.

Before I would take a piece of steel to make a tool out of it I would determine its hardness.

The first way to determine the hardness was like you atheistic evolutionist do

I would look at the blueprint which is like you looking at the strata.

But having been a tool maker for 25 years. I learned early on that you can not trust the blueprint.

I would take the piece of steel and put it on a machine a Rockwell tester and that machine would

tell me how hard the steel was. Then I could determine if the steel was suitable to machine

and produce the tool or die on the blueprint.

Dating rocks is nothing like that there is no machine that dates the rocks it is a bunch of hocus pocus.

Its all circular assumptions. Someone takes a geiger counter and counts the beaps and makes a lot

of assumptions based on those beeps. It is a very inaccurate means of making an assumption.

True you can accurately count the beeps. But you can have no faith in the results.

Because you don't know how old the rock was to start out.

Just like you cant know how many times a candle was lit or how long the candle was

before it was lit.

James Brown

Jgnat from what I can see, you are camped out here 24/7.

You are not concerned with burning daylight or wasting time that you can not get back.

James Brown

Maybe Kent Hovinds videos are like an airplane joke to some people.

bohm

James brown: okay, suppose you have a lake. Each summer we can observe bacteria grow in the lake and when they die they fall to the bottom they form a layer. During the winter another layer form of a different color. Scientists drill a large hole in the lake and count the layers. At layer 7000 is a leaf. Whats the circular argument in arguing the leaf is about 7000 years old?

James Brown

James brown: okay, suppose you have a lake. Each summer we can observe bacteria grow in the lake and when they die they fall to the bottom they form a layer. During the winter another layer form of a different color. Scientists drill a large hole in the lake and count the layers. At layer 7000 is a leaf. Whats the circular argument in arguing the leaf is about 7000 years old?

I don't know if there is one 7000 years is a different argument than 4 billion years.

I would need more information about the algae in the lake.

But short time periods are not my contention at this time.

My problem is more the dating of stones.

jgnat

Here, I am intellectually stimulated. JB, I see you have ignored all alternative evidence, new to you. Like counting ice layers.

bohm

James brown: so no circularity in that instance?

OnTheWayOut

On the way out that is one thing to keep in mind about atheism being a religion.

Atheist follow the same thought patterns in deciding what to believe.

Atheist believe in things happening that they dont or cant see and attribute it to the big bang

"Everything came from nothing"

And Theist believe everything came from God.

I call total bullshit on that. Skipping the point that atheists simply don't believe in God, I will tackle the rest from my own viewpoint which may be common to other atheists.

I expect that "the Big Bang" could be refined to be not so accurate. I am not married to it like a Bible-believer is married to the ideas presented in Genesis. I do know that WE ARE HERE and the best current explanation uses the Big Bang. We are in our infancy of understanding how it all got here, held back all these years by oppresive religion. Even when the best explanations are refined and offered, I know that Bible-believers will continue to say "Were you there?" Well, you weren't there either.

Since I am not married to blind belief in an idea based on faith in the unknowable, but rather allow myself to consider more realistic possibilities, it doesn't qualify as "religion" or "follow[ing] the same thought patterns in deciding what to believe."

I don't fully understand the idea that "everything came from nothing" besides it being mathematically sound. It isn't much comfort to think that things adding up makes it okay. That said, all you do is add another layer with "God did it." What did God come from?

Also, these conversations allow people to mix their ideas and terms.

Since the beginning of the universe is currently way beyond our ability to comprehend, mixing it in with whether man evolved or not is ridiculous. Human and animal evolution is pretty clear and well-established.

Also, it is fine to question science and dating methods. But the default answer when things are unknown is not "God did it" and certainly, while it is fine for people to keep the idea of an intelligent force starting it all, it is abundantly clear that the Bible is totally unreliable for dates and historical accuracy. If you want to go to a default "We don't know" and say "I think an intelligence did it" maybe we could talk.

Comatose

James brown do you think god carved and created caves? Or do you agree water erosion did it? We can see large stellagtites and know they took hundreds of thousands of years since the hard minerals that slowly form them by single drops of water have made them. Agree?

If man evolved?

Share this