And another proof for Evolution

[MidGe]

Link (http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070412/dinosaurs_collagen_070412/20070412?hub=CTVNewsAt11)

[ QUOTE ]
The discovery of collagen in ancient fossils by researchers could prove to be a major breakthrough in exploring an evolutionary link between dinosaurs and birds.

The study, published in Friday's edition of the journal Science, used the unexpected discovery of collagen in dinosaur fossils to make its link between living and extinct species.

[/ QUOTE ]

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

The discovery of collagen in ancient fossils by researchers could prove to be a major breakthrough in exploring an evolutionary link between dinosaurs and birds.


[/ QUOTE ]
Dinosau soft tissue (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0325Dino_tissue.asp) has been around for awhile - discovered, oddly enough, by a Christian. There's more than one way to evaluate it.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The discovery of collagen in ancient fossils by researchers could prove to be a major breakthrough in exploring an evolutionary link between dinosaurs and birds.


[/ QUOTE ]
Dinosau soft tissue (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0325Dino_tissue.asp) has been around for awhile - discovered, oddly enough, by a Christian. There's more than one way to evaluate it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure is more than one way, but you are not comparing the scientific validity credibility of a publication In "Science" vs "The answer is in genesis"!? LOL

[ConstantineX]

NotReady, I don't really think you read what you post. The hacks at "Answers in Genesis" simply claim that the existence of soft, fibrous tissue casts doubt on the age of the Earth. There are already several theoretical (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/314/5801/920) explanations or models in the works, rebutting the oft-repeated creationist claims from the argument from incredulity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance) . If you'll also note, the research paper in question notes that the bone was carbon dated to be 70 MYA. So the piece of evidence these creationists are citing also appears to contradict (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/308/5727/1456) the very same claim they garner from it. Interesting, yet predictable.

You'll also note that the Creationists' explanation isn't very technical. (Shouldn't that bother you?) That's because the use of technical, specific phrases makes obsfucation all that much harder. Their primary argument doesn't stem from current scientific theories about mineralization or fossilization, but mainly declare victory over evolution because of the fact that the blood vessels are "stretchy". They "evaluated" nothing.

By the way, the article given by MidGe happens to be from the very same bone Schweitzer discovered (the one Answers in Genesis heralds as fresh evidence). So from the same piece of evidence, we have two scientific arguments, made with real hypothesis and tests to prove those hypothesis, versus an argument of incredulity. Hmm.

In general, it's useful not to derive scientific theories from esoteric books (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible) .

[Bigdaddydvo]

Hey Mid,

Good link. But, for me as a Theist who believes in evolution, the article's conclusions seem legit to me.

BDD

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Hey Mid,

Good link. But, for me as a Theist who believes in evolution, the article's conclusions seem legit to me.

BDD

[/ QUOTE ]

Heya BDD, but you are somewhat rational in a lot or areas, I expected that you would understand! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

BTW, how's the babe?

[Bigdaddydvo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hey Mid,

Good link. But, for me as a Theist who believes in evolution, the article's conclusions seem legit to me.

BDD

[/ QUOTE ]

Heya BDD, but you are somewhat rational in a lot or areas, I expected that you would understand! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

BTW, how's the babe?

[/ QUOTE ]

The boys are awesome, thanks!

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

If you'll also note, the research paper in question notes that the bone was carbon dated to be 70 MYA.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know which paper you mean but it can't have said this. Carbon dating (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating) is only good for about 60,000 years.

I like the attitude of the Christian who discovered the tissue.

[ QUOTE ]

To Schweitzer, trying to prove your religious beliefs through empirical evidence is absurd, if not sacrilegious. "If God is who He says He is, He doesn't need us to twist and contort scientific data," she says. "The thing that's most important to God is our faith. Therefore, He's not going to allow Himself to be proven by scientific methodologies."

[/ QUOTE ]

and

[ QUOTE ]

"My God has gotten so much bigger since I've been a scientist," she says. "He doesn't stay in my boxes."


[/ QUOTE ]
Schweitzer (http://discovermagazine.com/2006/apr/dinosaur-dna)

I don't have any hard opinion about the age of the earth. It may well be 5 billion. But I can be open minded about it. Atheists can't.

[Alex-db]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't have any hard opinion about the age of the earth. It may well be 5 billion. But I can be open minded about it. Atheists can't.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh?

I'm very open minded about it. I don't have the expertise not to be.

The Natural History Museum in London is a fantastic place. I can't find any good reason to doubt all the evidence that the earth was here at the time of the agricultural revolution, and very likely a long, long, long time before that.

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't have any hard opinion about the age of the earth. It may well be 5 billion. But I can be open minded about it. Atheists can't.

[/ QUOTE ]

If by "open minded" you mean that I'm not willing to believe that the Earth could possibly be 6000 years old, that dinosaur fossils were placed in the Earth by God to test our faith, and that the oceans were filled by Jesus' tears, then I guess you're right -- the average theist is certainly more open-minded than I am. Personally, I prefer to believe what scientists tell us about the age of the Earth.

[evil twin]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't have any hard opinion about the age of the earth. It may well be 5 billion. But I can be open minded about it. Atheists can't.

[/ QUOTE ]
The appeal to be open-minded. (http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2005/10/the_appeal_to_b.html)

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't have any hard opinion about the age of the earth. It may well be 5 billion. But I can be open minded about it. Atheists can't.

[/ QUOTE ]

In other words, since there is overwhelming evidence that the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old, but that apparently contradicts your irrational dogma, you shut off your mind and declare you have no strong opinion because you are (lol) "open minded."

I'm 100% certain the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old not because I'm an atheist, but rather because that's what numerous, independent dating methods based on well-known science conclusively show. It's the exact same reason I'm not "open-minded" about whether our solar system is heliocentric or geocentric. (Are you "open minded" about that as well? If not, why?)

That NotReady would post that pseudo-scientific nonsense from AIG really damages his credibility, afaic. Perhaps it demonstrates how religious dogma can lead an otherwise intelligent person to believe in very silly things.

I guess I just can't comprehend the mind set. If I were going to have faith in a religion, I would at least adopt an interpretation of the teachings which does not blatantly contradict well-known, basic facts.

It's sufficiently dubious to believe in something for which there is no evidence, but then to actually *reject* the evidence which does exist, is totally beyond me.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

to actually *reject* the evidence which does exist, is totally beyond me.


[/ QUOTE ]


I say I don't know how old the earth is and everyone turns that into meaning I have rejected evidence. Fantastic.

I wonder how many atheist scientists would have totally rejected the notion of soft tissue in dinosaurs? I wonder how many still do.

[evil twin]

[ QUOTE ]
I say I don't know how old the earth is and everyone turns that into meaning I have rejected evidence. Fantastic.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah. That's what happened.

[m_the0ry]

I don't see how the bible and the mere existence of dinosaurs are compatible theories.

Explain their mass extinction (given a 10^3-10^4 year timeframe) and lack of mention in the bible please.

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I say I don't know how old the earth is and everyone turns that into meaning I have rejected evidence. Fantastic.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah. That's what happened.

[/ QUOTE ]

You obviously can't appreciate the delicate genius that is NotReady.

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see how the bible and the mere existence of dinosaurs are compatible theories.

Explain their mass extinction (given a 10^3-10^4 year timeframe) and lack of mention in the bible please.

[/ QUOTE ]

They all drowned in the great flood, obviously.

[Neuge]

[ QUOTE ]
I wonder how many atheist scientists would have totally rejected the notion of soft tissue in dinosaurs? I wonder how many still do.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm sure there were plenty who doubted that soft tissue would ever be found with dinosaur bones/fossils. Now that it has been found, there probably aren't any (or very few) who still doubt it.

No good scientist would have said that he was 100% certain beyond any doubt that dinosaur bones would never be found with soft tissue. Logic would suggest that it was extremely unlikely and he wouldn't have given too much consideration to the notion without evidence. Now that evidence has been found, a good scientist willingly admits his conclusion was wrong, within the same limits of doubt, and seeks to find an explanation why.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I wonder how many atheist scientists would have totally rejected the notion of soft tissue in dinosaurs? I wonder how many still do.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm sure there were plenty who doubted that soft tissue would ever be found with dinosaur bones/fossils. Now that it has been found, there probably aren't any (or very few) who still doubt it.

No good scientist would have said that he was 100% certain beyond any doubt that dinosaur bones would never be found with soft tissue. Logic would suggest that it was extremely unlikely and he wouldn't have given too much consideration to the notion without evidence. Now that evidence has been found, a good scientist willingly admits his conclusion was wrong, within the same limits of doubt, and seeks to find an explanation why.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, thats a pretty good description of ideal science. Glad to see thats still ammunition for some.

[BPA234]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

to actually *reject* the evidence which does exist, is totally beyond me.


[/ QUOTE ]


I say I don't know how old the earth is and everyone turns that into meaning I have rejected evidence. Fantastic.

I wonder how many atheist scientists would have totally rejected the notion of soft tissue in dinosaurs? I wonder how many still do.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem is that your linked article states that fossilization occurred from conditions in the last few thousands years at most. Everyone is attributing that position to you, because you linked the article.

FWIW, I read your post to say that you were open-minded about the age of the earth. No strings attached.

[Neuge]

I'll expand a bit. There is a gradation to the extent scientists consider hypotheses and ideas. One with a large amount of solid evidence against it is generally considered a non-starter, but is open to new consideration upon the discovery of new evidence or proof the evidence already gathered is not as solid as believed. Another with a small amount of evidence against it or is logically unlikely does not garner a significant amount of study, but a scientist will examine new evidence for it critically with an open mind.

A hypothesis with basically no evidence either way is open to considerable debate and usually a consensus is reached preferring one side as new evidence is gathered and analyzed. In this stage of a the scientific method, debate is rigorous and heated and evidence is scrutinized extensively to give weight to various competing hypotheses. The resultant theory that is developed from this process is usually a conglomeration of a few of these competing hypotheses.

A new theory with a good amount of supporting evidence is certainly open to question and new evidence is used to expand the theory or, if strong enough, to overturn the consensus and push research in a new direction. A theory with mounds and mounds of solid supporting evidence is generally referred to as "scientific fact." This is not to say the theory is not open for debate, but the evidence against it has to be so overwhelming that when presented it so contradicts the existing evidence that it is not logical to conclude the theory is correct about one or more of its major points.

This brings us back to the appeal to be open-minded. Science is certainly open-minded, though it weights the probability of each hypothesis based on the amount and strength of evidence for or against it. When theists use the term "open-minded" they are generally proposing equal weight be given to all competing theories (or at least to their dogmatic ideas) regardless of the evidence.

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]
I say I don't know how old the earth is and everyone turns that into meaning I have rejected evidence. Fantastic.


[/ QUOTE ]

Assuming you are even semi-educated and literate, which you appear to be, then not knowing how old is the Earth (within reasonable measurement uncertainty) requires rejecting a massive amount of easily understood evidence.

Not to mention you quoted a source that makes the entirely silly claim that the Earth is only about 10,000 years old. To maintain that delusion also requires rejecting not only the evidence, but as well most of fundamental science. It is really no different than thinking the Earth is flat, or is the "center" of the universe. (Ignoring for a moment the technicality that every point may be considered, in a certain sense according to modern cosmology, the "center" of the universe.)

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
I'll expand a bit. There is a gradation to the extent scientists consider hypotheses and ideas. One with a large amount of solid evidence against it is generally considered a non-starter, but is open to new consideration upon the discovery of new evidence or proof the evidence already gathered is not as solid as believed. Another with a small amount of evidence against it or is logically unlikely does not garner a significant amount of study, but a scientist will examine new evidence for it critically with an open mind.

A hypothesis with basically no evidence either way is open to considerable debate and usually a consensus is reached preferring one side as new evidence is gathered and analyzed. In this stage of a the scientific method, debate is rigorous and heated and evidence is scrutinized extensively to give weight to various competing hypotheses. The resultant theory that is developed from this process is usually a conglomeration of a few of these competing hypotheses.

A new theory with a good amount of supporting evidence is certainly open to question and new evidence is used to expand the theory or, if strong enough, to overturn the consensus and push research in a new direction. A theory with mounds and mounds of solid supporting evidence is generally referred to as "scientific fact." This is not to say the theory is not open for debate, but the evidence against it has to be so overwhelming that when presented it so contradicts the existing evidence that it is not logical to conclude the theory is correct about one or more of its major points.

This brings us back to the appeal to be open-minded. Science is certainly open-minded, though it weights the probability of each hypothesis based on the amount and strength of evidence for or against it. When theists use the term "open-minded" they are generally proposing equal weight be given to all competing theories (or at least to their dogmatic ideas) regardless of the evidence.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good expansion of your previous idea, though for practical reasons I liked the previous post better.

[Neuge]

[ QUOTE ]
Good expansion of your previous idea, though for practical reasons I liked the previous post better.

[/ QUOTE ]
Is there a specific reason for that? My first post was specific to this topic, or NotReady's incurious remark I guess. The last was just extending it into science in general.

Just wondering.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Good expansion of your previous idea, though for practical reasons I liked the previous post better.

[/ QUOTE ]
Is there a specific reason for that? My first post was specific to this topic, or NotReady's incurious remark I guess. The last was just extending it into science in general.

Just wondering.

[/ QUOTE ]

More succinct, and more to the point. One of the most frustrating tactics in this 'debate' is the idea that either evolutionists are dogmatic, hard-headed, inflexible preachers of their religion or, if they aren't, that their flexibility and concession of errors goes to show that evolution is all wrong and hanging together by threads anyhow. I liked your explanation in 'sound bite' form. I liked your longer, more general explanation as well, but the sound bite is more...impactful?

[Neuge]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Good expansion of your previous idea, though for practical reasons I liked the previous post better.

[/ QUOTE ]
Is there a specific reason for that? My first post was specific to this topic, or NotReady's incurious remark I guess. The last was just extending it into science in general.

Just wondering.

[/ QUOTE ]

More succinct, and more to the point. One of the most frustrating tactics in this 'debate' is the idea that either evolutionists are dogmatic, hard-headed, inflexible preachers of their religion or, if they aren't, that their flexibility and concession of errors goes to show that evolution is all wrong and hanging together by threads anyhow. I liked your explanation in 'sound bite' form. I liked your longer, more general explanation as well, but the sound bite is more...impactful?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, perhaps. I see your point though. I suppose also that being long-winded in that type of debate, when dealing with opposition who doesn't put forth evidence for their own ideas and only attempts to poke holes in your theory, just gives them more ammunition to spin back at you.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Not to mention you quoted a source that makes the entirely silly claim that the Earth is only about 10,000 years old. To maintain that delusion also requires rejecting not only the evidence, but as well most of fundamental science.


[/ QUOTE ]

Do you reject any possibility that the earth is only, say <= 100k y?

Do you have an explanation for the soft tissue?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

When theists use the term "open-minded" they are generally proposing equal weight be given to all competing theories (or at least to their dogmatic ideas) regardless of the evidence.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think all statements like this do is show your bias.

Would you consider soft tissue in dinosaur bone fossils new evidence?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

The problem is that your linked article states that fossilization occurred from conditions in the last few thousands years at most.


[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't find that statement in the link. No doubt AIG maintains a 10k y earth, but I linked that article to show that the soft tissue wasn't a new discovery and to indicate who had discovered it. I hardly accept everyting AIG says. Do you believe everything every scientist says?

[ QUOTE ]

FWIW, I read your post to say that you were open-minded about the age of the earth. No strings attached.


[/ QUOTE ]
In one sense I'm open-minded about everything - i.e., I can see that I can't disprove BIV, for instance. And the Bible never gives the age of the earth, nor does it tell us the method God used to create. Did you see the quote I gave from Schweitzer?

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The discovery of collagen in ancient fossils by researchers could prove to be a major breakthrough in exploring an evolutionary link between dinosaurs and birds.


[/ QUOTE ]
Dinosau soft tissue (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0325Dino_tissue.asp) has been around for awhile - discovered, oddly enough, by a Christian. There's more than one way to evaluate it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmm. I would say this is powerful evidnce that the earth is less than 100 years old. I'VE never seen soft tissue last that long. Heck, I tried to dig up my pet hampster once after a year, and he was already gone!

Time for those stupid scientists (none of whom have any first hand knowledge that the earth is 100yrs old +) to reconsider their paradigm.

[ConstantineX]

Honestly, basic community college courses could have answered all the objections and a fair number of questions NotReady brings up. I think he's just dishonest and equivocating.

[ConstantineX]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Not to mention you quoted a source that makes the entirely silly claim that the Earth is only about 10,000 years old. To maintain that delusion also requires rejecting not only the evidence, but as well most of fundamental science.


[/ QUOTE ]

Do you reject any possibility that the earth is only, say <= 100k y?

Do you have an explanation for the soft tissue?

[/ QUOTE ]

There were explanations in the article I linked. One theory (not linked) supposed it might have to do with the packed sedimentation the bone was found in. The theory mentioned in the article suggested microbes displaced the osteocytes that normally compose the bone.

Of course, these hypotheses could be false. Maybe this will launch a well-spring of evidence that contradicts the other 6 bajillion pieces of confirming evidence that the earth is greater than 100k years old. Thank God we have the ever vigiliant theists to make sure scientific review of dogma continues.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I think he's just dishonest and equivocating.


[/ QUOTE ]

You guys are truly boring. No imagination at all.

Oh, yeah, you left out close-minded.

Oh, yeah, you forgot I'm a troll.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Maybe this will launch a well-spring of evidence that contradicts the other 6 bajillion pieces of confirming evidence that the earth is greater than 100k years old. Thank God we have the ever vigiliant theists to make sure scientific review of dogma continues.


[/ QUOTE ]

It would never occur to you, of course, that the earth is 5 by but dinos are not 70 my.

[tisthefire]

[ QUOTE ]

I wonder how many atheist scientists would have totally rejected the notion of soft tissue in dinosaurs? I wonder how many still do.

[/ QUOTE ]lol yea, us aethiests really hate evidence in support of evalution, we usually reject evidence like that

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]

Oh, yeah, you forgot I'm a troll.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, we didn't.

[AlexM]

I still think the best proof of evolution is the menstrual cycle. No sane god would do that to us on purpose.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't have any hard opinion about the age of the earth. It may well be 5 billion. But I can be open minded about it. Atheists can't.

[/ QUOTE ]

If by "open minded" you mean that I'm not willing to believe that the Earth could possibly be 6000 years old, that dinosaur fossils were placed in the Earth by God to test our faith, and that the oceans were filled by Jesus' tears, then I guess you're right -- the average theist is certainly more open-minded than I am. Personally, I prefer to believe what scientists tell us about the age of the Earth.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm an agnostic (or a weak atheist for those who refuse to use English correctly) and I accept the possibility that the Earth is only 6k years old. Mind you, I put the odds at around .000000000000000000000000000000001%, but that's still a possibility.

[tisthefire]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't have any hard opinion about the age of the earth. It may well be 5 billion. But I can be open minded about it. Atheists can't.

[/ QUOTE ]

If by "open minded" you mean that I'm not willing to believe that the Earth could possibly be 6000 years old, that dinosaur fossils were placed in the Earth by God to test our faith, and that the oceans were filled by Jesus' tears, then I guess you're right -- the average theist is certainly more open-minded than I am. Personally, I prefer to believe what scientists tell us about the age of the Earth.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm an agnostic (or a weak atheist for those who refuse to use English correctly) and I accept the possibility that the Earth is only 6k years old. Mind you, I put the odds at around .000000000000000000000000000000001%, but that's still a possibility.

[/ QUOTE ]still a possibility in the same way earth being created the day before you were born is a possibility

[MidGe]

AlexM,

Regarding your god probability I think there is a bit of a misunderstanding here. I, like everyone I know, do not pretend to know everything. Theists often confuse the isuue by calling what they do not know, god. I can accept that as a semantically valid yet extremely confusing use of the term.

To avoid this confusion let say that I really cannot prove the the earth is x years old, bur what I am certain of is that there is no god that is creator, omnipotent or benevolent. Thus there is no personal god worthy of worship except as a fantasy. The evidence for this is right in front of me eyes all the time. The lack of benevolence supported by the amount of suffering experienced by animals and humans alike, the lack of intelligence by the obvious flaws in the design, etc...

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
"My God has gotten so much bigger since I've been a scientist," she says. "He doesn't stay in my boxes."

[/ QUOTE ]

Funny. When I tell you your God is too small you say you've never been able to understand that statement. But when Schweitzer says it, you say you like her attitude.

PairTheBoard

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

When I tell you your God is too small you say you've never been able to understand that statement. But when Schweitzer says it, you say you like her attitude.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand this statement.

[Neuge]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

When theists use the term "open-minded" they are generally proposing equal weight be given to all competing theories (or at least to their dogmatic ideas) regardless of the evidence.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think all statements like this do is show your bias.

[/ QUOTE ]

How so? I'm really baffled as to how you concluded that. Are the ID movement and "teach the controversy" not pushing for equal time for creationism in the classroom?

[ QUOTE ]
Would you consider soft tissue in dinosaur bone fossils new evidence?

[/ QUOTE ]

Uhhhh... yes?!? I haven't read the scientific literature on the subject, but there seem to be some hypotheses for the discovery.

Do you have an explanation for the new evidence? One that doesn't presuppose the conclusion?

[PairTheBoard]

NotReady's ability to Understand (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Number=9701177&page=0&vc=1)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
PairTheBoard -
The god of your mind is too small.

[/ QUOTE ]
NotReady -
I'll never understand this assertion.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Schweitzer -
"My God has gotten so much bigger since I've been a scientist," she says. "He doesn't stay in my boxes."

[/ QUOTE ]

NotReady -
I like the attitude of the Christian who discovered the tissue.

[/ QUOTE ]



[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

PairTheBoard -
When I tell you your God is too small you say you've never been able to understand that statement. But when Schweitzer says it, you say you like her attitude.


[/ QUOTE ]

NotReady -
I don't understand this statement.

[/ QUOTE ]


Your Blind Spot here casts doubt on the dependability and precision of your understanding of more difficult things, like the Bible for instance.

PairTheBoard

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Your Blind Spot here casts doubt on the dependability and precision of your understanding of more difficult things, like the Bible for instance.


[/ QUOTE ]

It mostly casts doubt on your ability to post intelligibly.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
NotReady's ability to Understand (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Number=9701177&page=0&vc=1)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
PairTheBoard -
The god of your mind is too small.

[/ QUOTE ]
NotReady -
I'll never understand this assertion.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Schweitzer -
"My God has gotten so much bigger since I've been a scientist," she says. "He doesn't stay in my boxes."

[/ QUOTE ]

NotReady -
I like the attitude of the Christian who discovered the tissue.

[/ QUOTE ]



[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

PairTheBoard -
When I tell you your God is too small you say you've never been able to understand that statement. But when Schweitzer says it, you say you like her attitude.


[/ QUOTE ]

NotReady -
I don't understand this statement.

[/ QUOTE ]


Your Blind Spot here casts doubt on the dependability and precision of your understanding of more difficult things, like the Bible for instance.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
NotReady -
It mostly casts doubt on your ability to post intelligibly.

[/ QUOTE ]


Or, as if often pointed out here, the Integrity of your Debating.

PairTheBoard

[numchuck norris]

I don't see where anyone is claiming that the earth is 6k years old. There's no age given in the Bible. There are some hard-liners who proport that it's 6k years old and that creation actually happened in 7 days, but there are Christians who believe the universe is billions of years old and that God is behind the big bang.

The Bible has to be read in context with an understanding of what literary style is being used...you can't just pluck stuff out and read it like it was printed in today's newspaper. (christians and non-christians alike are guilty of this)

wrt evolution, I don't know if it happened, but it seems like we'd be digging up a ton of transitional forms...creatures with 50% legs/50% fins, 60/40, 62/38, etc...but the evidence isn't there.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see where anyone is claiming that the earth is 6k years old. There's no age given in the Bible. There are some hard-liners who proport that it's 6k years old and that creation actually happened in 7 days, but there are Christians who believe the universe is billions of years old and that God is behind the big bang.

The Bible has to be read in context with an understanding of what literary style is being used...you can't just pluck stuff out and read it like it was printed in today's newspaper. (christians and non-christians alike are guilty of this)

wrt evolution, I don't know if it happened, but it seems like we'd be digging up a ton of transitional forms...creatures with 50% legs/50% fins, 60/40, 62/38, etc...but the evidence isn't there.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that the 6k year thing, while not necessarily relating to creation of the Earth or Universe, has a lot of support with regards to creation of human beings. Isn't there a genealogy from Adam all the way to Jesus? And aren't approximate ages (or at least age ranges) given for those people? Simple mathematical exercise, then, to figure how long there have been human beings. Is there some way around this, Biblically? Can you reconcile a hundred thousand years of humans?

With regards to your last point, feel free to peruse this FAQ (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html) before you claim there are no transitional forms. Also, bear in mind that any time we do find a transitional fossil, all this does is create two MORE gaps to fill. There are a ridiculous number of possible gaps, and of course the vast majority will never be filled.

[Neuge]

[ QUOTE ]
I think that the 6k year thing, while not necessarily relating to creation of the Earth or Universe, has a lot of support with regards to creation of human beings. Isn't there a genealogy from Adam all the way to Jesus? And aren't approximate ages (or at least age ranges) given for those people? Simple mathematical exercise, then, to figure how long there have been human beings. Is there some way around this, Biblically? Can you reconcile a hundred thousand years of humans?

[/ QUOTE ]
The 6000 year figure comes from Ussher chronology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ussher_chronology), which is pretty much your scenario. It's still widely cited by young-earth creationists, but has fallen out of favor in mainstream theology.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think that the 6k year thing, while not necessarily relating to creation of the Earth or Universe, has a lot of support with regards to creation of human beings. Isn't there a genealogy from Adam all the way to Jesus? And aren't approximate ages (or at least age ranges) given for those people? Simple mathematical exercise, then, to figure how long there have been human beings. Is there some way around this, Biblically? Can you reconcile a hundred thousand years of humans?

[/ QUOTE ]
The 6000 year figure comes from Ussher chronology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ussher_chronology), which is pretty much your scenario. It's still widely cited by young-earth creationists, but has fallen out of favor in mainstream theology.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why? I mean, I understand why *I* would stop mentioning it, but is it officially disregarded for some reason?

I'm not really interested in the technical details, as I am sure each of the individual ages are very much contentious, but there must be some range, right? Presumably that range can't be anywhere near 100,000 years?

[Neuge]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think that the 6k year thing, while not necessarily relating to creation of the Earth or Universe, has a lot of support with regards to creation of human beings. Isn't there a genealogy from Adam all the way to Jesus? And aren't approximate ages (or at least age ranges) given for those people? Simple mathematical exercise, then, to figure how long there have been human beings. Is there some way around this, Biblically? Can you reconcile a hundred thousand years of humans?

[/ QUOTE ]
The 6000 year figure comes from Ussher chronology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ussher_chronology), which is pretty much your scenario. It's still widely cited by young-earth creationists, but has fallen out of favor in mainstream theology.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why? I mean, I understand why *I* would stop mentioning it, but is it officially disregarded for some reason?

I'm not really interested in the technical details, as I am sure each of the individual ages are very much contentious, but there must be some range, right? Presumably that range can't be anywhere near 100,000 years?

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't know why. It appears because it's irreconcilable with modern science, so the scripture must be interpreted differently (which is of course no logical explanation). Granted this is limited knowledge I'm speaking on, I only know that it has fallen into disrepute.