1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

what gives credibility?

Discussion in 'General Religious Debates' started by gseeker, Jul 16, 2012.

?
  1. A scientist who has studied at the best colleges, in fields relating to evolution.

    4 vote(s)
    40.0%
  2. no credibility because he refuses the well known fact of the theory of evolution.

    7 vote(s)
    70.0%
Multiple votes are allowed.
  1. gseeker

    gseeker conflicted constantly

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2012
    Messages:
    346
    Ratings:
    +9
    I did explain what you call lies.I also asked you a few questions on the subject too that you haven't answered. Maybe if you actually pay attention and read a little maybe we can actually get this debate going. Please refer to page 7 last paragraph.
     
  2. gseeker

    gseeker conflicted constantly

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2012
    Messages:
    346
    Ratings:
    +9
    Kruk, just a few questions to help determine if you are a geologist.

    1. What is the chemical formula for kyanite?
    2. What affects the color and growth of kyanite?
    3. What is kyanites hardness and what is its degree of cleavage separation?

    4. What is under yellow stone national park?
    5. What was the difficulty involved in determining this?
    6. What are likely to be the future of Yellowstone?

    7. What is the deepest trench on earth?
    8. What is happening in that trench?
    9. How is it happening and why are the results not typical?

    10. How long does it take biological material to fossilize?
    11. What are the normal conditions for Opal formation?
    12. Explain the transformation of biological material to fossil material.
     
  3. gseeker

    gseeker conflicted constantly

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2012
    Messages:
    346
    Ratings:
    +9
    This is all stuff this non geologist is knowledgeable about. There are a few trick questions but please try not to cheat too much.
     
  4. Krok

    Krok Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2010
    Messages:
    786
    Ratings:
    +48
    Word salads surely are not going to hide the untruths you wrote down here. You lied.
     
  5. Curious George

    Curious George Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2012
    Messages:
    13,376
    Ratings:
    +2,729
    So, a buddy of mine happens to be a geologist. Degree came from UCSD and Graduate Degree from UCSB. Yes, there are certain factors that can affect carbon dating, however this is not the only radioactive decay that one looks at when establishing age. Moreover, other methods are also instituted in order to achieve dating such as looking at layers of sediment, and rock around said fossil or object. Now, we also need to keep in mind that when done credibly different institutions independently assess the age of the said item and the results are then compiled and most often substantiate not contradict each other. Yes, independently every dating method has some flaw or flaws; however, these flaws are mostly unique to one method. So, if you have 3 different dating processes suggesting 40k years and one that is off to 35k then it is strongly likely that you are looking at something 40k years old.
     
  6. uu_sage

    uu_sage Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2005
    Messages:
    736
    Ratings:
    +116
    Creationism is not science. Believing God as the creator does not make you a creationist. In order to be a creationist you have to not only believe in God but also hold to the belief that the universe was created between 5 to 10,000 years (Young earth creationism) or older than 10,000 years (old earth creationism). Both forms of creationism deny evolution. Creationism is also contingent on belief in Biblical literalism. This type of belief is found amongst Evangelicals and fundamentalists.

    This liberal Christian believes in theistic evolution. That while God created the universe it was guided by evolutionary process. I believe Earth is 4.5 billion years. Science and faith are not in conflict with each other. Science explains natural law and the principles by which the universe is governed and faith helps us wrestle with the mystery of God and the human condition.
     
  7. gseeker

    gseeker conflicted constantly

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2012
    Messages:
    346
    Ratings:
    +9
    Sage, good answer. I'm not trying to prove that the age of the earth is 10 thousand or 4.5 million. Just trying to prove that you can never say the earth is so and so years old and claim its a fact. Yes there are multiple forms of radiometric dating systems but there are also so many mitigating factors involved that the older the sample the more factors are involved that could corrupt the end result. That includes mitigating factors that are unknown. What would seem like a small factor to most people can cause massively different results. You also have contamination issues involved.
     
  8. Mestemia

    Mestemia Advocatus Diaboli
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2005
    Messages:
    48,757
    Ratings:
    +13,059
    I am not going to vote because I refuse to fuel such a self serving false dichotomy.
     
  9. Draka

    Draka Wonder Woman

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2005
    Messages:
    19,113
    Ratings:
    +4,787
    Religion:
    Lasso of Truth
    No one trying to say it is an exact amount of years, but it's easily verified that it is billions of years old. It is easily enough proven that it is not merely thousands of years old. So, the evidence supports the fact that literal Creation is a no-go.
     
  10. gseeker

    gseeker conflicted constantly

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2012
    Messages:
    346
    Ratings:
    +9
    If the age of the earth isn't exact then it leaves itself open to interpretation, the earth has not been proven to be billions of years old and no evidence exists to prove such conjecture.
     
  11. gseeker

    gseeker conflicted constantly

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2012
    Messages:
    346
    Ratings:
    +9
    The reason why it is just conjecture and not fact is because change is not constant and anything derived from modern observations cannot be used as evidence of the past. The more I study the subject the more I am accepting the old earth theory but even that is accepted of faith derived from evidence not fact derived from evidence.
     
  12. ChristineES

    ChristineES Tiggerism
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2006
    Messages:
    25,055
    Ratings:
    +3,201
    Religion:
    Disciple of Yeshua.
    Somewhat off topic: I believe it doesn't have to be creation vs. evolution, after all, God could have started the process of evolution for all we know. There is no way of knowing, of course.
     
  13. s2a

    s2a Heretic and part-time (skinny) Santa impersonator

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2005
    Messages:
    3,255
    Ratings:
    +588
    Religion:
    Really?
    What we can know it that all the available evidence clearly suggests that no "god" is required as explanation of either cosmological origin or evolution.

    You are still free to insert a "god" into that equation/evaluation if you like, for the quantity/quality of zero has no impact in the calculations or results...
     
  14. Krok

    Krok Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2010
    Messages:
    786
    Ratings:
    +48
    You're right. That's how the overwhelming majority of Christian scientists also see it. Unfortunately for Christianity the lunatic fringe is very active on sites such as these.
     
  15. gseeker

    gseeker conflicted constantly

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2012
    Messages:
    346
    Ratings:
    +9
    Lunatic fringe? Hmm habitual liars seem to congregate here too from what I've seen.
     
  16. Krok

    Krok Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2010
    Messages:
    786
    Ratings:
    +48
    Exactly. We'll leave that for the readers to decide.
     
    #116 Krok, Jul 20, 2012
    Last edited: Jul 20, 2012
  17. Curious George

    Curious George Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2012
    Messages:
    13,376
    Ratings:
    +2,729
    The fossil record does not count? I understand that you believe the there to be a problem with some of the methods used. And, indeed there may be. However it still is evidence. If I were to find a gun that was used in a murder in your house, it would be evidence. There may be a problem with the evidence so as not to count it as absolute proof that you are guilty, but it is evidence nonetheless. There is also supportive evidence from the age of the universe which is also thought to be billions of years old. Maybe no one piece of evidence proves anything but when one starts taking into account all of the factors it is pretty far fetched to not believe the earth is billions of years old.
     
  18. mycorrhiza

    mycorrhiza Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2012
    Messages:
    1,443
    Ratings:
    +101
    Radiometric dating has given us plenty of evidence. Do you have any evidence against the accuracy of it? Scientists adjust their results for possible contamination and use different types of radiometric dating to make sure that the datings are correct.
     
  19. Draka

    Draka Wonder Woman

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2005
    Messages:
    19,113
    Ratings:
    +4,787
    Religion:
    Lasso of Truth
    Wait, what? Really now? We cannot not observe anything now that serves as evidence of past events? That can't really be your argument can it? Please say that isn't your argument.

    If it is your argument it is ridiculous and can easily be shown to be so. If it is not your argument then try again.
     
  20. gseeker

    gseeker conflicted constantly

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2012
    Messages:
    346
    Ratings:
    +9
    Again I state, same evidence different interpretation. The evidence you hint at is disproven as a means to define the age of the earth because we use modern measurements trying to define the past though change isn't a constant. When we see something working in a certain way and think to ourselves, that must be exactly how that has always functioned that is a assumption that can't be proven.
     
Loading...