False. Based on dated and flat out wrong data. The actual value is 66cm - less because of
False. Based on obsolete geological models and cherry-picking of data, among others.
Yes, but they have a source of replenishment.
Wrong data for the Mississippi (and irrelevent anyway, the Mississippi is not the Earth.)
That covers a few points.
Thanks Jovan. Those links are a good read.
I hope you are going to stick around on the SDMB. These kinds of quickand thorough answers are appreciated.
J.
I agree, thanx Jovan.
It seems to me that there appears to be 3 types of Christians (with respects with their beleifs on Genesis).
Literalist: Obvisouly, beleives that all of the bible is literally true, and is the direct word of god.
Fable: Some Christians beleive that the story of creation is just that, a story which is only there to give us an impression of what was involved, and perhaps offer some sort of spiritual truth.
The third group is likely to share a large number of people with group number two. They probably beleive that the story of creation is just a fable, and fully embrace the scientific explination for the diversity of life and the geological state of our planet. They are usually the ones whom would say somehting along the lines of what my family would say (all catholics): “Do you think God would have made it that simple for us? No, his creation is complex, intricate, showing us just how powerful he is”. So basically they beleive that evolution is the system by which God made us.
Am I missing any other groups?
That is perfectly fine. Evolution isn’t trying to explain HOW life started, only how it got into its present state. If you would like to believe that God created that first spark of life that is perfectly fine and not any worse than my explaination. I hate to see other people using information like, “the earth is only about 6000 years old” when it is obvious that isn’t true just from geological evidence and fossil records though.
Well, there is this:
The base of Creationism is the existance of God, an allmighty one. If you cannot believe in that there is no way you’re going to accept anything about Creationism. The base of Evolution is that nothing but a need of food drove us to this point. If you want to believe this there is nothing anyone can said to makle you change your mind.
To pufnstuff: If you believe that one or many gods had something to do with evolution, then it is no more evolution, is the will of those supreme beings, and that is creation.
You can bring a lot of “proves” here for both sides and you’ll allways find someone who doesn’t believe that is true. So the basis of this discussion is not wich one has the true or wish group is more scientific than the other (also let’s remember that scientist had made tons of mistakes in the past), the basis is if you believe in God or not.
I said with no genetic mutations. I understand that we can all be tracked back to a certain common ancestor. The point I was making is that to have all of this diversity in humanity their needed to be genetic mutations. The creationist view is that mutations can only cause disorder and cannot cause any “beneficial” mutations.
How does a belief in god(and that god started life) automatically require that all logic is thrown out the window? I know plenty of people that say they believe God started the spark and let evolution take over from there. That is perfectly acceptable but to totally ignore facts so you can take a literal meaning of the bible is absurd. If we take the literal meaning of the bible in everything(not just certain handpicked verses) there would be major complications, no? Anyways, that is a topic for another thread if you would like to start it.
Did anyone else have a problem with this link? I couldn’t view the rest of the article and when I went to the Discovery channel Site I tried searching for mitochondrial DNA and there were no articles. Could be a problem with their site, BUt I really wanted to read the WHOLE article.
I’m realtively New to the “Dope” boards.
This topic has been a hotly debated one where I work so I am very interested in the Ideas and resources brought out in this discussion.
Here are some Ideas I have on the topic that might spark some interesting research.
I’m not sure but I think the “Chaos theory” might have something to say about the levels of cosmic dust accumulation on the Earth and moon.
By this I mean who knows for sure that the dust accumulation has been constant and unchanging over any given period of time? Using satelites and other means of scientific observation we have only ever been able to observe this in the recent past (few hundred?) years, and for only brief periods of time
Six years is only a brief span of time even in comparison to the creationist point of view.
There is an element of randomness that I think might be overlooked by both sides of this debate.
Whether created by an omnipotent force, or blasted into existence, one thing is for certain. There are way too many variables in the trajectory of the cosmos for us to be 100% certain about what we presently observe,
There could very well have been extended periods in our cosmic history when the levels of dust accumulation dwindled to near zero, by that same thought there could have been great influxes. It seems ludicrous to me to assume that it has always been the exact same level of accumulation for all time much less 1 million years, 10,000 years, or even 500 years.
Most of what I have seen, although I have only viewed a small portion of the AIG website, is twisted propaganda. Considering they call themselves “Answers in Genesis” almost nothing that supports their claims comes from the Bible. Only a quote here and there that seems to be relevant.
From their home page I used their search box for George Lemaitre. I wanted to see what they have to say about him regarding his role in postulating the Big Bang theory.
http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/universe/b_bang.html
upon further search attempts using the year 1927, edwin hubble, and various other keywords that would bring about the infamous meeting of the minds between Hubble and Lemaitre. AIG is suspicously inconspicous on the topic. Is there something there that they can’t debate or debunk…or am I just not finding it? Perhaps they are embarrassed that a Catholic Priest would postulate the Big Bang theory.
On a humorous note:
In my early years, I met Ken Ham at a Youth Rally…(yes I was a Christian once)
I do find it interesting that for someone who opposes evolution, Ken Ham Looks alarmingly like Dr Zeus…Am I the only one who sees this? As a kid I really thought he was a scary looking person. Later in life it dawned on me…“Planet of the Apes” scared the crap out of me as a kid.
The Mito. Eve issue simply states that at some point, we are all related to this person.
It’s pretty simple, when you get down to it. Charlemagne had… let’s say four kids. Each of those kids had three kids, and so on, and so on.
Now, if you keep counting like that, generation after generation, you realize that there’s going to be a near infinite amount of people on the planet pretty shortly.
The reason there aren’t is that the kids marry each other, over time. Just about every person who has european blood in them is related to Charlemagne, though.
Now, if you take a step further, and add in the asians, there’s someone a bit further back we’re all related to. And add the native americans, a step farther back, and the Aussie Aborigines, and the Africans… and you wind up with this Eve lady, who’s called Eve for no real reason except she’s the most recent person we’re all related to. It doesn’t say there’s no people before her.
Just for the record, this idea has been floating around for well over 20 years, so I’m not quite sure how it qulaifies as “new”.
Also, it was stated above and often in the other evolution thread that “evolution” does not concern itself with the origin of life. True. But some posters seem to be implying that this is where science and religion are in sync. Not true. “Evolution” may not be concerned with the origin of life but “Science” sure as hell is. As soon as a scientists says “God created life”, then he stops doing science.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Science and religion are incompatible. The **full ** pursuit of one will eventually lead to the abandonment of the other.
I understood the implications fo the article, I just couldn’t get any search results on realted articles from the Discovery Channel. I wanted to understand how they sampled the Mitochondrial DNA and how they came to the conclusion.
It turned out to be a problem with the site. After several more tries I managed to get some valid search results. Of course it was only when I said to my Wife, “lok at this, I click on search and itgives me no results…” and in demonstrating how it didn’t work, it worked. (Giving my wife cause to roll her eyes) I swear, 30seconds ago it wasn’t working…
I know I’m an idiot sometimes, I just hate it when I look like one…
The same reason humans are obsessed with science. We may not understand a god-force, but we are more able to accept it. Science doesn’t understand a lot of things, and over time it builds theories to describe them. Frequently, more evidence pops up and those theories are revised or discarded or accepted. It helps people sleep better at night. Think of religion as a variable in an equation. You don’t know what that variable is, but it makes things balance out, so you accept it.
But this is neither the time nor the place for this discussion. 
[/threadjack]
Yeah, my point was somewhat rhetorical in nature, posted after a pleasant evening of drinking. Actually, I completely agree with you here. Somehow, for most people anyway, it’s easier to accept an unknown god than an unknown without a god. It probably has to do with how our brains evolved-- to assume there is an answer and to seek that answer.
vB code is On
One of Answers in Genesis’ list of evidences for a young Earth.
Because if you believe in an allmighty God, well, He’s allmighty, so He can create a world and make it “look older”, why? because He’s allmighty. That doesn’t mean that those who believe in that God are suposed to thrown away everything. I consider science a way to understand a bit of that power and I want to understand it. As you said this is different from your original topic, maybe I would start it.
the following quotes thanx to www.talkorigins.org. samhouch if you want to know more about every quote, please look there. They also have links to popular creation sites you might not have heard of (anything to get you to go there! ).
Note: This is part of the FAQ, and not whole articles!
Crustal recycling. Much of the ocean floor is relatively young, so it doesn’t make any sense to expect 5 billion years of sediments there.
Sediment recycling by tectonic uplift. Many rocks exposed to erosion today are sedimentary and have been eroded at least once already. One cannot simply multiply age by erosion rate to get amount of sediment.
The amount of sediment on the ocean floor is not surprising or unexpected. Sediments increase in thickness from near zero at the mid-Atlantic ridge, to several million years’ worth near America and Europe. This data supports plate tectonics, but not a ten thousand year old earth. Rocks older than the “average” age are protected by having younger (not “harder”) rocks deposited on top of them. The 'column clearly shows periods of deposition alternated with periods of erosion (recall recent talk.origins discussions on the Grand Canyon).
The “recent creation” model does not explain the sediment pattern on the ocean floor, nor the accumulation of the geologic column. The “erosion/accretion” model nicely explains many geologic features
The young-Earth argument goes something like this: helium-4 is created by radioactive decay (alpha particles are helium nuclei) and is constantly added to the atmosphere. Helium is not light enough to escape the Earth’s gravity (unlike hydrogen), and it will therefore accumulate over time. The current level of helium in the atmosphere would accumulate in less than two hundred thousand years, therefore the Earth is young. (I believe this argument was originally put forth by Mormon young-Earther Melvin Cook, in a letter to the editor which was published in Nature.)
But helium can and does escape from the atmosphere, at rates calculated to be nearly identical to rates of production. In order to “get” a young age from their calculations, young-Earthers “handwave away” mechanisms by which helium can escape. For example, Henry Morris says:
“There is no evidence at all that Helium 4 either does, or can, escape from the exosphere in significant amounts.” ( Morris 1974, p. 151 )
But Morris is wrong. Surely one cannot “invent” a good dating mechanism by simply ignoring processes which work in the opposite direction of the process which the date is based upon. Dalrymple says:
“Banks and Holzer (12) have shown that the polar wind can account for an escape of (2 to 4) x 106 ions/cm2 /sec of 4He, which is nearly identical to the estimated production flux of (2.5 +/- 1.5) x 106 atoms/cm2/sec. Calculations for 3He lead to similar results, i.e., a rate virtually identical to the estimated production flux. Another possible escape mechanism is direct interaction of the solar wind with the upper atmosphere during the short periods of lower magnetic-field intensity while the field is reversing. Sheldon and Kern (112) estimated that 20 geomagnetic-field reversals over the past 3.5 million years would have assured a balance between helium production and loss.”
At this time, enough research has been done by geologists and paleontologists that the proposal that fossilization is catastrophe dependent can easily be demonstrated to be completely refuted.
For example, in case of the preservation of bone, catastrophes have nothing to do with fossilization. Location instead of catastrophe is an important part of whether a bone becomes preserved. A person need only look at the abundant fossil bones found in the Pleistocene to Holocene age fluvial sediments that underlie Yellow House Draw and many other stream and river valleys in the Southern High Plains of Texas and New Mexico (Holiday 1997).
The bones of bison and other animals that fell on the uplands of the Southern High Plains between river valleys have decayed away. In these uplands, they lay exposed on the surface where weathering and scavengers destroyed them.
However, where these bison and other animals died upon the active floodplains of rivers and streams, the bones of a number of them were eventually buried in the sediments and some of these were indeed preserved. No catastrophe was involved. Rather, the day to day, year to year accumulation of sediments in lakes, in rivers, on floodplains, and as dunes in these river valleys buried and preserved these fossils. These fossils range in age from bison contemporaneous with the colleagues of Buffalo Bill to bison hunted by successive generations of Native Americans back to Folsum and Clovis cultures and mammoths, horses, and megafauna predating the Clovis cultures. These bones consists of both natural bone beds and kill sites. In the bottoms of Yellowhouse, Blackwater, and other draws in the Southern High Plains is an abundance showing that that the statement “fossilization is catastrophe dependent” is scientifically bankrupt. In these draws, fossils have been constantly formed for the past 12,000 years without any need for imaginary catastrophes. In case of Yellowhouse Draw, the occasional deposition of fluvial, lacustrine, and wind blown sediments along with very calcareous soils is enough for fossils to have been created over a long period of time (Holiday 1997).
this is relevant: Coal Beds, Creationism, and Mount St. Helens
I can’t fanthom how the salinity has anythign to do with age, anyone wan to tackle this one?
Life on this planet wasn’t accidental, it was inevitable, once certain chemical compounds came together under the right circumstances. I have no trouble thinking that we’re an accident. Only our own egos make us thing otherwise, “we are here, therefore we are special.”
The point here is what we can demonstrate. We cannot demonstrate life from a creator because said creator hides its existence from us. We can demonstrate life from hydrocarbons and amino acids becuase we have replicated it in the laboratory. We know that animals existed long ago that do not exist now becuase of the fossil record.
Does teaching creationism in schools help the situation? I don’t think so. All it does is promote ignorance. Would you, as a child, want to learn more about how life evolved if you were ONLY taught that god created everything and that’s that? Well, that’s the way it was in the christian world for the longest time. Those in charge knew it to be a crock, so they persecuted anyone that tried to say otherwise, else the church lose its positions of power and influence.
Science corrects itself. This is a fact, and seen over and over again. Religion (Creationism) only preches, it doesn’t learn or correct itself.
What should be taught in the science classrooms is simply science. The scientific method has been very successful in helping us to understand ourselves and the world around us. It is not the only means by which we do this…There are other avenues of knowledge such as philosophy and religion. However, these do not belong in the science classroom. They belong in a philosophy course or in church, or whatever.
And, the “truth” is that evolution is the accepted scientific theory of how the diversity of plant and animal life has come to be on this planet and the Big Bang is the accepted scientific theory of how the universe came into being. They are not “just theories” in the sense that the word “theory” is used in colloquial speech (where it means something more along the lines of what scientists would call a “hypothesis” at best or “wild guess” at worst). Rather, a theory represents a whole fabric of scientific knowledge that has accumulated through countless scientific studies and experiments, including countless attempts to “falsify” it by finding evidence opposed to it.
We do not teach alternatives to Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, Newton’s Theory of Gravitation, the Quantum Theory of Matter, or the Germ/Viral Theory of Disease because there are no alternatives that have survived the scientific process of careful study and publication of the results of the studies in a peer-reviewed body of literature. The only reason one wants to make an exception for the case of the theory of Evolution or the Big Bang Theory is because these scientific theories happen to be at odds with certain fundamentalist religious views (although many religious denominations, such as the Catholic Church have accepted these theories and accepted the notion that science and religion answer different questions and that the Bible is not a science textbook). It is not because there is any serious debate on their validity in the peer-reviewed scientific community.