DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Question for the Religious....

lol, so you're mad, that i don't want you to be allowed to bother me?

are you serious?

I can't see it, either. Again, what, exactly, are you being forced into that goes against your religious belief system?

If you used projected rather than known age, I would have much less to argue about.

Also, you are implying that God would have to rely on radioactive decay. If he "spoke" things into existence, I think he'd have had to be using a different process. Not that I'm advocating this, but I don't rule out a process outside of our current understanding.

I've seen numbers anywhere from 70-96% similarity in DNA sequences between Humans and chimps. It appears to be that that number is heavily reliant on which side of the argument you support. Both sides have impressive looking scientific data to support those numbers, but without witnessing the experiments how do you know which to believe? The money/research dollars lay with the evolutionist side, but does that help or hurt their credibility?

Even if it is 95% similarity with Chimps, those same sources say we have 50% similarity with Bananas. I haven't seen many evolutionary lines with bananas in our history.

National History Museum UK- Bananas

The important thing that people I think forget about is that the history of the universe is always showing us new things. We used to think the planet was alot younger in the early 20th century compared to know. And we are continuing to research and apply the scientific method to uncover new information. Sometimes this information challenges prior accepted science. And I think this is a key difference between how creationism approaches their science. Creationism has a vested interest in matching their data to that of the Bible.

Common Descent states that we all derived from a common ancestor. Bananas and Humans having similarity genetically supports this.

did anybody watch the video from the initial post?

My point was exactly that ... that life all shares certain things in common. We are not all built from different "stuff", but God designed the universe with a plan in mind.

Heck, people and a wooden chair both contain carbon atoms. Are we related?

There is a long laundry list that society today wants Christians to just accept, and even approve of ..... even if those things run contrary to their religious beliefs. You honestly cannot tell me that you don't knwo any of them. Unless you are blind, any number of them should be obvious, and if you have gread any of my previous comments on the subject, you should know what I consider them to be.

The relation is genes and DNA, not atoms. Rocks have atoms but they aren't alive. Life absolutely shares many things in common, and to date the best answer science has come up with is evolutionary advancement. Is it complete? No. Are we done researching it? No. But to date every single living creature we have inspected/researched/observed has followed the necessary patterns to support evolution. If just one living being was found that did not follow these characteristics, then we can disprove evolution and go on with our lives. But in the roughly 150+ years of extensive research, we haven't found any. So until then we go by what we know.

Some trees have more genes than we do. Some have more DNA than we do. Are they the next step in evolution?

Of course not.

All life on earth (that we know of, anyway) shares certain building blocks, because all life has the same creator. That does not mean that it is all related, of evolved from another kind of life. A dog is not peeing on his ancestor when he pees on a tree. They are different, distinctive forms of life. God used the same building blocks for all life, because it works in this environment that He created for us. It really is that simple.

So ..... are we related to a wooden chair? Should we write them a paycheck for their labor of supporting us?

How do you know that trees aren't? They probably are more beneficial to the continued existence of life on earth than people. Besides, why risk upsetting the ents?

The aliens are just technologically advanced enough to erase all clues pointing to their existence. Watch, this post will be gone tomorrow.

I just wanted to throw one more thing out there ......

I have read of some organization having carbon 14 testing being done on dinosaur bones, that said that the bones were less than 40,000 years old .... only to have the data thrown out because it obviously had to be wrong .....

Why not do carbon 14 tests on multiple sets of dinosaur bones, and publicly release all of the results, no matter what they say? Have scientists on both sides of the debate oversee the testing to make sure that they are done correctly, and that the test results are released accurately?

Here's an interesting blog from "a scientist who is a Christian, but not a Christian scientist" ...

An Update On The Triceratops Fossil That Contained Soft Tissue | Proslogion
http://blog.drwile.com/?p=13176

In March of 2013, I wrote about soft tissue that had been found in the fossilized remains of a Triceratops horridus, which is supposed to be about 65 million years old. One of the scientists who found the tissue and published a paper on it in the peer-reviewed literature1 (Mark Armitage) was subsequently fired from his position at California State University Northridge. He has sued the university, claiming that he was fired because of his religious views. This update isn’t about the lawsuit; I have no knowledge of how that is going. Instead, this update is about the fossil itself.
Samples from the fossil were sent to Dr. Alexander Cherkinsky at the University of Georgia’s Center for Applied Isotope Studies for dating via the carbon-14 dating method. Since the current half-life of carbon-14 is “only” about 5,700 years, there should be no detectable levels of it in the original parts of the fossil, if the fossil is millions of years old. However, Dr. Cherkinsky’s lab found very detectable levels of carbon-14. In fact, there was so much carbon-14 in the fossil that it was given a date of 41,010 ± 220 years.2 This is well within the accepted range of carbon-14 dating, and it is actually younger than other carbon-14 dates reported in the scientific literature.3

While this is an interesting result, it is not as interesting as I would like it to be. I wanted the soft tissue that was found in the fossil to be dated, but it was not. Instead, the fossil’s bioapatite (a mineral found in bone) was dated. According to a 2009 report in the journal Radiocarbon, bioapatite is actually preferable to soft tissue in many cases. As the report states:4

Contamination of the organic fraction in the process of the burial or during museum preservation treatment generally prohibits the use of the collagen fraction for dating. Our investigation has shown that the pretreatment of bone with diluted acetic acid following a proscribed technique allows the separation of the bioapatite fraction from diagenetic carbonates.

Please note that “diagenetic carbonates” refer to contaminants that occur during the fossilization process. The report then gives a method by which original bioapatite can be extracted from a fossil. Dr. Cherkinsky’s lab followed that procedure. Since the lab specifically reported a date for the fossil’s bioapatite, I have to assume that the investigators who actually did the preparation and dating think they were dating the fossil’s original bioapatite, not a mixture of bone and contaminants.


Does this conclusively show that the Triceratops horridus is not millions of years old? No. The lab might not have been able to completely isolate the fossil’s original bioapatite, so the result may have contamination in it. However, I think it adds to the case that the bone is not millions of years old. When you also consider the fact that many other dinosaur bones (and other things that are supposed to be millions of years old) are dated as only being 22,000-41,000 years old, you have to at least conclude that there is something wrong somewhere. Either the carbon-14 dating system is not as robust as some want to believe, or the fossils are not as old as some want to believe.

It will be interesting to see what future research says about this. For right now, however, I am reminded of something that happened at one of the creation/evolution debates I participated in. I had presented some carbon-14 dates of dinosaur bones during the debate, and in his rebuttal, the evolutionist (Dr. Robert Martin) said that the dates were obviously wrong because of contamination. During the Q&A session with the audience that followed the debate, one person asked how reliable dating methods are. Dr. Martin said very reliable. He specifically said that carbon-14 dating is accurate to within 100 years or so. I chimed in with, “Well, unless it is dinosaur fossils being dated. Then, of course, it’s completely useless.”

I know some people who are less interesting than a wooden chair...Does that count?

This reads like the long winded non-answer I anticipated. The truth is, we have the greatest freedom of religion laws in the world, and there's absolutely nothing that you as a Christian are "forced" to do insofar as your religious beliefs are concerned.

He does that. When he simply doesn't have a good answer, he'll beat around the bush and play victim.

That fact of the matter is nobody is forcing them to believe or accept something outside their home, church, and he'll some states, their business that they object to.

Don't like abortions? Don't get one
Don't like gays getting married? Don't get gay married.
Don't want women using birth control? Tell your wife not to use it. Nobody cares if you want a clown circus like the Duggars.
Don't want gays to get married in the church? They can't.


I'm sorry YTown, but your post reminds me of those old people I talk to, who told me about guys like you. Your same argument was used back in the day to be against women's rights and interracial marriage.

You want to deny civil liberties because of your religion. Don't play victim because what the country WONT do is allow you to discriminate.

Public schools are forced to include the theory of evolution in certain science classes. They are not allowed to teach the theory of intelligent design. Just sayin'.

Every time I bring up a counterpoint you step further into absurdity. Now you are claiming we should write paychecks to wooden chairs. Gotcha.

Ssh. Their sleeping

it's science class, isn't that kind of obvious?

Teaching that God created everything out of magic isn't exactly science, is it.

Theories aren't facts. You are presenting possibilities. Give kids the evidence and let them decide for themselves. Or are "parables"/"fables" unnacceptable now? They can teach Greek/Roman mythology.

This is actually false:

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/03/education-creationism-104934.html#ixzz2wtEOuZVp

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and...ternatives.html

I'm against it for two reasons:

1 - Introducing dogma to the classroom is wrong and discriminatory.

2 - Evolution is not perfect but good science rarely is. Why? Because all science is at the core is providing explanation for phenomena. Then through rigorous testing we can say "hey, we think this persons idea is the best we got right now." Sometimes this leads to changes later on. We have adjusted the age of the universe several times, and every time we do, all prior data models have to be redone. It happens. Good scientists know that preconceptions can be wrong. Einstein knew Newton was wrong when he came up with the theory of relativity. So we adjusted our prior models and found that yes, the new system with Einsteins theory works better.

This contrasts with Creationism because whereas scientific hypothesis are testable and falsifiable, Creationism is neither. Creationism makes no testable predictions at all, because there is no way to check who the Designer is, how the design took place, etc. Creationism just says "There's a Designer" with no explanation behind it. There are some testable claims Creationism can make, such as the age of the earth. But when they don't pan out (such as the earth melting due to radioactive decay I mentioned earlier), they then change the rules to make the claim un-testable. The world already had the appearance of age. The laws of thermodynamics changed for a period of time. Even if this is actually what happened, this is not how scientific theory works.

Evolution is falsifiable. All we need to do is find evidence that it doesn't work. Find a living thing that breaks the rules of evolution. Evolution is also testable. Everything we have measured and observed within Earth life has come back in support of the 5 laws.

Since when does the edit button disappear? My master plan is ruined (it involved WingDings and MIB references). My alien masters are going to be pissed at me.

If we're going to deal with the question of fact you must define what that is. Is it only stuff proven absolutely? Then we should teach kids absolutely nothing because we cannot prove anything absolutely.

Evolution is reasonably proven because to date it is the only model which provides an explanation for how life got here. Every living creature is living proof of it. Is it absolutely proven? No. But what is?

it's funny, cause there are a bunch of other theories taught in school that you probably no issues with.

you wanna cherry pick your science. ok.

theories has more evidence backing it up that a book of fairy tales, since we wanna talk about fables

"look kids, lion's didn't eat meat until the woman ate the apple, that's why God flooded the earth, because he had to get rid of sin, even though for some reason he hasn't done it again."

the bible and science right?

I'm not even saying they should present "Creationism" as theory. I just think if they can teach any mythology, they should be able to teach the Bible as mythology as well. Why outlaw a book as a tool for learning if it isn't presented as fact? Teachers use fiction all the time.

Plus charter schools and private schools are not true "Public Schools". So I'm not sure what your links prove. Everything is just not true. The Government/Public Funds have often supported my true religion as well...

Cleveland Browns Football

mythology, evolution isn't mythology, unless you're talking the greek mythology you mentioned before?

I believe that his point is that we teach mythologies of fiction (i.e. Greek mythology), so why can't the Bible and its origin stories get the same treatment? I don't disagree, but I would say that there would most likely be outcry from fervent Christians who are angry over it being treated as fiction rather than scripture.

Yes, I was referring to Greek/Roman mythology.

I have no problem with teaching the theory of evolution. I just think teachers should be able to present possible alternatives as well. The Bible, the Koran, Native American Creation Stories, Buddhist, etc. I don't want preaching, but it shouldn't be where teachers aren't supposed to address certain religions in any way, shape, or form.

Also, if a teacher wants to teach it, and a student wants to take it as an elective, I don't care if schools have voodoo curse classes as long as they cover the required courses with their government funding. The elective part is important.

But one is science and the other is theology. They're not equal alternatives.

If it was a private or parochial school they may decide to do it that way.

In your opinion.

You are being slightly ridiculous. I'm fine with teaching theories. I'm not okay with dismissing other possibilities out of hand. It seems disingenuous. If the Bible is clearly false, why not allow schools to show the evidence and teach that.

Evolution isn't the only model, and you've said yourself it doesn't explain how life got here. It only tries to explain how it has changed once it was already here. Every living creature could be evidence of it. Having the same pieces of DNA doesn't prove anything. "God" could have decided to use the same bits of DNA in different creatures because he knew they would get the job done.

I'd say gravity has been pretty well proven. Most if not all of the laws of physics have been proven through repeatable experiment. Only (that may be somewhat disingenuous as well, but let's roll with it) when it comes to Evolution do we allow so much guesswork and supposition to be regarded as science.

*Sigh* It was brought up that DNA and genes are the reason that we are related to lower animals. I pointed out, using a bit of irony, that trees have more DNA and genes than we do.

I am sorry if the point escaped you.

The one cloaks itself in the verbiage of science and the "theology" have books with historical relevance. Equality is a term best left to math.

I respect your beliefs.

If the chair got the job done, I'd have to consider paying it. Money is just high tech ink on fancy "paper."

Could you cite one specific example, then? You maintain an air of exasperated incredulity, as if it's blatantly obvious, but when asked for a specific example of you being "forced" to do something that goes against your religious beliefs, you can't seem to give a pointed answer, and resort to rambling, or portraying others as oblivious to an obvious truth.

I want to add to this:

gage said:



To this I replied:



To which gage replied:



While completely disregarding that a tree has more DNA and a higher number of genes than a human being does. The implication of your response was that a more highly developed genetic code leads to a higher life form, and presumably intelligence. Trees have more DNA and genes than a human being does. Unless we believe that trees are intelligent, then this simple fact blows the idea that a more developed genetic code automatically makes a creature a higher life form compared to others.

You are forced to accept (or at least feign acceptance of) evolution if you want to pass a college anthropology class. I'd bet Danny Shelton could attest to this. It was the case at Ohio State when I took Honors Intro to Anthropology anyways.