That the earth (and for that matter, universe) is billions of years old isn't really in dispute. The concept of a billions-of-years-old earth wasn't thought up to match evolution - it existed independantly of the theory of evolution. There is really very very solid evidence for this; far more compelling than the evidence supporting evolution (which is pretty strong in its own right).Leviat wrote:And the earth is billions and billions of years old and they know this as fact how? I guess to match the theory of evolution it would need to.
Considering the universe, background radiation reductions pretty much perfectly match expected levels - the graph and science involved is exciting for the people who study that kinda shit, but xkcd illustrates it far more entertainingly:
Mr Wiki has a good synthesis of a number of sources (at least to my uneducated eye - Mitra would know better).
For the earth, usual estimates are based on radiometry. The classic non-science argument against this method of estimation (of anything - earth, petrified trees, fossils) is that it's hideously wrong when used to measure recent items. For example, a 50 year old bone might be estimated at a few hundred thousand years old.
The science counter-argument in this case is that radiometry is accurate, but only precise to the nearest million or so years. If I asked you to take a garden variety ruler and measure something only a nanometre in length, the ruler would still be accurate, but nowhere near precise enough for the job at hand.
Which is why we don't use radiometry to try to measure the age of "young" things. Someone who literally holds the values present in the guesstimates of a bronze-age tribe will take umbrage at the very idea of being able to measure something older than 6000 odd years, so it's pretty much a deadlock at that stage. But unless you have a predisposition to be suspicious of anything not presented in the Bible, there's no reason to believe the universe (and earth) aren't a hellova lot older than 6000 years.
Again though, just because science disagrees with something found in Torah, doesn't mean that one has to take an all or nothing approach in reading it; science doesn't (and cannot) disprove God, as a creator, and interventionist or anything else found in various religious texts. Science does not preclude faith, and faith should not preclude science.
Far from being brought up within a culture of science, let alone atheism, we live in very much a theistic society. This honestly isn't an issue (unless your Richard Dawkins, but he's a complete dick).Its really odd, but watching the discovery channel and seeing scientists exploring other planets and finding water and carbon and w/e else needed to 'make' life, Ive found myself thinkin 'yea, could be..'. Why? Because this has been imposed on me my whole life. Since day one in science or biology class in schools ive been in. Force taught athiesm basically, and then going to church with the fam the following Sunday. Completely clueless as a child but absorbing the information forever to be in the back of my mind.
I wouldn't go so far as to say that I've had religious beliefs imposed upon me, but as a child living in a faith practicing family, I've certainly had more of that thrown at me than anything remotely atheistic or science related.
Consider this: Coming from a strongly religious family, would it be more of a shock to announce a new found atheism to them, or to announce that you no longer have any faith in modern medicine, and will from now on only visit the naturopath for medical attention?
I find that it's far harder to ignore faith and religion (for better or worse) than it is to ignore science and critical thought.
Science as we practice it today is largely a new thing - the process of making conclusions based on repeatable observations of empirical evidence hasn't been mainstream for more than a few centuries at most. Even medicine has only become a science in the last 150 or so years - before then, it was closer to a craft than an art (medical attention in the old days would be more likely to kill you than the ailment).
The most important thing to remember about scientific method though, is that it has the emphasis on being wrong. If science is wrong about something, it's announced and accepted as being wrong, and people move on.
Flat earth? Proven otherwise by science.
Sun goes around the earth? Proven otherwise by science.
Earth being ~6000 years old? etc etc
What does any of this have to do with faith/religion/God? From a negative viewpoint, not a lot.
There aren't many atheist theoretical physicists (in fact, there aren't really that many atheists at all), but there are a lot of theoretical physicists with an extremely strong faith, based, in part, by the discoveries made in their area. This doesn't stop them being Christian/Muslim/Hindu etc. For many of them, the perfection with which the numbers match up suggests a creator. But the idea of a creator isn't mutually exclusive with the idea of the big bang or evolution.
This Lucy?Ive often wondered what exactly have they proven to give evolution merit. I understand its just a theory, and an extreme rough draft at that, to be proven or disproven. I remember when they found that skull that was the 'missing link', Lucy they called it or something like that. Turns out it was only skull fragments and a jaw of a pig. What happens when they credit something like that and it turns out to just be a hoax? Just say Ooops and brush it under the rug? It just seems convenient that we'll never see an evolved species/mutation per genetics, in our lifetime or not notice if it does occur.
There are a number of similar fossil specimens as far as I know, but I've honestly never been much interested in the idea of "the missing link".
To say that any one specimen could be "the missing link" is pretty sweeping and stupid anyway, but modern science has a terrible track record when it comes to etymology (For example, "junk DNA", which is anything but, and "quantum teleportation", which paints completely the wrong picture for the average person).
It doesn't look to me as though there's been much evidence presented to show that it's a hoax, but maybe that was another specimen. Either way, science doesn't "sweep stuff under the rug" - the scientific community takes hoaxes very seriously and records pretty much everything. Scientists can't just make shit up - being discredited is pretty much the end of one's career.
Ooh, book. Let's see:Okay, im done rantin for now. Heres a good read http://www.ldolphin.org/wmwilliams.html
Actually, that's not entirely true. There are a number of Newtonian "laws", which have been "proven". We still use them, because they're still pretty much good enough for the macro world, but those "proven theories" have been superseded by advances in quantum mechanics. Science doesn't rest on "proved conclusions", it tends to just work with "what's good enough for now". Quantum mechanics is good enough to explain many of the questions we can currently pose, but it's entirely likely that in the future we'll find out something new that will push quantum mechanics into the same position as Newtonian physics - it'll do, but it won't be the best fit for the information we currently have at hand.Let it be understood, at the outset, that every proved theory of science is to be accepted. Only the most intense prejudice and the maddest folly would lead any one to reject the proved conclusions of science. Moreover, we should examine any new hypothesis with open minds, to see if it has in it anything truthful, helpful or advantageous. It should neither be accepted nor rejected simply because it is new. But if a theory is evidently or probably untrue, or pernicious, or at all harmful, it is to be rejected and condemned.
This is patently misleading. The observable phenomenon of objects of mass attracting one another is accepted. The theories for why this occurs are not proven.Gravitation is proved a true theory by numerous calculations, some of them the most abstruse.
At this point I'm being pedantic and we'll never even get through the intro, so let's skip ahead.
Actually, I can't resist:
Seriously, nobody else found that funny? Okay...We shall not declare arbitrarily that evolution is untrue...
...marshal some of the mathematical proofs against the false and pernicious theory of evolution.
This has little if anything to do with the concept of what God has or has not created. We can't allow that God spontaneously generated a germ. The very idea is scientifically ludicrous, and Darwin would have said nothing of the sort. I've tried to find a quote from Darwin to suggest that he did make the claim "Oh yes, I believe that God created germs, but then took a step back and let everything carry on", but I can't find it. If anyone else can, let me know.
3. Darwin goes a step further and concedes there may have been a Creator of matter, and of one, or at most, a few germs, from which all vegetation and all animals came by evolution--all orders, classes, families, genera, species, and varieties. He differs from Lamarck, by allowing the creation of one germ, possibly a few more. He says in his "Origin of Species," "I believe that animals are descended from at most only four or five progenitors; and plants from an equal or lesser number.
The concept of evolution needn't preclude the idea of a creator God. If one's belief is in an interventionist God (as it is with all major faiths), then the idea that God creates a germ and then takes no further part is totally bankrupt. The Catholic church has no issue with evolution, and nor do any mainstream Protestant denominations. Their very faith states that God has a hand in everything - ergo, is a creator. Whether that be through spontaneous creation or via a system of evolution, who the fuck cares?
It's God, don't argue with him, he seems to know what he's doing.
Besides, what's more impressive: the creation of man out of thin air, or the evolution of man over millions of years via subtle but exquisite changes within each generation? Frankly, instant creation is taking the easy way out.
Part of the problem here is the insistence on bringing God into science. The theory of evolution doesn't mention God. It doesn't consider God. God isn't directly observable or measurable in a fashion that is meaningful to science, and he therefore cannot be the subject of any scientific theory (until such time as he becomes provable, somehow).A fifth theory of evolution is held by many. It is called polyphyletic evolution, which means that God created numerous stocks, or beginnings of both plant and animal life, which were subject to change and growth, deterioration and development, according to his plan and purpose. So much of evolution in this sense as can be proved, is in harmony with the Bible account of the creation of plants, animals and man. The false theory of evolution is called the monophyletic, which teaches that all species of plants and animals including man, developed from one cell or germ which came by creation or spontaneous generation. Evolution is used throughout this book in this latter sense, unless otherwise indicated by the context. God does not create by evolution, for it can only develop what already exists.
The first theory mentioned in this passage is put subtly, and it almost sounds reasonable; but what he's trying to say is that each and every species of animal and plant had a "seed" starter of their very own. Ergo, in his world, apes and humans grew from entirely different starting animals, and are unrelated. That they share variously 90-98% of their DNA with us, is presumably something he prefers not to think about.
At this point I'm no longer prepared to read on - this guy isn't interested in science, he's interested in faith. If he writes a book on theology, I'll read it, no problems.
The problem here is that his faith is threatened by the theory. It's a personal issue, and it has nothing to do with the science involved. His argument is pro-creationist more than anti-evolution. Scientists encourage the testing, questioning and threatening of the theory of evolution (and any other theory). But to propose something untestable (such as a creator God) as a scientific theory is an abuse of science. Creationism and intelligent design are not testable. They aren't acceptable alternatives to evolution.
There are tentative, plausible alternatives to explain life, but they don't have nearly the mountain of evidence possessed by evolution.
If someone doesn't believe that evolution was how the species of today came to be, that's fine. But if your belief is instead that all of the species were spontaneously generated, I can't accept that, any more than the idea that the solar system was plonked down ready made. Faith is not an acceptable replacement for science.
Out of curiosity, how does one tell between the versions of the Bible that are accurate, and the ones that are not?Leviat wrote: Not to mention the Bible has been changed so many times and there are so many different versions that are very inaccurate.
Those eternal consequences scare the hell outa me. Either you guys believing evolution are right or me believing in one
God am right. We'll soon find out
Eternal consequences would indeed be very scary. If I believed in a vengeful, irrational God. I do not believe in such a God.
As I understand it, the Christian faith is based around a God who professes forgiveness and love - even to the extent of loving one's enemies. The very idea that such a God would then send one to eternal damnation for believing the wrong thing is, to me, abhorrent. If such a god exists, I would not want to worship him.
Again, the fact that I believe the theory of evolution is the most accurate explanation for life has nothing to do with a belief in God. A belief in evolution doesn't make me an atheist.
In fact, a belief in evolution doesn't affect my day to day life at all - it would be curious if that were enough to send me to hell.
) which introduced an ambiguous alien object into the world at this time (in this case, a plain black sublime rectangular shaped black box), which would nudge our minds into thinking this way. Was divine intervention necessary for us to evolve? 
earlier... i could see this expanding way too much, as these things always tend to do.