evolution or creation

@ddfjdfjh said in #60:
> anyway it is a suprising that there is not any scepticism for those who believe in evolution or creation...

The evidence is quite compelling for evolution. There are very few in science that dont accept evolution, but those often have degrees in any field but astrophysics, geology, paleontology ir any sciences that study biology.
And from the vast majority of scientifics that are actually believers that are in any of those fields i just mentioned, while they remain believers for personal reasons, they mostly support evolution, the big bang and the old earth.

How do they resolve the conflicts? Who knows? But they know the young earth and creation are wrong.

> evolutionists said that universe is about 5 billion years old,

No sir. Evolutionary theory, as i stated many times before, does not speak about cosmic events. Astrophysicist say that the universe is just about 14 billion years old.

> Earth about 2,5 billion years old

More like 4.5 billions, but thats Geologist claiming that, not evolutionists.

>and mankind about 3 million years...
modern humans about 200 000 years, and thats a claim by yeah, paleontology, biology, genomists and other disciplines that yes, are more akin to the study of life and biodiversity.

> creationists saying, based on Bible - Earth is about 7500-8000 years old, creation scientists say Earth can't be older than 10 000 years...

There are trees older than that. Thats why very few actually believe in a young earth.

There is no such thing as a "creation scientist". Creation is not a field of study.

> but it is their research, not of those who read what they conclude or saw and hear their work and opinion. i think everyone should be sceptic about anything, if you are not in school and had to learn what is in books, you must be sceptic on anyone thought...

Remain skeptic is the only decent comment you have made, which is true. You must remain skeptic of any claim until they have enough evidence to back that up. Yet, you are a theist, and still refusing to watch the damm videos that explain why evolution theory works as an explanation.

You are not practicing skepticism on the side that has no evidence, and refuse to watch the very robust body of evidence that evolutionist have. Wtf dude. Be consistent.

@a4477 said in #59:
> Hey!
> I did not follow the discussion but I have a lot to say on the subject. The question is is it worth it?

Always. While it is true that this guy wants to remain ignorant about the subject, there may be a few that will watch the videos i linked in the first page, which are quite useful and will clear the doubts and misinformation they have received in the course of their lives.

>That is, no one here really intends to listen to the other side, but only to prove the righteousness of his way.

Im listening carefully what he is saying, and corrected him on the misconceptions. Just watch the post above this one.
For instance, he claims that cosmic events are part of evolutionary theory. Im explaining that evolutionary theory only deals with life.

Which is true. He has an incorrect premise because he is ignorant in the subject. If he looks that up, he will realize that in fact, evolutionary theory only deals with life.

Im not trying to convince him from anything. Im telling him to watch the sources i gave him and then he can decide.

>Everyone here has raised some axioms and he is trying to prove them. Yes me too. I am a believing Jew.
I have raised none. Im explaining why his axioms are incorrect, he doesnt know about the subject.
It doesnt matter which religion you practice, The study of evolution is not the realm of theology, its the realm of science. I doubt i have even questioned the existence of a diety.

He is making some wilds assertions and he is attributing them to either, the wrong discipline, or they are just plain wrong.
Im just correcting him, which again, he can double check and will realize why he is incorrect.

>Therefore the discussion is unnecessary. Unless there is someone here who has not formed an opinion and his purpose in the discussion is to be convinced out of a desire to reach the truth. Is there anyone like that? say the truth? If there is, I am ready to participate!

Thats exactly the point. While its particularly desired that the OP actually reviews the arguments or sources he receives, often times, the real target are the one watching in silence. They can decide who make the better claims, how they back them up and may end up watching the sources themselves which will clarify the posture.

I will invite you to watch the videos yourself. Taxonomy and the classification of life IS the best argument for evolutionary theory. If by the end of the playlist you still think the evolutionary theory is wrong, i can assure you, nothing will change your mind and your beliefs are safe. That playlist, the way it is presented is really the ultimate test for evolution deniers. Give it a go.

@ddfjdfjh #60
I have a few questions and want to set a few things straight (but I don't want to be confrontational, I'm looking for respectful conversation, not pointless fighting):

I'm curious about who exactly you mean by "evolutionists"?
- All people (including lay people) who think that evolution by natural selection as described by modern evolutionary biology is responsible for the biodiversity and huge number (estimated at around 8.0-8.7 million counting only Eukaryotes) of similar but distinct species on planet earth?
- Or only professional evolutionary biologists (mostly university professors) per se?
- Or do you also include any and all other scientists from different fields like physicists, geologists, etc.?

Because evolutionary biologists certainly cannot reliably tell you how old the universe is (you should instead ask a cosmologist). And they can only give you a lower bound on the age of the earth (because life was in all likelihood not present when the earth was formed). For the age of earth you should ask a geologist and/or planetary physicist.

Cosmologists today would tell you that the universe is (13.787±0.020) billion years old based on observations of the cosmic microwave background radiation made by the Plank space telescope, WMAP and other spacecraft (and interpreted with the Lambda-CDM model of cosmology).

Geologists today estimate the age of the earth to be (4.54 ± 0.05) billion years based on evidence from radiometric age-dating of meteorite material. This age is consistent with the radiometric ages of the oldest-known terrestrial and lunar samples. If you want to know how those radiometric dating schemes work, here's one of them: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium–lead_dating#Computation

Essentially there's an isotope of Uranium (U), which is radioactive, trapped in a Zirconium (Zr) mineral. The Uranium over time decays (with a half life of a few billion years) into lead (Pb). The lead is trapped in the Zirconium mineral as well and it's not radioactive itself, so it doesn't decay any further. By comparing the Uranium and lead contents of the mineral today, you can find the original Uranium content (it's just the number of U atoms still there plus the number of Pb atoms, i.e. U atoms that have already decayed). Comparing original Uranium content and current Uranium content you can then calculate the age of the mineral to about 1% accuracy (because you know the half life of the Uranium isotope from previous laboratory measurements and because radioactive decay is well known to be a form of exponential decay).

How can we mortals know that the Uranium isotope has a half life of a few billion years without living for a few billion years ourselves? Easy, just take a very large number (way more than 10^23, that's a one followed by 23 zeros) of Uranium atoms of that particular isotope and wait for – say – a few thousand of them to decay. This only takes a small amount of time and yields the decay rate (so and so many thousands atoms decayed per hour) from which you can then easily calculate the half life without having to sit through it ...

When you refer to "mankind" being about 3 million years old according to "evolutionists", you are probably referring to something like this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LD_350-1
You are right in that this fossil belongs to the genus Homo (which is indeed the genus of modern humans, Homo sapiens). But this fossil belongs to an early ancestor of modern humans, not modern humans (i.e. "mankind") themselves. Modern humans (the species Homo sapiens) appeared on earth about 300,000 years ago according to evolutionary biology. There's both genetic (like the fusion site on chromosome 23) and morphological evidence for this.

Note that I'm not a biologist myself.

Concerning your other points, I quite agree. You should obviously adopt a healthy scepticism. But scepticism should never be a barrier for learning nor should it dissuade you from carefully and honestly considering the positions that you are most sceptical of. I strive to do that, that's why I'm genuinely curious about what other people think. And I like to scrutinise ideas, my own as well as those of others.

Only if ideas can hold their own ground under close scrutiny (ideally the scrutiny of experts) are they worth adopting. In short, true ideas don't need apologists. Anyone with genuine curiosity can rediscover them to be true in case they should be lost.

@Alientcp How do You know I'm a male ? creation scientists exist even here in Serbia as non- goverment Center for Natural Studies, also there are many institutions all over world which deal with creationism as science and their theachers are experts ,only not recognized of scientists who are employed in institutions founded by goverments.

There are many "smart" people who wants to make impressions that they are experts in some science. They expect others to like their posts but don't like other people posts. They are arogant and limited persons who are copy-paste experts...You know who You are...

@Alientcp said in #62:
> Always. While it is true that this guy wants to remain ignorant about the subject, there may be a few that will watch the videos i linked in the first page, which are quite useful and will clear the doubts and misinformation they have received in the course of their lives.
>
>
>
> Im listening carefully what he is saying, and corrected him on the misconceptions. Just watch the post above this one.
> For instance, he claims that cosmic events are part of evolutionary theory. Im explaining that evolutionary theory only deals with life.
>
> Which is true. He has an incorrect premise because he is ignorant in the subject. If he looks that up, he will realize that in fact, evolutionary theory only deals with life.
>
> Im not trying to convince him from anything. Im telling him to watch the sources i gave him and then he can decide.
>
>
> I have raised none. Im explaining why his axioms are incorrect, he doesnt know about the subject.
> It doesnt matter which religion you practice, The study of evolution is not the realm of theology, its the realm of science. I doubt i have even questioned the existence of a diety.
>
> He is making some wilds assertions and he is attributing them to either, the wrong discipline, or they are just plain wrong.
> Im just correcting him, which again, he can double check and will realize why he is incorrect.
>
>
>
> Thats exactly the point. While its particularly desired that the OP actually reviews the arguments or sources he receives, often times, the real target are the one watching in silence. They can decide who make the better claims, how they back them up and may end up watching the sources themselves which will clarify the posture.
>
> I will invite you to watch the videos yourself. Taxonomy and the classification of life IS the best argument for evolutionary theory. If by the end of the playlist you still think the evolutionary theory is wrong, i can assure you, nothing will change your mind and your beliefs are safe. That playlist, the way it is presented is really the ultimate test for evolution deniers. Give it a go.
As you said, evolution does not contradict religion. In any case, not the Jewish religion.
But the cluster deals with "evolution versus creationism" and so the subject is evolution, in its infidel form, versus religion. And I talked about it.
Evolution contradicts religion in certain things, but not in things that are the foundations of evolution, but interpretations, and for all these interpretations I have an explanation of how the scientific evidence does not contradict religion. In any case according to Judaism.

I'm not a biologist or anything like that. I have read books by professors of biology against evolution, but I know that just as there are 100 professors against, there are 1000 in favor. And so I refer to evolution, even though I do not really understand it, as a scientific truth, and according to this explain the creation written in the Bible, but I remember that evolution is not necessarily correct.
I just do not find reason to deny.

And if you agree with me on this point, and do not speak against creationism, but only in favor of evolution as a scientific truth without going into heretical or religious interpretation, then I have nothing to argue with you ... :)

@Thalassokrator I'm not copy-paste expert like someone, all data is from my memmory...
Radiocarbon dating (also referred to as carbon dating or carbon-14 dating) is a method for determining the age of an object containing organic material by using the properties of radiocarbon, a radioactive isotope of carbon. This method, according to creationists is completly wrong and this is reason why biologists are dating fossils and cosmologists dating universe for millions and billions years in past .

@ddfjdfjh said in #66:
> This method, according to creationists is completly wrong
All evidences show that, on the opposite, this method is extremely accurate. Of course, you are free to deny the obvious. I could come up with the idea that Joe Biden is not the current president of the USA. And every time someone shows me additional evidence indicating that he actually is, I could just say "according to my theory this evidence is completely wrong". But that would only comit myself, and in all likelihood make me look like a fool. Because all the facts would be against me.

Also, I seriously doubt that @Thalassokrator copied and pasted anything. I see posts of his every now and then, and from them I think he has a great knowledge of physics (I suspect he's a professional physicist), and he always makes an effort to share his knowledge in an accessible and fun way. So not only is it disrespectful to hint he copied and pasted, it's also completely besides the point. Whether something has been copied and pasted or not doesn't affect its veracity.

None of us expected the OP to be intellectually honest. It was obvious from the beginning and confirmed throughout this thread. All provided explanations get written off as "copy-paste/brainwashing/indoctrination" and "arrogance." This is coming from someone who writes off a consensus among virtually all experts in the field (educated people who've studied evolution and related sciences their entire lives, as opposed to some random creationist whack job who has an a priori assumption to defend), believers and nonbelievers alike, as "totally stupid and impossible." What a hypocrite!

@ddfjdfjh said in #66:
> Radiocarbon dating (also referred to as carbon dating or carbon-14 dating) is a method for determining the age of an object containing organic material by using the properties of radiocarbon, a radioactive isotope of carbon. This method, according to creationists is completly wrong and this is reason why biologists are dating fossils and cosmologists dating universe for millions and billions years in past .

Dude, you understand what fossilization means? It means that a bone fragment starts to mineralize. At the end of the fossilization process you have 0% of bone and 100% of mineral.

You can try to radio carbon that, but it is going to give you an incorrect reading for 2 reasons.
Radio carbon dating is accurate to do readings below 50 000 years. So dating 70 million year old fossils with that is just stupid.
And Radio carbon dating needs actually some carbon to measure. So it is quite stupid to use a c14 dating on a fossil that has no carbon.

There is a fraudulent case where a theist measured a dinosaur fossil that way. It is no surprise that the result contradicted everything.

C14 is not used to measure anything beyond 50 000 years. There are different radiometric measurements for different dates. And they use the proper ones to the occasion, one should imagine that they use the tools they developed themselves correctly.

C14 happens to be the most known method to the public, and people commonly think it is the only one used, but it is not used to measure fossils. They have no carbon. There is nothing to measure and its out of its range of measurement.

Im not theist, but Jesus dude. you are incorrect about everything. Every single time you have posted something about science i needed to correct it. Stop it. Get some help.

It is actually in page 1. Watch it.

@a4477 said in #65:
> As you said, evolution does not contradict religion. In any case, not the Jewish religion.

Evolution doesnt try to do so, nor viceversa, because that is not how it works.
Evolutionary theory (science in general) compares to nature, it measures if the model is correct or no based on data gathered from nature.
When you compare religious texts against nature, Known facts discovered by other disciplines of science, evolutionary theory included, do not match.

So you end up with something like this.
Nature is correct.
Sciences and theology are both incorrect (for each specific claim, and the proper science for that claim) or
Either science or religion is correct, as the explanations are different (again, on individual cases).

So, for instance, if your jew bible says something among the lines of "god created men and its image and likeness" or among the lines. You dont compare if science and religion contradict. You check on nature, you either find traces of evolution in men, or you find a separate creation in men, or neither. So either both are wrong, or just 1 is correct.

You might want to refer to the first video, the phylogeny challenge. But in essence, and paraphrasing, it says " all life its linked, from 1 "kind" to another (for instance, laying egg mammals to placental mammals to canines to wolfs to dogs), and if you go to every single branch of life (theropods to birds to galliformes to Phasianidaes to Meleagridini to turkeys) and so forth, you will find always a relationship, but there is 1 specific instance that says it was created, so you shouldnt find any relation whatsoever with previous stages, at it was created from scratch, so it shouldt have any relation, but there is (laying egg mammals to placental mammals to primates to haplorini to Simiiformes to Hominidae to Homininae to hominini to Homo to homo sapiens), and quite detailed actually.

So, evolution does not contradict religion. Evolution matches nature, religion contradicts nature. Thats how it works.
If you want to go to another science, well, say astronomy will match nature with the big bang model, religion wont match nature, and so forth.

> But the cluster deals with "evolution versus creationism" and so the subject is evolution, in its infidel form, versus religion. >And I talked about it.

Not infidel. Scientific. You can be a scientific and be from your particular religion. Of course, the scientist will understand why the science is correct in that particular claim and dismiss the religious claim, while remaining religious.

> Evolution contradicts religion in certain things, but not in things that are the foundations of evolution, but interpretations, and for all these interpretations I have an explanation of how the scientific evidence does not contradict religion. In any case according to Judaism.

I explained already why evolution doesnt contradict religion. Religion contradicts nature.
I suppose you mean "not in things that are the foundations of religion" Am i right?
if so, It doesnt matter if evolution does not contradict foundations of religion. That has never been its goal.
Nature does contradict some foundations of religion. I dont know the difference from the Jews to the Christians, nor i really care, but if i knew, i could probably cite some examples.
I wont though. All religions have the same problem, their foundations dont match nature.

> I'm not a biologist or anything like that. I have read books by professors of biology against evolution, but I know that just as there are 100 professors against, there are 1000 in favor. And so I refer to evolution, even though I do not really understand it, as a scientific truth, and according to this explain the creation written in the Bible, but I remember that evolution is not necessarily correct.
> I just do not find reason to deny.

Ok. The videos do a good job to explaining it. So, next time you say you dont understand how it works, its not because you dont know where or how to find it. Its because you refuse to learn, it is right there, in page 1of this thread. So next time you pull that out, you are intellectually dishonest unless you state explicitly that you refused to learn it. But that would make you a willing ignorant i suppose.

The thing is that you dont have to put blind faith on it. If you watch the videos you will understand how it works, no trust needed. You either accept it because it works or dont, because it doesnt.

Evolution IS correct, its a natural phenomenon and we have several cases already recorded in our lifetime. And such observable phenomenon matches the model or theory behind it.

While it is true that some details need fine tuning, they are being tuned as we have new discoveries. Needing to tune fine details does not render the model incorrect. Allow me a proper analogy. Say you have completed a 1000 piece puzzle. some 10 pieces are placed incorrectly, it is true that they do need to be properly placed, but re arranging 10 pieces of the puzzle do not change the picture in it. You already know what the picture is, whether those 10 pieces are correctly arranged, incorrectly arranged or missing altogether. That is how robust the model is. Is not wrong if some details are incorrect, missing or misplaced. The model itself is correct as the major components that give the big picture are already in place.

> And if you agree with me on this point, and do not speak against creationism, but only in favor of evolution as a scientific truth without going into heretical or religious interpretation, then I have nothing to argue with you ... :)

We dont agree too much as you can see.

I mean, i dont have an issue with the agree to disagree argument. I really dont care what you believe. I can assure you that i wont lose a minute of sleep over that. So, if you want to stop the discussion, which is civil, just dont quote me.

However, there is an observable trend.. there are 2 kinds of theist. The ones that are actually scientists and the ones who arent.

The theists that arent actually scientist most of the times are indoctrinated and have negative % of knowledge about science. The remainder often have some low-decent knowledge of science, but have never actually challenged their "model" of understanding reality, so there are vast logical gaps in their mental model, but they dont know because they havent looked at them.

So, whether you fall in 1 box or the other, or somewhere in between. because you do, im offering an alternative. Just watch the damm videos and stop being ignorant about the subject. If you want to keep believing, i dont give a f.... It is fundamentally evil to spread misinformation, whether its a lie or honest ignorance. It is still wrong. Just learn about the subject. Its the information age, its there, learn it, use it.