Ostrich wings, Intelligent design. Goofed up?

[The Barbarian]

It's not a story at all, doesn't even pretend to be, just a bald recitation of chemical events. There is no compelling narrative, no intriguing characterizations, no real meaning. As a story, it has all the literary merit of reading the telephone book. As a creation story it is no use at all.

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."
Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species

 

[BCP1928]

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."
Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species

Yes, I get it, but the point I was trying to make (in a muddled way) to Spode was, that taken as a religious text, the possibility of the Genesis story being an exact historical account is the least important thing about it. Christians believe that story is divinely inspired, so they should be concerned about it as a story and not be concerned about fact checking. If Jesus Himself came down to Earth and told me the story of Goldilocks and the Three Bears I would have more important things to ponder than the fact that bears don't live in cottages or eat porridge for breakfast. Humph.

 

[dlamberth]

Story? It's not a story at all, doesn't even pretend to be, just a bald recitation of chemical events. There is no compelling narrative, no intriguing characterizations, no real meaning. As a story, it has all the literary merit of reading the telephone book. As a creation story it is no use at all.

Yet it brought us here as Human Beings.

 

[BCP1928]

Yet it brought us here as Human Beings.

Yes it did. But as a religious creation story crafted for a newly monotheistic ANE faith it has nothing to tell us. And vice versa.

 

[The Barbarian]

Yes, I get it, but the point I was trying to make (in a muddled way) to Spode was, that taken as a religious text, the possibility of the Genesis story being an exact historical account is the least important thing about it.

Precisely.

Yet it brought us here as Human Beings.

Seems as though God thought it was a pretty good way. I have to agree.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Why this ridiculous obsession with C14 dating? C14 dating has the same relevance and importance to estimates of the age of the Earth as the Oscar ceremony, the length of the Nile, penicllin manufacture and Billy the Kid. That you think it has relevance, else why introduce it into the conversation, serves mainly to reveal the woeful depth of your ignorance on matters of dating methodology. But, I'll play your silly game a little longer - name a single flawed prediction relating to estimates of the age of the Earth and demonstrate how it undermines that estimate. And please, no generlisations - be specific, quantitative if possible.

Ok first of all here’s my entire post.

Both predictions and estimates are used in the calibration of all of the dating methods. We don’t actually know how long it takes for c14 to decay it’s based on a prediction based on rates we’ve been able to observe. Just like we don’t know exactly how long it takes for radiation to accumulate in different material or how long it actually takes for radioactive isotopes to decay. All of this is based on predictions and estimates based on what we can observe now, not what we observed millions of years ago. Furthermore they incorporate geological predictions and estimates into the calibration process in an attempt to get a more accurate prediction.

Notice that I didn’t only mention carbon dating but also thermoluminescence dating and radiometric dating. So I would hardly consider mentioning c14 one time in only one post an obsession. Why do you jump to “obsession” when I’ve only mentioned carbon dating one time in this post? I did mention once before about 5 months ago in this thread.

Now to answer your first question, I mentioned these dating methods to show how every one of them are calibrated based on assumptions and predictions. Look above I highlighted it in bold letters to help you find that portion.

Now about your second question it doesn’t seem to make any sense.

name a single flawed prediction relating to estimates of the age of the Earth and demonstrate how it undermines that estimate.

What is “it” in this statement referring to? Are you asking me to demonstrate how carbon dating undermines the predicted age of the earth? Because I never said that it does, at least not from a scientific point of view. But from a biblical view it absolutely does according to Genesis 1 and the genealogy records in the Bible.

 

[dlamberth]

Yes it did. But as a religious creation story crafted for a newly monotheistic ANE faith it has nothing to tell us. And vice versa.

Maybe for you that might be true, but I know that in the spiritual community that I belong to, the evolution story (as you call it) tells us everything about this physical world...and often the spiritual world behind it. I have this feeling that your missing something important here.

 

[BCP1928]

Maybe for you that might be true, but I know that in the spiritual community that I belong to, the evolution story (as you call it) tells us everything about this physical world...and often the spiritual world behind it. I have this feeling that your missing something important here.

I certainly am. I need both stories, because both have something important to tell me. But I don't need the Genesis story to be 100% accurate literal history or it's trash and my whole religion a failure. I just don't get it.

 

[dlamberth]

I certainly am. I need both stories, because both have something to tell me. But I don't need the Genesis story to be 100% accurate literal history or it's trash and my whole religion a failure. I just don't get it.

Creation stories are very important. But I don't get the part where the adoption of evolution makes Christianity a failure. Isn't Christianity about Jesus?..and getting Saved, or something like that?

 

[The Barbarian]

Creation stories are very important. But I don't get the part where the adoption of evolution makes Christianity a failure. Isn't Christianity about Jesus?..and getting Saved, or something like that?

Apparently, not for everyone.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Creation stories are very important. But I don't get the part where the adoption of evolution makes Christianity a failure. Isn't Christianity about Jesus?..and getting Saved, or something like that?

Some people turn to evolution because they are borderline atheists. They don’t believe in miracles or the supernatural which I find it strange that they would believe in Jesus or God at all. But they are out there and they are rejecting fundamental teachings of the gospel like the virgin birth, the miracles He performed, His resurrection, and even His divinity.

 

[BCP1928]

Creation stories are very important. But I don't get the part where the adoption of evolution makes Christianity a failure.

I don't either.

Isn't Christianity about Jesus?..and getting Saved, or something like that?

I always thought so, but apparently one has to believe that the Genesis stories are literal and inerrant or Jesus died for nothing, but nobody here can tell me why. What's the point? Just on the face of it those two creation stories (Gen 1 & 2, yes two stories, nothing else makes any sense) don't appear to by the kind of stories one takes literally, and to say they must be taken literally seems bizarre. No essential Christian doctrine depends on their literal inerrancy,, yet here we have Christians defending the idea vociferously for no reason they can articulate. It doesn't make any sense.

 

[BCP1928]

Some people turn to evolution because they are borderline atheists. They don’t believe in miracles or the supernatural which I find it strange that they would believe in Jesus or God at all. But they are out there and they are rejecting fundamental teachings of the gospel like the virgin birth, the miracles He performed, His resurrection, and even His divinity.

Yes, I suppose there are people like that. If you know any maybe you should try and reach out to them. Whether they accept the theory of evolution or not is beside the point.

 

[Astrophile]

Hasn’t human intelligence been constantly insulting itself on this particular topic decade after decade? Scientists are constantly updating their predictions on the age of the earth and the existence of man. Every 10 years or so they arrive at a different number. If you ask someone a question and they keep giving you a different answer over and over at some point you have to question their knowledge on this particular subject.

During the 1950s, nearly 70 years ago, Clair Patterson used lead isotope ratios in meteorites and terrestrial rocks to measure the age of the Earth, and arrived at a result of 4550±50 million years. The currently accepted age is 4540±20 million years, almost exactly the same. Where did you get the idea that 'every 10 years or so' scientists 'arrive at a different number' for the age of the Earth?

 

[Astrid]

Some people turn to evolution because they are borderline atheists. They don’t believe in miracles or the supernatural which I find it strange that they would believe in Jesus or God at all. But they are out there and they are rejecting fundamental teachings of the gospel like the virgin birth, the miracles He performed, His resurrection, and even His divinity.

I doubt you could identify any such
person.
For one thing, its only a person of very
dim understanding of science, very
little education who'd think that "evolution"
was something they could turn to.
That it's a religion, that there's amything
at all spiritual about it. There's nothing to
"turn to" any more than in calculus.

And it has nothing to do with atheism.
Far from it.
Science has shown us that illness orr drought
or lightning is not Gods wrath.
It's not atheistic to comprehend that.
Do you not believe God gave you a brain
in expectation you'd use it responsibly ?

People using brains have worked
out how living thingschange over time.
That's all that evolution is, change over time.

It has no relevance at all to the divinity
of Jesus.

Now, if educated people come to see
that no flood ever happened, that the
6 day creation did not happen, that
Pi isn't 3.0, that Jesus isn't a sheep
that isnt saying "no god".

It's showing MORE respect for god than is ignoring
His creation, ignoring intelligent appraisal, and
arrogantly claiming special knowledge, gained by
no thought. No study, no effort.

It's falsely claiming god did things ( like the horrendous
mass murder of " flood ") that are fiction.

A Christian who understands evolution is demonstrating vastly more respect for God than is someone who pretends to know better, when in obvious truth, they know less than
nothing about evolution.

 

[Astrid]

During the 1950s, nearly 70 years ago, Clair Patterson used lead isotope ratios in meteorites and terrestrial rocks to measure the age of the Earth, and arrived at a result of 4550±50 million years. The currently accepted age is 4540±20 million years, almost exactly the same. Where did you get the idea that 'every 10 years or so' scientists 'arrive at a different number' for the age of the Earth?

Probably the usual sources.
Creationists either make up "facts"
themselves, or repeat falsehoods
made up for them, by others.

 

[The Barbarian]

Maybe, but I have yet to see anything beyond merely stating Genesis to be figurative, allegorical, or mythical. I have yet to see a breakdown of, or references to specific scripture in relation to evolution, as at least we see (to some degree) with OEC.

I haven't seen references to specific scripture in relation to protons, either. But protons, like evolution, are completely compatible with scripture, in addition to being observed phenomena.

 

[Astrid]

Yes, and creationists are entirely baffled as to why anyone would reject the absolute unchanging truth of their divinely authored holy book for the imperfect human knowledge offered by science.

" Their personalally selected version of Truth"

 

[The Barbarian]

Some people turn to evolution because they are borderline atheists.

Most of us who actually know about biology accept evolution, because it's being observed constantly around us. You wouldn't be the only person with a mistaken idea what it actually is.

 

[The Barbarian]

It starts with Henry Morris, the founder of modern YECism: "The purpose of the theory of evolution is to deny the existence of God."

Morris, BTW, was the creationist who into the 1990s, continued to spew stories about the supposed intellectual and spiritual inferiority of black people. He doesn't represent most creationists today, most of whom have rejected the racist foundations of their beliefs.