Creation Science ...

[Tim Elliott]

Firstly, the decision that the world had to be ancient, pre-dates quantitative dating techniques. It was observed that the processes that formed rocks observed at the surface needed a lot more time. This has not changed. In my job, I repeat the original observations of the founders of geology almost daily.

Every single facet of geology could provide sufficient evidence to remove all doubt from a logical mind that the earth is much much older than 6000 years. Structural geology, Geochemistry, Geophysics, Volcanology, Palentology, Sedimentology, Metamorphic and Igneous Petrology.

I work in Geochronology and Geological mapping. I personally do Uranium/Lead dating. When you map igneous rocks, which I do a lot, you work on cross cutting relationships. If rock A. cuts rock B. then rock A. is younger than rock B. If rock C. Cuts rock A. then it is younger than rock A. and rock B. and so on and so forth. This can get quite complicated, till your up to a a dozen units ordered in relative age and guess what, when they are dated by Uranium/Lead or some other method, the order of ages matches. Rock B. turns out to be 110 million years old, rock A. gives an age of 100 million years old and rock C. turns out to be 90 million years old. Closing temperatures for different minerals give cooling rates, which give uplift rates which can be correlated to sedimentary sequences with fossil dates. The uplift rates match those observed for geologically similar settings today, measured by GPS and Satellite. The fossil dates for the sediments correlate to paleomagnetic dates from sea floor spreading. And so on and so forth in an almost endless sequence of supporting data that is applied daily in real world situations for real world outcomes. The fossil dates and uplift rates were used to find the oil, that made the plastic for the computer your typing on. The U/Pb dates were used to help find the gold that coats the electronic parts within it.

Its not that I cant explain why the earth is old, its that it disturbs me that I would need to. It was established, without doubt, that the world is ancient. Everyone has moved on. If you dont know why, you simply have not looked. Theres no evidence that granites are young, apart from the ones that are. There are granites forming right now, and granites that have been around for billions of years.

I have no problem with a creator, but earth was not made for man 6000 years ago. The idea that it was and that man will soon leave to go somewhere else is where christianity becomes harmful. We are rendering our own planet uninhabitable because some people think we wont need it much longer!

I simply dont understand why the bible must be taken literally? Actually, its not taken literally. When was the last time you stoned somebody? If Christians want to be taken seriously, then they cant take the bible literally.

[Michael Romano]

It's been a while since I was in college or read about this stuff but there is no intention to decieve on my part. It's good to be brought up to date about the human genome.

Homology still is not proof of evolution. You said yourself, and I'm trusting it's accurate, that humans share 99% of their genes with other animals such as mice. Homology, whether it be structural or genetic is still support for intelligent design. Simiarity in structure or genetics does not prove common ancestry, it proves that similar functions or features must have a similar genetic programming.

Nothing you have said or linked to, although interesting, proves evolution occured. There are plenty of people who study this stuff full time, who are not theists, that do not believe in Darwinian evolution.

Yes but it points to evolution much more than to intelligent design. There is no evidence that suggests I.D. in the physical world. Just because there are certain aspects to how we became Human that we do not know, does not mean that we will never know. Filling in the gaps with God is the easy way out. It was a good way to control and maintain order for people 2000 years ago, but it is unnecessary and a hinderance upon our development as "moral" beings today. Teaching young people with so much conviction that something as transparent as religion is fact, is just wrong. Everything I have seen in my very short life effectively disproves god as an intelligent being. If god ever existed he was definitely a monkey painting a picture with his feces, but thats just wishful thinking.

[Tim Elliott]

Anybody wanna talk about black holes and Hawking radiation as long as we're on the subject of really complicated science shit? It's one of my favorites and far less exhausting...

Im keen.

[Tim Elliott]

Yes but it points to evolution much more than to intelligent design. There is no evidence that suggests I.D. in the physical world. Just because there are certain aspects to how we became Human that we do not know, does not mean that we will never know. Filling in the gaps with God is the easy way out. It was a good way to control and maintain order for people 2000 years ago, but it is unnecessary and a hinderance upon our development as "moral" beings today. Teaching young people with so much conviction that something as transparent as religion is fact, is just wrong. Everything I have seen in my very short life effectively disproves god as an intelligent being. If god ever existed he was definitely a monkey painting a picture with his feces, but thats just wishful thinking.

Well put. When I was small I believed there might be a god, because people older than me I respected told me there was. The more religious education I received, the less convinced I became.

[Jason Hyatt]

It's been a while since I was in college or read about this stuff but there is no intention to decieve on my part. It's good to be brought up to date about the human genome.

Homology still is not proof of evolution. You said yourself, and I'm trusting it's accurate, that humans share 99% of their genes with other animals such as mice. Homology, whether it be structural or genetic is still support for intelligent design. Simiarity in structure or genetics does not prove common ancestry, it proves that similar functions or features must have a similar genetic programming.

Nothing you have said or linked to, although interesting, proves evolution occured. There are plenty of people who study this stuff full time, who are not theists, that do not believe in Darwinian evolution.

At the risk of sounding confrontational, you seem to be falling into the same trap as many others; that is, no single piece of evidence demonstrates conclusively that Darwinian Natural Selection is the mechanism behind evolution or that evolution occured. What there is, is a MOUNTAIN of data all pointing in much the same direction that leads those people who have spent their lives studying the process to a similar conclusion. That there are still questions among biologists about how evolution occurs does not discredit the theory. Among biologists, there simply is no debate about WHETHER evolution occurs but rather HOW it occurs. Darwin came to his theory after YEARS of study. There was no single piece of data that made him come to the conslusions he did. It was his observations of THOUSANDS of species from all over the world that lead him to his remarkable insight and discovery. It is no coincidence that he ranks far ahead of any other notable scientist on the list of "all time greats" including Einstein. His methodology, hypotheses, and insight were far ahead of his time.

You're also getting hung up on "proof". Nothing in science is EVER proven, it can only be disproven. A theory can only ever be falsified; it can never be "proven true" or "become fact". The only thing ever properly called a "fact" in science is data. Theories are descriptions of the phenomena that produce data. Data is fact, theory is a description of why those facts are the way they are. Across more than 150 years and literally a stack of data taller than the Empire State building not once have Darwin's four postulates been falsified. Not once. If it had been, you'd be reading about the person who did it in the cover story of every national magazine and newspaper (just like Einstein was when he kicked Newton in the nuts). Understand that in science you don't make a name for yourself going around showing where other people went right and verifying their data. You make a name by proving the status quo wrong and changing the paradigm. That's why scientists aren't bothered by the critique that we used to "know" X and now we know X is wrong. That's OK. That's really the whole point. Science is self-correcting. It is the process that is important because it is the process that refines knowledge. That a theory isn't complete or still asks questions is not indicative of a failed theory.

A great example again is gravity. Newton first described it mathematically. Einstein corrected that description. But even Einstein wasn't complete. We still haven't reconciled gravity with quantum theory (Sorry string theory proponents. It's a nice theory with some very elegant math but until it makes a testable prediction and actually has some data it's just really pretty math.). Because we don't understand everything about gravity does not make either Newton or Einstein's theories "wrong" or otherwise useless. The same is true of evolution and there is FAR more data supporting evolutionary theory than there is for gravitational theories. Since you're not floating aimlessly around the room I imgine you have a pretty firm belief in gravity as a force. That the theory is incomplete probably doesn't bother you that much since you can tell that -- however it works -- it works. That's the same way biologists feel about evolution.

[Tim Elliott]

Which brings me to another point.

Jason. As you require some evidence from me as to ages etc. I would like some evidence from you.

What evidence do you have for the existence of god and a creator?

[Michael Romano]

The day I learned that there is no such thing as proof changed my life.

[Tim Elliott]

It amuses me that, while he is not famous for it, Darwin was also complicit in the work that lead to the conclusion that the world was old.

[Tim Elliott]

The day I learned that there is no such thing as proof changed my life.

It also pisses off countless lawyers on a daily basis. No one has told marketers yet.

[Yordan Rodriguez]

Why does it have to be one way or another? "there is a god." "there isnt a god." Why cant we just believe what we want to believe? And just get along with each other.And be glad that we are alive.